My wife insisted I post this. I wrote all this in e-mails the past couple days trying to help a technologically-challenged sister buy a camera for her starting-out-photo-student brother, and they are in different countries, so cannot shop together.

Here is the little background: because these suggestions are for a specific situation. The student-photographer-in-question will have access to loaner lenses through the photography department. So, one, he does not need anything more than a workable lens for himself. And two, all that glass is Canon. So, regardless of my opinions, he needs a Canon camera and should put most of the investment in the camera.

The sister almost bought a Canon 5D mark II and a lens for $2000…and that is about $1000 too cheap. Thankfully, the lens they ordered was an EF-S and would not work on the 5Dmk2, so they were able to cancel the order, which was most certainly some sort of scam anyway. Then, they started thinking about the new 7D or a 50D. And that is where we pick up the story.

Dear Concerned-Sister-Who-Loves-Her-Brother-Enough-to-Give-Him-a-Good-Photographic-Start,

Here are some links for you to look at before we call tomorrow morning. First, PLEASE do not buy from any non-trusted source. There are lots of scams out there, and it is tempting. I will try to lead you in the right direction here. Basically, if you see a huge variation from the prices on these sites (the ones I am about to give you), you need to suspect their honesty.

Ok…here we go:

I love MPEX.com. I have bought from there and they do good business. Here is a link to their used Canon gear. The best price on that list is the 40D for $700. Think about that. If you want a cheaper option, the 40D is VERY close to the 50D, and you could grab it for cheap. The 7D? You really do not get much for the money over a 50D anyway. Oh, and note their used 5Dmk2 price, $2400.

If you bought a camera from there, get the body used, then buy this lens new: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for about $120. It is a simple lens; it’s cheap and versatile, and he can borrow just about any lens he wants from the department, anyway. Regardless of what camera you buy, I very much suggest you just get this simple lens.

Ok, let’s move on to KEH.com. You can go check out their website directly, but if you go to their eBay store, you can view photos of each item. Once you get an idea of their ratings with the photos, you can just use their direct website. They are a very trusted used gear seller and their ratings are trustworthy too. Anything “excellent” or better is perfectly fine.

What I would suggest, if you do not want to go for the used 40D, is a 5D from KEH. The 5D is a fully professional camera. The quality is excellent! It is old, but still is WAY better quality than the 7D or 50D, no question. You would buy a 7D if you wanted fast shooting and fast focusing (or video). You would buy a 50D if you just wanted a new camera and not something used. If those things do not matter, buy a 5D. There are several used Canon 5D cameras there.

Oh, and you can see a 5D with the 50mm lens I am suggesting for sale there (at time of writing), but I would not suggest buying that unless you just want to throw away $200. I personally suggest their “excellent plus” 5D for $1420. Then buy the 50mm lens just about anywhere for $120, which equals $1540ish, far short of the $1700 for that combination on there, but you can take a look, anyway.

Oh, and as for that 50mm lens, there are actually two of them, an old one and a new one. Either is fine (actually, the older is better and cheaper, but the newer is easier to find): 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 II. Again, either one is fine.

I see two good options: cheap and less-cheap. For cheap, get the 40D from MPEX.com for $700 and buy a 50mm f/1.8 II lens new from them for a total of $800. For the nicer option, get a 5D (excellent plus condition) from KEH for $1420 and then buy a 50mm f/1.8 anywhere you like…maybe even MPEX, just because they are nice folks.

I already mentioned KEH and MPEX, but here are some reputable stores against which you can compare prices, and hopefully with whom you would do business precisely because they are trustworthy:

• B&H Photo and Video
• Adorama
• Midwest Photo Exchange (MPEX)
• KEH

Cooper

Some kind of photographic lightbulb has clicked on in my head; somehow this place just feels right. So much of my experience in China has been in the countryside in these parts, and my archive reflects that. For the past two years, I have been shooting big cities, different countries, portraits for friends, and just about everything but that main interest.

From those very early trips into the Chinese countryside, something about the towns, villages, customs, and people absolutely fascinated me. Then, I stayed long enough that it became normal or as if I was in some kind of race to understand the locals better than anybody else. It became old hat and academic. Having been away for two years, though, and now reentering, much of that original fascination (mixed with some very new passions as well) is coming back.

We have only been here a few days, but I am just itching to shoot. “Patience, Grasshopper.” Right now, it is time to clean house, settle in, clean the coffee house, and prepare the paperwork to open business. The time will come.

A couple days ago, a friend of mine mentioned (just in an off comment, he probably did not think I would blog about it) that his next purchase was going to be a flash. For me, that set off all kinds of alarms. I know he is just an amateur working on a budget like many of us, and I also knew a little knowledge about flash photography could easily save him a couple hundred dollars.

There are loads of flash techniques. About the only on-camera technique I would even think of is bounce flash. If I just happen to be in a room where it will work, I will use this. Actually, just recently after the birth of my second child (a wonderful little girl who is crying at this very moment), I used simple bounce flash to light up the hospital room for almost all the shots.

