Here are the pictures I took yesterday in our leaf pile:
October2007_fallleafpile (http://www.hopedreambirth.com/October2007_fallleafpile/)

And these are a bunch from our group pumpkin patch trip:
October2007 (http://www.hopedreambirth.com/October2007/index.html)

I really like this one, its over exposed but I love the way my son's curls show up here:
http://www.hopedreambirth.com/October2007_fallleafpile/images/img_4890.jpg

I'm finding that I love love love my 2.8 lense BUT when I use it in decent lighting outside set to Apeture Priority 2.8 then my pics are really over exposed and I don't notice until I get them onto my computer in the house. This is especially a problem when we are in partial shade so the same setting in the sun is overexposed and those in partial/full shade are too dark- this is almost too much brain power when chasing children and getting them to look at the camera!

New collage in my sigline as well

Sarah

yea...running children...often demand auto settings.

this is one thing i love about my d200...i can set it at my desired f stop and then i have another dial that i can adjust my shutter speed...there is a little meter that tells me which way to turn it...if i'm going to over or underexpose. love it.

do you use the histogram? it'll tell you at a glance if you have overexposed...the LCD is notoriously inaccurate for exposure and focus.

learning to read my histogram was probably one of the most beneficial points i found when learning to go from film to digital photography.

do you use the histogram? it'll tell you at a glance if you have overexposed...the LCD is notoriously inaccurate for exposure and focus.

learning to read my histogram was probably one of the most beneficial points i found when learning to go from film to digital photography.

Yes I have played with my histogram but I forget to look at it- that is a great tip that I will try to remember next time I am outside shooting like this.

Julie- that sounds too cool about your camera. I will try to forget you said that about your camera so I can continue to be in love with mine ;)

BTW I'm not sure how I got my son's curls to show up like that but I love it and wish I could repeat the effect reliably. That is a good representation of the movement and coloring of his hair.

Thanks for looking ladies,
Sarah

Yes I have played with my histogram but I forget to look at it- that is a great tip that I will try to remember next time I am outside shooting like this.

Julie- that sounds too cool about your camera. I will try to forget you said that about your camera so I can continue to be in love with mine ;)

BTW I'm not sure how I got my son's curls to show up like that but I love it and wish I could repeat the effect reliably. That is a good representation of the movement and coloring of his hair.

Thanks for looking ladies,
Sarah

:lol: too funny sarah..i'll keep all my other secrets about my camera to myself....shhhhh

and you can probably set the histogram to show up immediately after you take a shot and you don't have to remember to scroll for it.

oh and i'd say a slight overexposure is better than underexposure.

oh and i'd say a slight overexposure is better than underexposure.

really? i have found if i slightly underexpose i can better fix it in RAW. if i overexpose, the pixels are blown out and the detail isn't there. if i *barely* underexpose the detail is still there and i can just lighten it a tad...if i really underexpose it though i get grain and that's not so great.

maybe that's just my camera...(i realize i'll be on an entirely HUGE learning curve soon...)



another tip about the photo in the OP...looks like the lighting is dappled and partially full sun. i hear what you are saying about the effect on his hair, but the camera exposed for the harsh light and blew out most of the photo...that was bc the light was so harsh in that spot. you can see on their faces...they look like white sections of face right up against much darker sections of face...did that description make sense? that can be avoided by watching where the subjects sit or from what angle you shoot them...

under a tree is great provided the light isn't dappled. dappled light gives areas of harsh/blowable light and shade on top of one another. open shade is light that is even and slightly darker than just outside of that spot...like under a full tree in summer foilage or under an awning (but not at the edge or you get blow outs...a bit further back in the shade.)

if the shade is too dark you can use a reflector or a fill flash (speedlight) bounced off a reflector to lighten their faces in a more gentle way that would give details to his curls and face but not blow out the shot. or...you can raise your ISO slightly. in open shade or slightly heavier shade an iso of 400 will generally do great for you with minimal grain. even 800 should be ok depending on how many MP you have in your camera.


