On Photography and the Canon Digital Rebel XT, Part 2
The continuation of my post from last night. Includes some overall conclusions about this camera system, pro photography, especially as related to weddings, and the first part of the sample gallery — here’s a teaser (more after the jump):
As before, click any photo to see a larger version on Flickr. The rest of the gallery will be posted tomorrow.
Also, if you’ve read the first section already, please give it another quick scan; I fixed a couple of errors and found the photo that dropped out of the original post (my coding error). Thanks.
Caught up with yesterday’s post? Good. Let’s just dive right back into it.
More items deserving special mention
Lenses and DOF. The 85mm isn’t 85mm on this camera body. Because of the mechanics of how this camera system is put together, the sensor only takes the “sweet spot” from the middle of the lenses — which is both good and bad. Good in that many lenses are stronger in the middle than near the edges, and more and more lenses are specifically being designed for these applications. The bad is that an 85mm lens isn’t an 85mm lens — it’s more like 130mm. Because of the camera sensor’s cropping the lens’s overall information, it’s effectively zoomed in.
Further, it’s a whole new thing for someone who has always had a camera with zoom lenses to be forced to zoom with his feet. Gerald’s words of advice? “Need a wider angle? Back up.” Yeah, sure. At a wedding with more than a hundred people in a limited outdoor area. Indeed, there are several instances where I simply messed up with getting far enough back and caught the wrong focus:
More on the processes shown in this photo in a moment, or check the notes on Flickr.
Two thoughts with respect to the 85mm and the task at hand — it’s a great way to put someone against pretty much any background and have a nice separation, and it’s a nice way to pick individual faces out of a crowd. It’s less good for couples, and groups are downright impossible.
If I had been the real wedding photographer, and thus responsible for the groups shots, etc., you can bet that the equipment I took to this party would have been insufficient. Thankfully, though, that professional was there and taking care of those items with the appropriate equipment. Also, specifically, because people knew that I was also lurking about and post to Flickr, I avoided some of the “standard” shots — I don’t want to rain on anyone’s income. (More on these couple of days as “a job” below.)
The process used on most of these photos deserves a mention, too. In comparison to photos produced by the Sony f828, photos from the Digital Rebel required less overall attention in Photoshop. Color balance was better, despite my incorrect settings while shooting in the tent; detail captured was better, especially after a run through Intellihance or Photoshop’s Unsharp Mask filte; and, especially, when shots don’t come out the way you’d like, it’s still often possible to “save” them due to the incredible amount of information captured.
Bokeh. Don’t know bokeh? Neither did I, even a few months ago. Now, it’s all too apparent what can make the difference in some photographs, and better understand the line between a “good photograph” and a “great photograph.”
Simply put, bokeh is the out-of-focus portion of an image. It can be harsh or clunky, or it can be, as the Flickr group is called, smooth and silky. The 85mm lens on the Rebel body produced some wonderful results here, far better than the Sony. Here’s an example from the latter:
Note how the background, while bright and colorful, isn’t terribly pleasing to the eye. Keep an eye on those trees — as the reception photos get posted, look at how much more smoothly the Rebel-85mm renders those trees. Then, later, when the nighttime party photos are posted, check out the lights in the background — they positively sparkle, adding a great deal to the overall look. Or, scroll back up and see the example at the top of this post — the background is beautiful. And it’s a pool hall. Fantastic, and something just not possible with the Sony or an out-of-the-box kit lens.
The best analogy I can think of has to do with audio reproduction. I’ve been an audio nut for a while (nutty about lots of stuff…;) and have, over the years, heard a great many hi-end audio systems, ranging from a couple of thousand dollars to many tens of thousands. There’s a law of diminishing returns very much at play, but generally, more dollars brings more detail, more resolution, and more of a “in the studio” or “at the event” experience in your listening room. It’s always a pleasure to hear something in a song that you haven’t before; sometimes, the added layers of information can completely change the nature of the song — and bring you closer to the artists’ intent.
My Sony was, in essence, the high-end iPod from a couple of years ago with a kickin’ pair of self-powered speakers. Relatively small and portable, it packed a ton of features in a cool package and required little to go with it in order to do its job well. Like an iPod, it’s capable of reproducing hi-fidelity, but its mission isn’t about the best but rather the best in an available package.
Canon’s (or Nikon’s) approach is different: components. Body, lenses, grips, options. Choose the pieces that work best for your photographic needs and utilize those. In this case, that 85mm lens “look” that I’ve fallen in love with simply isn’t available in the quality I demand unless I use a system like Canon’s or Nikon’s, where the pieces are available to create such a “look.” And others I’ll want — the best possible reproduction the budget allows.
Because, make no mistake, I’m not going to want the shallow depth of field every time. Some situations very much require wide angle lenses, and, as I’ve discussed, the 85mm is tight for use in situations like I did. I’m very much hoping to find a 50- or 60mm lens, perhaps even a 35, that is fast enough for use in low light as this 85mm is, but wide enough that I can get a couple not standing pefectly next to one another — and both be in focus! — but still get that wonderful, sparkly bokeh.
