Why didn't I buy one years ago!

[Tommo]

Finally got my hands on a new Canon 7D, yay! living with pesos meant I only could afford the one EFS 10-22mm lens.
What a change from the old compact! Just the ability to be able to play around with the settings has shown me the versatility of a DSLR and it has been fun working it all out and I am kicking myself for not buying one years ago. Still a lot to learn as far what settings work best for various light conditions and the like but having fun anyway. Am saving flat strap for a 70-200mm lens too.

I bought the camera with the main intention of getting plenty of fishing and fishing related pics (and huntng if I ever pull my finger out) so was all excited when I was invited to do a backpack trip into a remote river with three mates. Well. we got bogged on the way in and ended up having to dump the Chev before walking 10km to the property which was giving us access. We wisely hired a horse to carry our packs, before walking a further 10k's to the river where we camped. What a dissapointment when none of us could turn a reel in two days fishing due to the high and turbid water. My knees took ten days to recover from the ordeal.
Anyway, I took a few photos though none of them with fish. Here are a few.











Had two other day trips to another river and again we struggled to get anything, how frustrating it was wanting to get photos of golden dorado and the buggers wouldn't play.

All things changed for the better this week with a solo afternoon session on my local river, the Rio Juramento. I managed two nice fish and even got a couple of reasonable jump shots. Not the easiest thing to do on your own, holding a fully loaded fly rod with beserk dorado attached, while juggling the camera one handed into position for a jump shot.
Anyway turned out o.k.



The next two are self timed and I am fairly happy with them, but I know I will be able to get better shots when I have more time to fiddle with settings and composition while someone else is holding the fish. Have to find some mates that can catch them first I guess.





Last one is a river 2km from my place, no fish there, some trout higher up, but a place to try different things with the camera.




Have been shooting in RAW and jpeg, the above images are the original jpegs with a bit of tweaking in a very old version of photoshop.
Am I correct in thinking that if I shoot in RAW that I can make more tweaks to the image before converting to a jpeg for printing, posting etc
What software are people using for processing RAW?

Cheers
Tom

[GrahameA]

Morning.

If those are examples of your photo rich environment - I agree you should have got one earlier. Just great photos.

Fish-on-fly the great pleasures of life.

[bigbob]

Great shots!.Particularly like the last one of the stream. I am computer illiterate regarding jpeg , raw files so cant help there. I can see you are going to have a great time with the new camera. Are the Dorado a salmonoid fish species, as they look a bit like one?

[jindydiver]

Great stuff Tommy

What software are people using for processing RAW?

I use Elements 10. There is a lot of learning to do when working with raw but you can do a lot with it too.

[Nutgrass]

Got to love that 10-22mm lens It is great fun Very nice pics. Some lovely looking country to photograph. I don't know much about the processing part, I am slowly learning I just us an old copy of photoshop as well.

[GrahameA]

What software are people using for processing RAW?

Excuse my slackness. I should have answered, "the application that came with my Canon or Photoshop Elements". There is a plugin in Photoshop CS but I use it so rarely that I cannot even remember what it is.

[flyne]

I love that river shot mate you have some stunning country Thea mate
Jim

[flyne]

Just noticed the praymantise eating the butterfly awesome

[Tommo]

Glad you liked the pics fellas. Plenty more photos of the country and fishography to come I reckon.

So the software that came with the camera should be sufficient to process the RAW stuff. I will have a play after a bit of RTFM and see what it can do.

I didn't even see the praying mantis on the flower till I got home, too busy concentrating on the butterfly.

[Gringa Bows]

Good pics mate,when are we going to see photo's of downed critters

[GrahameA]

Morning.

Plenty more photos of the ... fishography to come I reckon.

That is good news. My issue is I do not like taking any of cameras near the water plus I am usually busy throwing lures and flies to take photos.

Hmmmm....... this could a good reason (excuse) to purchase another camera just for fishing photos....

[Siege]

If you want to just do some basic editing and catalog all your images you can't go past Adobe Lightroom, best product on the market imo when it comes to editing photos quick and viewing what you shot.

If the image needs a lot of work I then use Adobe Photoshop but I prefer to get hte image right in the camera so I don't need to use photoshop much, usually I only use photoshop if I want to change the sky or something like that.

