Let's Talk Photography

You are so good to do this Murray. Thanks for offering to share your vast knowledge. I'll be queueing up with my list very soon, and look forward to others' q&a too.....all soo informative and helpful. I hope you don't mind me starting off with a simple statement, and that is: because you persued the issue of colour of the previews,etc., here, and because Sean has listened and respected our/your needs and found solutions, I'd like to say thank you to Sean here......you are obviously now so much more inspired to contribute at faa because of the improvements Sean instituted at your behest, and so it has all been truly beneficial all round. I'll be along to enquire when I have an intelligent question !! Thanks again.

Thanks, Viv. I'll admit to being more than a little bit selfish by harping on the preview quality issue. I wanted my images to look better, the way I intended them to look. Now Sean has worked his magic and all is well. Thanks again.

Murray here's a question, when you are composing your picture, do you have a formula you follow?

Julie, that's a biggie.

There are many rules about making good photographs. Photographers are often taught about the "Rule of Thirds," and there are those who prefer to shoot during the "Golden Hour" just before sunset.

I (somewhat proudly) don't follow any rules at all; well, at least consciously. When I compose a picture, my concentration is entirely inside the viewfinder. Simply put, I try to find the best combination of shape, form, color, texture, depth, and many other elements. It's 100% intuitive and totally in the moment. At a different time, I'd probably shoot a different picture. We've all looked at old images and found new ways to see them. I frame the image exactly as I see it (although it isn't always my viewfinder's 2X format), then back off or zoom out just slightly. This is important, since it's common to trim an image slightly in post-processing. Sometimes, I'll try an alternate framing or two.

I don't shoot with a digital mindset. When I go shooting with others, they frequently "bang away," taking picture after picture. I grew up with film, where every image was costly, and that's reflected in my shooting style, which others observe as contemplative and impossibly tedious. However, for me, each picture takes as long as it takes. No hurry.

As an example, I traveled through the Southwest for eight days. People I know would have returned with ten thousand pictures. I came back with about 250 different images. More than enough for my needs, as I have what people tell me is an astronomical success rate. I guess that, for me, it's about getting the image as perfect as I can at the time, and further refining it later; rather than just acquiring a lot of fodder for Photoshop. Either that, or maybe I just think slow.

I grew up with film too, and I am so grateful for that now. Taking the time to use the brain before pressing the button definitely produces better results.

Well put, Denise. :-)

What you say Murray is what I remember hearing from an old photography instructor, when you click the picture every thing should be perfect just as it is seen.

So do you understand yourself enough to know what about a subject immediately draws your eye, is it color, texture, angles..your first initial "grab"

Taking such limited pictures, do you ever feel like you missed something?

Second question first. Sometimes, I do. Here's an example:



In this case, this is a smaller crop of a larger image. It was one of those moments when I knew I had something interesting, but wasn't sure exactly what. The thing I wish I saw was another pair of ropes entering another hole at the right, which, with their reflection, would have been an interesting exercise. Here's the original shot:



It's a matter of pre- and post-visualization. I employ both, and this is definitely a case of the latter.

First question now. No. While I'm aware of the sort of subjects I'm drawn to, I never know what will catch my eye, or why. I don't ask myself such questions. I just trust that there's enough 'out there' to keep me interested.

I'm not a believer in the "get it right in the camera" school of photography, though. There are those who refuse to alter the original composition or change anything at all in their images. I think of my captures as canvasses for further work; and many of my images are highly manipulated. However, my goal is to ensure that, no matter how much I fool with an image, it still looks entirely like a photograph.

You know Murray, I do the exact same thing. I only started using a digital camera in the last few years but it was always film for me and that forces you to see EXACTLY what you want in your picture. People have always told me that I have a great eye for a great picture and when I go out to shoot pictures I am always looking for a story or something I can relate to when I im working out the composition of the picture.

I am happy because my DAY job is my Dream Job. I take pictures of babies and I love it. It gives me so much and I have the time to concentrate on painting and working with other mediums.

I think the "film" mentality may be more prevalent than we know, Brigitte. I like your Dream. Nice composition and light.

Nice images Murray, I love the reflection in the water also, that blue really pops.

You have a well trained eye Murray, I know when I'm directed at something its normally color that I'm drawn too. I'm trying to broaden my view a little more these days seeing textures and shadows.

When I was in school we were shooting Velvia and Kodachrome, So it was essential to get your shot perfect in the camera,, now we have photo shop.. and the likes,, I like it that you think of each image as a canvas,, great concept.

Murray, I had started a contribution to this thread, but you posted again while I was typing, and most of what I was going to say is now redundant!

I agree absolutely with your last paragraph, "I'm not a believer in the "get it right in the camera" school of photography, though. There are those who refuse to alter the original composition or change anything at all in their images. I think of my captures as canvasses for further work; and many of my images are highly manipulated. However, my goal is to ensure that, no matter how much I fool with an image, it still looks entirely like a photograph."

I don't understand why some photographers feel they would lose some integrity by making changes to an original image as captured by the camera. We don't insist that a landscape painter should reproduce everything on canvas as it is in real life, in fact we expect to see the artist's interpretation of the scene, so why should it be different for photographers?

Sorry about that, Jane.

It comes from days when photography was just beginning to be taken seriously as an art form. A lot of value was placed on the integrity of the original capture. In fact, photographers often presented their images with the unfinished edges of the frame showing, even if it meant modifying their enlarger (the printing component of the day) to ensure that the edge was visible.

I suppose it was a valid argument at the time, but don't agree with it for today; although it still has its adherents. In fact, only last year, I heard the current chair of my alma mater's photography department spout the "get it right in the camera" maxim when she was judging a competition. But, I believe that with all the tools that we have available, cropping should certainly be one of them.

Competitions are a separate issues though, and if the judges are looking for complete authenticity then we have to abide by the rules. I tend to do quite a lot of cloning - sometimes major reorganisation of the elements in an image, as well as the usual removal of telegraph wires etc. They way I see it, it's my picture and since I'm not trying to be a journalist, I can change anything I want to.

Obviously, I agree with you, Jane. In this case, it wasn't a rule, just her opinion. Your way of doing things is at least as valid.

To change the subject slightly - and I hope this isn't too far off topic - could I ask for advice on this photo?



It was one I took about 6 years ago with my first little 2 MP digital camera, and I played around with it in the early days when I was still new-fangled with Photoshop filters. I can't remember now exactly what I did to it to get it to this stage, except that I've obviously enlarged it at some point and used a watercolor effect. I'm not really happy with it - it looks ok at a low resolution, but at the 100% view it sort of screams "photoshop". Is there any way of sort of toning down the effects a bit, without going back to the original (if I can even find it)?

Great thread Murray as I am always trying to improve as a photographer. I have done HDR for a few years now and have tried to just increase the dynamic range of the camera's limitations. Hopefully I'll get better as there was a time years ago I used to bang off shots like there was no tomorrow. Now if theres nothing my limited eye can see, I move on! Will be following this post closely as I'm quite sure you will have good advise!

Yeah, Jane, watercolor effect for sure. I wouldn't have done that because I don't think it adds anything. I really don't know what you could have done with it except, perhaps make the sky a bit more dramatic and clone something into or darken those blown-out foreground areas. Not so crazy about that square format, either; but the road into the mountain is a nice touch and helps a bit. I get a feeling that the shot is leaning a bit rightward, but I don't think it really is. Overall, it's an okay documentary shot which may never have been destined to be much more than that. A crop from the top seems to work a bit, too, balance-wise.

Hi Stephen. I took a look at your work and, while I think your use of HDR has gone over the top a bit on a few of the pictures, making the images a bit 'posterish' (for want of a better term, perhaps too-colorful would be better), they're still attractive images to my eye. I'm not a fan of HDR used to create effects, especially 'grunge,' and tend to reserve its use for the reason it was created in the first place, which is to subtly increase the dynamic range. From your first page, I particularly like



and

For me, at least, who was raised on medium format cameras and film, digital is certainly much more rewarding. There are, however, certain self imposed rules that I follow.
First of all, I do not crop my images. For me, cropping is a cop out and would make me a lazy photographer. I try and take the necessary time to work an image into something that I have pre-visualized before I click the shutter. This is strictly the way I photograph and I do not judge others.
Secondly, I shoot digital the same economical way I shot 120 film with my Rolleiflex. Every shot must matter and this is difficult with digital cameras and power drives where frames are free! The more frames I shoot, the more frames I have to edit. As I only shoot Raw, it would be a long, boring process!
,
As someone who was allergic to darkroom chemistry, the digital age has allowed me to be a complete photographer by allowing me to get the image I saw onto a sheet of photographic paper.

All the best.

