# T4i - is this a better camera than a point and shoot?



## crotonmark (Jul 16, 2013)

I'm actually serious. I am a newbie who just went to London and Paris. My photos are no better than if I shot with a camera on auto. I shot in manual or aperture priority 

Basically my pictures are dull. I shot with a 2.8 17-50 lens and a 35-106 3.5/4.5
The cropped sensor made it very hard to get wide angle photos. 
The photos as shown on the LCD screen were not the same as on the computer. 

I know I'm vaguely ranting but does anyone know what I mean?

Mark


----------



## Derrel (Jul 16, 2013)

YES, it is better. There could be a color space issue on your computer, which might cause the dull look to the pictures.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 16, 2013)

Derrel said:


> YES, it is better. There could be a color space issue on your computer, which might cause the dull look to the pictures.



Actually it's focus. Stuff that looked in focus on the little screen wasn't on the big one
Mostly disappointed that my 600 pictures were meh.


----------



## krystalynnephoto (Jul 16, 2013)

Forgive me, I am not being rude, I promise, but were you using the right settings.  Are you sure your focus was on point?  Etc?  

To answer your question simply, yes.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 16, 2013)

krystalynnephoto said:


> Forgive me, I am not being rude, I promise, but were you using the right settings.  Are you sure your focus was on point?  Etc?
> 
> To answer your question simply, yes.



I'm pretty sure my focus was on point. Focus only happened occasionally and I think it was caused by camera shake. 
It's more the cropping that bugged me and my lack of talent

No rudeness taken.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 16, 2013)

Well...there *is* a learning curve with a d-slr. It's not just something that automatically, magically ups one's game. Perhaps try using it on the "Green Box" mode, and let the camera convert itself into, basicvally, a big, expensive P&S digital?? I think that's worth a try. Seriously--the programmed decisions a modern camera can make are pretty good choices,most of the time.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 16, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Well...there *is* a learning curve with a d-slr. It's not just something that automatically, magically ups one's game. Perhaps try using it on the "Green Box" mode, and let the camera convert itself into, basicvally, a big, expensive P&S digital?? I think that's worth a try. Seriously--the programmed decisions a modern camera can make are pretty good choices,most of the time.



Seems pretty silly tho doesn't it?
I've had it for a year. 

What is green box mode?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 16, 2013)

I would like to see some of the soft photos you speak of.


----------



## ontop27 (Jul 16, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Well...there *is* a learning curve with a d-slr. It's not just something that automatically, magically ups one's game. Perhaps try using it on the "Green Box" mode, and let the camera convert itself into, basicvally, a big, expensive P&S digital?? I think that's worth a try. Seriously--the programmed decisions a modern camera can make are pretty good choices,most of the time.
> ...



The full auto is a green box on the dial

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 16, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> I would like to see some of the soft photos you speak of.



Too many to post my question is more philosophic anyway.


----------



## chuckeb (Jul 16, 2013)

I have the T4i.  I love it!  I couldn't get what I want on a p&s.  Composition yes, but not the control I like.  The thing is, it's not really a simple tool.  That said.  You mentioned fuzzyness in shots when moving.  That's not unusual.  Maybe try higher shutter speed with higher f stop.  Motion blurs at lower, slower shutter speeds. 

GL


----------



## Parker219 (Jul 16, 2013)

Post a few photos.


----------



## munecito (Jul 16, 2013)

It is not better. 

Send it to me. I collect subpar canon gear.

I will send you a wallmart 20 gift voucher. :lmao:


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 17, 2013)

munecito said:


> It is not better.
> 
> Send it to me. I collect subpar canon gear.
> 
> I will send you a wallmart 20 gift voucher. :lmao:



HA!   That's a deal!


----------



## ronlane (Jul 17, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see some of the soft photos you speak of.
> ...



If you are not happy with your photos, then it's not philosophic. Just pick 1 or 2 to let us see what you are referring too. My first thought is were you shooting in RAW? If so, then you may just need adjustments in PS or LR or some other program. But to answer your question, the T4i is better than most P&S cameras. I say most because there are some pretty expensive high-end P&S camera's that can take some extremely good photos.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 17, 2013)

ronlane said:


> crotonmark said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



I shoot in JPEG - I think the problem is composition and that I was just hoping I could get better pictures with a DSLR
I had issues trying to shoot stained glass in a church - I couldn't get the colors to pop
I had issues with the roof at Wimbledon.  It was white against a grey sky and  I couldn't get it to pop out - also the rest of the bldg was green with ivy - if I changed a setting for the roof the bldg would be too dark
Does this make sense?