i have no idea if i described this at all well. lmk if i made zero sense and i'll post examples...


oh...if you'd like, post your exif data including ISO and see if we can make suggestions...:hug: (i hope you don't mind...i'll stop if you'd like, just trying to help! i know that lighting is FRUSTRATING...)

really? i have found if i slightly underexpose i can better fix it in RAW. if i overexpose, the pixels are blown out and the detail isn't there. if i *barely* underexpose the detail is still there and i can just lighten it a tad...if i really underexpose it though i get grain and that's not so great.

maybe that's just my camera...(i realize i'll be on an entirely HUGE learning curve soon...)



another tip about the photo in the OP...looks like the lighting is dappled and partially full sun. i hear what you are saying about the effect on his hair, but the camera exposed for the harsh light and blew out most of the photo...that was bc the light was so harsh in that spot. you can see on their faces...they look like white sections of face right up against much darker sections of face...did that description make sense? that can be avoided by watching where the subjects sit or from what angle you shoot them...

under a tree is great provided the light isn't dappled. dappled light gives areas of harsh/blowable light and shade on top of one another. open shade is light that is even and slightly darker than just outside of that spot...like under a full tree in summer foilage or under an awning (but not at the edge or you get blow outs...a bit further back in the shade.)

if the shade is too dark you can use a reflector or a fill flash (speedlight) bounced off a reflector to lighten their faces in a more gentle way that would give details to his curls and face but not blow out the shot. or...you can raise your ISO slightly. in open shade or slightly heavier shade an iso of 400 will generally do great for you with minimal grain. even 800 should be ok depending on how many MP you have in your camera.


i have no idea if i described this at all well. lmk if i made zero sense and i'll post examples...


oh...if you'd like, post your exif data including ISO and see if we can make suggestions...:hug: (i hope you don't mind...i'll stop if you'd like, just trying to help! i know that lighting is FRUSTRATING...)

yea..i guess when i underexpose i REALLY underexpose...so i get grainy images. I just seem to be able to fix the overexposed pictures...especially if i turn them into bw.

Funny how it's different for each person. I'm sure I edit way differently than you since I one, don't know what I'm doing..hahaha...and two...because I usually use lightroom instead of PS.

And i was JUST explaining the dapple light to my husband today...he wanted me to take our family portrait in our backyard and I was insisting that we go to a location I have already picked out. Our backyard is baaaaaad about the dapple light. It's totally fine for a snapshot but portraits no way! haha! he just rolled his eyes and agreed to go tomorrow to my location. hahaha!

oh yes...very underexposed is not so good :joker: hello grain ;)

i purposefully underexpose in most situations by one notch on my meter...the meter in the viewfinder, kwim? i'm tempted to get a sekonic but i think i'll be putting any extra funds we come up with towards the d300 sometime in the next few months. somehow an external meter pales in comparison...:lol:

really? i have found if i slightly underexpose i can better fix it in RAW. if i overexpose, the pixels are blown out and the detail isn't there. if i *barely* underexpose the detail is still there and i can just lighten it a tad...if i really underexpose it though i get grain and that's not so great.

maybe that's just my camera...(i realize i'll be on an entirely HUGE learning curve soon...)



another tip about the photo in the OP...looks like the lighting is dappled and partially full sun. i hear what you are saying about the effect on his hair, but the camera exposed for the harsh light and blew out most of the photo...that was bc the light was so harsh in that spot. you can see on their faces...they look like white sections of face right up against much darker sections of face...did that description make sense? that can be avoided by watching where the subjects sit or from what angle you shoot them...

under a tree is great provided the light isn't dappled. dappled light gives areas of harsh/blowable light and shade on top of one another. open shade is light that is even and slightly darker than just outside of that spot...like under a full tree in summer foilage or under an awning (but not at the edge or you get blow outs...a bit further back in the shade.)

if the shade is too dark you can use a reflector or a fill flash (speedlight) bounced off a reflector to lighten their faces in a more gentle way that would give details to his curls and face but not blow out the shot. or...you can raise your ISO slightly. in open shade or slightly heavier shade an iso of 400 will generally do great for you with minimal grain. even 800 should be ok depending on how many MP you have in your camera.


i have no idea if i described this at all well. lmk if i made zero sense and i'll post examples...


oh...if you'd like, post your exif data including ISO and see if we can make suggestions...:hug: (i hope you don't mind...i'll stop if you'd like, just trying to help! i know that lighting is FRUSTRATING...)