Thanks for looking Murray, some of the pictures of Vegas are renditions of the fairy tale quality this town exudes as the resorts wanted more color. HDR has a habit of squashing the midtones which is 90 percent of any image, I believe, and has to be brought back in post through contrast filters, levels and curves and so forth. Still refining all the time, thanks for the advice!

I shoot film ( still). I learned 50 years ago with B&W film, which really teaches one to SEE ( the light and dark).

the most important thing for photogapers to learn is to shoot what you LOVE ( react to ), in my case: wilderness.

I also started to playing with HDR recently and my observations are - not all subjects are really good for it. I sort of have fun with its painterly effect but then I use a lot of extra layering after in photoshop to significantly tone it down.

Thanks for your advice, Murray, although I'm afraid I agree with you - it just didn't work out. I think I'll just write that one off to experience and move on!

Since we are on the topic of photography I have a couple of questions to keep this thread going. What is your favorite focus or subject to photograph? This answer will most likely answer my second question.

Let's see, I have shot photojournalistic photos and posed portrait photos, of course these subjects included people, pets or like birds or fish. I have shot skyscrapes, landskapes, skyscapes, seascapes, I have shot pictures of still life and outdoors like nature, flowers and trees. Ok I have taken picutres of just about everything and anything. I live here is Corpus Christi, Texas. A somewhat small city that has it's perks and quirks. I had a friend one time jokingly say, "Brigitte, what HAVEN'T you photographed?" and I was at a show about a month ago and it was funny to me but a patron was looking at my work on the wall and asked me where I traveled for the pics. Everything I shoot is done locally. So that was cool.

Having said all that, I don't even know what is my favorite 'subject' to photograph. I do like Macro work and have had fun creating abstract image using my macro lens.


Ok here is my NEXT question. when I took a photography class in college, we had these assignments to shoot in certain ways. Movement, Repetition, Diagnols, Dominant detail and I think the last one was Light/Shadow? Can't remember. Anyway each of these ways of shooting requires something different. I have to say I love repetition and Diagnols (Am I spelling this right?) oh well, so there it is my 2 questions. Let's hear it! What are your favorites and why?

oops forgot to share a couple of my favorites:

Repetition





Diagnal (Corrected spelling)

Hi Murray, nice idea for a thread. Another graduate of the "good old days" here ;) Mamiya RB67 and fujichrome Velvia. You didn't get second chances with that stuff. It's nice nowadays to have the freedom to multiple expose as much as you like to get the exposure spot-on instead of taking all those incident light readings with a handheld Weston Master..LOL.

Anyway, back to what the thread is all about.

What's your opinion on when to convert to black and white or toned? I often see that people seem to convert images that in my own humble opinion aren't that suitable. Maybe it's sometimes being used to cover up a few sins or make a plain image more arty.
It happens in different ways for me. Sometimes I see black and white in the viewfinder. What I see through the viewfinder just screams "MONO" even before I press the release. Others just shout at me from the screen in photoshop and when I convert I usually find that the instinct was right. It seems to be mainly cooler toned images for me. I'm not saying this is right, it's just the way it seems to happen for me ;)

Do you have any "rules" Murray or is it instinctive for you?
.

You have covered quite a lot here already and it is early in the discussion.

HDR, unfortunately, has been grossly over-used. When it is used for something beyond what it was intended - increasing the dynamic range - it becomes what I call an artsy tool that has the ability to take an image a number of directions and not all good.

The filters in PS and other software tend to do the same. Most users new to PS seldom consider using filters for parts of an image rather then the entire image and often that is all that is needed.

An other mistake someone new to the software makes is being to heavy handed. Sometimes it is best to start a brush at 18 or 22% Rather then coming on like gang buster at 80 or 100%.

Often the Curve with some Dodging and Burning can bring about the proper emphasis in a photo without even looking at the Filter Tab. Working with a second layer - an adustment layer is common practice for me. It is an easy way to introduce selective color and light adjustments.

My questions for you, Murray:

When you are shooting, do you crop, in camera or PS, for certain proportions? 1:2 or 1:3? Do you often allow the image to determine the finished demensions?

Hi Murray,

I just wanted to drop in to say: I like your honesty and directness as to how to handle this thread. So far it has been very educational and I thank you and others for your time and education!

"An other mistake someone new to the software makes is being to heavy handed. Sometimes it is best to start a brush at 18 or 22% Rather then coming on like gang buster at 80 or 100%. "

Kathleen, I'd go even further than that if I'm honest. I rarely use a brush, especially dodge and burn at greater than 3 to 5%. 50 to 100% when cloning or erasing but very small numbers for most others here.
I know your original question is directed to Murray but own opinion on the cropping issue is that the subject is the important thing. I have never cropped to a certain size, I always crop to suit the composition of the image, but that's just me :)

EDIT - I lied when I said I never crop to a given size. When I have to produce a "set" of prints then I have to crop to suit the required print size. That's the only time though :)

Meirion, very true on the 3-5%. I was being overly generous :)

Edit: I do crop to size when needed. I do believe that there are certain ratios that we are more comfortable with and subconsciously shot to - not for.

Okay, catch up time . . .

Chester, allow me to slightly disagree with you. I understand that you like to preserve the original format. The problem is, not all photographs, in my opinion, are meant to be square, or 2x3, or 4x5. There are those subjects and treatments that just cry out for something else. Then, what do you do?


Brigitte, your question is both easy and difficult. Based purely on numbers, my favorites appear to be details, buildings and their elements, people and nature. On the other hand, I'm least comfortable shooting people (unless they're close friends or paid models). In truth, I'll point my camera at virtually anything I find interesting. One thing I won't shoot, under any circumstances, however, is social functions. By the way, you seem to have an attraction to patterns.

As for the "assignment" types you mentioned, again, I'm multidextrous. But, I really should force myself to shoot more movement, which I almost never do, anymore. I need to reawaken that part of my visual psyche.


Meirion, I still use a handheld light meter, sometimes. As for B&W/monochrome conversions, I seldom do them. Too often, I've heard people on photo forums suggest 'saving' an image through conversion. It makes me want to gag. Black and white demands its own imagery, often its own subjects, and other monochromatic treatments need to be done very skillfully in order to work well. Remember, without the color element, all you have left is tonality, and either the photographer or the image needs to excel in that area. Simply deleting the color information seldom works. In the case of the image you posted, it (mono) works very well, helping to impart a timeless quality.


Kathleen, for what it's worth, I start my brushes and effects at about 6%, seldom higher then 10%. I tend to build up toward the effect I'm after. Truth is, I don't use any of the 'artistic' effects available in photoshop, and the tools I do use are usually those that are variants of what I used to be able to do in the darkroom. But the tool isn't what the game is about. I figure out where I want the image to go, then use whatever will get me there. I seldom experiment. It's all about achieving each image's visual paradigm.

As I told Chester, by cropping is totally subject-driven.


Regarding HDR, I'll do a complete rant on that subject at a later time.

I just started reading and am hooked. Thank you Murray for taking the time to explain and educate.

"Too often, I've heard people on photo forums suggest 'saving' an image through conversion. It makes me want to gag".

I think that's usually called "the blind leading the blind" Murray..........LOL.

Thanks for noticing that. I do like patterns and never realized it until you mentioned it. These questions can go for anyone who wants to share their opinion as well. It got me thinking so I started a contest on repetition just recently.

Murray and anyone else, isn't it funny that two photographers can go to the exact same location, say a park or an intersection and if they were assigned to shoot 24 images of whatever they wanted or found interesting that these two photographers would most definitely come back with a set of images totally different from each other. That is what I love about photography. When I take a picture, I can show you (anyone) WHAT i SEE when I look through that viewfinder. What are your thoughts?

I'm just lurking about on this and find the discussion and subject great. Thanks for opening it up Murray.

Not really good at asking questions, but I find the subjects of cropping and HDR interesting . If there is anything that I have learned about photographing (and so many things in todays world) it is that technology changes many of the rules. I see HDR being used in everything and the fascination with it has faded for me. Capturing your exact image the first time is what I would consider to be a great goal... and taking numerous shots to sit and sift through is a bit frustrating.

I'll go back to lurking... and glean as much as possible from Murray... and everyone else. There are some great photographers on FAA.

Never considering myself as a photographer, ( I will never have any of the images that I might post on this site, offered for sale) allow me to post these observations and question.

First,
RE: Photography..... As with all visual disciplines the Eye is important. And as with all artists, the result reflects the artist's eye and a reality through his eyes.

Every tool, available, from originally Film to F stop, to Filters, to Digital programs, that are chosen, reveals that photographer's eye.

And there's no difference between selecting a particular image and cropping that image....Both are entirely justified.