----------



## peter27 (Jul 17, 2013)

I think a lot will depend on how you meter the scene. For the windows I might have used spot, for the tennis court centre weighted (and swept the camera a bit and split the difference).


----------



## iolair (Jul 17, 2013)

If your photos are soft, the likely causes are:
- camera shake
- missing focus

To deal with camera shake you need to either get a faster shutter speed (by increasing the ISO and/or increasing the aperture (decreasing the aperture number)), or reduce the shake - by making sure Image Stabilisation is turned on for your lens (if it has it), or putting the camera on a tripod.

If the focus is off, you will see looking closely at your images most likely that SOMETHING is in focus, just not the thing you wanted.  Learn how to change the focus point your camera uses.

Sometimes inability to focus can be due to a fault in the lens or the body, but its FAR more likely its down to settings or technique.

If the colours are disappointing
- make sure you set your white balance appropriately (or learn to set a manual white balance)
- check the colour settings on your camera - I only change it in postprocessing because I shoot in RAW, but you can set it in camera for JPEG) - there should be a saturation level.  Try increasing this one or two positions.
- it's also possible that the colours are fine, but your monitor is not displaying them correctly.  You can try adjusting the colour balance on your monitor or using a calibration tool with it.

If you have trouble keeping detail in bright areas while showing the colour on dark areas - welcome to the club.  That is a characteristic of camera sensors, which don't see the range of brightness in the image as well as the human eye can.  However, there are a couple of ways you can work around this.  If you shoot in RAW and learn to edit the curves on your computer, you can often bring out detail in both light and dark areas more effectively.  Alternatively you can take 'bracketed shots' (e.g. one dark, one light, one in-between - eliminating camera movement between the shots using a tripod) and combine them using 'HDR' (High Dynamic Range) software to preserve the details from all brightnesses.

It's still worth posting one or two images that you found disappointing here, as we'd be able to offer more specific advice.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 17, 2013)

Ok. I'm on my way to work. I'll post some this evening. 

Thanks!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 17, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Too many to post my question is more philosophic anyway.



Lol. The question is far from philosophic. Considering your question posting history I think seeing images would help deduce your issue.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 17, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> crotonmark said:
> 
> 
> > Too many to post my question is more philosophic anyway.
> ...



Sorry - what is my question posting history?
My concerns are generally how did I screw up this time


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 17, 2013)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...orum/306956-why-aren-t-these-shots-focus.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon-lenses/295994-brand-new-t4i-not-wowed-please-help.html

If your concerns are "how did I screw up this time," then it's imperative we see images.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 17, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...orum/306956-why-aren-t-these-shots-focus.html
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon-lenses/295994-brand-new-t4i-not-wowed-please-help.html
> 
> If your concerns are "how did I screw up this time," then it's imperative we see images.



This. You will get lots of help here if you enable the help. Post some shots with exif data and someone will have you pointed in the right direction in no time. As mentioned earlier you can try your camera in auto mode just to see that it works as it should. Without photos it is all just guess work


----------



## Bulb (Jul 17, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> I'm actually serious. I am a newbie who just went to London and Paris. My photos are no better than if I shot with a camera on auto. I shot in manual or aperture priority
> 
> Basically my pictures are dull. I shot with a 2.8 17-50 lens and a 35-106 3.5/4.5
> The cropped sensor made it very hard to get wide angle photos.
> ...



I think I've found your problem. As a newcomer to photography, I can sympathize. 

Here are a few basic things that I've learned which may help you:

Photography is Light
Exposure is the collection of light by the camera. Nothing more, nothing less. Your camera uses the Exposure Triangle to determine which exposure settings it needs. First it does metering to determine how much light is in the scene and how much light it needs to make a 'well exposed' photo. In program mode, the camera will do its best to decide each of the three settings (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) that it needs. In the other modes such as aperture priority, you decide on one setting and the camera will choose the others. Except for manual where you choose every setting yourself, your camera will always arrange the three settings in a way which will give you a good exposure. Everything moves in 'stops' or doubling and halving of the numbers. If you want the same exposure (which the camera will always aim for) you can't change one number without affecting one of the other two. In your other thread, you ran into trouble because you were in aperture priority and you set the aperture to a fixed number. This meant the camera could only change shutter speed and ISO to get the shot you wanted. Although it seems that you actually had auto-ISO turned off which meant that the only setting that could take the hit was shutter speed. Shutter speed went to an alarmingly-low 1/13th second and resulted in a blurry shot. If you don't have enough light to work with then you either need to make your own light (with a flash, external light, etc.) or give up and forget the shot. If you're shooting in raw (look it up) then you may be able to under-expose the image and pull a bit of detail back out of it in post, but it won't look like a well-lit photo.