I LOVE the suggestions- thank you for taking the time to make them :) I will grab some of the picture info and post it later when I have more than a second (like now) and would love to hear more of your thoughts. You made great sense in all you said. I can totally tell that first picture is harshly overexposed (big white out areas), hence mentioning that in the first post, but it still ended up as one of my favorites. For some reason I like the light extreme in it- I'd like it more if it was a big less over exposed but I still like it (and its my kids so how could I not really ;) ). I have had issues with full sun and dappled light and yet wanting to use my 2.8 lense with the 2.8 setting and getting overexposure to the point of no return so I want to figure this out. I know I can do some reflecting with reflectors and my speedlight but I have no assistant when shooting and don't have 8 arms- so I"m hoping for setting fixes for the most part (this is what I need to learn more anyhow).

I do agree that slightly underexposed is easier to fix post processing but I do also agree with Julie that slightly overexposed is 'better' in that its what I like to see. I'm finding as I puruse other photographers sites and I look at my work that my style tends to run a bit 'overexposed'- I'm not going for totally overexposed but I lean toward more light than not.

Sarah

i use my 1.8 lens in full sun all the time..it's fine to use your 2.8 lens....just gotta up your shutter speed or lower your iso...you can use it no problem.

what lens is it?

i use my 1.8 lens in full sun all the time..it's fine to use your 2.8 lens....just gotta up your shutter speed or lower your iso...you can use it no problem.

what lens is it?

:agreed: i did this today with my 1.8 in full sun...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/snugglbond/gallery/DSC_0208aPROOF.jpg

ISO 200
5.6
1/30


(i just realized as i typed in my exif that while it was my 1.8 lens, i shot at 5.6...sometimes in full sun you do have to stop down. 2.8 is kind of open for that much light...you'd need a really fast shutter, plus it it harder to get more than one person or even sometimes one part of one person in focus at that ap...)

if i may ask...what makes you want to use the 2.8 at 2.8 in full sun? i suppose it can be done but you'd need an ISO of 100 or 200 and a fast shutter...

i find that my 1.8 works best at a slightly smaller ap in full sun...with a low ISO and then i let the shutter fall where it may (using a tripod.)




full sun can be so tricky too...it's harder to get the kids to keep their eyes open. squinty eyes are more common in full sun than partial shade. i try to skip dappled altogether (was in a covered bridge today and talk about dapple...geez :p )

tracey...do you shoot with a tripod?

i always want to go and watch another photographer in action just to see how someone does things differently than me.

full sun is a pain in the rumpus...

ALWAYS on a tripod. always. i shake. in HS and into college i was pretty steady but over the years i've developed a very slight shake...i also use the timer if the subject will cooperate. i've only got it set on 2sec but that's enough to decrease my hand shake from pressing the shutter.

i need a remote release but everytime i remember, wolf is out of stock and then i forget by the time i get home.




you are more than welcome to shadow me sometime. :) i'm just a drive for you, though. i have a shoot tomorrow at 4 if you wanna come! here in cumming...

this was from a shoot last weekend. you can see me and my tripod in her eyes...a tripod gets me tack sharp :)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/snugglbond/gallery/Reichmanproof11.jpg


this was open shade just about a foot from open sun, at about 4 in the afternoon.

ALWAYS on a tripod. always. i shake. in HS and into college i was pretty steady but over the years i've developed a very slight shake...i also use the timer if the subject will cooperate. i've only got it set on 2sec but that's enough to decrease my hand shake from pressing the shutter.

i need a remote release but everytime i remember, wolf is out of stock and then i forget by the time i get home.




you are more than welcome to shadow me sometime. :) i'm just a drive for you, though. i have a shoot tomorrow at 4 if you wanna come! here in cumming...

i wish i could...how the heck you can use a tripod and photograph children...i'm so intrigued. and with a prime lens at that!

i wish i could...how the heck you can use a tripod and photograph children...i'm so intrigued.