Now a question:
What are the different disciplines required for producing an image of static scene as that for an image of a moving scene ?

Brigitte, I'd guess that would hold true for any of the visual arts really. If you sat 2 painters down in a park they'd probably produce very different visions of the scene before them also.
I always remember taking a trip to a local seaside resort with a group of photographers. It was amazing to watch some of them scuttling around machine-gunning anything and everything in sight whilst others stood and actually looked before they pressed buttons! When we compared results in a gallery a few days later I was asked by several of the attendees if I'd actually taken the pics in the same place as they'd been..............LOL. This is not saying that mine were better but they were very, very different ;) It's all about vision in my opinion.

"Now a question:
What are the different disciplines required for producing an image of static scene as that for an image of a moving scene ?"

Roger, moving scene as in a windy landscape or waves crashing on a beach way or a fully moving object like a train?

Meirion,

I'm interested in the difference in the thought process when the photographer has time and when a decision has to be immediate

I (an amateur)can't get better than a grainey picture using 600mm of even a stationary object. I look at faa artit's work and that of pro-photographers and their works are crystal clear of even the action shots. I use a Nikon D-90 with a 300 mm lenns, a Phoenix doubler and a Uv filter at the end. I use a tripod and set the settings to vubration and manual.

I've visited pro shops and they say teach me nothiing.

How(what settings and adjustments)do you photographers best do super clear telephoto shots of say an eagle flying?

Greetings to everyone. How nice that this thread has been established.
As stated in my bio I am a long term film photographer or as some would
say a traditionalist. Black and white is my favorite. Digital is a new
thing for me and I am still learning. My b and w work is control based ie
spot meter, pre visualized, developed and printed with set times and so forth,
a Zone System practitioner. Digital has been a challenge as I work to
understand the exposure routine and get more familiar with the camera controls
and the final image. Also the computer programs for adjusting the final image
is still a bit cumbersome for me.
My listings here are a montage of my digital efforts and I hope
that I can learn from others including reading this thread. Any constructive comments
will be appreciated.

Ah gotcha ;)

For me, when there's time to sit and enjoy then it's a thorough set-up with tripod. I use Pentax cameras and they are unusual in that they have "sensitivity priority" as one of the auto settings. I have 100iso set as default. I will then select aperature to suit the subject and don't really care too much about shutterspeed 'cos I'm secure on the tripod. Very careful composing of the image and of course great attention to focus and focus point. Take some metering readings and fire off a shot using mirror lock-up mode with remote release. Now check the preview for exposure and if necessary repeat the process with a suitable EV + or - setting. At this point it's a mistake to pick up the gear and walk away. Always do a slow 360degree turn to check that the light isn't making some other direction worthy of a shot or two.
When there's no time to mess about I'll shoot handheld but try to brace against something (fencepost, wall, rock, grassy mound, the wife). I'll also let the composition in-camera be a bit looser to allow myself crop potential if necessary. It's also a good thing to quickly switch shooting mode to "continuous" and allow a machinegun approach. Quick, rapid fire will give me a greater chance of getting focus spot-on. I'll only take this approach if it's a must have shot that I'll miss if I take more than 5 or 6 secs to get it done ;)
Hope that's what you are getting at Roger.

I have a few questions.

Once i have done shooting and downloading..i loook through my photos to find my point of view and adjust the pictures i favor....my issue is this when i am done i send the picture out to be developed and sometimes on a few pictures the yellows come back as neon looking.they glow..i would like to ensure this doesnt happen but to my naked eye most of the yellow appears white so i cant tell until they are proofed by printing.
how can i get around this and any suggestions to avoiding neon like color in my images.

Second thing is alot of people ask me what is it...lol....this happens a fair amount.
This one i dont mind as much but i feel i loose people by not being able to tell what my subject matter is.
To be fair i must admit i like my pictures to have a comic book feel in a way.
Any suggestions to make my pictures more recognizable to the average person without having to shoot straight on.

I am a natural light photographer at present.

Roger, that is a great question. I have been shooting pictures since I was a teenager. I fell in love with it in high school. So I always had a camera but back then and for many years after I considered myself and my photography a hobby more than anything. I had other dreams so to speak, but when I finally made the decision to take it seriously, I just started shooting and I think it is a mindset. I still remember distinctly when I started shooting with a purpose my eyes completely opened up to everything around me much more so than ever in my life. Have you seen that hand gesture that artist's do creating a box frame with their hands to see inside that frame? I think that was what was happening to me. When your eyes are looking for a shot you are ready and instinctly ready to shoot at a moment's notice. That is just my experience. I have a few shots that luckily I had my camera with me at the time and I reacted and took a shot of something I saw that had meaning for me.

Meirion,

I'm wondering, if there's photographers, out there, that have a proclivity for one form or the other?...If so, why?

Merrion - Unless I have misunderstood your question, Static shots such as Landscapes, require a control of depth of field (DOF) and composition, whereas 'movement' i.e sport shots, either sportsmen or cars etc, use a different method called 'panning'. DOF becomes secondary in this type because the concentration is on the moving subject. To 'Pan' a shot like that e.g a racing car, the photographer moves in an 'arc' following the car as it approaches, takes the shot when it's passing (as an example) but follows through in the movement after the shot. It's a continuous movement from start right through to finish. Shutter speed is of primary importance with a wide aperture (f/stop). The result should be, a sharp car with a blurred background giving the feeling of speed - but, it takes a lot of practice to get it perfect and it's fun. Cars coming towards you or moving away from you don't require 'panning' - it's only those moving past you.

Some more responses:

Right again, Brigitte. Actually, sending several classmates to the same site and seeing what they come back with is a pretty common Photo 101 assignment. Nobody sees or chooses the same. We all have a different idea of what's important and what we want the world to see.


Roger, everything you say is true, regardless of medium. Capturing and interpreting the world is what being an artist is about.

As for static vs. motion, it's usually a matter of shutter speed. The thought process would involve how to best illustrate your idea of the scene. We've all seen silky moving water or blurred action. Those are the 'easy' ways, simple camera settings. Freezing action is a no-brainer. The real trick would be to suggest motion without actually showing it. Athletes frozen in motion come to mind, and I'm sure there are others that are far more subtle. It's about artistic interpretation. Some of us are better at it than others, and with different subjects. I'm sure that painters have their own devices.

It's all about the visual cues. Here's a case in point:



The gull is obviously moving, and quickly at that; but it's also still. Do you see it as still or in motion? Can you 'feel' the air rushing over its head and wings? Much of what we create is so subject to interpretation.

Another gull, more still than moving. But, does it have the same or different motion properties as the other?:




More later . . .

This is a great thread! Thanks Murray! I am enjoying this.

Mac, it wasn't actually my question. My question was just asking for confirmation from Roger on his question ;) Good answer though :)

Dean, nuclear neon yellows!!!!! Have you tried using a different printer?

I could be a million miles away here and hopefully Murray will have more knowledge but do you shoot and process in sRGB, RGB or ProPhoto? If you're working in RGB or prophoto it is feasible that you could be overprocessing but not able to actually see the madness because your screen is sRGB and a smaller colour gamut. This alien colour only being exposed in the printing process. Sounds daft but I think it is possible.

Why don't you share your settings on this photo Murray?

just saw your question Vincent:
"I (an amateur)can't get better than a grainey picture using 600mm of even a stationary object. I look at faa artit's work and that of pro-photographers and their works are crystal clear of even the action shots. I use a Nikon D-90 with a 300 mm lenns, a Phoenix doubler and a Uv filter at the end. I use a tripod and set the settings to vubration and manual.

I've visited pro shops and they say teach me nothiing.

How(what settings and adjustments)do you photographers best do super clear telephoto shots of say an eagle flying?
.
Quite a complicated question and answer here Vincent.
1 - Which 300mm do you have? Is it top quality "fast" glass or a budget model? That could be your problem.
2 - phoenix doubler. Is that a 2x glass convertor? That will lose you two stops of light, reducing your potential shutterspeed and getting you well into the realms of camera shake. If it's a cheap, poor quality one it will also degrade your image quality significantly.
3 - UV filter. If that's a cheap and cheerful one it can also degrade your image quality.
4 - what ISO are you shooting at. The higher the ISO the worse the noise you will suffer, loss of sharpness.
5 - I don't know your camera system but some systems should have vibration reduction/image stabilisation or whatever switched off when the camera is tripod mounted. Some systems will introduce movement where there is none on a tripod. Some systems recognise that the camera is tripod mounted but I don't know what yours does so you'd better check.
6 - when you've got your "doubler" on what kind of shutterspeeds are you getting?
7 - autofocus or manual? If you are a manual focus addict then I hope you have correctly set the diopter in your viewfinder? Do you know how? If that's wrong you'll find it hard work to get anything properly in focus.
8 - your own technique. If you stab at the shutter release you will induce movement. Better to roll your finger across the release button than to press it. Similar principle to squeezing a trigger on a gun rather than pulling it ;)

For some good info on getting sharp, in-focus photographs go to YOUTUBE and do a search for RINDERSMITH PHOTOGRAPHY. They have a load of little videos on focus, handholding etc, etc. They are two full-time pro photographers that do a lot of stock work. They do know what they are talking about and it's well worth anyone spending some time watching a few of them.