Manual Isn't As Useful As You'd Think
The only photos I've taken in manual are of the moon. And I actually had to do a bit of research before I tried it. M doesn't stand for "Master of the Universe" and it doesn't make you a professional. If I need DOF, I use aperture priority. If I need motion stopping or blurring, I use shutter priority. If for some strange reason I need to control both at the same time (almost never) then I'll switch to manual. It's also worth mentioning that manual doesn't work the same. The camera will not help you get the best settings. It will usually tell you if you're over or under-exposed though. Check your manual.

It's not the Camera, Sort of
Your camera will not make you a good photographer. Better cameras will give you a technical advantage, but they won't make your photos any good. Buying a DSLR isn't a substitute for studying the basics of both exposure and composition. Good photographers get better results on cell phone cameras than your average person can get on a high-end DSLR. That being said, if none of this is news to you and you already know all of this, your camera may be limiting you. I'm not sure of the low-light capabilities of your camera, but perhaps they're just not good enough for the types of places you take pictures? 

What no Camera Can do
The camera can also only do so much. Its job is to capture an image of the world as it sees it. It just doesn't see like you see. It doesn't hear, see, smell, feel, or experience any of what makes the scene memorable. Human perception is altered by experiences. Camera perception is not. It also doesn't have the dynamic range or low-light seeing that you do. Shoot in raw and then in your raw editor you can make the image a perfect representation of what you shot. Or at least make it look better than what the camera saw. The truth is that nearly every image needs to be altered in post. That's just how it works out. For example, I liked the way my shots of the moon turned out, but I still needed to go back in post and drop some of the black out of the sky and add a bit of contrast to the surface. That's just what it takes to recreate the vision that you have.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 18, 2013)

Thank you Bulb and everyone
My issue really is with the outcome and not the camera
My real question is how do you learn to take better pictures - that is what I am trying to discover
I am sure, once I get over myself, that the camera is not the problem
It is the person behind the camera
I have read Peterson and my manual many times 
I get frustrated that I can't do what others do - or what Peterson makes look so simple


----------



## Juga (Jul 18, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Thank you Bulb and everyone
> My issue really is with the outcome and not the camera
> My real question is how do you learn to take better pictures - that is what I am trying to discover
> I am sure, once I get over myself, that the camera is not the problem
> ...



Many of the photographers that write books as educational pieces, like Peterson, have been honing their skills for YEARS. Everyone gets frustrated at times but the important thing is to keep learning and not to be close-minded when it comes to advice. This forum is a very good tool to learn from if you allow it.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 18, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Thank you Bulb and everyone
> My issue really is with the outcome and not the camera
> My real question is how do you learn to take better pictures - that is what I am trying to discover
> I am sure, once I get over myself, that the camera is not the problem
> ...



There is a learning curve which for normal people takes time.  No microwave here.  
You may try to read one or two pages of your book and immediately afterwards go practice/try the actions or concepts mentioned.  Try taking baby steps in the beginning.


----------



## 6kimages (Jul 18, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Thank you Bulb and everyone
> My issue really is with the outcome and not the camera
> My real question is how do you learn to take better pictures - that is what I am trying to discover
> I am sure, once I get over myself, that the camera is not the problem
> ...


Let me give you some advice .I used to have a highend (at the time) P&S .When I went to a dlsr , i found my initial images did not seem as nice at all?????  however after years of reading forums having my photos critiqued and listening to pro's I now should more in Manual than any pre set.Understanding your camera and ALL of it's functions (imho) is key to being able to get the most out of your T4i .IT IS a very capable camera , like anything what you put into it you will get more out of it .yes it will take time and experimenting .Time and Patients


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 18, 2013)

6kimages said:


> crotonmark said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Bulb and everyone
> ...



thanks everyone for the advice
ill look for some images to post
i really appreciate everything everyone has written. 


