Which is what I felt was missing from the first of the set of 3 grad photos.

I liked the last of the three grad images the most by far - and never would have thought to crop it as suggested. (each to their own).

Best,
D.

I agree that Jpeg Fine should be OK in most situations - I mentioned RAW only because it is the best way to shoot at high ISO settings which accomplishes two things - First, if there is inadequate lighting, you can increase the brightness significantly after the photos are processed and secondly, it makes it easy to get rid of the noise that I am guessing would be a problem at high ISO settings with an older camera.

As far a the "challenge' of shooting and then needing to process in RAW, I agree that to people who have not tried it before it may seem a bit daunting - but in truth...especially when it's only for a limited number of shots, it really is not difficult. And as I said already, the DPP software that is current is light years more advanced than the version that was current when the XT was sold - and again..upgrades are free. As far as I'm concerned, the best resource for anyone using Canon cameras is the free (and lifetime) live telephone support. If something seems confusing, they walk you through it at your own pace so that things fall into place. When you buy a Canon camera, this support is part of the price - to not take advantage of it is to not get your money's worth.

Nothing will do more than good light -

,
Very good advice if you are not following the action as described by "mmm".

to go a bit further......since the most likely reason for blurred pictures is motion of the subjects (your sons) - you will want to use as fast a shutter speed as possible.

I use Canon equipment, but I haven't ever used any of the "pre-sets' (like "sports") - although I do mostly sports photography- (my cameras don't have any settings other than M, P, Av and Tv).

Try using the "Tv" mode instead of the "sports" setting - that way you can control the shutter speed - ideally you would want a shutter speed of AT LEAST 1/500th of a second, which should be easy in good light.

Once set to 'Tv' (shutter priority), then use your meter to try and center it by changing your aperture (f-stop) to get a proper exposure.

If you find that you can't get a wide enough aperture, (most zoom lenses are "slower" at the long end) - you can try to raise your ISO setting - don't be afraid to set it higher than what you may think is "normal'...I'm not sure what the ISO range is on your XTi, but I'd guess you can at least go as fast as ISO 1600 - which should not be necessary in good daylight, but might be needed late in the day or if the skies are very overcast.

High ISO settings might make you photos look "noisy", but if you make sure you have the newest version of Canon's Digital Photo Professional (comes with your camera) - there is a noise reduction setting that works well....open your "DPP" program and click on the "help" button and you'll see what version you have - then check on canonusa.com to see what the latest version is for your camera and if need be (which is very likely), just click on "upgrade"...the newer versions of DPP are MUCH better than what ihey were when the XTi was new. (upgrades are free).

Also if you shoot in RAW mode, you will have a LOT more of the data to work with, so if an exposure looks dark, you should be able to brighten it up a good amount using "DPP" with RAW files. When you set your camera to take Jpeg images, you can lose as much as 90% of the original data - with RAW, you have all of it to work with.

If you have trouble using or even just upgrading "DPP"..(or using RAW)...you should call Canon's customer support telephone number and someone will walk you through any problems you have. They are very friendly and extremely helpful....

(Tel # is 1-800-828-4040....the help support is free to Canon owners and has no time limit).

Good luck

Interesting point about tinted windows and their combined effect with a CPL filter - I had never heard that before.

As for product shots indoors and using a CPL to cut glare, I guess that's a valid use but I have always used a light box of some kind for product shots (small stuff) - so glare isn't a problem and light boxes are very easy to make (probably a ton of step by step "how to" instructions can be found with Google).

It's important for people new to using CPL filters to remember that they are ineffective on metallic surfaces, so if you are trying to use a flash (for example) on something that is both metallic and causing glare, it's the lighting technique that has to be modified - and using a flash on a shiny metal object is always going to be a problem without properly getting the light to "cooperate" (up to the photographer to decide how to control the lighting). Using an on-camera flash is always going to be trouble - no less than trying to take a photo with a (on-camera) flash with a mirror behind the subject (a CPL will stop glare, but not direct reflections).

I remember working on a Hertz commercial back when all car bumpers were chrome - and lighting systems were prehistoric compared to today. We had a rough time with glare (seemed like everything was chromed then - windshield frames, window frames, even windshield washer blades) - we probably used so many large format Polaroid prints to test exposure that the cost of the Polaroids was very likely as much as a year's salary for me at the time.

In the end, the entire car was enclosed inside a tent made of sheets. The lighting was soft and outside the "tent" covering the car. The camera was inside the "tent" and a long exposure did the trick - (allowing a low level of very diffused lighting).

That shoot was done on a sound stage rented by the ad agency I worked for - like all large photo studios, there were no windows, so that's not a factor other than in home studios (even home basement studios usually have any windows blacked out).