Then, there is off-camera flash (this all relates to what flash you should buy, I promise…just bear with me). In the old days, basically, off-camera flash meant cords, and those still work great, of course. Today, though, there are many easy cordless options using either radio signals or optical infrared signals.

At this point, I could easily chase a very long rabbit trail. So, for now, let’s just say you want to know what flash to buy. But before I totally leave the how-to do off-camera flash, I can quickly say that the Strobist site is the best online resource for off-camera flash folks (from beginners to pros). Check it out. Just work through the Lighting 101 to start off.

Ok, what flash to buy? Well, if you are going to use flash in automatic mode and want it to do all the thinking for you…this is not the post for you, but here is your answer: buy the flash that works TTL (through the lens) with your camera model. Ok, done. There is a place for auto flash, but more than likely, learning just a little about how to run it manual will produce better shots.

So, if you do not really need TTL and plan on running manual anyway, prepare to save money, because you do not need the latest and greatest flash on the market. I bought a used Nikon SB-26 (which even pre-dates my camera by a few years…and that is hard to do), and did not even know at the time how perfect a choice I made. It does all the cool stuff other flashes do, but the one great part is the built in optical trigger. Basically, if it sees another flash go off, it will go off (if that function is turned on, of course). I have even used it with our point-and-shoot camera; the little camera’s flash will set off the big flash.

I have found that to be extremely useful. I usually will tape some pretty thick white paper in front of my pop-up flash so almost none of the light actually goes to the subject, but it will still easily set off the SB-26, usually even around corners, with obstructions, and such. I also have a cheapo radio trigger, but I have found it to be too unreliable. Sometimes it fires and sometimes it does not (keep in mind, I have the cheap ones…the expensive ones obviously work much better). My optical solution is much more reliable, but if I fire too fast, my pop-up flash’s slow recycle rate will hold up the photo, where if using radio, I am not held back by my pop-up flash’s recycle rate.

Ok, so if you find any old flash lying around, that will do to (more than likely). You can buy a little $10 optical trigger, slip it on the foot, and you are wireless. Actually (I am embarrassed to admit), I bought a little optical slave (another name for these little do-dads) before I realized my flash had one built in. So, you can just buy a used flash, but make sure you can adjust the power output 1/2, 1/4, 1/8…etc. Mine goes down to 1/64, and the lower the better, really. Sometimes, you just need a dash of light.

There is a new option, though. In close cahoots with the Strobist community (their Flickr group was recently voted the best online community, or something like that), LumoPro has recently come out with an all manual flash with every cord port you could want, built in optical trigger, and …well, everything the Stobist folks asked for. You can grab one of these LumoPro LP120 flashes for $130 at MPEX.com, the coolest place to buy lighting gear…they have all kinds of little lighting goodies for cheap skates like me.

The Strobist does talk about a couple other new manual flash options out there, but the LumoPro or an older Nikon strobe would be a better bet, in my opinion. If you want to know more about why, I might write more later, or you could read the reviews of those three flashes on Strobist (linked at top of this paragraph) and read his pros and cons about each. That will give you a very good idea of what features to look for (and insist upon).

Want to stretch yourself, keep up with the Strobist blog, and you will see loads of field use of off-camera flash and a wide variety of examples of work.

The basic problem is that most cameras are set, by default, to a multiple focus point setting, meaning, a pathetic, little computer in your camera is deciding what in the scene needs to be in focus. I personally think my brain is a bit more sophisticated than my camera, and I would much rather choose for myself what is in focus. So, here is how I do that.

The vast majority of the time, I am set to a single, center focus point. I focus on the thing I want in focus, maybe the eyes if it is portrait or maybe on the point of action, then I keep that focus locked in and reframe the photo how I want it. You know that trick: half press to lock the focus, reframe, then full press when the framing and the moment is right.

I am always on a single point of focus, but not always in the center (though usually). There are a couple reasons I would move out of the center.

Cruising the neighborhood with the neighbor's dog.

Situation one. Just the other day, I was shooting a shot of a kid riding down the street on his bicycle. Now, you have to picture in your head what you want before you know where to move the focus point. I wanted a vertical shot, with him on the left side, riding toward the right. So, I moved the focus point to the left side, where he would be. I also had to set the camera to continual-servo focus (meaning the camera continually adjusts the focus instead of single-servo where it focuses once and holds that focus). Then, I just kept that selected focus point on him (on the left side of the frame) and let the camera keep that left focus point in focus till I had the framing I wanted.

Situation two, the other reason (I can think of) that you might want to change your focus point off-center. If you are shooting with a very open aperture, you will have a very shallow depth-of-field, right? Well, sometimes, that depth of field can be so selective that focusing in the middle then reframing the subject to the edges of the photo will be enough to actually throw the focus off. This honestly is not that big of a problem, but the more open your aperture, the closer you are to the subject, and the longer your lens, the more this problem grows. So, focusing on an outer focus point, closer to where you want to frame the subject, will ensure a sharper focus where you want it.

