New Camera - New Cock ups

Hello Folks, well new camera 30D and my first event. This is my son doing a guard of honour. He will be doing a lot of these over the next year and it doesn't look like have got off to a good start.

I am taking in raw with sjpg. This is the jpg.

Should I have used my speedlite 550?

I was taking in Pmode. Standard style. Very bright sunlight (midday).
Using the kit lens. 18-55

exif

Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 30D
Shooting Date/Time
02/07/2006 11:22:45
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/250Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F10
Metering Modes
Evaluative metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
200
Lens
EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Focal Length
18.0 mm
Image size
3504 x 2336
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance
Auto
AF mode
AI focus AF
Picture Style
Standard
Parameters
Tone Curve : Standard
Sharpness level : -
Pattern Sharpness : -
Contrast : 0
Sharpness : 3
Color saturation : 0
Color tone : 0
Color matrix
-
Color Space
AdobeRGB
File Size
8394 KB
Drive Mode
Single-frame shooting

I can probably dodge and burn to improve it.

Can you give me some useful advice.
Would a better lens have helped, if so which one as this is going to be a regular occurrence for me. Please advise a Sigma as I cannot afford a canon just yet.

http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/642.JPG

regards

Nearly midday sun very near the summer solstice is pretty brutal (I presume you're in the northern hemisphere and likely the UK from the web URL and car registrations) - just look at the harsh shadows. I presume that's what you're complaining about.


Looking at the shadows, the sun was virtually perpendicular to the parade, coming from the side you were shooting from. You may have been better at the other side of the parade at a similar angle. You're low enough that the sun should have been out of shot, but you'd have had to watch for flare.

Changing sides would have put the people's shadow side to you, but at least you wouldn't have had such a difference in the lighting across the people. It's hard to say whether that would have been better. It depends to some extent whether you finished up with an overexposed background, which you may well have done. Alternatively, you may have fooled the camera's metering into underexposing the people, because you were using evaluative metering.

You're always going to struggle in such a location in such bright sunny weather.


The flash will probably be a waste of time - you can't fill in all that shadow right down to the back of the party - a single flash will fall off tremendously over that distance. It may have helped some, but it's not going to lift all that shadow, especially from the position you used, as the greater of the shadows are on the other side of the people's faces, which you can't fill from where you are.

I'm at a loss as to what you could possibly do to help - I think the answer is "not much". No practical reflector or lighting setup can deal with the shadows from that angle. Looking for an alternative location where the shadows weren't at such a brutal angle would have been the best option. Has anyone else got any ideas?


The only problem I can spot that is probably related to the lens is a little strange - it's the softness in the top left of the picture. The roof area of the white building top left is pretty soft. I presume it's your son leading the parade - his hand nearest the camera looks to be just slipping out of focus.

Motion blur is unlikely at 1/250s; I doubt that explains the hand. It could be insufficient depth of field, but I'm conscious of the tarmac being in sharp focus at the bottom left, which is nearer the camera - also depth of field is very deep at 18mm at f/10 anyway. Maybe your lens is very slightly off-centre or some similar fault. Put your 70-200 on the camera and check that this doesn't relate to a fault in the camera (shoot square to a brick wall or something). It's possible, but I think very unlikely, that the sensor isn't quite square to the lens mount.

The lens really isn't the issue here to my eye here - it's the lighting. Good wide lenses to replace the kit lens are tricky. I'm not awfully familiar with Canon and Sigma lenses, but one popular replacement for the kit lens is the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L. Even with the rebate, that's going to cost in excess of £400. Other Canon alternatives are going to be even more expensive. I use an EF 16-35mm f/2.8L to cover that range, but that's £1000!

David

Yep this is very interesting. Would you be kind enough to check out these other files to conclude if you still think I have a camera problem. I figure these ohter shots may give a better example. I have put up the raws as well.
http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/647.JPG
http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/647.CR2
http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/681.JPG
http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/681.CR2
http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/693.JPG
http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/693.CR2

by the way, I am in the South East England

regards

You need to learn about metering. It doesn't look like it's the camera problem to me.

The lens isn't too bad either.

The RAW files help.


The hand looks like it is motion blur after all - in image 693 the whole left arm clearly has motion blur. I'm not sure what style of marching is being used, but if the arms are moving at some speed (as I suspect they are in a quick march with the arms swinging that high), the 1/250s of your original image appears to be too slow, let alone the 1/200s in this image. ISO 400 is pretty noise free on the 20D, I expect the same is true of the 30D. You can probably drop nearer to f/8, too, though I don't know how bad the kit lens gets at f/8 compared to f/10 as in most of these shots. I'm blessed with f/2.8 constant zooms, which are good at f/2.8, great by f/4 and very sharp by f/5.6.


Notice in image 647 the other photographer (with a fairly long lens and seemingly a Billingham bag) and the videographer at the other side of the road. 693 showed what I had expected - that the lighting towards the sun on the faces is more even, and you may indeed have been better on that side of the parade.


Image 681 shows quite how much barrel distortion the 18-55mm lens has on the wide end - the distortion on the balcony is obvious, as is the distortion of the left hand edge of the woman's skirt mid shot (it's not anywhere near vertical). This is typical of zoom lenses at their widest end. PTLens will sort it for minimal cost.

681 doesn't have detail right into the top left corner, but I suspect the softness I was picking up in your first image was because of the quite severe barrel distortion of the kit lens at the wide end. I'd still test with your 70-200 (which will have much less distortion than your kit lens), but I think you're fine. The kit lens isn't at all bad stopped down this much.

It may be interesting to see a RAW file of 642 (the original image), and maybe one or two other images that go into the top right corner - especially if they're towards the long end of the kit lens where there's much less distortion.


Metering wise, evaluative hasn't done that bad a job, but 693 looks something like a third of a stop overexposed. 1/250s at f/10, ISO 200 looks pretty much spot on judging from these shots. You can expect the light level to be fairly constant on a shoot like this - the sky is probably cloudless, and there don't look to be significant areas of shade.

There's an argument for figuring out using the camera's meter (probably in partial mode or, indeed, spot mode as you have a 30D) the correct exposure, then fix it in M mode. Take the camera switch out of the top position to stop yourself from inadvertently changing the aperture by touching the rear dial.


If anyone else can either confirm or argue against my commentary, I'd be grateful.

David

Hello I have posted up the 642 raw and also a picture with my 70-200

http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/642.CR2
http://www.flexiworld.​co.uk/gallery/309.CR2

I will do some tests tomorrow on a brick wall as suggested.

Looking at the RAW of 642, I don't see the same softness of the roof or so much of the hand motion blur as I saw in the JPEG.


309, the 70-200 picture, looks nice and sharp - just as I'd expect from any of the 70-200 Ls (I have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS). It is pretty overexposed - within the capacity of RAW to save you, but unless this was a deliberate attempt to expose to the right, you were maybe as much as a stop overexposed. Watch your horizon too - it's enough off to be quite disconcerting before correction. Unfortunately this shot doesn't have any detail in the corner that was affected by the possible softness in the very first shot you posted, assuming that you turned the camera the same way for both portrait shots.

I would take a shot of a brick wall with the 70-200 as I suggested - I'm not expecting it to reveal anything amiss, though.

David