Photography tips and tricks...

[Mobuchu]

The hardest part I had understanding is how to get aperature, shutter speed, and ISO to work with each other (and what they are). I'm still new to photography, but after LOTS of reading, here is how I understand it. (Some of you that are more experienced, let me know if any of this is wrong or what to add.)

An exposure (your picture) is a recorded image of a certain amount of light hitting the film (or digital card, since most of us have digital cameras). You control aperature, shutter speed and ISO to determine how much light hits that film in order to get your desired esposure. You can use numerous combinations of these three functions to get the same exposure.

Aperature: The aperature is an opening in your lense that can change sizes to allow different volumes of light to hit the film. These numbers (f/4, f/5.6, etc) are called f-stops. The smaller the number, the larger the opening. The main #'s used are f/4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22. Each time you decrease or increase your aperature between these numbers, you are halving, or doubling the amount of light reaching the film. So going from f/4 to f/5.6 is doubling the light, or adding 1 stop to your exposure. (note: most camera's today go by 1/3 stop increments like f5.6 to f6.3 to f7.1 to f/8, etc.)

Aperature also has a big impact on your DOF (depth of field). DOF is how much of the photograph is in focus. A wide aperature of f/2.8 is going to have a short DOF like a portrait where a persons face is in focus but the background is blurry. An aperature of f/22 is going to give you a very wide DOF allowing everything in your photo (forground to background) to be in focus. (Also affecting DOF is your focal length and distance from your subject)

Shutter speed: Shutter speed is the amount of time the light coming through your lense is allowed to be on the film. example. 1/1000th of a second vs. 1/8th of a second. The same idea of halving and doubling the light hitting the card works for shutter speed, except its just much easier to equate. Going from 1/250 to 1/500 is cutting the amount of light hitting the film in half, aka. goign down 1 stop. Going from 1/4 sec to 1/2 sec is doubling the light, or going up 1 stop. (note again: most cameras today are going to have 1/3 stop increments, so 1/250 to 1/320 to 1/400 to 1/500, etc).

Shutter speed is going to affect how much "action" or "motion" is implied in your image. Shooting a car going by at 1/8 of a sec is going to imply motion. Shooting a surfer on a wave at 1/1000 of a sec is going to "capture" every detail at that moment.

ISO: This is hard for me to explain, but ISO is how "fast" the film or digital card in your camera recieves the light permitted by the aperature and shutter speed. But the same principal still applies here. Using the same exact aperature and shutter speed on ISO 100 as ISO 200 is going to double the light in the exposure. ISO 200 is 1 stop down from ISO 400, and ISO 400 is 1 stop down from ISO 800.

ISO is going to be used for different lighting situations in order to keep from having to use a tripod. The problem is, the higher the ISO, the more "noise" is going to appear on your image. WHy is this? Well, that would take alot more reading, but some of the higher end SLR's can support higher ISO #'s before noise becomes a problem.

So how does all this work together? As I said earlier, there are multiple different combinations of these three functions that will give the same exposure. But you need to decide what you want your image to show/imply/communicate...

(remember those "stops" above)

Lets say your taking a picture of your friend standing in a field. You point your camera at him and your camera's meter tells you that the correct exposure is at f/8, at 1/125th of a sec. on ISO 100. You take the pic and it looks just fine. But you would like to give that "portrait" look where your friend is the centerpiece and everything else in the background is blurry. So you change your aperature to f/4. Now you just increased the aperature by 2 stops (from f8 to f5.6 and f5.6 to f4). But now your meter reading says your overexposed by 2 stops (+2). To correct this you "stop down" your shutter speed 2 stops to get the same exposure as your original image. So from 1/125 you go up to 1/250, and then to 1/500, 2 stops. Now you have the same exposure of your original image but you have made a more interestinng picture.

How about that car whizzing by. You can take a picture of it using f/8, at 1/250th of a sec to freeze the car in the frame. Or, you could adjust the shutter speed by 3 stops to 1/30th of a sec (1/250 to 1/125 to 1/60 to 1/30) and stop down the aperature by 3 to f/22 (f/8 to f/11 to f/16 to f/22) to turn that car into a blur to imply motion in your picture. Again, this would still have the same exposure as your original picture.

I wish someone could have explained this to me a while ago, so hopefully this helps some of you. It may sound confusing at first, but experiment using the M mode and you will quickly learn. Now, where do you take your meter reading? Haha, someone else will have to get into that, but luckily with digital cameras you can quickly review your picture to make the necessary adjustments.