Mark


----------



## kay1547 (Jul 19, 2013)

this may come off a little rude, but im not trying to be.  The camera is only as good as the operator. when i first got my dslr, i thought like a noob i would get studio quality pictures, what was i thinking...
needles to say i was disappointed just like you, but i didnt give up, i joined forums and did my homework. Photos i take now compared to the first day i bought a dslr is night and day difference, but this came after spending countless hours reading and watching youtube tutorials, not to mention spending another $3k on top of the camera for lenses, flashes, and other photo equipment.

Basically what im saying is learn learn learn, the camera will do much more then you realize if you put the effort into it. I suggest learning the camera settings first, this will help out big time, a wrong setting could totally throw off the camera. then when you have mastered that i would learn to shoot raw and process your photos with lightroom, this step alone to me was like WOW!!! I feel this could do more for your photos then a L lens could. then last of course if you got money to waste, get some good L glass.
if your shooting indoors a lot with low lighting a good off body flash is like the first thing to buy, makes a huge difference from the flash that comes with the camera. this in itself takes time to learn to use correctly.
but i think you get the idea by now, its not the camera that makes a good photo, its the photographer.


----------



## Alimac1 (Jul 19, 2013)

I have a 600D (T3i I think) and find it great. But the best thing I did for my photography was join a club and let others see and comment on my work, and go to every tutorial session the club would run. My local club only has around 30 members, but there is a wealth of experience and people willing to share their knowledge.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

Alimac1 said:


> I have a 600D (T3i I think) and find it great. But the best thing I did for my photography was join a club and let others see and comment on my work, and go to every tutorial session the club would run. My local club only has around 30 members, but there is a wealth of experience and people willing to share their knowledge.



thanks


----------



## amolitor (Jul 19, 2013)

Not getting colors to "pop" is either an exposure issue, or that you want more than the camera does by default. Look for a Vivid setting, and try that out.


----------



## ShaneF (Jul 19, 2013)

I shoot with a T4i.  If you want more control over your images poping trying shooting raw and doing some post processing.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

ShaneF said:


> I shoot with a T4i.  If you want more control over your images poping trying shooting raw and doing some post processing.



Thanks ShaneF - problem is I don't understand the post production software.  Even Photoshop Elements is baffling to me


----------



## ShaneF (Jul 19, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> ShaneF said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot with a T4i.  If you want more control over your images poping trying shooting raw and doing some post processing.
> ...



what software do you have?


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

ShaneF said:


> crotonmark said:
> 
> 
> > ShaneF said:
> ...



the latest Mac version of Photoshop Elements and iPhoto.


----------



## ShaneF (Jul 19, 2013)

this is the first video i found but there are many to help you out.  this should get you going on how to open and edit a raw file.  Youtube is your friend search away.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 19, 2013)

I remember when I first bought my dslr that I was pretty disappointed.  I was expecting greatness that just wasn't there.  It was definitely a temporary step backwards in the results department compared to my point and shoot.  It didn't last too long, though, maybe two or three months, so keep at it.


----------



## _gingerstocking (Jul 19, 2013)

I shoot with a T4i and I will say.. if your pictures look dull and bland, it is likely operator error. I have had no issues with mine and it actually brings out colors very well without much post processing.

Also, were you shooting in RAW? Because even the biggest JPEGS on the T4i look like crap. I recently was in Texas for a week and shot strictly in JPEG because I knew I wouldn't want to edit them all. I was pretty disappointed with the quality once I opened them in Lightroom. You need to shoot RAW if you want the best outcome.


----------



## cynicaster (Jul 19, 2013)

> My photos are no better than if I shot with a camera on auto. I shot in manual or aperture priority


 
So if Im reading this correctly, your expectation is that switching from auto mode to manual mode or aperture priority mode should, _as a rule_, generate a better result?  Im not being a smart-ass here, Im genuinely wondering what you expect to happen. 

Regardless of whether youre in full auto or one of the more advanced modes, youre still using the same optics, the same electronics, and all of the same parameters are being adjusted to yield your result.  The only difference is in how many of those parameters are selected by you and how many are selected by the camera automatically. 

So, what this means is that there are lots of situations where you should not have an expectation that advanced shooting modes will provide better results than auto, because sometimes, believe it or not, the camera is just as capable of getting it right as you are (if not more so).