“Why,” you might ask, “are cameras set to multiple focus points, then, and what is the use of multiple points?” Well, my guess is that they are set to multiple by default becase, statistically, more shots will be in focus with multiple points (I think the camera just chooses the closest object) then if it was locked to the center. So, from the camera manufacturers’ point of view, that is fewer people thinking, “this camera stinks…it never focuses right.”

And the use of multiple points? Well, if you are a hot, shot sports shooter (or maybe wildlife?), this can come in handy, but even then, cameras have many variations of focusing with all those points to use for different purposes. I find it interesting that the new Nikons have 52 focus points! Yikes. I would feel so old school setting my camera to one itsy, bitsy focus point in the center…but I probably still would.

Next time you see a pro shooting, though, just watch. You will probably see the focus, reframe, and shoot movement, meaning, they are using a single focus point (or in the case of the new Nikons, maybe a small cluster of points), and then framing the photo how they want. That does not fit every single situation out there, but it certainly seems to be the norm.

Yes, the numbers given to aperture size can be a little confusing, so I will explain, because I do not want you ignoring your aperture just because the awkwardness of the numbers.

Understand that those numbers are a fraction: f/4 (sometimes written 1:4). So, just as one half is bigger than one fourth, so f/2 is bigger than f/8. So, a wider, more open aperture will be a smaller number. And note, the aperture is usually called “f-stop”, which is sometimes written ‘f/stop’.

Now, why don’t those numbers follow a more logical sequence, like the film speed does (1/125th of a second, 1/500th, 1/1000th)? A friend and I sat down once to answer that nagging question for ourselves, once and for all. I do not want to dump the math on you (you can look that up yourself, and it is really beyond me anyway), but basically, to halve or double the area of a circle (aperture) you must multiply or divide by the square root of 2 (about 1.4). So, now look at those f-stop numbers and see if they make a little more sense: 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, and so on. No, I do not expect you to be doing the math in your head as you shoot; just memorize those numbers and life will be easier.

Each number in that list represents a halving or doubling of the light, and each halving or doubling is called a “stop” of light. So, two stops down from f/4—do not think “down” in numbers, but down in the amount of light—is f/8, and that would be cutting the light in half twice. Read that last sentence again, slowly and make sure you have it.

So, if you start at f/2 and you need to “stop your aperture down three stops”, you would be at f/5.6. “Bring it back up a stop” and you are at f/4.

Aperture can be a pain, I know. But it really is one of the most important adjustments you make when taking pictures (and I have not even mentioned the true importance in this entry, for fear of going beyond the original question). We cannot let a little string of numbers get in our way when shooting, so ingrain that data till it is second nature, and especially the idea of stops of light.

Following a comment on a post of mine a few days ago, I have been thinking about shutter noise. I unashamedly like quiet and I really notice when a camera is not quiet, even though that statement is quite relative. I was all excited to see the Sony a900 (this is the camera that brought up the topic in the first place) in the store and I picked it up to give it a few test shots. Ergonomics, handling, buttons: good. Style: very Sony-ish, but I like it (I like it more than the other Sonys). Then, I pressed the shutter release. KER-PLUNCK! Holy cow! That sound alone would take lots of great features and a very low price for me to actually think about buying one.And Mal (my honored commenter), I mean no disrespect. This post is not written to tear somebody else down or, in any way, to make my way sound like the best way. That comment just got me thinking, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on why (to me) a loud shutter really matters.

I know, this is yet another in a long list of topics that I think about but almost nobody else does. Well, that is not totally true, but the internet does gives us a false sense of perspective sometimes, making unimportant things out to be incredibly important. Even though a hundred people comment on a blog entry on any particular topic, that does not necessarily mean there is even a slim chance I will ever meet anybody in flesh and blood that could care less.

I care, though. Here is why. The reader comment I mentioned above said it should not matter unless the photographer was into stealth photography. Well, not necessarily. It has to deal with the interaction between photographer and subject. If your subject is a mountain and trees, well, then no it does not matter (unless you have really sensitive ears, I guess). If however, your subject is human, it will matter, because humans react to things like that.

I do not want to dive into a Leica-esque philosophical debate, but they do have a point when it comes to leaving as little a footprint as possible. What I mean is this: even if somebody has given me permission to shoot, sometimes the difference between a subtle camera sound and an obvious one could change their reaction and totally change the face I capture. If they are a model, probably not, but I rarely shoot models. I shoot normal people.

My camera is no Leica (I could only be so fortunate), but it is not terribly loud. I have seen faces change that ruin the situation because of sound alone. Maybe I got the shot I wanted on the first try and I can quit; maybe their reaction to the sound ruined my opportunity to keep trying for a better shot.

We even see this issue playing out, in part, in point and shoot cameras. I detest their I’m-taking-a-picture announcements. Again, feel free to not care, but it can make a huge difference. Those beeps and fake shutter noises are just begging your subject to give you their fake smile or break up that natural moment you wanted to capture.