Mo

[dimebag1980]

Was reading about white balance and didn't realize it affected colors, I will return to it now that you mention it. I hear you NcSc74, I am also confused by some of the functions, particularly ones that impact and distort other ones, I will be taking the advice I've given to others in the past and read the f#$@ing manual.

Well, what the White Balance does is change the overall tint of your shot. That's how I describe it anyway. Sometimes you can get a bluish tint, sometimes the shot can appear washed-out even when it's properly exposed, and your shot can even have a yellow tint or a red-orange tint. White Balance was always a pain to me for inside shots, so now I ONLY shoot in RAW and I just adjust the White Balance on the shots that need it with Canon's Digital Photography Professional program or Adobe Lightroom.

[nowensone]

Thanks Mo, from my own distant past training I understand f-stop and aperture (sort of) but the other concepts not so well, was playing with night shots last night and have much more work to do, you definitely take some very good examples of those.

SBC, was trying out the RAW quality settings, but they eat up the memory card extremely quickly, with a 1 gig stick (they were out of the 2 gig ultra's yesterday), I was getting 256 pics on Normal/Large settings, RAW reduces this to like 32 shots. I will try this when I have quick access to my PC but otherwise, what the size memory card do you have?

I went to Wolf this morning and asked them if they had the 4.2 - 12mm Nikon wide angle lens and they seemed nonplussed. Could have sworn I read about it, one person said they didn't think it existed, another said it would cost 6K and that I may have been looking at a European model in which case the dimensions are different. My answer was "aren't millimeters millimeters everywhere?", but they were saying the concept of measurement were different there. What is the lower end of lens sizes? They did show me a Nikon 10mm that was technically a Fisheye lens and was $700, so I walked out empty handed.

[dimebag1980]

SBC, was trying out the RAW quality settings, but they eat up the memory card extremely quickly, with a 1 gig stick (they were out of the 2 gig ultra's yesterday), I was getting 256 pics on Normal/Large settings, RAW reduces this to like 32 shots. I will try this when I have quick access to my PC but otherwise, what the size memory card do you have?

I have two 1GB Compact Flash cards. At RAW full-size, I can get about 110-120 shots on a card depending on my internal settings. I had to buy an extra card recently, since I only switched to RAW-only shooting within the last month or two. Even though I can only capture half the shots I could before, I still much prefer the versatility of this format. I'll never go back to JPEG now. And believe me, I was scared to death about switching to RAW... but I've found out it's actually my best friend!

Edited February 18, 2007 by SBCmetroguy

[cdub]

Do you use photoshop at all for editing? I've read a lot from Pros that say the only reason to shoot RAW is if you ever plan on doing anything to the size of a billboard, which then you're even limited to your megapixels. Their tip is to shoot JPG at the finest level, and if you're concerned about doing larger prints later, save it out in TIFF before you do anything, as it's a 'lossless' format. I only have a 1GB Compact Flash Ultra II and am able to store about 600 on the highest JPG setting. Another reason I stick with JPG when traveling.

JPG works by compressing files and in areas of like colors/ tones, actually throws out some pixels to help make the file size smaller. Continued saving and reworking continually degrades the photo by just a little bit. I never shoot RAW unless I think it's going to be an outstanding shot that I hope to try and do something with down the road (poster size, etc) due to the large space constraints on media (both card and hard drive). Even then, I typically still work JPG and then save out as TIFF as I don't think of it while I'm running around cities. I also typically download all images and before I do anything to them, burn them to CD for storage where I can get them back if needed or if someone needs it in a TIFF format. I'm guessing I have a little more flexibility in that I'm using Photoshop for editing and I'm not familiar with the ability of the programs you're using.

For the shooters with the questions, I primarily shoot aperture priority during the day and shutter priority in low light. Aperture gives more control for artistic type shooting when you want it, blurring the background, and middle of the road apertures (f10, f11, depending on your aperture range) are sometimes considered the sweetspot and are said to give the best tone/ color. I rarely change the ISO, especially when I have a tripod with me, keeping it on the lowest setting (200 ISO for the D70, only drawback of the camera I've found). Increasing the ISO leads to slightly grainier prints the higher you go. It is a help in low light situations where you want to handhold and not rely on a tripod.