Meirion;

I have a genuine Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300 MM. The doubler is a Phoenix DG 2X.

I use Manual Focus

The UV filter is a Kenko Digital Filter MC UV O 67MMAn example of a shot clear as I can get it but horrible has the following settings;

AP.......................5/9
SH Speed.............1/1250
EXP.....................-0.3ev
ISO.......................640
Lens Model............7-300.0MM S/4.5-5.6
Pixel Size..............4288x2848
File Size................3.04MB

Thios was an attempt to photograph an eagle chick in it's nest.

Hi Vincent, just did a little homework for you. Looks like the D90 handles noise fairly well but to be honest at ISO 640 you are going to see the difference in image quality versus ISO 200 which is your base ISO. Your shutterspeed looks good.
I'm going to go with a combination of things here Vincent (without seeing the pic).
1 - wide open aperature on a zoom lens. The sweet spot on your lens will be about f8'ish.
2 - lens at full zoom I assume. It's nikon but it's still the consumer end of the range. Consumer zooms never perform at their best at the extreme ends of their range.
3 - 2x tele convertor. The best one in the world will degrade your image sorry!
4 - high ISO setting.

Add all 4 together, or should I say multiply them and you are going to struggle.

How far will you push photography before you consider it no longer photography or a photograph?

I like to push things as far as I can if it produces a pleasing image.


The following image is a combination of two images. The main image is of my son playing airsoft war games. Very shallow DOF with the focus point right on the end of the gun barrel. I converted this to mono then toned it in blue. I overlaid a texture photo and played with the opacity of that layer, erasing certain areas for clarity. Do you all still consider this a photograph or has it gone too far and has now become digital art, mixed media, photo manipulation whatever description fits?
.

@ Vincent just read your post. Meirion is pretty throrough with his answer and since Im a pro Nikon user I hope to be of some additional help. The D90 model is a very sophisticated body. Not a professionals tool, but I tell you what I wouldnt hesitate a nanosecond to add a D90 to my equipment inventory. The lens you are using does not match the D90s excellent high resolution.

Your lens of choice is a very slow lens. Considered to be a hobbyist-vacation budget lens. (Google Ken Rockwells Nikon lens test) By adding a 2x tele extender, your losing 2 more stops of light or essentially making the lens no faster than F11 at best. Also, the choice of tele-ex is a budget model which really offers low quality an an extreme level. (Even the professional Nikon 2X unit has its shortcomings and I wouldnt recommend to anyone.) This required you to use a longer shutter speed to capture a quality, pin sharp image. Also remove the UV filter. Unless your using a very high end professional polarizer like a B&W or Singh Ray you are further degrading the final result.

You need to shut OFF the vibration reduction (VR) system when using a tripod. VR shifts the lens elements to counteract camera shake when shooting at slower shutter speeds.

Hey Thomas, nice to see someone else with a lighthouse fetish..................LOL.

Roger, to try answering what I now understand to be your question, I t doesn't really matter to me whether something is moving or still. The thought process takes the same time, regardless. It's all about camera settings, sometimes about panning when motion is involved. In the first gull shot, the camera was moving with the bird at a distance of 20 meters. The bird was probably crossing at 30mph, maybe more. In the second, the lens was simply pointed at a more or less stationary bird. My decisions of the moment involved mostly sharpness issues for the first, a high shutter speed to freeze the motion (200mm, 1/2500 sec, f5, ISO 100) with a 70-200mm f/:2.8 lens. I used the same settings for the other since it was much further away and barely moving, but focused at infinity.

Meirion, I shoot in Adobe RGB and RAW, and process the images as PSDs, which is Photoshop's native format. Overprocessing has never been a problem, nor has any color gamut limitation of my monitor (Dell 24", nothing special, but periodically calibrated with a Gretag Macbeth Eye-One). No printer will match the color gamut of a decent monitor because luminous phosphors (CRT) or LCD elements have a better range of brightness than does pigment on paper. The big trick has been keeping the printer (Epson Stylus Pro 4000) calibrated to the displayed image in Photoshop, which my Eye-One will do. Most of the time I get a great match, but I find myself tweaking the printer driver when some prints just don't quite match up, usually regarding the deepest shadow details. Nothing's 100% perfect.

Vincent, Meirion's right about virtually everything he says regarding your image problems.

First, turn off the vibration reduction when using a tripod. It can actually induce vibration if one is used. A chain is only as good as its weakest link, and optics are only as good as the cheapest piece of glass. I suspect that a Nikon doubler (I use their 2x on occasion) would have yielded better results than your Phoenix. The problem with the Nikon is that it's designed for their pro teles and zooms, and actually projects into the back of the lens, so it won't fit most other lenses.

EDIT: I see that you have posted your shooting data. I suspect that the 640 ISO introduced some noise, and resultant noise reduction damaged sharpness somewhat. I use Noise Ninja to deal with noise, and can't recommend it more highly. It can take out noise without hurting acuity.

Also, why shoot at -0.3 EV? The lens/doubler combo already restricts your available light, so why cut it further?

I just caught up with Thomas's suggestion. He's on the money, too.

thanks for coming in on that one Murray. I am totally useless on colour spaces/profiles and all that printing stuff but I remembered reading somewhere that care had to be taken in processing because of the differences in gamut. I have drunk lots of beer since so I am a completely unreliable source of information on that subject.......LOL.

Meirion, I like the warrior image, but do consider it to be more of a photo-based illustration than a photograph. That's okay, though, and it could make some cool package art for a video game. Overlay some copy and give it to your son.

I think you just hit the nail right on the head Murray. I had to classify this as "illustration/clip-art" to get it accepted at my current favourite stock site ;)

Here's something that Stephen touched on - Filters. Many of us use UV/haze filters as lens protection, and they're pretty good at protecting that expensive front element from damage. However, any filter, no matter how well made or expensive, will degrade image quality. I've done the tests.

When I actually shoot, I remove the protection filters. That's why I wear cargo pants, among other reasons. No slave to fashion here. You'd be surprised how much crisper images can look when you shoot with a 'naked' lens.

I HATE CIRCULAR POLARIZERS! Digital cameras require what are called circular polarizing filters when you want to darken skies, penetrate water, reduce reflections, etc. The problem is that their effect is very uneven, so when shooting with a very wide-angle lens or setting, you can get some really awful looking skies, with more or less darkness and intensity in different arts of the image. I've read that the older-style linear polarizers play hell with modern metering and autofocus systems, which may be true; I have no reason to doubt it. What I'd love to see is what would happen with a linear polarizer on a digicam when exposure and focus were done the old school way - manually. Perhaps then you'll be contending with moire patterns, who knows?

Murray; How do you feel about photo manipulation as an art form.

I'm a recent convert Murray. I always had a UV filter on each and every lens. I did buy the most expensive ones I could find though, in my defense ($100+). It wasn't until I learned that digital sensors have a built-in UV filter that I started to really think about it and question why? (there's lots and lots of heated debate on the net).
I now own a good number of Pentax pro level prime lenses, including the "Limited" series and I don't have any filters stuck on top of them. Front element protection to me means a lens hood when in use and a lens cap in storage ;)
I do have a big bag of filters from my film days. Funnily enough I have both linear and circular polarizers from way back when. I haven't used them with my digital gear and probably won't bother, it's a very dusty bag ;)

Your right on the filters Murray, I also don't use polorizers or UV's. At the camera shop I work at we have many filters to offer but most collect dust because digital cameras don't really require them as these days it can be done in post. All of my filters are digital so as not to degrade the image at capture. Quite a few film photographers use the filters on the front of thier lenses as I used to in the heyday of film.

Thank you for the discussion help fellows; I now will use a lens hood with filter removed when shooting. Also I'll shoot off the vibration mode. I'll remove the doubler for attached to telephoto but it works great on closeups with the Nikon DX 18-105-35-56G ED lens. The NIKON 300MM ED lens cost me $450.00 cash at a closeout sale.As well I'll adjust the ISO and exposure with more accuracy.

How do you guys shoot a bird moving at a rapid pace with wings flapping; do you hold the camera steady as you follow it?

Nice opera house image, Darrell. I might have cloned out the off-center lines on the ground and flare (cross star?) lines, but it's an attractive shot nonetheless. Well Done.