:lol: how can you NOT use a tripod and photograph kids? can't get it sharp (at least i can't) w/o the tripod.

the only time i will not use a tripod is birth photography.




so you have me trailing around toting an open tripod...it's amusing (at least it feels like it to me :lol: ) i just move it around a lot. i shoot with my 50 most often so i do have to move it a lot...and i have to raise it, lower it...it is a lot of work but it works for me :)

if i may ask...what makes you want to use the 2.8 at 2.8 in full sun? i suppose it can be done but you'd need an ISO of 100 or 200 and a fast shutter...

i find that my 1.8 works best at a slightly smaller ap in full sun...with a low ISO and then i let the shutter fall where it may (using a tripod.)


I know very little about shooting in full manual mode. I have the 2.8 whatcha ma' dealy lense that I love because of the short focal point (love that blurred background effect) and I set the camera to AP and let it decide the rest. Due to the sun and viewing my screen with my eyes all adjusted I often can't tell that a picture is overexposed until I am back in the house with the pictures on the computer. Its odd too because in the dappled light setting some pics will be overexposed and others not. My brain doesn't notice the light changes when I'm shooting away as my kids run and jump in leaves. This is completely a 'I need to learn and grow' thing, I know. Basically I WANT the short focal length with the blurred background so that my subject really 'pops' in the picture but I need to learn how to do that in a variety of lighting settings. My goal with using the aperture priority setting was that I could focus on one setting at a time and watch what it does and become familiar with it. I wish on that picture day I had taken that same picture several times in a row but changed the Fstop setting each time.

In other news- I bought a copy of the Understanding Exposure book. I haven't had time to work with it yet but its mine and I can stop collecting late fees through the library :)

Picture stats coming in next post.

that book will help you a TON. esp if you are not so familiar with full manual.


i learned manual a very long time ago and *still* pull that book out now and then to review. i always find something new to me in there. by a long time ago i mean like...17 years ago. i had a short adjustment period when i switched to digital SLR from film SLR but otherwise, it's been all manual.

that book is amazing.

Tripods annoy me when chasing children, but again I'm sure its just something I need to get comfy with through experience.

Anyhow the featured B&W in the original post was taken at/with:

Canon EOS 20D, focal length 55mm, exposure time 1/250, aperture f/2.8, ISO 200, set to aperture priority

Do you need any other info from the picture profile?

Sarah

:lol: how can you NOT use a tripod and photograph kids? can't get it sharp (at least i can't) w/o the tripod.

the only time i will not use a tripod is birth photography.




so you have me trailing around toting an open tripod...it's amusing (at least it feels like it to me :lol: ) i just move it around a lot. i shoot with my 50 most often so i do have to move it a lot...and i have to raise it, lower it...it is a lot of work but it works for me :)

haha...this is cracking me up

50mm...no tripod...

http://growingmoons.smugmug.com/photos/215565267-M.jpg

http://growingmoons.smugmug.com/photos/215567533-M.jpg

http://growingmoons.smugmug.com/photos/215548851-M.jpg

oh but.....in the late day almost dusk light i shot on friday night...i should have had a tripod. i really blurred a lot....

ok i vow to start toting my tripod to sessions....i need to get a taller tripod though...and a step stool.

that's very sharp for handheld if you did that in low light. i'm impressed!

i can't get a good look at his eyes in PS bc the image was reduced to post it, when i tried to open it, that was already at 100% so i can't blow it up farther (pixelates.)

i try to get the eyes (or focal point) tack sharp and personally just can't do it w/o my tripod. it is da.mn annoying. i used to trip on it :lol: but i don't anymore. i did it today with heeled boots next to a river :lol: so you can get used to it. (granted they were chunky heels...i lurve my boots in the fall/winter)

how high does your tripod go? i have one that goes to about 7ft. i never go that high with it...i can crank it higher than that but never have when the legs are fully extended.

i don't use a step stool. too much stuff to carry :joker: that would probably be a good idea though. i've thought about getting another $10 ikea two stepper but it doesn't fold.