Here's a great book that gives a lot of basics, much of which was hit on in above posts on aperture, shutter, Manual, and ISO, but it gives photo examples to go along with what he's talking about. It's worth picking up, several in my office have borrowed it and eventually bought their own to have.

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

Edited February 18, 2007 by cdub

[Neo]

Really learning how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO (film speed) all work together really takes just practicing. All of this will be confusing to most people when reading about it, and for the rest it will seem easy enough except when you try to put it into practice and then it just takes time for you to just "get it." For the most part I shoot in either aperture priority or manual. When I was first learning however I did shoot in shutter priority which was probably not the best place to start if you want to control DOF (depth of field) since it is dynamic in that mode.

I use a combination of Photoshop and Nikon Capture NX (great tool for you Nikon users). I always shoot in compressed raw (note that this doesn't work so well for the cheaper cameras as compressing it takes a very long time in the camera vs uncompressed RAW). I have a 120GB hard drive that is knocking on the door of being full that I use for my images. During a shoot (depending upon what it is) I'll quickly go through 400+ and sometimes even 1000+ shots. If you plan to shoot in RAW and your camera benefits from high speed CF/SD cards then I would suggest you get some if you want a quick refresh. I use SanDisk III 4GB cards at the moment but I have my eye on an 8GB model.

IMO, presets on a DSLR are good only if you want to get point and shoot quality from your camera. You're letting the camera choose everything in that mode, just likea compact digital camera you can get for $100 and IMO the images are typically no better. You purchased your DSLR because of the featureset and power it has so let some of your creativity in and use at least the aperture priority mode. Yes, you'll curse for the first little bit using it but I guarantee you will quickly learn the ins and outs of your camera and in the end will be much more pleased with your results. I wouldn't worry a lot about manual mode if you're just starting out. Aperture priority really does a great job for most purposes but there are special cases when you really need to use manual mode or at the very least exposure compensation.

All cameras try to balance their shot at 18% gray so it will attempt to "see" the closest thing to that shade of gray in the frame. If there isn't anything then your picture will turn out not so good, which happens a lot. In this case you can use an 18% gray card/cloth to white balance from. The camera measures the light from that gray card so that your scene comes out with true colors. There are times when you don't want to white balance something though. Shooting into a sunset, a skyline shot where you may have flourescent and incandescents in the same shot for example. Flourescents can come out green which really adds to the mood of some photos, so there are times when white balancing to the frame just doesn't make sense if you're going for a particular look.

I'll gladly answer any questions regarding Nikons and I might as well tell you what I have in my bag just in case you want to know something I have handles or holds up:

Nikon D2H

Nikon D100

Nikon 50mm f/1.8

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D

Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 IF ED

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 IF ED VR

2x Nikon SB-800 flash

Quantum Battery 1+ (external battery pack)

Sekonic L-358 light meter

Lowepro DryZone 200 backpack (heavy duty waterproof)

I also have several umbrellas, studio equipment, etc. but for our purposes here it doesn't really need mentioning.

I've got a few things in my wish list

[seicer]

I photograph using...

Nikon D70

Nikon N80

Canon AE-1

My lenses include (sadly I don't have more)...

18-70 Nikon DX

28-80 Sigma

70-210 Sigma

And a variety of Canon lenses and telephoto converters

This spring I should be purchasing a new, higher quality lens.

I prefer to do color with my Nikon for the sheer simplicity, and black-and-whites with my film cameras. When I am doing enlargements for others, I typically shoot with color slide film using my Canon AE-1 or my Nikon N80.

[Mobuchu]

What metering mode do you guys use?? I do mostly city scenes, alot of which is at night or dusk. So usually I use spot metering to meter off the sky just above the building, or near the buildings I'm shooting at. This works fine until its truely dark out and the meter will overexpose your images. For regular pictures I've been using Cener weighted metering. Anyone got some tips on a better way to approach this?

[Neo]

What metering mode do you guys use?? I do mostly city scenes, alot of which is at night or dusk. So usually I use spot metering to meter off the sky just above the building, or near the buildings I'm shooting at. This works fine until its truely dark out and the meter will overexpose your images. For regular pictures I've been using Cener weighted metering. Anyone got some tips on a better way to approach this?