I have no objection to digital manipulation. Every one of my images is manipulated. It's funny, but the most manipulated image I've ever made (over 500 operations, I lost count) is also one of the most straight-looking:



Here's the original:

Great thread you've got going here, Murray.
I hope it keeps going on.

that's a fabulous image Murray. I can see that you've spent a deal of time on some fine cloning there. I particularly like how you've got the skin/plastic tones so attractive. Nice work.

Thanks, Meirion. Getting her 'flesh' right was a major goal from the beginning and one of the most challenging. All of her body parts were subtly mis-matched, color wise, and she was kind of beat to hell. Biker chicks lead hard lives. Equally problematic was the removal/reduction of reflections from the glass behind her. I added a pair of sunglasses (from a shot of a different mannequin, taken nearby) to cover up what looked like a painfully bent left wrist. I also made her anatomically correct, sort of a joke that few notice online but everyone sees on the print. The remainder of the work was refinements, cleaning things up, straightening other stuff (like leveling the bench), and a myriad of tweaks that I can't even remember now. This goes back to what I mentioned at the top of the thread about the initial capture being a canvas for further work. I can't say it was always fun, but I do like the result and it's become one of my most popular pictures.

What image are you really proud of, and why?

Fooled me at first ;)

Gotcha!

@ Murray "It's funny, but the most manipulated image I've ever made (over 500 operations, I lost count) is also one of the most straight-looking".

And therein lies the secret. The real skill in image manipulation is to reach an end point that looks as if it hasn't been manipulated ;)

Meirion, going beyond that end point isn't always a bad thing, though (your textured images are a case in point). It's just that there comes a stage when the lines between 'image manipulation' and 'digital art' start to become blurred.

I agree completely Jane. My stuff like the textures is not meant to look "real" or untouched. it's completely supposed to look unreal or surreal ;)
My point is really that because my stuff has no pretense of reality I can push it as far as I want. If the photographer is looking to create a "real" image then knowing when to stop and having the skill to not over-do the processing is paramount.
I think that's what I mean anyway...........LOL.

Murray said "What image are you really proud of, and why?"

This is my current favourite (It tends to change a lot, usually with the wind direction).
The original lighthouse pic was taken on a very bleak, grey, flat winter afternoon. The original, in it's original form couldn't really be considered anything more than a bit of a boring snapshot but in the digital age things have potential ;)
The sky shot was taken on a different day and about 10 miles further down the coast. It was a really big job for me at my skill level to get the two images merged with any semblance of reality but I think I got there in the end. It sells well too and that's always a very nice little bonus isn't it!

A common mistake (which you haven't made, btw!) when replacing a sky is to take the new sky from a photo taken at a different focal length - it never looks right, even if it's blended in perfectly. I'm currently building a collection of different skies, to have them ready as needed...

Today I got out my books and began comparing the settings on my Nikon and realized that most of my problem besides what has been pointed out buy you pros is I simply do not know or understand digital settings at all. Just shooting close on auto focus is easy but I see clearly now that telephoto use shows one's inexperience right away especially with digital equipment as opposed the the old SLR language I'm used to.

I'm not as embarrassed by my ignorance so much as I'm astounded by it.

Man, you guys are busting my bubble. Skys from another location, original shot was a boring snapshot!! Wow, I really have to learn this stuff!
On a serious note: do you think that a potential customer should be told that the image is a composite and/or that information should be noted somewhere? I am not judging anybody's work but in this digital age where anything seems to be possible, should major alterations be openly admitted or do you think that the customer really cares.

On a separate note, does anybody use polarizers any more and if they do, when?

All the best.

Hi Chester, I don't feel at all compelled to "confess" to a pic not being straight out of the camera as they say. The important part is that the potential customer likes the image as it is in front of them. If an image were being purchased for editorial use then it should be explained. Here everything is for decorative purposes, it's art after all. I don't see watercolourists making statements that they have left out the powerlines that were running through the landscape they painted. Same thing in my book.

I don't use polarizers anymore. Murray wrote about some of the problems with polarizers up above some way.

Murray, This is awesome.

I'm self taught and can see this discussion helping me a ton.
As soon as I figure out which questions to ask I will post a couple.
In the meantime I will be following this discussion.

Thanks for making it happen.

I'm with Merion's sentiments about what needs to be explained. Unless a photograph is taken of an important journalistic happening... the way the photo is arrived at is irrelevant to the purchaser as long as it pleases them. The greatness of much art is the fact that it can press all boundaries to the limit. I think one of the reasons Van Gogh went crazy is because he couldn't make his art jump off the canvas and speak audible words!

Meirion, but isn't the real strength and beauty of photography its ability to be the so called "honest art medium" where we strive to showcase the world around us. Wasn't that the beauty of photography when it was first introduced. Wasn't that one reason why the early portrait painter hated photographers. Don't get me wrong, I am not asking anyone to "confess" to anything. I got into photography because it reminded me of the art of Bonsai. In its original form, that meant a searching for that perfect specimen, sometimes for ever without 'success". Along the way, one found oneself as there was a constant search among nature where one had the solitude to discover oneself. Digital photography is the new and improved Bonsai where one takes mediocre plants and wires them up, cuts off their roots to stunt their growth etc. In other words the digital world allows us to not wait for the right light or the right elements as we can always add them later. In this fast paced world, we do not want to wait anymore.

By their very nature, in the other forms of artistic expression, the artist is giving us his interpretation of something, be it a landscape or still life. He knows that he cannot give us reality like a camera can so he settles for what his medium can afford him. Why don't we allow ourselves to really exploit what our cameras are capable of and not try to duplicate another medium.

All the best and Happy Shooting.

The reality claimed by camera images Chester is a old one in a way as opposed to that of a painter working in realism. Dali did thos photorealiust phot-copied paintings and the average illustrator can uses photo images to "copy" the information it reveals.

A good realist painter pnly uses the photo images as a drafting guide but a great realist painter does not use photo images or photography at all b ecause real life is better than photography through the eye and the brain of the artist.

@ Vincent, I assuming you meant "old" rather than "cold" as I hope that I did not come across as cold in any way. I guess that I can be considered unhappy to see the direction photography is heading in.Most photographers work in fractions of a second and generally do not have the ability to reshoot or correct mistakes. You miss it, its gone forever!

Isn't that a wonderful setting in which to try to create works of art!

@ Glenn, I tend to think that most buyers would like to know as I think that they generally believe that the photograph they buy is "real".

Please, this is strictly my opinion and I do not want to suggest that my ideas are right for anyone else!!

The lighthouse pic works for me, Meirion, especially the consistency between the new sky and the light falling on the subject, which can often be a problem with merged images. Very dramatic!

Chester, I take your point. I have no issue with your desire to capture and present things exactly as they are. It's laudable, in fact. Shooting that way puts more emphasis on the quality of the original vision, for sure; and also requires that the photographer's competency level doesn't waver. I took a look at the first couple pages of your images, and most definitely do have that "in the moment" quality to them.


As to whether to give a 'peek behind the curtain' and disclose what we've done to create or alter an image, I feel it's up to the photographer. Yes, in in the end, it's the image that matters. A viewer or buyer probably won't care as long as he likes the shot. Knowing may increase his admiration for it, or not; it's hard to know. As you've seen, I have no problem with disclosure, usually to make a point, or to illustrate everything that went into an image's creation.


This brings me to something that may be unique to photography as an art form. We capture and create images for many reasons: to please ourselves, to sell, to win competitions, to preserve memories, etc. But don't we also do it to impress other photographers? There's something special that happens when others, whose skills we respect, admire our work. I suspect that that, in itself, can be reason enough to go the extra mile with an image. I'm not so sure that the same is true for painters or other artistic types. What's your view?

I understand and appreciate what you are saying Chester. Any artistic medium is different things to different people isn't it. I've never personally got too hung-up with the purist approach to photography, I treat it as a means to an end, always have. Every portrait I have ever taken, the client has asked to be "touched-up"........LOL. In some ways I admire the purist landscape photographer who is willing to get up in the middle of the night, travel to a location only to find the light isn't quite right. It takes 12 visits to get it "right" and a big dose of satisfaction to have got it. In other ways I think that purist is totally barking mad when the photographer's toolbox has evolved so much.
Each to their own, live and let live is my motto. I've no axe to grind, it's just the way I prefer to do things and other folks have their ways. Neither one is "better" than the other in my opinion.