If, in challenging lighting situations, youre getting results in manual that are on par with or fall short of what you get in auto, then the problem is operator error, not camera quality.  Examples of what Id consider to be challenging lighting situations are: extremely low light, fast moving subjects, high contrast (mixture of very bright and very dark areas in the scene), mixed color temperatures, and strongly back-lit subjects.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 19, 2013)

How did this thread get to 3 pages with no example images?

*Post example images*, and usefulness of all comments will increase 10x.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> How did this thread get to 3 pages with no example images?
> 
> *Post example images*, and usefulness of all comments will increase 10x.



OK I am going to post a series of pictures I took in Napoleon's Tomb
I was trying to get the colors of the stained glass window as well as the sarcophagus (Now to figure out how to post images)!!


----------



## Bulb (Jul 19, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > How did this thread get to 3 pages with no example images?
> ...



You've run into a high dynamic range scene.

Dynamic range is the difference in brightness between the brightest thing and the darkest thing in your composition. The human eye has no trouble seeing both the bright window and the dark sarcophagus. The camera's sensor doesn't cover such a high dynamic range. As a result, exposing for the window will cause the sarcophagus to become underexposed and exposing for the sarcophagus causes the window to become  overexposed.

There are three options here.


Expose for the most important part of the image (and deal with the consequences on the other parts)
Take a HDR (high dynamic range) picture if your camera has the ability. HDR allows you to automatically let the camera take a few different pictures at different exposures and put them together into one image with far greater dynamic range
Recompose your image


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 19, 2013)

I could be wrong, as I am new myself, but what you want isn't really possible without HDR.  The window is bright, and the sarcophagus is dark comparatively.  Take a shot metered for the window, a shot metered for the sarcophagus and a shot metered in between the two then combine the three in photoshop or another program that does HDR photos and you will get what you want.  Also, you really need to find a class or an online tutorial for using photoshop or lightroom.  I think its imperative.

ETA: someone beat me to the punch!


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

Thanks. At least it wasn't me. photoshop totally intimidates me. PS I'm an accountant - not artistic at all!!


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 19, 2013)

LEARN IT!  It can be your best friend if you will just find a class and learn it.  You can often take Elements classes at a local community college.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

OK - next problem - how to shoot a monument.
Please look at these images - how do you shoot this so it shows the grandeur of the piece?
All I got was a snapshot like picture
This was a MAGNIFICENT monument


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 19, 2013)

This is something I struggle with as well.  First off, if possible, shoot at dawn or sunset.  The drama from the lighting will add so much to your photos.  Second, pay attention to the lines and make sure the horizon is level.  The other benefit to dawn or sunset is less people in your shot, more so at dawn.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

wyogirl said:


> This is something I struggle with as well.  First off, if possible, shoot at dawn or sunset.  The drama from the lighting will add so much to your photos.  Second, pay attention to the lines and make sure the horizon is level.  The other benefit to dawn or sunset is less people in your shot, more so at dawn.



But my picture doesn't capture any grandeur. 
If I get closer I cut parts off.


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 19, 2013)

You don't necessarily need to get closer.  I promise that dramatic lighting will help you capture the essence you are looking for.  Sometimes, putting something in the frame to show size reference can help, but not always.  Also, think of standing close and just gazing up... that feeling of "whoa this is big".  You can get that with wide-ish angle really close up.


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 19, 2013)

And when you are in a place you may never see again... don't be afraid to be the guy laying on the ground to get the shot... or the guy up at dawn or the guy in a crazy position.  You don't know anyone there anyway so who cares what you look like if you get the shot.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

wyogirl said:


> And when you are in a place you may never see again... don't be afraid to be the guy laying on the ground to get the shot... or the guy up at dawn or the guy in a crazy position.  You don't know anyone there anyway so who cares what you look like if you get the shot.



A) I don't know what "the shot" is. 
B) I think I was using a wide angle lens


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 19, 2013)

you were using a wide angle lens from far away... I meant use the same lens but get in so close that (yes you will cut some off) you fill the frame with the building.  You may have to lay on the ground to get the top to bottom in the frame.  This is why wide angle is useful.  Now you have a shot that says wow, thats tall and I'm small.  Kinda like this: http://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/files/images005/abstract_architecture.jpg


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 19, 2013)

wyogirl said:


> you were using a wide angle lens from far away... I meant use the same lens but get in so close that (yes you will cut some off) you fill the frame with the building.  You may have to lay on the ground to get the top to bottom in the frame.  This is why wide angle is useful.  Now you have a shot that says wow, thats tall and I'm small.  Kinda like this: http://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/files/images005/abstract_architecture.jpg



See I'd never think of that


----------



## wyogirl (Jul 19, 2013)

The more you shoot and the more you get critique and the more you follow other people's work..... the more creative you will get.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 19, 2013)

Okay so focus, the problem you complained about originally.

