Managing your photos

moo · Mar 29th, 2007, 18:18

Cyberhippie, one thing that struck me in India was how dark the interiors of market stalls and some shops can be. Many digital cameras are not noted for their image quality at high sensitivity (like iso 800-1600) so you might like to think about a fixed focal length lens in the 'normal' range, say 35 or 50mm with a maximum aperture of f2 or even f1.4, depends on what kind of stuff you want to do. 28-300mm is a great range and any wider you are starting to get in 'effect' territory - a 21mm is ideal for exaggerating foreground objects for instance (I'm talking 35 equivalents here, depends on your sensor size). Gertie has 18-55 and 75-300 and 'rarely needs anyting else' lol - I should think not.
RAW is now supported by very few compact cameras, even 10mp ones, and that tells it's own story - I believe even the Canon G7 has been 'dumbed down' in this respect, not a problem.
I could have taken a digital to India but the fridge was full of film that was about to expire - never again. Still, only 12 more rolls to process and a mere 35 to scan, ho hum.

SteamBuff · Mar 29th, 2007, 18:35

I agree, Digital Camera's can suffer from noise at ISO's of 800 or more. (Make sure you camera's noise reduction option is on .. it helps a little.) The only issue you have to watch at maximum aperture settings is the limited "Depth of Field" (Your background will be out of focus - depending upon focal length of your lens)

I tend to use a fill-in flash with a smaller aperture.

Nick-H · Mar 29th, 2007, 18:49

My S2 IS goes to 400mm (35mm equivalent) and I'd love to have longer, usually for those single-birds-in-trees shots.

But without the IS (image stabilisation) I doubt that I could hand-hold at 400mm.

By the way... I need a good tripod. No... I need a reasonably priced tripod! But is it worth it if I buy, like, Vivitar? Is it good enough for bird pics?

SteamBuff · Mar 29th, 2007, 19:07

Nick,

Buy the best you can afford, as long as it looks sturdy it should be OK.

When you go and buy it, take your camera and lens with you and try it out ... you need to make sure that the camera does not move when you press the shutter. (or use remote control/cable)

I sometimes find it better to use less zoom and then crop it in photoshop, and then increase the picture size there.

moo · Mar 29th, 2007, 20:17

If you want to look at any of my black & white stuff (thus far), you can find some on www.photo.net - go to the 'Leica and Rangefinders' forum and at the bottom of the page you will see two 'W/NW' threads, one is 'Pic of the week' the other is 'Stuff'. I use my given name there - John Richard Massey.
Sorry for no link but I'm crap.

Nick-H · Mar 29th, 2007, 20:34

OK, try these two links: here and here

Hopefuly they'll go straight to pages with moo's pics on them.

Nick-H · Mar 29th, 2007, 20:35

Nice pics

How do you do that exagerated perspective thing? (if it isn't your secret...)

Is it the effect of a wide-angle lens?

moo · Mar 29th, 2007, 20:42

Thanks for the links Nick, I'm quite computer illiterate (old-schooler!). The shot of Dharapuram church is with a 21mm, if that's the one you mean, I think all the others are a 35.

moo · Mar 29th, 2007, 20:44

Oh, maybe a couple of 50's.

Nick-H · Mar 29th, 2007, 21:03

It's that item in the foreground seems to loom out at you effect I mean, like, IIRC, a bicycle wheel in one pic.

moo · Mar 29th, 2007, 21:08

Shooting from a low viewpoint with plenty of depth of field.
Er, get on down so to speak . . .

Shaktipalooza · Mar 30th, 2007, 00:10

ISO 800 and above

Some DSLRs are better at this one aspect than others. Canon has a proven track record of being ahead of the competition. With my 5D I can easily shoot at 1600ISO and get great shots. Just had three framed at 13"x19" and they look fantastic.

Here's an enlarged portion. 100% crop would fill your screen.

You can view more 5D samples here: http://mrs-h.smugmug.com/gallery/2539780

I also have some Nikon D200 images here: http://mrs-h.smugmug.com/gallery/1354296

Sample crop from the D200, as you can see the low light performance lags.