Photographing a wedding. Which leads to the longest opinion I’m going to put out there: thoughts on this process as a professional. I enjoyed this weekend’s photography tremendously, but it wasn’t without problems. Let’s go through some of the highlights.
- Getting your feet wet. I was privliged to be able to wander through an event like this with the support of both the wedding party and the “real” photographer. I introduced myself to the photographer early on, let him know what I was doing, and promised him not only to do my best to stay out of his way, but to reassure him that I wasn’t there to shoot over his shoulder and post those results online for all to download free instead of purchasing from him. That’s primarily why I don’t have more “formals;” there wasn’t time to set the families up for a second round of photos, and they’re at their wedding for cryin’ out loud — they had better things to do than pose for someone practicing.
Having said that, I still wound up with some “formal” shots, and because I was still shooting the reception while the photographer was working with the couple and families, I got a few things and people they didn’t. Further, I’ve also got a few shots of the photographer shooting the setups, which I’ll give to both the couple and the photographer — and which are surprisingly interesting photos. Nice to see a professional at work with a couple who appreciates the service that professional is providing.
- Money. Ever wonder why wedding photographers charge an arm and a leg? I found out several of the reasons this weekend. One I’ve mentioned already: If you’re using a Digital Rebel to shoot weddings, you’re going to go through them. Whether you love the body or are just using it as a tool, at 1500 photos every few days, even with “vacations,” it’s still going to wear out within a year or so, I’d guess, and require replacement. $700, give or take. Spending more at the outset for something more rugged might be wise — both Canon’s 5D and Nikon’s D200 use much more “industrial” shutter setups and body construction, and feel like they would last longer under the rigorous use weddings and other assignment shoots demand. Step up to the high-end cameras, like Canon’s 1Ds or Nikon’s D2x, and get a body built like a tank — but be prepared to drag around seven or eight pounds of camera. Your wallet will be lighter, though, to the tune of $5-7000 for just the camera body.
Plus the range of lenses. I had a Tokina 12-24mm wide-angle zoom, widely well-regarded but useless with the camera set the way it was in the harsh early afternoon Georgia sun. Simply more time with the camera and its settings might have solved my overexposure problem, but I was a little underwhelmed at the photos this lens took in my hands on these specific occasions — a wide angle prime might have been more appropriate to my inexperience. (I’m hopeful I would have done better with practice; some of the photos in the Tokina’s Flickr group are breathtaking.) Canon’s short (in my opinion, again) on those primes, but their L-series zooms are, according to my very limited knowledge (research, not experience), among the best wide-angles available. Nikon’s selection of available prime lenses and especially macros (for close-ups — “stuff!”) impresses me, but, like Canon, be prepared to part with serious cash to get the best.
The 85mm 1.8 is a good mid-range lens, $400 or so, and many professionals seem to have a collection of this type of lens. Coming off the wedding, I can see why — different circumstances at the different events really demand it. I would have loved to have several different ones, or, preferably, two different bodies with two different lenses so I could just switch off when necessary. Yeah, it’s extra weight on your person, but it woud be worth it. At least with mid-size cameras; not sure I’d try with two of the “big” models — just too heavy. So, in terms of money, double everything.
- An assistant. The pro photographer working the wedding had an assistant to help with equipment and setups. Smart — I could definitely have used some help at a few points. However, his assistant wasn’t equipped with a camera of her own. While I’m in no way faulting this particular photographer — I don’t know their process at all, and he was exceptionally nice to speak and work with — that seems like a missed opportunity. As I said, I got some valuable stuff while the photographer was working the formal stuff with the wedding party; if I were going to pay someone to work together with me on a photography assignment, I’d probably work with someone good with a camera for just that sort of circumstance.
- Or, a partnership. If budget were no object for the wedding — or it could be offered in a way that didn’t cost more than a “traditional” setup, two professionals working an event like this would rock hard. Give each different assignments, but allow overlap — one does the formals, one works the reception for candids and photos of the cake, etc., but both looking for every photographic “opportunity.”
- Digital rules, but don’t forget to consider all the options. The real photographer working the wedding was shooting the formals on film. We didn’t get a chance to have an in-depth discussion as to why, but he’s got good reasons — and I respect that. Indeed, I’ll be looking forward to see how his formal shots came out in comparison to the very few I took; the lighting, as I’ve said, was harsh indeed, and I’m curious how the dynamic range — the overall gamut of colors captured before things go to white or black — compares to the Rebel + 85mm combo. (No comparison with the wide-angle — almost all of those are way blown out. Baaaad Giles.)
Having said that, I delivered the camera and two DVDs of phots to the hotel in time for the couple to leave on their honeymoon. Sure, they were raw photos, and I’ll definitely be putting together some thoughts for them regarding the book — more on that in a moment — for their return. We’ll be able to jump right in, because they’ll already know the pictures; a laptop went with them for viewing. The pro will be developing film this week, and showing them the first pictures after their return. The delay isn’t excessive by any stroke of the imagination, but I like the effeciency a digital workflow offers.
