The Big Photography Thread

[Brettymike]

I'm Loving this photography thread , and picking up tricks .

I never realized how important and powerful the processing of the picture afterwards can be .

And the microfiber cloth verses the lens pen.

Thanks for these tips and tricks Chaps! .

 

Brett

[RichieP_MechE]

LensPen!. A clean lens is a happy lens.

 

I've never seen that. Thanks for the tip.

 

This works much better than microfiber cloth, in my opinion. I own two of these. I'm not sure how that happened, but I have two.

 

The microfiber cloth is good for things like fingerprints, but it sucks for dust and other particles. That's where the retractable brush on the LensPen shines. Though sometimes there are some really stubborn pieces that won't brush off the lens, so that's where the Rocket Air Blaster comes in.

[RABid]

Whether it is a camera lens or your glasses, using a microfiber cloth can cause damage if you don't remove grit first. I've also scratched my glasses using those packaged wet wipes made for glasses and lenses.

[linwood]

My wife is a camera bug and she also designs websites. One of her clients is a great photographer and he has some killer photoshop tutorials on his site you guys might enjoy. Check this new one out.

 

http://www.msjphotography.com/index.php/2014/05/photoshop-workbench-422-transforming-2d-photo-3d-motion-graphic/

[xKnuckles]

I am now completely sold on the value of processing. Thank you very much for the before and after pics Mike - I was hoping someone might share something like that at some point, but didn't like to ask. Really fascinating to see but also be told what you actually did. Extremely creative process by the look of it.

 

Do you think that those sort of programmes will be available on iPads at any point in the not too distant future? I would be much more keen to go down that path if I could do so without spending any more time with my computer (an object with which I endure a hate-hate relationship.)

[xKnuckles]

Theo, I am very interested to see that you are using a video camera. Is that in preference to a stills one, or simply because you happen to have one? Do you take still pictures on it or shoot some video and then select one? The results are certainly impressive.

[xKnuckles]

Thanks for the info Richie. It is so interesting to get an insight into people's thoughts about photography as well as the actual mechanics of it.

[Theo Verelst]

It shouldn't make a difference to use a video or photocam, an old Minolta should capture the same light as a Panavision camera!

 

Of course there are some technical differences, and there's the accuracy matter, and in that department, the High Definition video cams (Sony) I've been using since about 2005 score good, except they don't have as many pixels as still cameras. I had one of the first Sony HDCs of consumer grade at the time, which was expensive: about $1500 (1200 euro, I don't know exactly how much that was in dollars) for a cam that would have about 2 mega pixels. I had had a Hewlett Packard digital cam with 5 mega pixels that was a few hundred for years, but the video cam has a bigger and more accurate lens, and a lot of light correction/computations that make the results more accurate in other dimensions than pure pixel count.

 

At the moment I prefer a fairly cheap (300 euro is extremely cheap for such a cam) High Grade Consumer HD cam, which can take 8 megapixel pictures or something, but using the 1080p50 28 megabit per second High Definition h264 files it can produce, I can actually take acceptable digital pictures, from the film recording, which is pretty hard to achieve in general. Also, the film can be used to average frames, sequence different lighting, etc, but unfortunately it doesn't store High Dynamic Range pictures.

 

A good tripod, experience with lighting and composition, knowing all the settings from all the menus and understanding them, and understanding the limitations of computer screens (almost all of them are extremely limited compared to a pro grade HDR image) are all ingredients to make good pictures, which I've done since along time already.

 

As I said, I tend toward film like working, which as it is I can only do with HDV, but I find that rewarding enough in the naturalness department, whereas most digital photocam results look highly artificial to me, even if the results are aesthetic. So in general I only envy the digital photo cams for the HDR aspect, and maybe a few more extreme possibilities such a very wide angle lenses, more filter options of course extreme pixel counts are interesting (but not too well usable on most of them) specifically unusual settings, etc.

 

In the going to a "computer" viewable image, I like to strongly distinguish between the required dynamic range mapping, some attention with mild image-wide modification for contrast an local brightness, a few small adjustments like sharpness (and more advanced filters for that) and pixel rounding on the one side, and most other processing, which is leading away from realism, on the other side.

 

T.

[KenElevenShadows]

I'd like everyone who is curious about processing to look at Mike's before/after photos again. See what he changed. This is very typical of how simple processing can transform a good image into a great one. The white balance, exposure, selective sharpening, and contrast are things that any RAW file can benefit greatly from. It's very simple tweaking, yet you can see how effective it is. It takes it from a nice composition that you might share on Facebook to something that you might see in a magazine with just a few tweaks.