The first two photos other than the super dark one are motion blurred.  That's why they aren't in focus.  Really obvious motion blur.  Looking at their EXIF data, you shot both at f/2.8, 41mm, 1/25 of a second, and ISO 200.
1) Does your lens have image stabilization (switch on the side)?  If so, make sure you have it on when photographing still subjects hand held.  if so, 1/25th of a second should have been fast enough, so I'm guessing you don't have it or had it turned off.
2) If it doesn't have IS, then you should as a rule always shoot at at least 1/(your focal length) in speed, or faster.  So at least 1/50th of a second at 41mm.  And lo and behold, your final photo of the tomb was not motion blurred, and was shot at 1/50 of a second!

If it's dark, then you need to up the ISO to get the speed you need to not blur.  ISO 200 is low, you can go much higher on a t4i without terrible graininess.  At least up to 800, and 1600 if truly necessary.  Here, 400 or 800 would probably have been sufficient, by giving you 1/50th or 1/100th of a second.

Also, you can take many photos, and choose the one that is least blurred.  Statistically, if you take 5-10 photos, you can easily gain a stop of speed (i.e. shoot at 1/25th anyway and intentionally play the numbers, knowing you'll get lucky at least once).

You can also underexpose by a stop or even two stops on purpose using exposure compensation, *if you shoot RAW*, and then crank up exposure in post processing, to gain speed and avoid motion blur.  This is similar to pushing film.  You really shoot shoot RAW if you do this on purpose though, and then fix the exposure in the RAW converter, prior to editing it as a jpeg in photoshop or whatever.



On your final photo, the tomb is also blurry, but not from motion. Your focus was too far in front of the tomb. I can see a spot on the floor nearer the camera that is in perfect focus.  Were you focusing manually? If so, you just need more practice.  Were you focusing in auto?  if so, what focusing mode?  Spot focus (a single dot icon on canons) on the center point is generally the best for beginners. Check your manual for how to choose focusing modes. Also, in dark rooms, try to point your focusing dot at some part of the thing you want in focus that has high contrast. So on the tomb, the lettering is the highest contrast part, so you would probably want to put the dot right over some of the lettering to help out the AF system as much as possible.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 20, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Okay so focus, the problem you complained about originally.
> 
> The first two photos other than the super dark one are motion blurred.  That's why they aren't in focus.  Really obvious motion blur.  Looking at their EXIF data, you shot both at f/2.8, 41mm, 1/25 of a second, and ISO 200.
> 1) Does your lens have image stabilization (switch on the side)?  If so, make sure you have it on when photographing still subjects hand held.  if so, 1/25th of a second should have been fast enough, so I'm guessing you don't have it or had it turned off.
> ...



Thanks. Focus is not the issue here. The issue is how to grab the tomb and not lose the colors of the windows.


----------



## MarshallG (Jul 22, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Focus is not the issue here. The issue is how to grab the tomb and not lose the colors of the windows.


There are two ways that you could have photographed Napoleon's tomb: 
1) Take two separate photos and combine them together, or 
2) Set your exposure for the window (by substantially under-exposing) and use a flash to illuminate the tomb

Let me give you a specific example. Please take a moment to walk through the next three photos with me. I took them over the course of about ten minutes. I was at dinner with my wife, and noticed that the sky was turning gold with sunset. With her permission, I grabbed my camera gear out of the car and photographed the sunset from the balcony of the restaurant we were at.

Here is the photograph as taken using the camera's meter. As you can see, it's awful. It's like the pictures you took; it has no "pop." I've taken hundreds of photos like this one:



Click on it and take a look. You see kids running around, a bunch of correctly-exposed weeds growing, a bunch of ugly buildings...  this is a throw-away shot, isn't it?

Next, I underexposed by about three stops (I tried a few different settings). And at -3 stops, the sky is correctly exposed:



Nothing complicated here, right? See how the sky now looks great? And this is what you could have done with the stained glass... just underexpose until the stained glass looks great.