I use matrix metering 90% of the time switched between manual and aperture mode. If in aperture I exposure compensate for some particular scenes (bright or dark areas that might fool the in-camera meter). The rest of the time I either spot meter from the camera or use my handheld Sekonic 358 meter. Pattern is the Canon equivalent to Matrix metering and in my experience in talking with other photographers, the Nikon metering system seems to be a little better than Canon's when it comes to guessing what the correct metering should be for a scene. In my own experience Matrix metering is much better than Center weighted for almost all applications. Matrix/pattern metering has come a long way recently while center weighted metering is an old-school way of doing things that really hasn't changed much in decades.

Knowing the scene and your camera is really the only way to overcome certain situations like your experiencing problems with. Let your camera do the metering and then just dial in some exposure compensation to help it along.

[Mobuchu]

My next question: How can I reduce the "glare" coming from streetlights? Is there a filter I can use or a different technique when shooting? I dont mind the star look that comes off of lights but at long exposures they streak accross the pic.

ex. the decorative streetlights in this pic are fine, but the large bright lights that I tried to keep out of the picture send streaks accross the pic. I took this at 8 seconds because I wanted to get the red, yellow, and green all lit up.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Mobuchu

[Neo]

My next question: How can I reduce the "glare" coming from streetlights? Is there a filter I can use or a different technique when shooting? I dont mind the star look that comes off of lights but at long exposures they streak accross the pic.

ex. the decorative streetlights in this pic are fine, but the large bright lights I tried to keep out of the picture send streaks accross the pic.

A lot of this depends on the quality of glass you purchased for the lens and any filter(s) you may be using. Only use one filter at a time for example (it is generally a no no to do this, you may not be doing this but it may be beneficial for others to know). I would stay away from filters you find on the racks of a place such as Wolf Camera for example. These filters are made with cheap glass and produce heavy glare under certain circumstances for example. I typically purchase Hoya or Heliopan but there are some other good brands to stick with as well such as B+W and Nikon. Remember that anything that if it shows up without a filter it will no doubt show up with one, even a great filter cannot fix this. Do you see this happening with all of your lenses or just select ones? What lens(es) exhibit the problem?

On a side note regarding the starburst, this somewhat has to do with the lens quality but is also affected by your selected aperture. The blades in the lens will affect starbursts at smaller apertures (think f/22 for example). The more blades in a lens the more circular light will be in the final product when shooting at smaller apertures. If you want the starburst though, getting a lens with say 5 blades and shooting at a very small aperture will guarantee you the starburst effect, shooting at larger apertures will diminish that.

Aside from those aspects, make sure that there is no movement in the camera or the subject, otherwise the light has time to go in other parts of the frame causing minute blur for instance that can appear to be glare.

[dgreco]

anyone recommend a program for adding HDR to the photos? or a good way to use HDR?

[Neo]

anyone recommend a program for adding HDR to the photos? or a good way to use HDR?

I've never been too keen on HDR photography. I just don't like the surreal images it produces, but this is coming from someone who keeps post processing to a minimum (I do shoot 100% in RAW so it does require some, just that I don't take most blemishes out of skin for instance). Having said that I've heard that Photomatix Pro is held in very high regard in terms of the ability to meld images to create an HDR image.

For the process, just make absolute sure that you shoot enough images to get a good representation when converting them to a single HDR image and use a tripod.

[dgreco]

I've never been too keen on HDR photography. I just don't like the surreal images it produces, but this is coming from someone who keeps post processing to a minimum (I do shoot 100% in RAW so it does require some, just that I don't take most blemishes out of skin for instance). Having said that I've heard that Photomatix Pro is held in very high regard in terms of the ability to meld images to create an HDR image.

For the process, just make absolute sure that you shoot enough images to get a good representation when converting them to a single HDR image and use a tripod.

thanks for the info, I am not sure if I love HDR, I just think adjusting hte photo a little is nice. I have seen some people who just change the photos to much where they look fake.

[Neo]

thanks for the info, I am not sure if I love HDR, I just think adjusting hte photo a little is nice. I have seen some people who just change the photos to much where they look fake.

I have seen HDR done well, but it is rarely seen. Unfortunately it almost always has a fake touch to it. Now if you're just looking for extending the dynamic range of your camera (this is of course what HDR in post processing does) you can pick yourself up a Fuji S5 as that particular camera (and its predecessor) have two photodiodes thus enabling that camera to capture more range than other camera bodies on the market.