Great post Murray, I have a question now

at what point does an edited photograph become, digital art or another category? Is it when you simply adjust the levels or curves, or is it when you add or remove something. I currently have a few images where i have removed wires, are they still a photograph? case in point



with wires is this view, thus i removed them for most of this type of image



if memory serves me correctly, this is more of a composite than a photograph



On the search side (thinking of being found) I would still call this a photograph not a composite and i don't think anyone aside from a serious collector would care, but to label it as a composite or digital art, would mean that the buyers interested in the "photographic look" would not find it...they are searching in the photographic media section.

so what media does a photograph become, when you have added or removed something?

"Digital photography is the new and improved Bonsai where one takes mediocre plants and wires them up, cuts off their roots to stunt their growth etc. In other words the digital world allows us to not wait for the right light or the right elements as we can always add them later. In this fast paced world, we do not want to wait anymore."

I think you need to give some thought to what happens with film. A great many of the things we do with PS can be accomplished in a real, wet darkroom. Dodging, Burning, Sharpening, Softening, Merging Photos.

Ansel Adams was known as a darkroom artist. He would have loved Photoshop. Steiglitz knew how to use a darkroom also. They all did. Every photo taken had to come out of a darkroom. Shooting something was only the beginning. The fun really started when the lights went out.

Balanced, your name is Bruce, isn't it (trying to remember)? Certainly, I don't consider cleaning up an image or subtle digital tweaks to cross the line into the "Digital Art" realm. For me, at least, the image has to no longer be recognizable as the original photograph, or as a photograph for that matter to be of that genre.

Regarding "Hillside Barn," it's entirely one single shot. Here's the one from my gallery and the original capture:





Granted, I've tweaked it a lot and there's some god-awful cloning of the background trees (I was still learning how to do it at the time) that needs fixing. Interestingly, for reasons I don't understand, it's become one of my most popular images and best sellers, despite the flaws I see.

Murray,

Yes it is Bruce, I use Balanced Art here as it's the name of my site, since i use this as the product end of my sites gallery.

So sorry for the confusion on your image, I thought I remembered you had added grass or a door or something, you had used this image in a prior example...sorry about that. Its a great image and i love the treatment you gave on the wood, really brings out the weathered look ;-)

Do serious collectors care, would they even be buying here? Or is it only photojournalism where the straight from the camera matters?

@ Murray, thanks for the comment. I try to shoot as purely as possible. I go the other mile by going to the same location until I get it right. Maybe its because my photoshop skills are lacking and I am wasting lots of time and gas. Will have to try the other side and see what happens.
I really do not know about the admiration from peers part. I think we all reach a certain level of competence when that becomes less important.

@ Meirion, touching up a portrait is, to me, a lot different than adding a sky etc. We, however, must do what works for us.

@ Kathleen, Ansel Adams did, and acknowledged that he did, a lot of darkroom work which involved mostly burning and dodging. Would he have become as famous as he did if he added mountains and rivers to his images. Would he have been as successful in getting areas set aside as national parks if he added another lake to his images. In the era these guys worked in trying to get photography accepted as an art form, would they have achieved that if they did these things that digital photographers are doing now. Points to ponder.

@ Balanced Art, I'm with you when I question " when is enough, enough to be classified as not photography ??"

Murray, I saw earlier in the discussions that you convert RAW to PSD files to do your work on. Do you see that as an advantage over working in TIFF files?
My workflow:
1 - I shoot Pentax so I am able to shoot my RAW files in DNG format which is adobe's open source RAW format. I think there's only Pentax that give this option.
2 - Do as much work as possible in Adobe Camera RAW before saving as TIFF.
3 - Complete work on the TIFF file in photoshop and save.
4 - Convert to JPG at highest quality and save in seperate folder.

I've never worked in PSD before but took a look earlier tonight. The PSD files are significantly smaller than TIFFs. Is that through compression or is the PSD format a bit "lossy"? What do you see as the advantage of this format? Is it just the size saving or is there something I need to know?.......;)

A photographer friend of mine, who is also a instructor told me recently that the new accepted workflow practice is to adjust your sharpness settings in raw format, before bringing into Pshop, not as one of the last steps "in" Pshop. I found this very interesting. has anyone else heard of this new practice? I believe it comes from both Adobe and a large photography standards organization.

That's what my son, the photographer, just visitng me here, told me to do, John, bye the bye.....and that's the sum total of my pse/photography knowledge, folks.
Bruce dear, how did you remove the wires, please?

Thanks Murray, again...great thread , for reading up for me to learn from...a long way to go

May I just say that I think, as a painter, and then a pse user, that I've got over purity issues in description, and don't owe anyone an explanation other than to say "enhanced", when say, the wires are removed, or the sharpness tweaked, and the colour intensified. That's my limit of expertise and probably many others among us too, which is why this thread is stunningly important.

John, that's a new one on me to be honest. Adobe Camera Raw only offers one way to sharpen and that's an overall sharpening. I wouldn't want to do that to an image. I don't want any sharpening on OOF areas because I want them OOF don't I. Sharpening increases artifacts/noise so should always be kept to a bare minimum anyway. A properly sharp image out of the camera should only require a very tiny tweak at ACR base level to be good.
There are a million and one ways to sharpen images but if you think about it you should only be touching the parts of the image that you meant to be sharp in the first place. This calls for selective sharpening methods. Select the area of the image that you originally focussed on and apply your sharpening to that area only, leave the rest alone. You can't do that in Adobe Camera Raw but you can in photoshop.
If anyone is using a version of photoshop above CS3 and tells me that it's now changed in the latest ACR versions then I'll have to upgrade immediately.

edit: OOF = out of focus just in case I've befuddled anyone ;)

Meirion, I'll try to find out exactly where this new standard is in print and get back to everyone.

thanks John, I'm interested to see that. I'm still at a fairly low level of competence with digital technology so I'm pretty greedy to learn and improve my work ;)

Meirion, PSD is not lossy at all. I'm not so sure about the files being small, either. As soon as I convert from RAW, my file size about doubles! Wait, I'll do a test . . .

. . . Results are in from a randomly selected image. Camera File = 17.38mb, PSD & TIFF = 34.97mb, JPEG = 9.29mb

I use PSD because it's Photoshop's native format. I can only assume that PS's inner workings are optimized to work with PSD, although I could be wrong. I've always gotten the results I expect, so it's PSD for me.

that's weird Murray!

I just took another image and did the same.
RAW file = 23.18
PSD file = 65.4
TIFF file = 70

No idea what's happening there :(

Maybe it's computer- or PS version-specific. I'm using CS5 on a PC.

I'm on a PC but only on CS3. Probably not worth getting too worried about.

Murray, sharpening, what's your take?

Viv,

For the sky I use a healing brush just bigger than the width of the wires and on the cupola I have to clone, since the curve of the structure and the patina basically need to be painted using a 1-3 pixel wide brush. I do all of this some times at up to 400% scale, so i can get each pixel right. It takes about 3-4 hours per image and i don't think I've ever been happy with the results, but i keep shooting the lightning anyway lol.

I embrace sharpening. Every digital camera has what is called an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. Its purpose is to soften the image a bit and prevent moire patterns where straight lines intersect rows of pixels at certain angles. When you think you have a speck or two of dust on your sensor, it's actually on the filter.

You can actually have the anti-aliasing filter removed from your camera (and replaced with optical glass). There are a few shops that specialize in this. It will noticeably increase your images' apparent sharpness, but also leave your sensor exposed to more ultraviolet light. This won't hurt it, but will sometimes add some cloudiness or murkiness to landscape shots where there's a lot of UV in the scene. However, you'll then be able to take pictures entirely by ultraviolet light, using a nearly black filter that passes only UV. You'll have to focus before you put the filter on, though, since you can't see through it. Most lenses block a lot of the UV, which is why Nikon made a 105mm UV lens, specifically tailored to ultraviolet light photography. Older dSLRs that use CCD rather than CMOS sensors do a better job with UV photography. But I digress . . .

Since images are essentially pre-softened in the camera, when I do my initial conversion from RAW, I typically apply a clarity adjustment of +60 to +70, or however much I can add before seeing any artifacts; which with this function, is usually a subtle halo where bright areas abut dark ones. I do this to compensate for the pre-softening.

I also usually sharpen my working images after I've done nearly all the work on them. I use Unsharp Mask and balance the sliders until get what I'm after. Again, when you see artifacts, you've gone too far. The evidence of this is when the tiniest white areas of the image begin to 'mushroom' or become more noticeable. This is easy to see when you toggle the "Preview" box on and off. I shoot for a level of sharpening which increases the apparent acuity while not building contrast.

And yes, selective sharpening can be very useful. However, pay attention that you're not making the sharpened area(s) look more 'grainy' than the remainder of the image. That's a dead giveaway that you've been a bit heavy-handed in your manipulation.

When I archive an image it is always in its original form which for me right now would be a .nef.