I was showing my son the effect of a CPL very recently - so I did use one indoors. I took a photo of a framed picture of him with window glare on the glass of the picture - the image was completely invisible without the CPL but with it it was as if there was no glass in the frame at all, so I guess there must be uses for a CPL when shooting indoors if using natural lighting - just not something I ever did or gave thought to. But I can see where trying to do something indoors with light that you cannot control completely would make a CPL useful.

Funny how you can go decades and never come across some issue like this and other people might find it important the first day they pick up a camera - I guess it just goes to show that possibilities are unlimited.

Peace,
D.

Hi..yes..I ALWAYS use a hood. When I shoot indoors if it's just a quick snapshot I'll generally just use a flash on the camera and bounce it off the ceiling (or a wall if there's no window or art framed with glass) - In those cases, a hood might not have any effect, but since I keep the hoods on my lenses anyway (Canon hoods go on reversed for storage and are in the way if not taken off, so might as well put them where I won't forget them)...

If doing more serious indoor work, I generally use three strobes (four if I have the "flash commander" pop-up flash set to fire during exposure)...Either way, having three flashes, I am not likely to get flare from two I usually have set up with light modifiers (like umbrellas or a soft-box), but for a spill light (some people call it a "hair light")...it can be a very bright light without a modifier (or with a "snoot") - and can cause flare since light can hit the lens and even if it does not, it can easily reflect off some surface - unlike studio lights with a built-in 'modeling light", the off-camera strobes I use have a pretty useless modelling mode (on Canon it's activated by pressing he "preview" button) - the lights strobe continuously for a second or two which is a lot longer than the actual flash (usually less than 1/1000th of a second), but not long enough for me to see exactly how and where the light will fall. (also uses a lot of the battery power and the flash guns should be allowed to cool after doing that)..

Using the hoods in those situations might be a waste of time, and I might be trying to rationalize the use of a hood, but either way, it's a habit to have a hood on at all times and it's a good and safe habit. At worst it can't hurt.

The only problem I find with the Canon brand "bayonet mount" hoods (I think the newer Nikon lenses have the same system) is that they won't rotate...which makes them virtually impossible to use with a Polarizing filter. So what I did was buy a very large (86mm) metal screw-in hood with a bunch of step-up rings so I can use the same hood and same 77mm Polarizing filter on almost every lens - A good Polarizing filter is around $200 - step up rings are less than $5 (some are less than $2 - not much to them, so Ebay rings are as good as any I guess), so rather than spend $1200 on 6 filters, I can use one CPL filter on 6 lenses using the largest size filter I need (77mm) and the one large hood. The hood is too deep to use with wide angle lenses, but I can still use the same filter and shade the lens with my hand or a clip-board or just about anything - it's easy to know where the sun is so it's easy enough to shade the lens outdoors - easier still if using a tripod - but works OK even hand-held if need be - (would be tough to hold a camera with one hand and a big heavy lens, but the big heavy lenses are not wide angle, so it's not a problem - at least not one I've had).

Hope this helps. I know it's more than the response asked for, but what can I say? If I said I used a filter indoors without a "why", I don't see what meaning it would have.

Peace,
D.

Like most people I used to think of a UV or Skylight (1A) filter as "protection" for my lenses. But in over 50 years of photography (40 professionally), I no longer use them unless I'm shooting in windy and dusty conditions or in rain or around spraying water. (or on a beach or boat). I have never had or even seen (other than occasional photos on the Internet, where you see everything) a case where a UV filter actually saved a front lens element from damage.

No matter how many "coatings" and how expensive a filter is, any lens is only as good as it's weakest link - and while there are $200 filters that are probably quite optically correct, they still add another element that can contribute to flare and "ghosting".

Also while UV filters had an effect (extremely subtle under normal circumstances at normal elevations), that's only true of film and not digital.

I ALWAYS use a lens hood on every lens ...it offers real protection (a filter never once actually protected a lens for me in all the years I've been using cameras) - Plus a hood serves a real purpose - it prevents flare ...the opposite of what a UV filter is more likely to do.

I do use Polarizing filters (but never indoors) - they are the only filters that can do what cannot be done with software.

Using them indoors would seem (as said) like wearing sunglasses indoors - (unless you were using strobes or high powered studio lights and reflection from non metallic surfaces were a problem indoors - never happened to me so far).

Stacking filters is not a good idea, and especially on zoom lenses that extend and retract when zooming (only a very few of the very best do not) - most are not made to carry more weight than a hood and one filter. Of course higher quality zooms are stronger, and the best zooms don't extend or contract when focused or zoomed (many less expensive prime lenses also may have weak barrels that extend and contract just when focusing. I would not put any more than weight than is absolutely necessary on any lens with a plastic barrel - zoom or prime.

My $.02 ;)

I like the first photo - the second photo is anachronistic - (people sitting on modern bridge chairs that did not exist in the 1860s) -

Deleted the rest since I see you removed photo #2 while I was writing my reply.

Got me again - the new crop on the last pic (previously the #2) helps a lot!! :)