[dgreco]

I have seen HDR done well, but it is rarely seen. Unfortunately it almost always has a fake touch to it. Now if you're just looking for extending the dynamic range of your camera (this is of course what HDR in post processing does) you can pick yourself up a Fuji S5 as that particular camera (and its predecessor) have two photodiodes thus enabling that camera to capture more range than other camera bodies on the market.

thanks for the info, I have a Pentax Ist DL, and I may try to take some pictures in RAW and see what I can do, because I am not completely sold on HDR, only a few night photos I have seen look good. Hopefully I don't just waste my time trying this.

[tamias6]

I'm looking to upgrade to a DSLR soon. I've pretty much narrowed my choice of camera to a Canon Rebel XTi or Nikon D40x. So now I'm looking for lenses. I've heard that kit lenses tend to be of inferior quality than just buying the camera body only and then purchasing a lens of choice separately. I shoot allot of urban scenes. But allot portraits, landscapes, and a wide verity of other shots are thrown into the mix. Also I'm working with a tight budget. So to get myself started I'm looking for a good general purpose lens that is not going to cost a fortune . Of course I will acquire more lenses further down the road if or when the need arises.

[Neo]

As a Nikon user I can't say for certain much about Canon equipment. I do however know that EF lenses and L lenses stand apart from one another in terms of quality and weather sealing. L lenses are pro lenses and will obviously cost more than the more budget type.

The advice you heard on staying away from kit lenses is primarily true. Here's what I would do in your situation, especially if you're on a tight budget. Look at lenses you may want to get later down the road from both Canon and Nikon's lineup. Canon has a slew of prime lenses (fixed focal length such as 24mm, 50mm, etc.) and while Nikon does offer a few fixed lengths I honestly don't believe the range is as expanse as Canons. With that said, I think Nikon's lenses (primarily ones with the gold ring that distinguish them as a pro lens) are as good of quality or better than Canon's L lenses, especially for the price.

Once you have figured out which system you're going to go with based on lenses then purchase the body of your choosing and then pick up a 50mm 1.8. Both Nikon and Canon make this lens and both are priced for around $80 from either manufacturer. A great deal of pros use this lens (I also have one, although I replaced it with the 50mm 1.4 and use it for the most part instead of the 1.8 now) as it has superb glass in it (although the casing is plastic) and is extremely cheap. No, it is not a zoom lens but you can capture amazing detail shots, etc. with this for urban photos and it doubles as an excellent portrait lens. When I do my portrait sessions on the weekend my 50mm 1.4 stays on my camera ~80% of the time. I also use this lens as a walk around lens to capture detail shots.

To get wide shots of skylines and whatnot you're going to require a wide or super-wide angle lens. Something in the 20mm and 30mm range. I have a Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 that I use for this type of shooting but that lens is also around $1000. Nikon does make a cheaper 18-55mm lens I believe that can be had for a couple hundred bucks. I haven't used this lens but if you're really on a tight budget you could pick up something like this and it should serve your purpose, especially when comparing shots to a P&S that you currently have.

I would really encourage you to maybe find a used Nikon D70 or D70s as one can likely be had for the same price that you're willing to spend for a body. This will offer you MUCH more camera than the D40x and even the Rebel XTi, primarily in terms of growth with lenses, flashes, etc. I believe that the D40 series doesn't allow DX lenses to be mounted on its body which is what my 17-55mm 2.8 is.

I started out with a Nikon D100 as my first DSLR and a couple of cheap Sigma lenses (another option if you're on a really tight budget is to look at what third party lens manufacturers offer such as Tokina, Sigma, etc. though they will not match the quality of Canon L lenses or pro Nikon lenses except in a couple of circumstances such as the 12-24mm). My whole kit cost me maybe around $1200 or so, but prices have dropped quite a bit since then. I started out with a couple of Sigma zooms, a 28-70mm I believe it was and then a 70-300mm. Both lenses were around $150 each. They did fine for a couple of years but I decided I needed better quality equipment, weather sealing, etc. so I moved up.

[Mobuchu]

I bought a Canon 30D earlier this year as an upgrade to my P&S. Like you I skipped the kit lens, but bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8. While I'm happy I didn't get the kit lens, if I could start over again, I think I would have waited for more money, or gone ahead and spent more right off the bat to get an L lens. If your going to get into this, you will end up spending more money in the long run by buying a cheaper lens now. Like Neo said, you will eventually want to upgrade. But, if your on a tight budget, what can you do? Its just a hobby for me (an expensive one), but from now on, I will wait and spend the extra money for equipment, whether its a tripod, lense, filter, etc.