Tripods annoy me when chasing children, but again I'm sure its just something I need to get comfy with through experience.

Anyhow the featured B&W in the original post was taken at/with:

Canon EOS 20D, focal length 55mm, exposure time 1/250, aperture f/2.8, ISO 200, set to aperture priority

Do you need any other info from the picture profile?

Sarah


no, that tells a lot. i think your problem was the lighting and ap priority mode. if it was in manual you could have self-corrected some of that but bc the camera was left to decide, it chose incorrectly (meaning it blew out the image.) a fill-flash would have helped (bounced to the side or to a reflector leaned against something...)

lighting...again, dappled. it's important to keep in mind what the light is doing. photography is literally "writing with light" so keep that in mind...i learned in b/w so i'm always seeing things in shades, not color. i mean...i SEE the color of course but i don't think that way. i think about how the light is going to hit my subject and how it's going to end up. if a client wants color images i ask them to tell me pre-session so i can think that way...otherwise i'm thinking in terms of b/w (and most of my imagery ends up that way.)

that dappled light caused the lighting situation to be such that the camera on a program mode couldn't do anything but blow it out...i think the exposure was probably fine otherwise. julie...agree?


i'm not sure there is a way to get a good, solid, well-exposed image in dappled light.

no, that tells a lot. i think your problem was the lighting and ap priority mode. if it was in manual you could have self-corrected some of that but bc the camera was left to decide, it chose incorrectly (meaning it blew out the image.) a fill-flash would have helped (bounced to the side or to a reflector leaned against something...)

lighting...again, dappled. it's important to keep in mind what the light is doing. photography is literally "writing with light" so keep that in mind...i learned in b/w so i'm always seeing things in shades, not color. i mean...i SEE the color of course but i don't think that way. i think about how the light is going to hit my subject and how it's going to end up. if a client wants color images i ask them to tell me pre-session so i can think that way...otherwise i'm thinking in terms of b/w (and most of my imagery ends up that way.)

that dappled light caused the lighting situation to be such that the camera on a program mode couldn't do anything but blow it out...i think the exposure was probably fine otherwise. julie...agree?


i'm not sure there is a way to get a good, solid, well-exposed image in dappled light.

yes...agreed. in dapple light the camera (or you) have to choose one or the other. that's why it's so difficult.

that's very sharp for handheld if you did that in low light. i'm impressed!

i can't get a good look at his eyes in PS bc the image was reduced to post it, when i tried to open it, that was already at 100% so i can't blow it up farther (pixelates.)

i try to get the eyes (or focal point) tack sharp and personally just can't do it w/o my tripod. it is da.mn annoying. i used to trip on it :lol: but i don't anymore. i did it today with heeled boots next to a river :lol: so you can get used to it. (granted they were chunky heels...i lurve my boots in the fall/winter)

no..that wasn't the light on friday night...i'm still editing friday night.

those were on a cloudy day around 11...yk...perfect lighting haha!

oooh i love me some cloudy days for shooting...:heart:

how high does your tripod go? i have one that goes to about 7ft. i never go that high with it...i can crank it higher than that but never have when the legs are fully extended.

i don't use a step stool. too much stuff to carry :joker: that would probably be a good idea though. i've thought about getting another $10 ikea two stepper but it doesn't fold.

i think my tripod goes to 5 ft...i'm taller than my tripod. i also sometimes want to shoot a whole family from above...and need another foot hence wanting to take a step stool.

i'm not sure there is a way to get a good, solid, well-exposed image in dappled light.