I think the point is this: the more quiet the camera, the more likely the photographer is forgotten and the more likely the situation will continue on naturally without the nervous feeling of being recorded. That means better photos. That means more photos. That is not to mention the feeling of comfort of the subject (though this is just one small issue in the greater issue in that case). This is all important when you need to capture that special moment, that perfect expression. Well, you could just get lucky on the first shot, but besides incredible luck, staying low key always improves your chances.

This is much the same reason I shoot only prime lenses. Well, price, aperture, and quality are other big factors there, but still, you are not carrying around Big Bertha. Keep from drawing undue attention to yourself.

And that is why the quieter your camera is the better.

Here are some tips, gleaned both from experience and a podcast which inspired me to write this stuff down. It has been so long since I have listened to the show, I cannot remember what from my notes was the guest’s idea and what was mine.The podcast was the Digital Photography Show and the guest was James Duncan Davidson. Well, I think it was him, but for the life of me, I cannot find the podcast I listened to in any archives. Anyway, the photographer in question has a lot more experience than I do, but I can attest to each of these points in my own experience.

First, the settings. Do yourself a favor: shoot raw. Many of you will wonder why I should even mention it because you always do anyway…just tune out for a paragraph, then. You will run into wildly different light sources, and raw will give you the latitude you need to very easily change the color temperature back to what it should be. Well, there are more reasons to use raw, but color temperature is a big one.

When you need to photograph speakers, here are some specifics. You will often be shooting in fairly dim situations and need high ISO to get shutter speeds up to 1/125 to 1/250 (we will get to aperture in a minute). You will need as fast as possible. What you will find is that photos look out of focus, but really they are just slightly blurry. I know, these are not high action shots, but especially in the lips, you have to be able to freeze the action. Some speakers are harder than others; you have to acclimate to the speaker.

And this is certainly no place for that f/3.5 – f/4.5 kit lens! You need fast glass, baby! Canon, Nikon, and I am sure the other manufacturers as well, have cheap 50mm f/1.8 lenses. You will learn to love ‘em, I promise. I have a friend who bought a 50mm f/1.8 and now rarely ever puts his kit lens on the camera. You get really used to that extra stop or two of light…think of it, two times the light! In any case, you will be constantly frustrated with your photos with anything less than f/2.8. Even then, you will be riding at the very edge of your equipment’s capability.

Have your flash ready, but do remember how incredibly distracting it will be. You better let the speaker know…that might not be a nice surprise: speakers kind of need the audience’s attention. If you do use flash, it is best to shoot some test shots before hand so you know right where it needs to be set. In other words, get it right the first time.

And think through the kinds of shots you will need to take. Marketing people want crowd and conversation shots. PR and news folks want shots of keynote speakers. You can figure it out for your situation, just make sure and think it through.

And if you really want to put a smile on their faces, find a way to run a slide show or something on site. The audience would love to see those photos; that is the only way most people will ever see them. A good example is running a slide show of photos from a wedding ceremony at the reception. If you truly have a unique vision, you will have a perspective on the wedding that nobody really noticed.

And by all means, get experience just shooting around at your next conference. It is ok to be a photo junkie. Have fun. Play with perspective. Find something nobody else saw.

I certainly wan to give a special thanks to the original photographer and the hosts of the podcast for the ideas in this post.

My wife recently bought a point-and-shoot for family use–honestly, it is mainly for videos. When I was setting everything up for her, one of the decisions I made was NOT to use the highest image quality setting. Call me crazy. A few factors came into play: image quality, file size, and how big the photos might be printed.

I have already waxed on about the size of the sensor and how that affects image quality. What I still wondered was what the difference really was…I mean in real-life images. The settings I wanted to compare on our camera were the two 12 megapixel settings and the 6 megapixel setting (there is nothing in between). So, here you go:

Comparison of 6MP and 12MP images from a FujiFilm F50fd compact camera.

Those are all separate photos taken at the same time, from a tripod, with the exact same settings (as best I could do so with a compact camera which chooses some settings for you). So, the only difference should be the image quality setting.

Can I see a difference? Sure. On this camera the actual file size of those photos is approximately 1.2MB, 2.8MB, and 4MB, though size varies from camera to camera and photo to photo. Those look like a small difference right now, but 1000 photos later, that is gigabytes worth of difference, and if they are family photos, they are probably all going to be sitting on our laptop so we can show people. So, what I see is this: I can save a lot of space on the computer for a very small difference in quality.

And as for printing, well, never would one of these photos be printed more than an 8×10 inch size, and six megapixels is more than enough for that. So, that is not a problem.

So, my choice (for the point-and-shoot, compact camera) is to just shoot the 6MP setting. What do you think of the quality difference in the images above?

So, that is the first question. What is essential in a compact camera? Honestly, all we wanted was something small to do videos of our children since I am already carrying around my camera for the photographs. I think we can safely put the video issue aside, though, because almost all compact cameras take the same quality of video. What is the most important part of any camera? Image quality.

My search was to find the best compact camera possible, but not to pay a huge price for it. My research labors where not in vain.

