After first shooting with new camera: tons of questions

[aaneiros]

Hi,
I've been testing my new Canon 550D with the EF-S 18-55 lens kit just to see if I was able to get any "visible" shots, no artistic intentions. So far it's been a total disappointment; my wife says photos taken with my old point-and-shoot look much better than these :lmao:

Anyway, the problems (I think) I have are:

.- Faded out colors and too much light (even when camera tells me light is OK):

.- Most photos taken at far away objects are out of focus:

.- Or a combination of any number of the previous:

I think I have a problem understanding the concept of aperture; I never know which aperture I should use in each case. I understand you need a wide aperture for nearby objects and then close it for far away objects, but how do I know how much?

What values would you have used in these photos? (I know it's difficult to say without actually being in the place at the time of the shooting)

Also, maybe I am needing some sort of filter to reduce ambient light (apart from some photography lessons )

I'll be back with some more questions.

Thanks.

P.S I hope you can see the photos; it's my first time including files in my post.

 

[AgentDrex]

Get a UV filter on there, it looks hazy to me, get a circular polarizer to bump those clouds (at a 45 degree angle from the sun)...

I have the lens you're talking about...not hooked up to my camera much since I have other lenses now, it does make for a great reverse-lens-macro lens...

that lens seems to be sharpest at around f16, but that's mine...so yours may be different...just experiment...at f16 and judging from the height and angle of the sun, I would have gone 1/320 or so at the 55mm end of that particular lens...but I am the king of underexposure, so take what I say with a grain of salt...

But just keep shooting and that P&S won't have a chance against your new skills...

Congrats on the new camera...come check out my photos when you can...

BTW: that second photo has tons of potential...good job!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Are you shooting in AUTO, or MANUAL, or Av/Tv?

You don't need no UV Filter! There's already one on your sensor.

 

[mwcfarms]

Digital cameras dont need UV filters I learned on here. CPF all the way.

Lol Bitter beat me too it.

 

[AgentDrex]

Well, Bitter is the expert...I don't know that camera...but I'll keep my UV filter on as a lens protector

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Well, Bitter is the expert...I don't know that camera...but I'll keep my UV filter on as a lens protector

Not an "expert".
A lens hood is adequate protection. I'd rather not have glass that could break and scratch the glass behind it.

 

[AgentDrex]

I hear ya...but if the UV filter breaks for some reason from shock, then the same would most likely damage the lens anyhow...but I do have a hood now, so I'll be using that for sure as well. Thanks for the insight!

 

[aaneiros]

Are you shooting in AUTO, or MANUAL, or Av/Tv?

Sorry, I forgot to mention I was shooting in fully manual mode (M on my Canon); just trying to learn.

Thanks.

 

[mwcfarms]

Just thought I would mention that you look like your shooting in mid day harsh shadows full sun on these?

 

[AgentDrex]

That last one isn't...the other two sure look like it though...

 

[mwcfarms]

Well, Bitter is the expert...I don't know that camera...but I'll keep my UV filter on as a lens protector

Your gonna get KmH started hehe. :lmao:

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Ah, they are a bit over exposed.
Aside from fixing them in post, remember that your light meter is just a guide.
In post you can lower the brightness, increase contrast, and up the saturation.


If you (ever) are using Auto, you can use exposure compensation to overide what the camera thinks.

Underexposure will yield richer colors, but you risk losing detail in dark areas.

 

[aaneiros]

Just thought I would mention that you look like your shooting in mid day harsh shadows full sun on these?

Mmm, I think it was past 4pm; sunset here is about 6pm.

 

[KmH]

I hear ya...but if the UV filter breaks for some reason from shock, then the same would most likely damage the lens anyhow...

That is faulty logic and is mostly not true.

A UV filter is made of very thin glass compared to a lens objective. The UV filter mount is also not very robust.

A UV filter used for 'protection' is more likely to increase the damage to a lens, than to reduce it.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I hear ya...but if the UV filter breaks for some reason from shock, then the same would most likely damage the lens anyhow...

Thats exactly my point.

If you took a full frontal blow with a stick, it could break your UV filter which could scratch your lens, that stick however, might do nothing to the bare lens if there wasn't glass to break in front of it.

I find risks are more from side blows (this is just my observation of my experiences) and the lens hood protects against them.