Thank you, that helps a lot. I was thinking that due to the stark contrast of the lighting (very harsh on my daughters face and half of my son and then about correct as you go to the right of his face) that it still wouldn't be exactly right with just setting adjustments alone- I could get the starkness gone but then maybe aspects of the whole picture would be 'too dark'. I really needed to pay attention to that lighting in that moment and that spot, bounced lighting with flash and whatnot would have been good and more experience and knowledge of my camera (and manual mode) is going to be a plus anyhow.

I'm really appreciating everyone's comments in this thread- thanks for taking the time. You all are making me want to go out and shoot some more so you can critique :)

So you say the camera 'chose wrong'- what would you have chosen? (just talking settings here, not external elements like reflectors)

Sarah

i think my tripod goes to 5 ft...i'm taller than my tripod. i also sometimes want to shoot a whole family from above...and need another foot hence wanting to take a step stool.

legs fully extended and then the head cranked up, 5 ft? yes...you need a bigger tripod. i think mine is close to 7 with just the legs fully extended...it's a big one. too big IMO but it works :lol:

i want a ball head. i didn't want to spend the money so i got a pan head and the screw is stripped. irksome. i have a spare head plate but am saving that for my new camera...which means my poor wee d50 is a bit loose on the tripod...not like fall off but swingy sometimes if that makes sense.

i think what tracey and i are saying is in general...we'd choose a different location.

so...not too much you could have done imo.

if you were focusing on one child it might work better.

legs fully extended and then the head cranked up, 5 ft? yes...you need a bigger tripod. i think mine is close to 7 with just the legs fully extended...it's a big one. too big IMO but it works :lol:

i want a ball head. i didn't want to spend the money so i got a pan head and the screw is stripped. irksome. i have a spare head plate but am saving that for my new camera...which means my poor wee d50 is a bit loose on the tripod...not like fall off but swingy sometimes if that makes sense.

yea...i have a pan tilt and it's only 5 ft fully cranked out. i do have a $50 gift card to wolf...maybe that's what i should buy myself....and my bday is in 12 days

yea...i have a pan tilt and it's only 5 ft fully cranked out. i do have a $50 gift card to wolf...maybe that's what i should buy myself....and my bday is in 12 days

yep. mine was about $80 at wolf about a year ago. definitely worth it! (now i want to spend twice that, ditch mine and get a ball head manfrotto :joker: it's always something...)

i think what tracey and i are saying is in general...we'd choose a different location.

so...not too much you could have done imo.

if you were focusing on one child it might work better.


yes. a different location. i don't think that with that lighting any camera could have chosen "correctly"...in manual you could have metered for the part of their faces that is blown...but then the other parts would have been too dark, as you said. it's a case of either too light or too dark...perfect example of how dappled lighting is impossible :lol:

i'm not even sure one child would have worked...*maybe*

i do think 2.8 is too wide for 2 kids though. i get wanting the bokeh...but you need enough DOF to get both of them and their faces, bodies in focus...while putting the bg in bokeh. 2.8 is just *slightly* too wide for that...for two kids their outer extremities would be oof.

julie...could you email me again about those cards? i know you tried the other night and it bounced. i fixed that bounce...i'm still dying to know the answer! (sorry, hijack.)

i think what tracey and i are saying is in general...we'd choose a different location.

so...not too much you could have done imo.

if you were focusing on one child it might work better.

Yep- one child was much better, not perfect but better. Here is Hannah, same exact settings, same leaf pile but I'm standing a slightly different position in the yard.

http://www.hopedreambirth.com/October2007_fallleafpile/images/img_4909_smaller.jpg

Yep- one child was much better, not perfect but better. Here is Hannah, same exact settings, same leaf pile but I'm standing a slightly different position in the yard.

http://www.hopedreambirth.com/October2007_fallleafpile/images/img_4909_smaller.jpg

yep...your angle was different so the lighting fell differently as it went into your camera.

her cheek, hat and shoulder are still blown...but not as much as before.

BTW my mom knit that hat :) I need to get that picture printed for her.