- Weather. It was hot. Okay, beastly hot. Worse, the way the chairs were set up, the house blocked the breeze, so in the “sunny” chairs, it was probably over 100 degrees F. To be blunt, one of the best things about the 85mm is that I was concentrating on people’s faces, and thus avoiding people’s sweat-stained clothes wherever possible. Astonishingly, a few (men, especially — not sure how that works) looked completely under control formally dressed (shirt, tie, jacket) — wow — but the rest of us were in serious need of a cool shower. (Have a couple of photos of people looking somewhat longingly at the pool, heheh.) The breeze was wonderful when you were in it, though, and in the shade, it was downright pleasant. 10 or 15 degrees cooler, the day would have been perfect. (Alas, that was the day before. Probably one reasons we were all shocked by the heat — 80 to 95+ is a big change.)
Didn’t stop some problems, though. I dripped on the camera body more than once (sorry), and there were enough things blowing in the breeze that I had to stop several times to clean the lens. I would not be interested in changing lenses out there and risking contamination of the assembly inside the camera — another reason to have two bodies with you. (At least it didn’t rain. Problems for the ceremony aside, a Rebel isn’t sealed in any way. Nikon’s D200 is, as are both players’ top-of-the-line cameras.)
Pro photography and book design. There are tons of book purposes here. First is one I’ve already mentioned: a book of photographs from the wedding and other events for Gerald and his bride. As long as I’ve been investigating POD, I‘m going to use this project as a sample, borrow a page from Todd’s book (pun intended…;) and print a wedding book for them and anyone else involved in the festivities who’d like one. Assuming that the quality’s there, of course!
If it is — and I have high hopes for BookMobile, especially — I’ll only ask you to imagine the possibilities for a moment. A purely digital workflow, quantites as low as one. Wow.
And that’s before the other usages these images will provide down the road. The photography sessions with this camera produced far more than just stuff that’ll be printed and used for their wedding book or for hanging on friends’ walls. The pool balls, some of the table shots, accessories at the wedding and parties, etc., etc. — all become part of a collection that I can reach into any time I have a book design assignment that requires photography. That’s before uploading to iStock or other portals that provide sales or royalties — or adding such a functionality to my own web site.
The start of the sample photographs. Okay, enough yapping — with one exception. A little more about the process: the “fussing” these photos required was a fraction of the attention most of the Sony’s photos require. (Again, see some specific notes on the Flickr pages.)
That’s not only a huge time-saver, it’s an indication of the quality the guts of this camera system provide. Did I have problems with the camera? You bet. Is it still a great camera system, especially with the 85mm? Absolutely. The shots on Flickr aren’t full-size, but are enough to judge quality pretty well. All were shot and saved as JPGs; they were only re-saved once (after the resize in Photoshop) on my computer, then again when uploaded to Flickr — best I can do for now. (Hopefully, a more advanced system will come down the road.)
Tonight: the bachelor party. Tomorrow night: the wedding, reception, and after-recption party.
See the rest here.
Why, despite that, it isn’t for me. In the past few weeks, I’ve been fortunate to put my hands on and take photographs with five impressive cameras: Canon’s Rebel (this one, which I’d played with but never seriously used before), a 20D, and 30D (their “step-up” model, and it’s new replacement), and Nkon’s D70 (mid-range SLR, again more “play” than “use”) and D200. I‘ve also worked with my Sony, of course, and pushed and pulled at both a Nikon D50 (entry-level SLR, below the Rebel on the feature and price scale) and Canon’s 5D (mentioned previously) in stores but never taken photos with either one.
All the Canons, including the shiny new 30D, have grips that are not comfortable in my hands. The 5D is just fine, but, frankly, a $3500 body is out of my budget. That means, for this guy with no lens collection and every road open, I’m going to go with the system that’s comfortable in my hands.
Plus, I shot with the D200 on the Friday between the bachelor party and the wedding — and, in terms of user experience, was in a whole different class from the Rebel. It should be, at more than twice the price, but it, in my hands, was not only immediately comfortable, but also felt much more up to the task of doing this type of photography. Nikon’s D70, which I’d used before and played with that same Friday, had a nice grip, but in comparison, just didn’t work as well nor feel as solid as the D200.
Now, blast me full of holes for choosing a camera based on its feel in my hands — and more than a few of my Canon friends seem to be lining up to do just that — but if it’s a tool I’m going to be using day to day, whether it’s on a paid assignment, shooting specifically for a book project, or just out taking photos of daily life, I want to be comfortable with it.
Having said all that, if I had to “rate” this camera system, it’d definitely be a solid “B.” It has issues in general, and I add in some that are specific to my usage, but in the right hands — and especially with more familiarity — the Digital Rebel can be used to do great things.