One thing about shooting RAW with Canon. The RAW file on a 5D has much more dynamic range than the JPG files created in camera. This translates into better exposures, less blown highlights, much more wiggle room for getting it right.

kristinm · Mar 30th, 2007, 09:09

If you shoot in jpeg and want to do lots of editing that involves opening and closing the file many times AND you're outputting it to a big print - then open it, save it either as a tiff or psd (photoshop) file, work on that file, then when all is finished you can resave it as a jpeg.

To be honest - if you're shooting on a 12 or 16 megapixel camera you have bucketloads of room for loss - I sometimes have to work on images I've already retouched and sent off, and if I'm really lazy and don't want to start over I work on the jpeg - I really cannot notice a difference! Promise - I've blown them right up and looked and looked!

Even what? - 3 years ago this stuff really mattered - when we had the 'latest' 4 megapixel camera and the ads were bigger than the files loss and compression were big big issues - you could see the image degrade. Now - everything has moved so fast & got so big and powerful it really doesn't matter, except, as I say if you're doing posters or really high end advertising. Mind you - there's a guy here who shoots brilliant surf pics in jpeg and prints them right up to poster size and sells them in his gallery and they look amazing! And they are only digital prints -

Things have REALLLY changed!

If I were doing a really heavy retouching/manipulation advertising job involving hundreds of layers and edits and so on - for a magazine ad or a poster - then yes, I would never start with a jpeg, and I'd never end up with one.

Photoshop is so good at making up for loss, and the new cameras are so big now it really is not an issue for anyone but high end advertising or publication photographers. Even shots for magazines have to be submitted in jpeg and they usually require them to be compressed so they can handle them - the reproduction is always fine! (Ours appear in magazines and newspapers every week).

Photoshop is a blast and for the amateur the biggest timewaster ever invented! I have been learning it now for 10 years or more and am still discovering new ways to do things. The only way to learn is to use it - but the Visual Quickstart books are really great and the tutorial that comes with it is great - do one bit of it a day or a week and you'll learn heaps!

But I'm sure there are other packages out there that are less complex.

kristinm · Mar 30th, 2007, 09:21

The 5D is sensational isn't it? To think we nearly bought the really expensive 1D Mk 2, the 5D is excellent and much lighter. You are right about the dynamic range - but then again, it gets back to your intended output... with most prints, and certainly on the web you'd never notice - and there is NO substitute for taking the photo with care in the first place!

I am NOT the photographer so lenses and stuff are not my bag (except to say NO THAT IS TOO EXPENSIVE!!!!) - but as I said earlier we have made a pact to not take 'pro' photos on our trip to India, it must be one of the most photographed places in the world already, and I want us to all enjoy the experience!

What usually happens is that my son and I hang around getting angrier and angrier in the baking sun while the 'pro' dithers around with focal length and lenses and freaking fill in flash and blah blah blah!!!! So we put our feet down and we will be purchasing a Canon Sure shot or something similar!

Just getting back to the other management question for a sec - is the consensus that uploading the photos as opposed to burning to CD is not going to work? Even if I'm uploading to my website rather than a public one like flikr or one of those? Would that make a difference?

Merchant · Mar 30th, 2007, 10:25

Quote:

Just getting back to the other management question for a sec - is the consensus that uploading the photos as opposed to burning to CD is not going to work? Even if I'm uploading to my website rather than a public one like flikr or one of those? Would that make a difference?

Are you asking about displaying the images or freeing up space on your CF cards? If you are worried about storage in the field, I would buy a portable HD with card reader (eg., www.hyperdrive.com) and not fool with uploading or burning in an internet cafe.