But, as with your Napoleon picture, I wanted the palm tree in the foreground to look better. At first, I pointed my flash at the palm, but it was difficult to hand-hold. So my wife came to help me, and I used my camera's wireless slave feature and manual flash exposure, which I can set from my camera's rear panel. I showed her how to point the flash at the tree and my camera, and I tried 1/4 and 1/2 strength manual flash exposure, along with the exposure I already had for the background. The result is below:



This is not difficult!  However... you cannot do this with a point and shoot camera. You need a camera that can dial down exposure by three stops and which offers control of a flash with tilt and swivel or, ideally, wireless remote slave functionality. I don't think you can get a photo like this the first time you try (I'll be PISSED if you can, let me tell you!)... but it's not terribly hard, either. This took me about fifteen minutes and thirty-five shots... but that's not counting the many times I've gone out without getting a shot like this. 

As you can see, the photo is much better than what I started with, and that's what you should be able to do, too.

As others mentioned, you cannot get great results in the afternoon sun, unless you find a shadowy place to shoot. This can be a big challenge, because you go to an exotic place to photograph a specific thing, and the sun makes it impossible. In situations like these, seek out the shadiest spot you can find, and try to find something interest to photograph there.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 22, 2013)

MarshallG said:


> crotonmark said:
> 
> 
> > Focus is not the issue here. The issue is how to grab the tomb and not lose the colors of the windows.
> ...



thanks so much. 
And my T4i can do this?
of course I don't have the flash.


----------



## MarshallG (Jul 22, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> thanks so much.
> And my T4i can do this?
> of course I don't have the flash.


With the correct Canon Speedlight flash, yes, your camera can do this.

Correction:  YOU can do this.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 22, 2013)

Ha. Well maybe not me.


----------



## MarshallG (Jul 22, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Ha. Well maybe not me.


Why not?  You know how to use exposure compensation, don't you? Do you know how to look at the histogram display?

I like that Napoleon Tomb picture. All you needed to do was cut the exposure way down, so that the window was exposed correctly, and then you point a flash at the casket and fire. 

I've been using the wireless slave feature of my Speedlight flash a lot. Once you figure out how to turn it on, you can then set to to TTL or Manual mode. Ok... it's a lot of learn and remember, but it's not THAT hard, it just takes some practice. 

So in that Napoleon picture, I'd first use Av mode, and I'd underexpose by 2 or 3 stops, until the window looks tasty. Just ignore everything else, except maybe the dapple of sunlight that hits the ground in front of the tomb, because that looks nice.  Once you have that, you might want to switch those settings over to full manual. Make sure that the ISO is also fixed and not set to AutoISO.  Now your exposure of the window will be perfect.

Then, you set your flash on Manual, and dial its output to maybe 1/8 to start. Point it at the casket and fire. Check exposure, and correct the flash output until the casket is exposed properly. In my photo, I used the wireless slave feature (which your camera has as well), and I got my wife to hold and point the flash for me. This lets you put the light and shadow exactly where you want, and you can still control the amount of flash power from the back of the camera. 

The EOS cameras have a Custom Menu feature, and I assign the Flash Control features to that menu, because I like to use them a lot. The only thing you need to understand is that the world is full of lighting that has more range than a camera can capture.

Another thing: Never shoot in JPEG. Buy Adobe Lightroom and a big external drive, and capture everything in RAW. When you shoot JPEG, you're throwing away 80 percent of your photograph.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 22, 2013)

Could I make this work with the flash on the camera?

Can't I use RAW with iPhoto ?


----------



## MarshallG (Jul 22, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Could I make this work with the flash on the camera?
> 
> Can't I use RAW with iPhoto ?


An on-camera flash makes people look like a cop is shining a flashlight straight in their face. There are no shadows and the image has no depth. Professional photographers never shine a light straight into someone's face, except as "fill flash" when shooting outdoors. And, when using fill flash, the external Speedlight is still better, because you can use it at high shutter speeds. The Built-in flash will only go up to 1/250, which limits its effectiveness as a fill flash.

Take a look at my "Before and After" photos. Imagine if the flash was on the camera. It would light up a whole lot of junk -- the weeds, the orange cone, the footpath... it *might* be a good photo, but I doubt it. And it wouldn't have the power to reach the palm tree.