The problem today with modern cameras is everyone looks at the image on the back of the camera and then adjusts until they are happy with the shot, basically that teaches you nothing and you don't learn why something did or didn't work. When I teach new people photography the first thing I do is chuck a piece of duck tape over the back of the screen and make them use the camera and what the camera is telling them in order to learn the camera properly.

I am happy to help if you have any questions, being a canon which is what I use I am able to help you more.
For the 70-200mm lens you want buy it from P&H in new york, cost me $1100 when I got mine and the cheapest I could find in Australia at the time was $2700

Canon now gives warranties to camera body and lenses bought outside of the country of use so you are right to buy anywhere in the world. The best thing is B & H will get it too you in three days and pay freight if something has to go back.

People debate image stabilizer on the 70-200mm lens and other lenses, personally the first thing I do is turn that off as it makes the image softer, most of the photographers I have used over the years do the same, so you can save around $500 by not getting it. Basically if you can't hold the camera steady it will help, usally that sort of lense is not used in conditions where the lighting is poor, so for that reason the image stabilization is not used. If inside you would use it off a tripod so you would not need it then either.

Up to you, but personally I would save the cash.


Differnece between Raw, JPEG etc, I will give you a run down real quick

Basically a JPG file is 256 bits of information, the RAW depends on the camera. With a JPG if you only have 256 bits of information and you start changing that image a lot then the quality of the image breaks down. SO if you broke that image into colour, x amount would be blue, x amount would be red, x amount would be black and so on and so fourth. SO if you have only a small amount of information in that image and only small amounts of colour then it means the image can only be pushed so far before it starts to show what is often referred to as 'noise'

Being that you have the 7D I am not sure off the top of my head how large the RAW file is, but being in the semi-pro range I am guessing it would have at least 8000 bits o finformation. The 30D which was a few models before had 4076 so it has to of at least doubled from those days.

so lets just assume you have 8000 bits of information in your raw file, if you broke that up into colour again it would mean that there would be larger amounts of colour all grouuped together, meaning that if you deleted one piece of information to make it 7999 you probably would not notice, if you do a lot of editiing you could get rid of a lot, but you can do much more then you can with a jpg.

Again I need to read up on the 7D to give you exact answers but that is what you are basically looking at between each setting. Remember monochrome or black and white is not a setting your camera sees, bascially your camera takes it in colour and then converts it how it sees fit to give you the b/w image on the back. when shooting always use colour and convert later so you have that control.

To give a run down of what a camera is actually trying to do in auto mode is this, a camera has it's own light meter inbuilt, when you hold the shutter button half way down it takes a reading, actually when it is on it is always reading it's enviroment. Then you take the image and it gives you the image. What canon and nikon and all these other camera places do is they compile millions of photos into a computer which then becomes your cameras computer. So if you are on auto and you take a photo of a tree the camera adjusts and says this is what a tree should look like. It would do the same for everything it shoots in auto, BUT, What if there is a women standing in front of the tree with a red jumper? what does it adjust for, the women or the tree? This is why Auto sucks and I never use it, understanding your camera and what it is telling you will make you 1000 times better then the person who only uses auto. Sure they might get some nice photos, but how many rubbish shots do they take to get that good image? when they could make every image a better image.

Cameras what to make the image mid-grey, in it's world that is hte ideal image colour, which is why all white balence cards are mid grey (used in studios)

The best piece of advice I was ever given was this.

If you look at what ever it is you are going to photograph, ask yourself this, would it sell? If you went to a gallery, or market or your own shop, would it sell? would it be something you would buy, or your family? If the answer is no then move on, as you will waste your time and end up not keeping it anyway. The only time I ignore this is if I am on a family holiday or outing and I am capturing memories, not images I think are worthy of being taken.

Keep that in mind and you will stop taking 500 images with only five good ones, instead you will take 50 images with 20 or more good and usuable.

[Siege]

Just looking at the images again I just thought I would give my 2 cents worth, ignore them if you want, but I am only trying to make you a better photographer.

The image with the toadstools on the log is nice, the river etc as well, but the sky is lacking and takes away from what could be a fantastic photo.
Same with the slow shutter speed on the river with the logs, water shots like that always sell and people love them, but the foreground and background are lacking.

Before taking the shot like this, just think foreground, middle ground and background, get these things right and the image will be great. Doesn't matter if you are photographing landscapes, or people or whatever, capture what ever it is you want to, but think about the whole image and what would help complete it to take it from a good image to a fantastic image!

Again not meaning to be judging, just offering some advice that I hope will help.