Now, I do not know all the science of it all, but I know the size of the camera’s sensor has a huge part to play. That is fairly easy to understand. I also know that some companies can use a big sensor but still totally mess up the image quality with other factors in the chain, and some companies do pretty well at the impossible task of keeping decent quality from small sensors. Basically, though, the bigger that sensor, the better quality photos you will have. So, my first step was to research compact camera sensor sizes.

I know, this sounds ridiculous, but it is simply something the manufacturers do not want you to know. More megapixels from the same physical sized sensor is not going to give you much better results…if any better. So, I went to the trusty DPReview website, my first stop for research and reviews on cameras. I used their side-by-side comparison to go through (literally) every single compact camera they had in their lists. I found out pretty quickly that there are two basic physical sizes of compact camera sensors on the market: 1/2.5″ and 1/1.6″. I am assuming that is a diagonal measurement, like TV screens and computer monitors. So, even the bigger size is only just over a half inch…diagonally. It is a wonder they can take any decent photos!

So, I made a list of every single larger-sized sensor compact camera. The list itself was interesting. Now, don’t quote me on any of this; I am doing it from memory (I should have kept that list, huh?). Canon had some, but only among their expensive compacts (G9, G10). Of course, Leica had a couple, but you will pay for those too. Several companies were completely devoid of any larger sized sensor…Sony being the one I remember most. Samsung had a few, but very scattered here and there in their camera lines…therefore, it would be pretty hard to actually find one. FujiFilm was the real champion here. Their entire F-series line had the bigger sensor, and that line also has some very competitively priced cameras.

So, for the completely subjective part of this whole thing, my wife had recently shot on a friend’s Samsung compact camera. Since, I have seen photos from the same camera. She did not like the display, and when I saw the photos, I was absolutely appalled at the image quality. We know it was new. There just is not any excuse, regardless of how much it cost, for images that horrible. I am not kidding.

And for the other subjective input, my wife had also recently shot a FujiFilm compact that she kept saying how much she loved. I did not want her to influence me too much while figuring out which cameras were options, but then when the FujiFilm F-series showed so many larger sensor cameras in my list, we started looking that direction.

Again on DPReview, just offhand to try a different approach to find for high-quality compact cameras, I looked at their most highly rated cameras. What do you know, in the list of the most highly recommended cameras on their site, two FujiFilm F-series cameras were listed: the F31fd and F50fd. If you actually read through either of those reviews, you will see how little the extra megapixels help us. The F31fd review not only put it among the best compact cameras of its time, but the F50fd review, which was good in and of itself, still struggled to compare to the F31fd in image quality, especially noise at high ISO (film speed).

So, though I tried my best to search for a F31fd (because image quality better than most new cameras at an old camera price was fine by me) among the shops, I found some as old, but there were no 31s to be found. Actually, since I was actually looking in Singapore, I found that there were many F-series cameras not on my list…I guess they have some Asian versions that DPReview would know by different numbers. Anyway, we ended up buying the FujiFilm F50fd and are already impressed by the image quality.

As for all the other features they are trying to pack in new cameras and the extra megapixels, I would say image quality is the most important factor to most people. Woops. I do know of one feature the FujiFilm cameras have, which most do not, which really is a great feature I could talk about more some time. It has a setting on the dial where it will take two photos, back to back, one with flash and one without. Wonderful. If only more people could see how much better their photos were with the flash off!

So, I will give a respectful nod to the bigger sensor compact cameras from Canon, Leica, Panasonic, and (grudgingly) Samsung, but FujiFilm gives quite a variety of price and function in their F-series, all of which (as far as I can tell) have the (comparatively) larger sized sensor. FujiFilm F-series wins. Rarely would I specifically give brand names like this, but in this case, it really did seem to come out quite clearly.

Basically, you have to catch kids in their natural habitat. Well, this principle is really applicable to any portrait, unless you just have a photogenic subject. Just do not tell the adults you are using a kiddy photo how-to to take their picture. Here is an example.

Ok, no offense to the parents, because the majority of children go through the “horrid camera smile” phase, but this kid had a…well, a horrid camera smile. I did not even bother shooting when he was smiling at me, because I knew I would not want the final product. So, I waited till the right moment.

And that is the answer to the how-to: wait till the right moment. Just shoot when they are not trying to smile for you. Let them get used to you aiming the camera at them, and if you make them wait long enough, they give up trying to smile and make some other face.

I was on a hike with this little man, and he was picking up shells. So, needing to get him into a natural pose, I just asked him to show me his shells. And that is the photo. I had already figured out the background I wanted, I already had him basically in the right place to shoot, I had it focused and framed. All I needed was that natural moment. And there you see it.

I just found this feature recently. I knew it had black & white conversion, but had not actually used it. If you look under the “Effects” tab when viewing a photo, you will see several (you guessed it) effects which you can apply to your photos. The first one is black & white…but not the one you want.

That first one is the I-just-want-an-easy-black-and-white button. If you look down to the bottom row of the list, you will see “filtered black & white”. That is a beautiful button!

