Photography tips, tricks and other things to help make great photos!

Thanks Magic! Yeah, I'd heard about RAW for a few years now and never paid much attention to it. However, I just decided to give it a try and I'm finding that I really like it. I used to just take photos with the camera, upload them to the computer and that was it. But once I discovered the fun of processing the photos, I was hooked!

Yes, I basically increased the shadow detail in Aperture to get the fronts of the buildings to show. I should point out that the RAW file isn't really responsible for this alone, but it makes doing this type of adjustment after the fact much easier.

The other way to do this shot would have been to increase the exposure while I was taking the shot. Having the RAW file just allows you to make more adjustments later.

Oh, and one HUGE benefit of shooting RAW is the ability to adjust white balance after the fact. This has a great impact on the color accuracy of a photo. I'll post a more in-depth look at this with examples when I get a chance.

So, here's another great thing about shooting RAW. You can adjust the white balance in post processing. White balance is what tells the camera what the color white should look like under the lighting conditions the photo is taken in. This in turn affects what other colors look like as well.

The camera will generally do a good job of judging white balance when set to auto white balance. However, it sometimes doesn't do it accurately, typically when light levels are low. If you shoot RAW files, you don't have to worry about it since you can easily adjust it later.

Here's an example. I took this photo while we were walking around the Boardwalk at night. The camera was set to Auto White Balance. As you can see, the lighting and buildings have a yellow look. This is not what I was seeing in reality, but what the camera thought was right.

So, I then adjusted the white balance in Aperture to set it to what I thought was correct. This more accurately represented what the scene looked like in reality.

Well, I don't shoot RAW for everything. Editing does take time and that's the other side of the equation. On our recent trip to WDW, I took over 700 pics. I was posting photos each day and spent probably about 45 mins to 1 hour a day editing. This was downtime anyways as we were cooling off in our room.

Not everyone likes to spend time processing photos but I find it fun and rewarding.

Here's a diagram that shows the different sizes of common sensors in cameras. Small point and shoots typically use the smallest one. Look at the difference between that and full frame and you get an idea why low light performance is much better on the larger cameras. Smart phone sensors are even smaller that the smallest one on this diagram.

Here also is a good article on the topic of sensors:

Camera Sensor Size

Hi Miss Mikki,

I'd say it's a good camera, especially if you can get such a good deal on it. Most cameras are "good cameras" actually. It all depends on what kind of photography you're interested in and how "into" photography you are or want to be.

The SX500 is a super-zoom and it gives you a very large range from wide angle to zooming in on far away subjects (perfect for Animal Kingdom Safaris!)

You'll find that the camera will take very good photos in daylight conditions. However, it does have a rather small sensor. Looking at the chart I posted above, it is just a hair larger than the smallest one on that chart. This means that it's performance in low light conditions won't be one of it's strong points. The flash will help of course, but keep in mind that a flash has a limited useful range. It won't help you take photos in darker conditions where the subject is not near the camera.

That camera does not have the ability to capture RAW photos so, if you are at all interested in RAW, this is not the camera to get.

I'd say it's a good camera if you want the zoom capabilities. The zoom is the camera's biggest feature I'd say. It has the equivalent of a 24mm - 720mm on a full frame camera. That is a HUGE range and all in one lens. To give you an idea of how significant this is, take a look at this photo.

This is a 600mm lens for larger cameras (the larger the sensor, the larger the lenses need to be). The SX500 goes even further than this one (720mm)!

The reason the SX500 can have such a huge zoom range yet remain small is due to the sensor being small too. The lens has to guide light onto a smaller area (the "image circle") than a larger sensor camera. This is why the lenses for large sensor cameras are so big.

So, if you're looking for a decent point and shoot camera with the ability to zoom in on far away subjects, I'd say it's a good camera indeed. A super-zoom is a very convenient camera to own.

I should also add that I used a Canon Poweshot S3IS for years and it was a great camera. In fact I still have it and it still works fine. Can't go wrong with a Powershot really. Again, the zoom is really handy for places like Animal Kingdom.

Interesting... Nikon's must be preferred by police forces. My brother was a detective in the Ident Bureau (forensics) for a few years and used Nikons (D300s and D700 I believe) for crime scene photos. Oh, and they shoot RAW files too as they hold up as evidence in court since they cannot be altered (the RAW file is always an original).

The Canon G series is great btw. Lots of controls and a larger sensor. Nice cameras.

Hmmm... well, to be honest, I don't have a lot of experience taking shots of fireworks. This is one subject I'd like to get more practice with though and what a better place than Disney World?

My understanding is that they are not too difficult as far as light goes since they are usually bright. So, I *think* any decent point and shoot would get the job done. Some other members here like ZapperZ have posted some great fireworks photos.