Tagged Image Format (tif) has one major advantage, there is no generational loss. It can be edited and re-saved without losing quality.

When I was with the agency we worked entirely with .tifs. Our layout software, Quark would only accept eps or tif.

I was the webmaster for the agency so would convert images to jpgs as neededl, but always archive as tifs.

For home printing I use uncompressed jpgs. For FAA and other PODs. I use the pngs.

Thanks for that, Kathy. PSDs are lossless, too. I'm not sure what algorithms the two formats use when saving images. Perhaps they're close. Frankly, I doubt that it really makes much of a difference.

I tend to avoid JPGs entirely, due to their lossy nature; and I, too, use PNGs for POD uploads.

Either format needs to be converted before they can be used for PODs. Tif was originally designed to standardize scanner output. It has come a long way over the years.

The main concern about archiving is to choose a file format that can be stored for future use. Since I shoot in RAW, my choice is .nef = RAW file. By doing this I am still able to use all of those fantastic adjustments PS offers me when I am ready to use it again.

psd is used with PS and PSP and is a great choice for archiving if you are going to be using it in either of these programs in the future.

I would archive as a tif if I was planning to use it in Quark or another layout program.

Anyone of the three works well. For me it would be a choice based on convenience.

Thanks, Bruce, just caught up with your reply. I just knew it must take forever: I can't even hold the tiny brush still enough, so I'm just tweaking in pse, shame I just can't control the fab tools and also haven't the time/strength to achieve anything worthwhile....that's why I asked...I kindof thought it must take hours, you guys with programs are sensational for the time alone that your work needs......congratulations, but, count me out...toooo shaky/old fashioned/old,a few other things too,/impatient, lol............back on topic now, Murray, x

How do you use any other file format other than JPG for FAA uploads? There is a 25mb limit. There's only JPG that fits for me!!!!!!!!!!

Meirion, for large images (where a PNG would be too large), stick with JPG. I sincerely doubt that you'd lose much, or anything at all, since JPG's evils don't really come into play until there are multiple changes and saves. For a print at 300 ppi, I doubt that the format matters much.

Speaking of ppi, it has to be noted that FAA's maximum allowable print size is based on only 100 ppi. That's course enough that you might notice some quality loss upon close inspection. For this reason, I routinely leave the largest one or two print size boxes blank.

There is nothing wrong with using a jpg if it is uncompressed.

The more you work with a jpg the more you will encounter generational loss. In other words, if you work with a file as a psd or tif and save it as an uncompressed jpg just before uploading it you will get an image that is very close to the psd or tif it was saved from.

JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group and was designed for photos and, at that time, gifs were being used for graphics. As we have stated earlier, the problem with jpgs lies in multiple changes and saves before uploading.

Murray, sorry, I didn't see your post.

It seems that we've developed a nice core of posters. I want to invite others who may have been lurking to drop in and say hello, especially those who consider themselves to be novices. C'mon in, the water's fine. :-)

Okay here's a test shot right out of the box..canon rebel t1i..you're not going to get much more novice than that....a lot to learn reading the tiny print of the hand book they gave me...RJ

Murray, Kathleen, I should be okay then 'cos I never, ever, ever do the work, resave, work resave thing on a JPG. Conversion to JPG is the very last step in my workflow :)

Robert, that's a tough one to start out with. All in all, your camera did a pretty good job sorting out an impossible situation, namely the dynamic range of the scene. You have a dominant bright white snow cover, condensation on the glass, and the darkness inside the room.

For a shot like this, I'd also have tried to let the camera take a light reading of just the outside scene, then used that for the overall picture. It would have given you better definition of the snow and condensation at the expense of the window frame and drapes, which would likely have gone to black. Your little manual will tell you how to selectively meter an area of your image. Keep reading!


Meirion, you've got it.

I appreciate this forum, and would appreciate any feedback you have on my photos. I am still learning and want to learn as much as I can in order to create great captures and tell a story with the photography I take.

I think you've made a good start, Steven. Your composition is good and the images are solid. I particularly like this one:



I'd suggest leveling the horizon, since the image tilts toward the right.

One thing I noticed is that your colors are generally a bit on the bright side. Is that due to a camera adjustment; "Vivid," perhaps? If so, I'd recommend setting it back to normal and then tweaking in post-production when and where needed.

Thanks Murray, figures I would try a difficult shot. I'd rather write than read but i'm lumbering through it..thanks again ..RJ

Murry, in general i would agree on the horizon call, but i noticed on one of my pic that the horison being kiltered actually had a phsyical reaction of being off balance, just like Survival just did on me

here is my off balance shot what do you think?

ok here is what i'm trying to figure out right now after reading your koo on the color space. Why does Canon use sRGB IEC61966-2.1, if RGB has a much greater range? I did not convert the color space at all on any of my color images from the camera and now feel robbed of a wider range of colors. what am i missing here?

Yes Im in the rafters looking down ........Murray thanks for stating this discussion.

Jumping in late Murray but relative to sharpening, have you ever sharpened in USM lab? Works better than most of the pre-set settings in CS5. Of course, one needs to be at 100% just as any sharpening setting to check the results.

"Balanced Art" (sorry, i don't know your real name), I like your off balanced piece above. Generally, you want a level horizon line, but on images such as this, there "is no" clear cut horizon line. So I think its fine. Nice shot!
my 2 cents : )

Welcome, Randy.

Bruce, in this case, I think the tilt works in the overall context. I'd rethink the title, though, since the curve in the track is barely noticeable. I'd have probably called it "Tipsy," or some such. Have you ever tried to walk on a rail while slightly inebriated?

What other color space options does your camera offer? sRGB is intended for web use and computer display, while the wider RGB gamut is, indeed, better for printing.

Sandi, I think I did that at a Photoshop seminar once. :-)

I don't like the PS sharpening presets, which is why I prefer to use Unsharp Mask. It's very adjustable.

Here's a helpful Adobe Raw workflow tutorial for those who may be interested:

Murray,

i just found the setting on my camera when off auto, so i've made that correction, but why did Canon default to sRGB i wish they would have captured in the wider range to start with....

Ok meshing this with the color scape thread kinda... i've uploaded everything in sRGB it seems...what now? should i go back and convert everything here, so i can control the results? oh and there is some debate as to if color space has an effect on RAW images whats your take?

railroad tracks are a blast ;-) never tried tipsy, but youd swear you were, to see this spot off the 101 in cali...the poles were already leaning when i shot this

Murray, Im told another worthwhile color setting besides rgb and sRGB is Adobe RGB 1998.
Do you have experience with this?

Why does Canon default to sRGB, Bruce? Do I look like Mr. Canon? Just kidding. Your guess is as good as mine. I suppose that they've made the assumption that most people will be sharing their images over the net rather than printing them first; and most browsers, I'm told, default to sRGB. But that's just a guess.

I'd try converting one of your favorite colorful images to Adobe RGB and uploading it as a new image. FAA should recognize the difference and adjust accordingly. Then you can judge between the two. However, if the image started life in sRGB, it probably has a limited gamut to start with. So, try it with a new image, shot in Adobe RGB.

In theory, RAW records the image as it falls upon the sensor, ignoring other camera adjustments. However, many RAW converters will apply some, but not all, of your preferences to the RAW image during conversion. I've never been 100% sure about this, but have apparently stumbled into a system that works for me. Obviously, more research is required for a definitive answer. Let me know what you come up with. ;-)


John, Adobe RGB 1998 is what we're calling Adobe RGB. It is, in my opinion anyway, the preferred color space to be working in; although you will no doubt get suggestions to the contrary from some others. I shoot in Adobe RGB, work in it, and upload in it whenever possible. It gives me the best color rendition, or at least what looks best to me.

I recently switched to Adobe RGB as well and so far i am really happy with the results. i just wanted someone elses opinion of it. Thanks Murray.

This new image of mine was shot with the adobe RGB setting.

Bad to the Bone. Works for me, John. Pin sharp and very nice color. What aperture did you shoot at? The reason I ask is that a wide aperture may have blurred the background a bit more, which would further emphasize your buddy. Also, it might be worth cloning out that dark patch at the lower left, which is a tad distracting. Note: John's image was subsequently altered to reflect this suggestion, so the dark area no longer shows above.

By the way, the video was very informative. The odd thing is, he's doing many of the same things I do in Photoshop. I'm always hesitant to alter the RAW capture so that I can go back and start from scratch if necessary. However, ACR may allow you to do that after making changes and saving the revised image.

Aperture was f/5.6
I see what you mean about the bottom left and i agree. I'll take care of that. Thanks Murray.

Murray

why search for it when i can test it here ;-)

just working with jpgs i haven't worked up the RAWs yet. Im not seeing much, but then again it hasn't been printed, it's still on my monitor, so has it already been reduced to sRGB for my viewing (by the monitor) What color differences do you see in the color space?