Film photographers have long used color filters on the end of their lenses when shooting black & white. Different colors work well for different situations, but genrally, adding a green filter usually is the color of choice when dealing with skin tones.

If you select the filtered black &amp white effect, you will see a little multi-colored graph to pick your filter color. If you click the graph and hold down the button (do not release the click), you can drag the mouse across the graph while you see the effect of that particular color on your image. Basically, this simple, real-time preview of color filters helps you effectively find which color you want for your photos. Superb…and again…FREE!

But wait, there’s more! I shot a photo a few days ago at night on the street at ISO 800. It had some grain to it. Well, as I moved around the different color filters in Picasa, I realized that some colors decreased the grain and others accentuated it. So, there it is: you can use filters to manipulate grain in your images. Bonus.

My brother has a run-of-the-mill compact camera (aka point-and-shoot). He is frustrated with the camera’s lag time in actually taking a photo. You know the story: kid makes a cute face, picture taking button is pushed, camera calculates the velocity of an unlaiden swallow, child moves on in life at a child’s pace, and camera finally records some image…albeit a kiddy version of some over-drugged 1960s album cover. I would be frustrated too. So, I started convincing him to buy a new camera (and phone/handheld too, but that is a different story).

I am not a gadget guy. I do not like having loads of tech toys just for the joy of having the newest and coolest. I want a few essentials that perform the functions I really need. So, you are not going to hear some extravagant, break the bank kind of answer.

I have already gabbed elsewhere about some simple ways to begin to help compact cameras (and SLRs for that matter) react more quickly to the photo we want to shoot. So, I will not repeat that. This present gab is if those suggestions still do not not work to your satisfaction and you really think buying a new camera is the best option.

In the years long quest to find a camera that does what he wants, my brother has bought (if I remember correctly) an entry level film SLR, a cheapo digital compact, and a nicer compact (”pro-sumer”) camera. The film never really saw much action before the digitals came on the scene, and neither of the digitals, even the “pro-sumer” camera, have done their job to his satisfaction.

“So basically,” as he puts it, “I could have used the money I spent on all those cameras to buy one that does what I want, and probably in a package about the same size as my current camera?” Right, with money left over.

I am suggesting the Nikon D40. Buy the entry level Canon DSLR if you must, though it is older and less user friendly than the D40 for a similar price. And buy a Canon pro-sumer camera for slightly less money and far less dexterity if you wish. I still stick with the Nikon D40.

I would not suggest the larger megapixel D40x because my brother is never going to need those extra megapixels anyway. The D40 can print very high quality 8×10 prints without breaking a sweat. So, why would you want the extra resolution for a “family cam”? Megapixel envy is the only reason.

With the kit lens, the D40 will be slightly longer than my brother’s current pro-sumer camera—”pro-sumer” just means really big compact camera with features that barely distinguish it from a normal compact. So, size is not really a problem since he is already shooting with a not-so-small camera.

Money? Well, the SLR D40 will be one half-step up the price scale. Pro-sumers, to my knowledge, are in the $400-$500 range. I think Nikon wisely stopped making their pro-sumer cameras and answered the problem instead with a real camera for just $50 more. You can buy a Nikon D40 for about $550 (I just saw a $50 rebate at Target, making it $500) and have a camera that takes excellent quality photos.

The Nikon D40, 6 megapixel, digital SLR is the best “bang for your buck”, in my eyes. It does not solve the problem of catching children in that perfect moment, but I think it keeps us from trying our best to make a compact camera accomplish a task for which it is so poorly suited. My brother will still need to learn to be patient and wait for that right moment, but now, he can shoot off several shots near the right moment and choose the best one. Or better yet, anticipate that moment and take the one shot that is just right…which is possible, but incredibly hard to do with a point and shoot.

The explanation is quite simple, but what to do about it is not. Basically, the problem is that the camera is thinking. And evidentally, not fast enough, eh. So, what do we do about it?

While the camera is trying to focus, set exposure, and take care of all the other nifty chores compact cameras do for the users, your precious photo op comes and goes. When it finally does take the shot, we end up with a perfect shot of Uncle Bill’s bald spot, Little Bobby’s finger up his nose, or Betty and Suzy turning to say something to each other, because they think the shot has long since been taken.

One option to fix the problem, I guess, is to buy a different camera. But seeing as that probably is not going to be the preferred option for most of you, we will just move on.

There are several ways to try to work around the problem, but the best and most normal, in my view, but my name is Strange, has to do with how you focus the camera. Most folks see what they want and push the shutter to try to capture it. Yes, that is simple, and we might think the most simple approach would work best…but there is a better way.

Every camera I know of, that is, of the auto focus, auto exposure type, works best when we add one step into that process. When pressing the shutter, first press it down half way, at which point it will focus, but not take a picture.

Basically, you have just told the camera, “I am about to shoot this scene, could you get ready please?”. And it obliges. The focus and exposure are “locked” in. You hold the button right there and wait for that perfect photo. When you see it, press the shutter button the rest of the way down, and you will find the camera takes the photo much faster.