[Joe Muscara]

Do any of you guys ever print your photos? I have and have intended to print more, but like my sharing of photos here, I haven't gotten around to it.

[KenElevenShadows]

Yes, for clients, and unfortunately all too rarely, for myself. Only so much room in the house, you know.

[RABid]

Do any of you guys ever print your photos? I have and have intended to print more, but like my sharing of photos here, I haven't gotten around to it.

 

My driving force to get better is so I can make some prints that I will be proud to hang in my house.

[Tezman]

Do you think that those sort of programmes will be available on iPads at any point in the not too distant future? I would be much more keen to go down that path if I could do so without spending any more time with my computer (an object with which I endure a hate-hate relationship.)

 

Three that I would recommend you look at are Photogene, Snapseed and PS Touch (an iOS version of Photoshop from Adobe). You'll be surprised at how much more you can get out of your iPad photos.

 

P.S. How can you have time for photography when your PX-5S adventures take down so may rabbit holes? :-)

 

[Brettymike]

Welcome to the sacred Photography lounge Tezman .

Just been watching a photographers paradise on the telly about that Avalon House (in Tasmania for the people that don't know) - what a place and a spot for views!!! , beautiful blue seas and wild coast line etc.

Here it is folks > http://www.avalonretreats.com.au/coastal/resources/Avalon03.jpg

 

Brett

[RichieP_MechE]

Do you think that those sort of programmes will be available on iPads at any point in the not too distant future? I would be much more keen to go down that path if I could do so without spending any more time with my computer (an object with which I endure a hate-hate relationship.)

There is an Adobe Lightroom app for iPad which just came out. However, you need to subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud to get it.

 

I would recommend enduring your computer a bit longer and downloading the free trial of Adobe Lightroom. The trial version is not handicapped in any way. Mike and I both use this program, and I absolutely love it. It's a very powerful tool, and the learning curve is way lower than on other programs like Photoshop. There are plenty of tutorial videos out there to get you started as well.

 

Do any of you guys ever print your photos? I have and have intended to print more, but like my sharing of photos here, I haven't gotten around to it.

I do occasionally, but since I like big prints, which are expensive, I don't have many. For a printing service, mpix.com is the best around IMO.

 

[Theo Verelst]

Printing ? I think I was among the first batch, besides researchers and big film companies, to do some photo printing back in the 90s, which is fun, and indeed nowadays it's not overly expensive to get like an A1 printout from some store or internet business, based on a digital format.

 

Just printing a picture should work, years ago I got some HP printer which already let you print directly from memory stick and such, but like presenting a picture on a computer screen, and maybe even more so because it doesn't just cost computer time and processor person work time but also materials, it pays to check out your printer/print-company and work in a certain direction to get the prints you like!

 

I've done computer graphics prints long ago, but that was probably expensive (university) equipment, more recently I used the pretty cheap HP printer with the most or one-but most expensive photopaper, and with proper digital pictures and some careful pre-processing, that can look like 'real" photos, not completely glossy, but a bit.

 

To get an A4 or bigger print (I've some hamging in the house) you need to know what you're doing, and have knowledge about gamma curves, re-sampling filters, and how to get your colors normalized and mapped to the target format (and preferably have a monitor adhering to some standard, like I use a Asus PD278 for a while which is a good example), or it's probably going to waste money. Try out some stuff first before printing big (and more expensive), and if you don't know how to deal with say at least 4k tiffs, don't go for to big, that isn't great: normal small pictures are already hard to print out really nice!

 

T.

[xKnuckles]

Very interesting to hear about your camera, Theo. I also have a reasonable video camera, but as I bought it for a specific purpose, have never even considered using it to take stills. I think I might have a go with it when I get some time.... Certainly feel inspired to do so by seeing your pictures. There are limitations to the iPad which do frustrate me sometimes....

[xKnuckles]

With regard to the subject of processing, I was wondering what order people made their adjustments in and if you think that there is an ideal sequence to use.... ie. Sharpening before colour adjustment or whatever. ....or if it really makes no difference.

[xKnuckles]

Hello Tezman (or should I say..."Sherlock"....You may call me "inspector Clouseau"....) I already have photogene, snapseed, and I have Photoshop express (don't know how this compares to PS touch). The app which I think is the best though, is one called Leonardo - which I truly love using. (if you haven't got it, it is worth checking out).

 

However, up till now I have used them mostly for messing around - making joke photoshopped images etc. With any serious pictures I have taken, I have simply deleted them if felt there was a fault with them, and I have never attempted to enhance them if I was pleased with them. I think I need to change my whole approach towards photography....

