112 replies to this topic

[shoebappa]

Stumbled upon this trying to figure out where the background photo featured got all of the hits this week. Had about 2,500 views on Sunday, and those accumulated over months on flickr, then monday it must have hit a blog or something cause it is up to 36,000 views...

Anyhoo Bear is right and photomatix is what I used to create the images, but really any camera with manual controls could do it. Mine does autobraketing for 3 images which definately makes it easier, but before I discovered that, I would just manually change the shutter speed (not the aperture) to get the multiple exposures. Meaning put it in Aperture Priority and that locks the aperture and lets you vary the shutter speed. A tripod helps a lot as well, but technically it can be done without, because the software can try to align the images...

He pointed out a tutorial, and that's also where I learned how to do this: http://stuckincustom...2006/06/06/548/ but there's also other good ones on google.

I use an old Digital Rebel (the first one 300d) which they sell on ebay now for pretty cheap (I paid 1000 years ago see them for 300 or less). But it has autobracketing and RAW which helps a lot because RAW is 16bit instead of 8 bit per channel (jpeg). In fact you can get reasonably good results with a single RAW because a lot of what makes an HDR look the way it does isn't the actual dynamic range, it's the tone mapping part. The HDR helps for blown out highlights and darked out chadows, and you can definately tell the difference depending on the scene between one image and multiples. When you make the HDR file you actually create an image with a ton of information (48 bits per channel), which can't be displayed on a regular screen, and map it back down to an 8-bits per channel jpeg.

Actually here's a shot that shows the three images and the final output: http://www.flickr.co...appa/454692686/
Note if you just combined the highlights and shadows it wouldn't give the saturated colors, so the tone mapping process adds a lot to it over top of the shadow and highlight detail. You can also see in the histograms where most of the detail is coming from in each of the images and the final composite (low end shadow, high end highlight...)

Anyhoo, glad you liked my shot enough to make it a background!

-Shoebappa: http://www.flickr.co...otos/shoebappa/

Edited by shoebappa, 12 March 2008 - 11:37 PM.

[m.oreilly]

cool. i'm looking into cameras atm. any recommendations as to a decent dslr (combo, or body, and separate lenses)?

edit: in the $500 to $650, or a good used model to hunt for on ebay (what make is the "rebel"?).

[shoebappa]

m.oreilly, on Mar 12 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

cool. i'm looking into cameras atm. any recommendations as to a decent dslr (combo, or body, and separate lenses)?

edit: in the $500 to $650, or a good used model to hunt for on ebay (what make is the "rebel"?).

Mine is a Digital Rebel called a 300d in Europe, is the silver colored one (though there was a black 300d one over seas). Now the have the XT and XTi. I'm not sure but I like Canon, some like Nikon, they both offer entry models. I think anything over 6 megapixels is good for starters. I would stick to something you know that your lens investment will transfer over, cause those don't really change as often. I wouldn't pay more for the 10D because I think it's basically the same especially with the firmware updates (a few quirky features).

For lenses apart from the kit lens (which is ok, but usually pretty bad) I would get the cheapo 50mm lens (each have them, under 100). They're great and incredibly sharp for the price.

They also usually don't come with a lens, and If you can get it considerable cheaper without, I'd go for that and order a better lens. I have more of a problem buying lenses used than cameras because they're harder to see if they have scratches, mold, etc...

I also use a fisheye lens but there's another level of software manipulation that I use to defish them.

I got mine from http://www.rugift.co...isheye_lens.htm and it's considerably cheaper than any other fisheye.

If you don't have a problem with used, I'd ebay any Canon or Nikon digital slr over 6 megapixels in your price range. Can't really go wrong, though I think some of the nikons are weird about the autofocus motor not being on camera so it may limit the lenses (but I don't know nikon).

-Shoe

[shoebappa]

Also there's a used camera store that rates them if you're more questionable about spending that much on ebay.

If you do Canon Digital, and Body only they have the 300d (KISS Digital, Digital Rebel) in the 200-300 range. The XT has 2 more megapixels but that doesn't get you much... They also have Outfits that come with a lens, but the kit lenses aren't worth much anyways.

http://www.keh.com

Rebel Bodies

Check the rating system, I might avoid BGN...

New Lenses (canon) These are wider angle, I'd say that Sigma 18-200mm might be a good starter lens over the kit lens. That and get the cheapo 50mm cause it's 1.8 aperture is badass for people photos and indoor shots ($90, tack sharp cause it's a prime lens). If you can't throw $379 on the sigma (which might be a waste cause it won't be that great but probably better in terms of versatility) don't get the 300d kit lens without IS (Image stabilization) Get the 18-55mm IS ($179). Note 55mm isn't that close of a zoom, and 18mm isn't that wide. The fisheye I use is 8mm but some of the range is wasted by the smaller sensor size of consumer SLRs and the defishing process.

Edited by shoebappa, 13 March 2008 - 12:33 AM.

[m.oreilly]

ah the xt/xti are "rebels"...i was looking at those this afternoon...