[NcSc74]

Shot with NIKON D50 at 2008-03-08

Shot with NIKON D50 at 2008-03-08

Shot with NIKON D50 at 2008-03-08

OK guys I have been tweakin my photo game for about 3 years now and for the most part I got the day shots down. I submit these pics sort of to feed them to the sharks to tell me what am I missing. Vegas offers so many great shots and given the numerous places that offer different elevations and vantage points I got to be able to take better night shots. What filter what lens what do I need. I just upgraded my lens to the dx-af-s 55-200. I am not satisfied...help me out please. Also inform me on the best settings for night shots also since my wife bought me a nice tri-pod....

[NcSc74]

You know actually I like the first shot so I will re-post that here in a minute but I still want to redo that pic with whatever advice you guys give me.

[Neo]

OK guys I have been tweakin my photo game for about 3 years now and for the most part I got the day shots down. I submit these pics sort of to feed them to the sharks to tell me what am I missing. Vegas offers so many great shots and given the numerous places that offer different elevations and vantage points I got to be able to take better night shots. What filter what lens what do I need. I just upgraded my lens to the dx-af-s 55-200. I am not satisfied...help me out please. Also inform me on the best settings for night shots also since my wife bought me a nice tri-pod....

There are no specific settings that I can tell you for getting what you want out of it, but by looking at the images you posted it looks like you're not opening the shutter long enough. Expose it over a few seconds and things should begin to look much better. Experiment with the time of day. A great time for night shots is perhaps 30 minutes to an hour after the sun has gone down, or the same amount of time before the sun comes up. At this time of day you may not be able to see hardly any light from the sun (if at all) but when you expose the camera over a few seconds light will show up in a nice gradient.

I would not bother with filters for night shots. One thing about filters that is unrelated but is food advice...a cheap filter will ruin you images. I own five filters and I paid roughly $100 each for them. When I first started my photography hobby I purchased cheap filters, maybe $10-$15 a piece and it was all wasted money considering the horrible affects they had on my images. Polarizers are good for day shots if you want to darken the sky to a deeper blue or clear up water in a lake for example. UV filters can help dampen the affects of smog in cities as another example. For night shots there really isn't any filter you need to help you get a better shot.

Just play with the settings for exposure. Try an aperture of f/18 or even higher to get a better starburst effect from the street lights. Try an exposure of two or three seconds or even longer (you'll need to do it longer especially if you choose a small aperture like f/22). It is digital so you can always delete and try again without worry of any money being wasted.

[Mobuchu]

Agreed with Neo, looks like the shutter wasn't open long enough. What shutter speed did you use for those?

If you have a tripod then you should be fine with long exposures. One tip though, if you dont have a remote shutter release cord, then try using your cameras shutter delay function. Usually 2 or 10 seconds (not sure on Nikon). The smallest vibration, even just pressing the shutter button on your camera can cause blur in your photos, especially if you blow it up. Use the delay function so that the camera and tripod are not being touched at all when the shutter opens. This of course takes reaction out of the equation if you are trying to shoot fireworks or something, but it certainly helps for still skyline shots.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Mobuchu

[Neo]

If you have a tripod then you should be fine with long exposures. One tip though, if you dont have a remote shutter release cord, then try using your cameras shutter delay function. Usually 2 or 10 seconds (not sure on Nikon). The smallest vibration, even just pressing the shutter button on your camera can cause blur in your photos, especially if you blow it up. Use the delay function so that the camera and tripod are not being touched at all when the shutter opens. This of course takes reaction out of the equation if you are trying to shoot fireworks or something, but it certainly helps for still skyline shots.

Even better yet, use that in combination with the 'mirror up' feature if it is available on your camera. Even the movement of the mirror going up and down can cause a slight blur. By putting the mirror in the up position it reduces the vibration by half. It used to be that only pro cameras had this feature, but I beleive it is becoming available on lower end DSLR's as well.

[NcSc74]

Thanks guys for the quick reply. I am going out to a few spots this weekend and try your suggestions. I guess there is still a lot more I need to learn about my camera. I tried reading the manual but it was a little confusing. For the most part I am a hands on type of guy and get quite impatient with instruction manuals and things of that nature. I will have to get remote shutter release though. I am sure that will solve 50% of my problem...the hardest part of that is sneaking the purchase past the comptroller(the wife).