At least, that is what I would do.

My solution is specifically tailored to a digital SLR, but even if you use a compact camera (point-and-shoot), you may well come to the same conclusion I did.

There are only a limited number of solutions to the problem:

“Auto” White Balance
Often the camera does not choose the setting very well if we leave it on auto, which is where most of us are shooting, and the reason you are even reading this in the first place. If you shoot in the raw format (instead of JPG), white balance is very simple to change in post processing, but even if you shoot JPG, you will often end up closer to the mark than if you leave it on some preset option like “sunlight” or “flourescent”.

Leaving the camera in the “auto” white balance mode will require some color editing to correct the color, and if you are shooting JPG, that will not be too pleasant…unless you use Google’s free Picasa photo editing program. But that is another topic.

“Preset” or “Custom” White Balance Setting
When you check a photo on camera’s LCD screen and it disappoints you, try using the preset option. I did this for a wedding ceremony, because I knew I was going to fire a lot of shots in the same environment, and my photos turned out wonderful. Check your manual on how to set this. It is not too hard; you just need a white surface. This is the best option, technically, but practically a nightmare if you forget to preset when you change environments!

Choose WB Depending on Environment
You cannot leave it set on “cloudy”, “incandescent”, or any other single situation option. Some photos will be great, but it will totally ruin many of your photos. This is like choosing one speed to drive your car, regardless of where you are driving! So, if you decide to pick the appropriate white balance for the situation (”cloudy” on a cloudy day or “incandescent” in a room with regular ol’ light bulbs), just make sure you remember to change it. Just like the “preset” or “custom” option, if you do not change it, you are much worse off then if you just used “auto”.

Cooper’s “Wholistic” White Balance Solution
Basically, this is what I do. I leave the camera in “auto” by default. Then, I know I can shoot and not think about white balance. So, if I change situations and forget to mess with it, at least the camera is going to get me somewhere close. However, I shoot in raw, so changing WB later is very easy, so the camera’s slightly off white balance from time to time is not an issue.

If I do decide to think about it, I will often use one of the specific options. And if I have time to play with it a little, I will take a few test shots and adjust the white balance compensation a little more “hot” or “cold” (e.g. “sunlight”+2 or “incandescent”-1), which my camera has, but not all cameras do.

And if I know I will be shooting in a consistent environment (like the wedding I mentioned above), I will preset to get spot-on, brilliant photos! Of course, when I did that at the wedding, I ruined a few when I walked outside the church sanctuary into the sunlight and forgot to move it back to “auto”!

Conclusion
I almost always leave my camera on the automatic setting. No, I do not like what the camera picks the vast majority of the time, but a slightly off photo is better than a totally off photo, messed up because I forgot to change the setting. I would actually suggest finding a good post processing solution that allows you to fix this easily.

I shoot in raw format, and changing white balance is very simple with any raw editing software, like the open source UFRaw. But for the majority of the folks out there who shoot in JPG, that is not an option. I suggest the elegantly simple (and free) Picasa, which provides very easy white balance color correction.

I land in the middle of that debate. Some filters cannot be replaced and change the photo in such a way that would take days in the computer, if even possible in the first place. Other filters are pretty much pointless.

There is no need, that I can see, for any color filters of any kind. In the film days, we needed color filters to correct for white balance issues. In these wonderful digital days, adding any one color or another is easily done in computer editing.

Color filters were also applied to film (black and white as well as color films) to enhance contrast or to bring out certain shades. And eys, the color makes a huge difference in black and white photography. Now, though, we are no longer stuck with the one color filter of the film days, but can work with different colors on any one photograph…impossible with black and white film.

So, what filters do we need? I go nowhere without a circ-polar (circular polarization) filter. It is great for bright days. You can control what surfaces have glare and reflections (moving the glare from one surface to another), bring out the greens in foliage, bring out a deeper blue from the sky, and much more. The control over color intensity and reflective surfaces with circ-polar filter cannot be manipulated in a computer. Period.

Honestly, that was my list of necessary filters up until a couple days ago, a list of one. This topic came up on the Tips from the Top Floor photography podcast. They suggested a circ-polar filter and graduated neutral density filters. Neutral density does not add any color (thus the name “neutral”), but simply controls the brightness of a photo.

A graduated neutral density means that the lens shifts from dark to clear, gray on one side and clear on the other, with a gradual shift from one side to the other. For example, this will cut back the brightness of the sky and bring it closer to equal with the non-sky portion of a photograph.

I see a problem with this, though. Sure, it is helpful, but it assumes one kind of photograph (as far as I can see): sky above and ground below. What if I took a vertical shot? With standard screw on filters, you are out of luck. Then, I found Cokin filters. They slide into a rotate-able filter mount on the end of your lens. Therefore, you can easily rotate the filter to any position you want, incredibly increasing creative possibilities. That makes sense to me. Plus, the Cokin system makes it easy for the photographer to use multiple filters or homemade filters (think vignettes).