Mar 29th, 2007, 18:49	#33
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 27,710	My S2 IS goes to 400mm (35mm equivalent) and I'd love to have longer, usually for those single-birds-in-trees shots. But without the IS (image stabilisation) I doubt that I could hand-hold at 400mm. By the way... I need a good tripod. No... I need a reasonably priced tripod! But is it worth it if I buy, like, Vivitar? Is it good enough for bird pics? __________________ . Just one member of the IndiaMike Mod Team

Mar 30th, 2007, 00:10	#42
Shaktipalooza Maha Guru Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Portland Oregon USA Posts: 896	ISO 800 and above Some DSLRs are better at this one aspect than others. Canon has a proven track record of being ahead of the competition. With my 5D I can easily shoot at 1600ISO and get great shots. Just had three framed at 13"x19" and they look fantastic. Here's an enlarged portion. 100% crop would fill your screen. You can view more 5D samples here: http://mrs-h.smugmug.com/gallery/2539780 I also have some Nikon D200 images here: http://mrs-h.smugmug.com/gallery/1354296 Sample crop from the D200, as you can see the low light performance lags. One thing about shooting RAW with Canon. The RAW file on a 5D has much more dynamic range than the JPG files created in camera. This translates into better exposures, less blown highlights, much more wiggle room for getting it right. __________________ IndiaGroove - Train finder now in beta! Pics from India 2006 Traditional Indian Dance

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best photos	Shark	Chai and Chat	0	Sep 5th, 2006 12:16
photos	marzoryy	Chai and Chat	7	Mar 24th, 2006 23:08
Some Photos	Anoop	Photography	3	Dec 11th, 2005 14:35
My photos	DianeN.	Photography	10	May 3rd, 2004 18:56
Photos	parvati_overdrive	Photography	2	Jan 25th, 2004 06:40

Mar 29th, 2007, 18:18	#31
moo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: original york Posts: 118	Cyberhippie, one thing that struck me in India was how dark the interiors of market stalls and some shops can be. Many digital cameras are not noted for their image quality at high sensitivity (like iso 800-1600) so you might like to think about a fixed focal length lens in the 'normal' range, say 35 or 50mm with a maximum aperture of f2 or even f1.4, depends on what kind of stuff you want to do. 28-300mm is a great range and any wider you are starting to get in 'effect' territory - a 21mm is ideal for exaggerating foreground objects for instance (I'm talking 35 equivalents here, depends on your sensor size). Gertie has 18-55 and 75-300 and 'rarely needs anyting else' lol - I should think not. RAW is now supported by very few compact cameras, even 10mp ones, and that tells it's own story - I believe even the Canon G7 has been 'dumbed down' in this respect, not a problem. I could have taken a digital to India but the fridge was full of film that was about to expire - never again. Still, only 12 more rolls to process and a mere 35 to scan, ho hum.

Mar 29th, 2007, 18:35	#32
SteamBuff Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Essex, Endland Posts: 370	I agree, Digital Camera's can suffer from noise at ISO's of 800 or more. (Make sure you camera's noise reduction option is on .. it helps a little.) The only issue you have to watch at maximum aperture settings is the limited "Depth of Field" (Your background will be out of focus - depending upon focal length of your lens) I tend to use a fill-in flash with a smaller aperture.

Mar 29th, 2007, 19:07	#34
SteamBuff Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Essex, Endland Posts: 370	Nick, Buy the best you can afford, as long as it looks sturdy it should be OK. When you go and buy it, take your camera and lens with you and try it out ... you need to make sure that the camera does not move when you press the shutter. (or use remote control/cable) I sometimes find it better to use less zoom and then crop it in photoshop, and then increase the picture size there.

Mar 29th, 2007, 20:17	#35
moo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: original york Posts: 118	If you want to look at any of my black & white stuff (thus far), you can find some on www.photo.net - go to the 'Leica and Rangefinders' forum and at the bottom of the page you will see two 'W/NW' threads, one is 'Pic of the week' the other is 'Stuff'. I use my given name there - John Richard Massey. Sorry for no link but I'm crap.

Mar 29th, 2007, 20:34	#36
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 27,710	OK, try these two links: here and here Hopefuly they'll go straight to pages with moo's pics on them.