[m.oreilly]

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDeta...mp;GCC=&KW=
what lens would you recommend for this body?

[shoebappa]

I added a note on those, the XTi is the newer one and does have 10 megapixels which might be worth the bump. I wouldn't go for the XT over the original 6 megapixel unless the price difference is negligable. Also I think they might come with the IS kit lens which would be worth it I reckon.

Edited by shoebappa, 13 March 2008 - 12:52 AM.

[shoebappa]

shoebappa, on Mar 12 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

I added a not on those, the XTi is the newer one and does have 10 megapixels which might be worth the bump. I wouldn't go for the XT over the original 6 megapixel unless the price difference is negligable. Also I think they might come with the IS kit lens which would be worth it I reckon.

Don't get the 300d kit lens without IS (Image stabilization) Get the 18-55mm IS ($179). After looking at the Outfits which are 18-55 at $539 -$600 I would say adding the IS model would be a better bet. Note 55mm isn't that close of a zoom, and 18mm isn't that wide. The fisheye I use is 8mm but some of the range is wasted by the smaller sensor size of consumer SLRs and the defishing process. I mentioned the sigma above the 18-200 would be more versital, but the IS is probably worth it, and you can grow into better lenes. Save the money now, go cheap and it'll get you by, least that's what I do, and save for the great stuff, the middle ground is only marginally better and has trade offs, etc... I get nickeled and dimed away and still haven't gotten "great" equipment, but that's how photography is, it sucks you in...

Edit: The 18-55 II is not IS. Can't really tell what the II is but that usually means second generation, though Canon doesn't list it. The $1,100 XTi on there has an 17-85 IS which is a better lens and more expensive, but I would go body used, get a new 18-55 IS.

Edit Edit: Looks like they list a II in Australia: http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_l...s18-55mmii.aspx and it isn't IS.

That and get the cheapo 50mm cause it's 1.8 aperture is badass for people photos and indoor shots ($90, tack sharp cause it's a prime lens).

Edited by shoebappa, 13 March 2008 - 12:56 AM.

[m.oreilly]

http://ww-w.onecall....s.aspx?id=88906
found the 18-55 IS

thanks for the info . i'm getting excited, this sounds like fun

[m.oreilly]

http://www.digicombo.../cnxti1855b.htm
heck, a kit for cheaper than the less expensive body w/add on lens...

[banj0]

Wow, very informative Shoebappa. Thanks very much for the info and welcome to X64! We hope you'll stay!

[m.oreilly]

banj0, on Mar 12 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

Wow, very informative Shoebappa. Thanks very much for the info and welcome to X64! We hope you'll stay!

indeed, wonderful info. patty even thinks it's a good idea/hobby for me!

[brewin]

I came across this hacked firmware which adds the ability to shoot in RAW (amongst other things) to many Canon models. Not mine unfortunately. I'm thinking about buying one of the models that's supported.

Here's an article about it:
http://www.linux.com/feature/118946

[shoebappa]

m.oreilly, on Mar 12 2008, 09:48 PM, said:

http://www.digicombo.../cnxti1855b.htm
heck, a kit for cheaper than the less expensive body w/add on lens...

I don't think that has the IS lens, just the kit 18-55... If I were you I'd gor for Body Only ($415) and add the 18-55 IS ($179). Note the difference in the images between the IS and Non, the non-IS doesn't say Image Stabilizer and has a larger ribbed rubberized part. Also the IS one has two switches, one for Auto Focus and One to turn on the IS. BH is out of stock as is Adorama for ($170). Wonder why it's backordered...

It's looking like if it comes in the Kit, unless it's the more expensive kit that has the 17-85, it's probably the same old kit lens that I have. IS would make it much better for indoor shots because that lens has a small aperture (3.5-5.6 which is pretty bad, but standard for cheap lenses.) Except the 50mm prime that I mentioned which is 1.8. Note that the Aperture numbers are multiplication factors, so f2 is twice as bright as f3, and f3 is twice as bright as f4 and f4 is twice as bright as f5... Indoors is usually pretty low light, so 3.5 without IS (much less 5.6, it varies on the zoom of the lens) makes it hard to get indoor shots. IS would definately help.

BTW, I think I might stick around, I'll have to poke around the forums when I get some time, I been running Vista X64 for almost a year, have everything working but am still running in Test Mode cause of unsigned drivers. Anyhoo, don't wanna take this off topic

-Shoe

[shoebappa]

brewin, on Mar 12 2008, 11:15 PM, said:

I came across this hacked firmware which adds the ability to shoot in RAW (amongst other things) to many Canon models. Not mine unfortunately. I'm thinking about buying one of the models that's supported.

Here's an article about it:
http://www.linux.com/feature/118946

Hacked firmware rocks because to save money Canon usually installs the same chips and blocks out stuff in firmware. I know my 300D had firmware to make it basically a 10D which was a couple hundred more at the time. I guess you always run the risk of bricking your camera but it's probably well worth it. I think you can usually install the original unless something goes disasterously wrong.