 

I had a look at the Lightroom app, Richie, but as far as I could understand it, it seems that the app will only work in conjunction with the desktop version of the programme. I expect it is massively complex and it will be some years before anything equivalent appears on an iPad...

 

[Mike Martin]

The Lightroom desktop application is remarkably easy especially compared to apps like Photogene on the iPad. I find Photogene to be more like a Photoshop type of application.

[KenElevenShadows]

I would recommend enduring your computer a bit longer and downloading the free trial of Adobe Lightroom. The trial version is not handicapped in any way. Mike and I both use this program, and I absolutely love it. It's a very powerful tool, and the learning curve is way lower than on other programs like Photoshop. There are plenty of tutorial videos out there to get you started as well.

 

I found the link: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom

 

It doesn't have a time limit?

[KenElevenShadows]

With regard to the subject of processing, I was wondering what order people made their adjustments in and if you think that there is an ideal sequence to use.... ie. Sharpening before colour adjustment or whatever. ....or if it really makes no difference.

 

I like to do corrective things first such as WB, lens distortion, exposure, etc. first, then contrast, details, refinements, general tweaks or whatever in between, and sharpening last.

[RichieP_MechE]

I found the link: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom

 

It doesn't have a time limit?

It does. 30 days. You have to buy a license once the 30 day

period is up.

 

With regard to the subject of processing, I was wondering what order people made their adjustments in and if you think that there is an ideal sequence to use.... ie. Sharpening before colour adjustment or whatever. ....or if it really makes no difference.

 

I like to do corrective things first such as WB, lens distortion, exposure, etc. first, then contrast, details, refinements, general tweaks or whatever in between, and sharpening last.

 

I pretty much do the same thing.

[xKnuckles]

Lightroom sounds excellent. When I said I expect it is complex, I meant as a computer programme, not in terms of operation. Hopefully I will get to use it one day. In the meantime I will start by learning how best to use the apps I already have to improve my photos.

 

By the way, the Leonardo app - which I mentioned earlier - can be found here:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/leonardo-photo-editor-layer/id656090065?mt=8&uo=4

 

It seems to be little known about, but really is excellent. It has layers, selection, masks, filters & effects etc. Gets all 5 star reviews. Definitely worth a look if you have a few moments.

[xKnuckles]

Thanks Ken & Richie.

[Theo Verelst]

When I started using PhotoShop in the time of Mac OS9 or 9, I had the advantage of a major EE PhD level image processing knowledge basis, and I thought PS made it relatively easy to improve pictures, even for book use. I developed the type and order of processing more or less described above in the previous century based on logic and the actualities of the PS I happened to play with.

 

Probably it would serve some of the semi pros here to include knowledge about gamma, and brightness and color perception, some basic pixel averaging filters (and their main properties), and knowledge about bit accuracy (in most cases, the more the better, easily up to 32 bit per component). Also, resampling as in changing resolution is interesting, when you consider edge smoothness versus realism, and small (zoomed in) scale brightness and color realism, as in that when you make a much smaller web image from your picture, if it has a lot of details, the averages of energy and feel will change, and there are ways to prevent this.

 

Free software like GIMP and probably a lot of pad software (I only checked some free ones on Android) is often stuck with 8 bits per color component layers, which is a serious limitation.

 

Even though it seems the sky is the limit, it still takes skills and knowledge to get a good image processing job done today, especially if you want to take full advantage of those many megapixels and HDR. Even on fast computers (and I mean close to top of the line consumer machines) it isn't that fast to do a color-based selection with scientific algorithms to automatically figure out a sub-part of an image for selection (for those who happen to have played around with it, see a recent NVidia "Cuda" 2-d example!).

 

T

[RichieP_MechE]

Thanks Ken & Richie.

Glad to help!

[Mike Martin]

Garage sale find yesterday. Sears (Rikon) 50mm f/1.4 $10

These old lenses can easily adapt to modern cameras and deliver great results.

 

 

 

http://ppcdn.500px.org/70895287/3b417c0da3c92bef5a075a7b28ddeed0ff91e3d6/4.jpg

End of the Crab Apple Blossoms by Mike Martin on 500px

 

[KenElevenShadows]

Also, resampling as in changing resolution is interesting, when you consider edge smoothness versus realism, and small (zoomed in) scale brightness and color realism, as in that when you make a much smaller web image from your picture, if it has a lot of details, the averages of energy and feel will change, and there are ways to prevent this.

 

I know I would love to hear more about this.

 

The processing portion of photography is probably my weakest link. generally speaking. I know how to do a few things well, and the rest of it? Well, not so much.

[KenElevenShadows]

Some beautiful bokeh on the flower photo, Mike!!! Nice shot, gorgeous colors!