Mar 29th, 2007, 20:35	#37
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 27,710	Nice pics How do you do that exagerated perspective thing? (if it isn't your secret...) Is it the effect of a wide-angle lens?

Mar 29th, 2007, 20:42	#38
moo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: original york Posts: 118	Thanks for the links Nick, I'm quite computer illiterate (old-schooler!). The shot of Dharapuram church is with a 21mm, if that's the one you mean, I think all the others are a 35.

Mar 29th, 2007, 20:44	#39
moo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: original york Posts: 118	Oh, maybe a couple of 50's.

Mar 29th, 2007, 21:03	#40
Nick-H Loud-mouthed, Noisy Bird Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Chennai, India Posts: 27,710	It's that item in the foreground seems to loom out at you effect I mean, like, IIRC, a bicycle wheel in one pic.

Mar 29th, 2007, 21:08	#41
moo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: original york Posts: 118	Shooting from a low viewpoint with plenty of depth of field. Er, get on down so to speak . . .

User Name		Remember Me?
Password

Mar 30th, 2007, 09:09	#43
kristinm Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Beautiful Bondi (not Bundi!) Posts: 1,524	If you shoot in jpeg and want to do lots of editing that involves opening and closing the file many times AND you're outputting it to a big print - then open it, save it either as a tiff or psd (photoshop) file, work on that file, then when all is finished you can resave it as a jpeg. To be honest - if you're shooting on a 12 or 16 megapixel camera you have bucketloads of room for loss - I sometimes have to work on images I've already retouched and sent off, and if I'm really lazy and don't want to start over I work on the jpeg - I really cannot notice a difference! Promise - I've blown them right up and looked and looked! Even what? - 3 years ago this stuff really mattered - when we had the 'latest' 4 megapixel camera and the ads were bigger than the files loss and compression were big big issues - you could see the image degrade. Now - everything has moved so fast & got so big and powerful it really doesn't matter, except, as I say if you're doing posters or really high end advertising. Mind you - there's a guy here who shoots brilliant surf pics in jpeg and prints them right up to poster size and sells them in his gallery and they look amazing! And they are only digital prints - Things have REALLLY changed! If I were doing a really heavy retouching/manipulation advertising job involving hundreds of layers and edits and so on - for a magazine ad or a poster - then yes, I would never start with a jpeg, and I'd never end up with one. Photoshop is so good at making up for loss, and the new cameras are so big now it really is not an issue for anyone but high end advertising or publication photographers. Even shots for magazines have to be submitted in jpeg and they usually require them to be compressed so they can handle them - the reproduction is always fine! (Ours appear in magazines and newspapers every week). Photoshop is a blast and for the amateur the biggest timewaster ever invented! I have been learning it now for 10 years or more and am still discovering new ways to do things. The only way to learn is to use it - but the Visual Quickstart books are really great and the tutorial that comes with it is great - do one bit of it a day or a week and you'll learn heaps! But I'm sure there are other packages out there that are less complex.

Mar 30th, 2007, 09:21	#44
kristinm Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Beautiful Bondi (not Bundi!) Posts: 1,524	The 5D is sensational isn't it? To think we nearly bought the really expensive 1D Mk 2, the 5D is excellent and much lighter. You are right about the dynamic range - but then again, it gets back to your intended output... with most prints, and certainly on the web you'd never notice - and there is NO substitute for taking the photo with care in the first place! I am NOT the photographer so lenses and stuff are not my bag (except to say NO THAT IS TOO EXPENSIVE!!!!) - but as I said earlier we have made a pact to not take 'pro' photos on our trip to India, it must be one of the most photographed places in the world already, and I want us to all enjoy the experience! What usually happens is that my son and I hang around getting angrier and angrier in the baking sun while the 'pro' dithers around with focal length and lenses and freaking fill in flash and blah blah blah!!!! So we put our feet down and we will be purchasing a Canon Sure shot or something similar! Just getting back to the other management question for a sec - is the consensus that uploading the photos as opposed to burning to CD is not going to work? Even if I'm uploading to my website rather than a public one like flikr or one of those? Would that make a difference?