I recently read an article on L7 Photo which mentioned neutral density filters as well, non-graduated, that is. Basically, if you want a slower shutter speed and the situation is too bright to do so, a neutral density filter will just darken things up for you. I guess I could go for that. It makes sense.

And now we come to the third filter suggestion: UV filter. I had a post not too long ago about using the UV filter as a protection for the lens. Basically, the story goes like this: it protects the lens in case of dropping the camera, people would rather clean a filter than a lens, and supposedly cutting the UV light cuts haze out of the photo.

Glass itself cuts some UV light. And for those who have not noticed, the lens is made up of several pieces of glass. So, you have quite a bit of protection there. If you want to know more about the technical aspects and what UV is really making it through and if it matters, read Bob Atkins’s article about it the affects of UV on photography. However, (it was the first time I heard this) the Tips from the Top Floor podcast said that digital camera sensors also have a UV cutting filter directly in front of the sensor. I do not know if those UV filters over the sensors cut the bandwidth which the glass misses, but it would be nice to know.

If you just want to protect your lens element, there is something to say for that. However, I would think a lens cap could do about the same thing. Maybe a lens hood? The hood would improve your photos anyway, cutting stray light from the sides and improving color and contrast, and give you a good gap of space to protect against bumps or drops.

And as for cleaning, not wanting to scratch the protective coating on the lens, well, the coating on the lens is very durable, chemically and physically, more so than a filter. Having worn glasses for most of my life, I realize that I do not scratch them if I just use the right materials to clean them. Same with that lens; use a proper cloth, lens paper, or a lens cleaning solution.

I still have a UV filter, but that is not because I am afraid of scratching the lens, trying to cut UV, or need to protect my lens from a fall. Basically, I find it a lot easier to clean that flat filter than digging down around the rounded lens element and all the grooves in there. It is all about ease of use. Though, the more I think about how silly that sounds, I want to take that filter off and just buy a little bulb blower. I already have the UV filters though. If I were starting from the beginning, I might not have bought them.

I would suggest a lens cap to protect against a fall or bump, a circ-polar filter for any situation that has sunlight, a neutral density filter if you need to darken shots without affecting the color, a graduated neutral density filter if you need to darken skies without darkening everything else, and UV filter if you cannot think of a better way to clean your lens.

I did not understand the issues digital SLRs have with focal length back then, and thought I was really buying an 85mm. But with the D100s 1.5 magnification (because the sensor is smaller than 35mm film), that 85mm really ends up acting like a 125mm. I will have to say it is great to achieve the purpose for which I bought it (people, face shots), but cannot be the only lens in the bag for very long.

I soon had to add my Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4D, which has backed me off quite a bit. Of course, the 50mm acts like a 75mm would on a film camera. I would still like to have something a little wider at times, but really, the 50mm does a great job for me. I often shoot in low light, and the wide open f/stops of those lenses really help me out. Plus, I love the selective depth of field (or choice to have such) the wide open apertures give me.

That is it. I have two lenses at the moment. I like to keep my camera bag pretty simple; that is just my style.

Vivitar v4000 with Pentax-M 1:1.7 50mm

My first camera of my very own I bought my senior year of university, 1998. I was preparing for a trip to London for New Year’s, and instead of leaping into the digitized future with everybody else (well, that is not totally true…pretty basic digital SLRs were loads of money), I took another step toward manual with my Vivitar V4000, which has done nothing but serve me well for many years, and even up to the present as a cheapo backup camera when I shooting something important.

Nikon D100 (not my actual camera)

However, in December 2003, after weeping the loss of four years of ruined photographs, I knew I had to make the digital plunge. If an all manual digital camera existed, I would probably have bought it, but at the time I bought my camera, to my knowledge, they did not. I needed a camera among cameras, not some little pocket wonder. It came to me on my birthday, my own, my Nikon D100. And it is with me to this day.

The long answer:
I am an unashamed Linux guy. You may ask, “Why not use Windows like everyone else?”, “Why not switch to Mac like the enlightened photographers out there?”. Well, because it would be silly of me to pay for those things which I can get for free.

That is a very simplified answer. I have a lot more reasons, but I have not answered the original question. Because I use Linux/Unix, I do not go for the ubiquitous PhotoShop, nor would I even if I were a Windows or Mac user. Why? Because shooting the type of photography I do, I do not find much use for photo editing, and when I do, I do not need a $650 program to do it.

It really depends on what your photography editing needs are. Adobe and Corel both have excellent programs out there, and Corel even prices some of them within decent ranges for photographers with more simple needs.

The GIMP handles all my needs and then some. I am continually finding and exploring new features as I dig through the menus. And for my RAW files, UFRaw has performed admirably. If I open a RAW file with The GIMP, it will automatically use UFRaw first, then UFRaw will pass a JPG to The GIMP for editing there.

And, on rare occasion, I open up Google’s Picasa. It is “push button” easy, and for simple chores, it is faster and more effective than the more robust graphical editing and managing programs. For folks that just want simple editing features that are easy to understand, I highly suggest Picasa.