The flash I use is the Canon Speedlight 480 EX II.  That is the cheapest flash you should consider, especially because your camera has a wireless slave feature built-in (which is cool!!!).  With your camera, you can pop up the flash and use it not as a camera flash but as a trigger that will control an off-camera Speedlight. It won't just sync the Speedlight, but you can set its flash output and flash exposure compensation separately from the exposure compensation, all from your camera. As my wife was holding the flash, I was adjusting its output, and she didn't even know it!

You don't have to buy a new flash, because flash isn't the solution to every photography problem. 

Now, as for your second question: RAW and Lightroom. Remember what I said: JPEG throws away about 80% of your image.  That 80% is hidden in shadows. Areas that seem too bright or dark contain LOADS of detail that you can get from a RAW file, but it's already thrown away by the time it's a JPEG. With Lightroom, you can see all your photos as RAW and make non-destructive adjustments to them, before you create the JPEG which you will put on the web or print. Over time, you'll learn how to make contrast and brightness adjustments in Lightroom that bring out all sorts of detail in your photos. 

It's not like you need to learn everything all at once, but in the old days, we used film, and the developer had tons of control over how our final images looked. With digital, the photographer has that control. You just need to shoot in RAW and use Lightroom. It's not difficult software to use, it's mostly a thumbnail-type of program like iPhoto, but it has better image editing, especially for RAQ images. You can get a 30 day free trial from Adobe. A lot of photographers use only Lightroom and never use Photoshop.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 22, 2013)

Is it hard to move from iPhoto to Lightroom ?


----------



## MarshallG (Jul 22, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Is it hard to move from iPhoto to Lightroom ?


I don't think so... As I said, you can start one step at a time, just download the free Lightroom trial, take some RAW shots and point Lightroom to them. Just test the water.

Another thing I started doing to improve my photography is I found a photography club on MeetUp.com.  For me, it's like a constant journey. That photo I showed you of the sunset... you won't believe how many times I tried to do that and it came out wrong. And I still can't light portraits well... it takes trial and error. 

I went on a business trip to Japan two years ago, and spent the weekend in Kyoto. All of my pictures came out bad. I hate them all. Biggest problem was taking them in the mid-afternoon sun.


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 22, 2013)

Maybe I'll try the 30 day demo. 
Im intrigued about everything you said. I don't understand how the flash would work. But I'm intrigued. 
There is stuff about iPhoto I love. The ability to sync between devices, the simplicity. 

It is a quandary. 

Any opinions on my camera?


----------



## MarshallG (Jul 22, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> Any opinions on my camera?


Your camera? It rocks! My opinion? Take more pictures. Take pictures at sunset every day!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 22, 2013)

Ah - if only I didnt have to work!


----------



## crotonmark (Jul 23, 2013)

MarshallG said:


> crotonmark said:
> 
> 
> > Focus is not the issue here. The issue is how to grab the tomb and not lose the colors of the windows.
> ...



MarshallG - one more question
would this work if you just focused on the sky ?
why do you need to under expose?
Did you do this in evaluative metering or spot metering?

thanks


----------



## MarshallG (Jul 23, 2013)

crotonmark said:


> MarshallG - one more question
> would this work if you just focused on the sky ?
> why do you need to under expose?
> Did you do this in evaluative metering or spot metering?


I used to shoot film, and the exposure mattered a lot. Now that I shoot digital, I review the image on the LCD. I first check for the "blinkies," which are the blinking spots warning me of overexposed areas. Then I look at the histogram, and the image itself. In the sunset photo, I look to get the most amount of color out of the sky, and that is the correct exposure. Exposure is important with digital, but it's not important to pre-calculate it the way I used to with film. Now, I can just take a few pictures and look at them.

Once I have the sunset exposed right, I hold onto that exposure and then I set up the flash to light what I want in the foreground. If the flash over-exposes, I can close down the aperture and correspondingly open up the shutter. This will reduce the flash exposure without affecting the ambient exposure of the sunset, because the flash exposure only cares about the aperture; the shutter speed does not effect the flash exposure. The other way to change the flash exposure is to use the camera to adjust flash output; either using Flash Exposure Compensation in TTL flash mode, or by cutting the output in Manual flash mode. For shots like these, Manual flash mode is much better for me.

The metering mode (Evaluative vs Center vs Spot) doesn't matter to me. In my general photography, I use evaluative metering. I tried a few times to use center-weighted metering, but in my tests, I always got the same exposure that I did with evaluative. Maybe I'll try some more. I avoid spot metering because I'm never sure if I hit the right spot.


----------