Tracey I think when I am the right distance from my subject that the focal length works- I can get the whole of the face in focus and the rest almost gives me a soft focus/halo feel and that can be a good thing. But again with photography 'it all depends' :) You all are making me want to go measure how tall my tripod is :P I think I do pretty well though without the tripod at this point and with the tripod I end up doing goofy things like holding the whole thing up in the air to take a picture (dumb I know, but sometimes in the moment I have been known to be goofy like that- the kid moves, I've got a great angle and a split second.....you get the idea).

yep...your angle was different so the lighting fell differently as it went into your camera.

her cheek, hat and shoulder are still blown...but not as much as before.

true enough.

So since I have both of your undivided attention what else can I ask you about while I procrastinate putting my kids to bed? (I'm west coast and its the weekend so no we are not being complete night owls :))

Sarah

:lol: at the lifting the tripod!


i love threads like this. i really do. it makes me think! i'm in the midst of a BUNCH of sessions right now (really busy since i took several weeks off for surgery and everyone is trying to get the holiday pics in bf we can't get them back from the lab in time.) so since i'm in the middle of a bunch of sessions, i'm shooting almost every day right now (one thing or another) and this is completely where my brain is functioning.

most weeks you may get one response from me :joker: right now, it's all *right there* being used a ton so i can explain things.



you are correct about the DOF...it's all about where you (actually, your camera's sensor) are in relation to the subject. and that bokeh halo can be very nice...

here are the cards i'm offering tracey...what was your question about them?

Holiday Cards - powered by SmugMug (http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3654080)
password: cards

here are the cards i'm offering tracey...what was your question about them?

Holiday Cards - powered by SmugMug (http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3654080)
password: cards

saw those...i *got* the email from you :lol: i just think my email in reply was lost.

i wanted to know where you got the backgrounds...the scrapbooky papers. i design my own cards and the thought of hand-creating those backgrounds in PS is intimidating at best...but i like them.

saw those...i *got* the email from you :lol: i just think my email in reply was lost.

i wanted to know where you got the backgrounds...the scrapbooky papers. i design my own cards and the thought of hand-creating those backgrounds in PS is intimidating at best...but i like them.

i purchased templates...i did not design them myself. i'm a photographer not a graphic designer (that's my theory).

i purchased templates...i did not design them myself. i'm a photographer not a graphic designer (that's my theory).

ugh. darnit! i was hoping you had a great source for the "papers" :lol:

(i minored in visual art in college...i enjoy designing them :) )

ugh. darnit! i was hoping you had a great source for the "papers" :lol:

(i minored in visual art in college...i enjoy designing them :) )

All the digital scrapbooking websites sell 'paper' packs that are digital. Scrapbook.com is one

Sarah

All the digital scrapbooking websites sell 'paper' packs that are digital. Scrapbook.com is one

Sarah

but you need to read the fine print..many won't let you use them for commercial purposes...

but you need to read the fine print..many won't let you use them for commercial purposes...

yep. i was hoping julie had found the mother-load :lol:

the templates are really not all that expensive tracey..i'm sure you'd pay for them in one or two sessions. do you REALLY have time to make them right now?

the templates are really not all that expensive tracey..i'm sure you'd pay for them in one or two sessions. do you REALLY have time to make them right now?

it takes me a ridiculously short amount of time to crank out templates for the return...this is a public board but it's a very good return on my time ;)

(with me coming off of surgery and just cranking back up we don't have any extra until i start getting paid for some of the work i've done...even if i wanted to, buying templates isn't an option this month.)

understand...i'm just pathetically not creative. haha

I've read most of the posts here...haven't been in this forum for a bit. When I use my 50mm 1.8, I cannot use the 1.8 unless I adjust my shutter speed and ISO or it will completely blow out. You can raise your Aperature and still get great DOF. I have found that I get better colors (like very blue sky) when I use a higher Aperature in bright light. I also use the heck out of Adobe for those pics that still get blown out because I can correct just about anything using it. I use noise reduction and sharpen (unmask tool) to add that little bit of extra clarity when needed.

Sarah, I love your pics, so cute. I love fall, it's my favorite season. It's taken me A LOT of playing around with my camera to figure out what works with what lighting or the effect I am going for. But it's so much fun!