I for one don't see much of a difference, although I believe the difference is more prominant in the printed versions. maybe someone else can clarify this.

Hard to say, Bruce. The sRGB looks a bit more colorful, BUT that could be because of the upload. You had to upload it as either Adobe RGB or sRGB. That means that one side is reproduced incorrectly. Which one looks better on your monitor? And yes, John is right. You should try printing and judge the output version.

OK Murray. I improved that lower-left section in the Boxer image. It does look better. Thanks!
You might have to refresh the page to see it. The old version may still be in cache.

Yeah, that's got it!

the color space of the test image is in Adobe 1988

here is one in sRGB



edit to add the first for side by side look

Still about the same. I'm not so sure that this is a valid way to test. If you want to keep playing, keep the two images separate and upload them as two separate images. Then they can be compared side-by-side in two windows.

I also think your reference images need a broader range of colors and tones. Everything is a bit pastelish. (?)

Murray,

I follow what you mean, i'll try to re-shoot something over the weekend, and also don't want to side track this beautiful thread, I thought it would be simpler to see the difference.

Soo, John K. , how did you 'improve' it exactly, please? This is a novice speaking, as invited earlier. Thanks in advance. V.

Hi Viv! There was a little ugliness going on way down in the lower-left corner. may have been something on the sidewalk or perhaps some dog 'slurp" on the window. LOL It was also kinda blurry there. Murray pointed it out to me and I agreed and edited it out. Looks much nicer now. Is that what you meant Vivian?

I don't have the original version to show you. i saved over it. And when you replace the image on FAA, it replaces everywhere it appeared previously.

Thanks John, mine's a really basic question: how did you edit it out, please? (need to know: lots to edit out, have pse, lost!)

EDIT I don't expect a lesson in pse so much as a few words that relate to pse how-to, thanks so much

Well the question is basic, but the answer is not : )
It would depend on the problem as to the method or methods i would choose.
Each image presents a different set of issues and different ways to "fix" the problem.
There are a number of methods to eliminate something from an image.
In photoshop some of the ways may be the clone stamp tool, or healing brush or spot healing brush, or patch tool or forms of masks.
I'm not a wiz at it myself, but I'm getting better.
I don't really want to get into the "how to" of editing images in this thread due to the fact that it was started by Murray and i don't think that was his intention for it. Editing can be a complicated procedure anyway and some people take classes devoted to just that. It can be that tough at times.
If you have a particular image of yours in mind Viv you can email me a web version of it and I'll offer an opinion on what you can possibly do. Or if its one already uploaded to FAA email me which one it is and I'll try and help.

Sorry for going a few posts back ...

Meiron, PSD files do have some (lossless) compression but keep the file's quality.

The image you use to compare file sizes has probably some (or even large) amounts of homogenous space (e.g. pure white or pure black or otherwise uniform). Photoshop's lossless compression can reduce the PSD file size because of that repetitive data.
When you save your file in psd Photoshop basically says "pixel 5,1 is white; all pixels in the area 5,1 to 1,503, and all pixels in the area 1900,4 to 7400,1 are the same (white)" and compresses it to one single "unit" rather than writing the pixel data for each of the identical pixels.
However, the file quality is restored when you open your file.
A Photoshop file can be 500MB when it's open but only 52MB on disc because the image has a lot of black (that's just an example).

Uncompressed TIFF saves each pixel's discrete data. It writes pixel for pixel, even if it contains the excat same color values as pixels next to it.
The saved file size is the same the open image.

I save my files as TIFFs because I don't want to depend on Adobe and still want to be able to open my files in 25 years from now without hassle.
For example, Microsoft changed the file extensions of Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. To open documents created in Word or Excel 2003 or earlier in Word or Exel version 2007 one needs a converter. Sure, during the installation of Word 2007 you are asked if you want to install a converter, but who knows if files created in Word/Excel version 1998 can still be opened in Word/Excel version 2035? Will the files still be convertable?
The same can happen with Adobe's PSD format.

To me TIFF is the standard that will prevail. TIFF is THE leading commercial and professional image standard.It is the most universal and most widely supported format across all platforms, Mac, Windows, Unix. Data up to 48 bits (for now).

Okay, it's time for my promised (and no doubt eagerly anticipated) HDR rant. ;-)

Once upon a time, when darkrooms were all the rage, photographers wished upon their jewel-encrusted film canisters for a way to expand the dynamic range that their film was capable of recording. Photography, as was life, was all about compromise; and dynamic range was no different.

What is this mysterious substance called "Dynamic Range," you ask? For one, it's the meaning behind two-thirds of the holy acronym, "HDR." And no, the 'H' does not stand for holy. Dynamic range is the range of values (light to dark) that a medium can capture. Neither film nor digital can capture all the shades that the eye can see. With film, the problem is at the dark end of the scale (typically shadow detail), since silver-based light-sensitive materials do not record low levels very well. Digital is the opposite, and we've all experienced "blown out" highlights. This is because digital sensor elements are easily overloaded. But, on the other hand, digital's ability to record in the shadows is truly amazing.

In the olden days, if we wanted to, for example, shoot an interior picture which was lit by the light coming in through a window, we'd have to choose between letting the window (and the scene outside) go white in order to preserve interior detail; or else expose for the outside scene, leaving the interior go black. The solution was somewhat complicated. We had to shoot two pictures on a tripod, one exposed for the outside and another for the inside. Then each image was exposed onto the same sheet of light-sensitive photo paper. This was the tricky part, since precise alignment was often difficult or impossible to achieve, and masking was required. It was an expensive, trial and error process.

And then came digital. And thereafter came HDR. And photographers finally could put down their very worn jewel-encrusted film canisters. A new god was discovered, and it was called Photomatix. And it was good. HDR (High Dynamic Range) now allowed photographers to take the olde two-shot procedure and improve upon it. We could now combine three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and even more, different exposures into a single image. The magic was all done electronically within our computers. Even though processing times can run into several minutes, it beats the pants off of the old wet method.

Now, I could stand in a pitch-black hallway that looked like this . . .



and shoot five images at different exposures; which, when combined (and with some of my own personal magic stirred into the brew), could yield an image like this:



It was a miracle! Photographers near and far began using this new tool, reveling in their newfound capability. Some then discovered that they could even invoke the gods of HDR outdoors, revealing detail never before seen, like the tones and details in this relatively simple shot:



Nothing is lost to shadows OR to highlights. We had found the holy grail.

But then, the forces of darkness discovered HDR, and a new genre was born. They called it "Grunge." You've seen it, I'm sure. Everything looks moody and like it's been out in the elements for centuries. At first it was kind of cool, but it's now been so overdone that a mere glimpse can inspire retching in some photographers.

WARNING: The following image is an attempt to illustrate grunge. I just whipped it up for this rant, and it is not intended to represent either fine art or the best of the genre. It's just a parody, a grungy frickin' example of what's become so easy to do with HDR software; almost a one-trick wonder nowadays:



This genre has become all about the 'look.' Gone is the extended dynamic range, replaced by moodiness and decay. Some like it, but it's not my personal cup of meat. What irks me is that, now, when someone mentions HDR, this is what many (especially younger) photographers think of. There's no sense of HDR's relatively brief history, nor what it was originally intended to do. It's become just another trick.

I'll now step down from my soap box. It's safe to relax again.

Thanks for that great description, Chris. I don't worry so much because I assume I'll always have a working version of Photoshop around and will be able to convert my PSDs to anything else if the end of the world as I know it comes to pass.

Murray, I really appreciate all that is being shared in this thread, especially the HDR which few images every resonate with me, but the one you have posted called "Hallway", would it go against your personal standards as a photographer to only bring out the lights more in the slightly lit area creating somewhat of a Renbrandtian appearance?

I also never knew HDR was grunge - to me I learnt is was digitally painted on. Learn something new every day!!

John, thank you for the video!

Love the hospital hallway. I have nothing to add or say right now...but I am reading Murray. =)

Thanks, Zeana. I may have inadvertently misled you a bit. The first shot was meant to illustrate what I could see with my eyes. Here's the middle shot of the bunch, an average, although fairly long, exposure (3 seconds, f:11, ISO 200):



This is what I would get if I'd have simply 'shot' the hallway. You can see (or more properly NOT see), the detail that was lost to shadows and highlights. HDR pulls it all together, although I imagine some people might prefer this shot for its "darkness."

Here's the HDR shot again for comparison:

Ah, makes sense Murray, although I still love the darkness of the low key one and would be intrigued to see only the light and details brought out selectively. Not HDR, but - I hope you get what I mean - light within the dark - the dark left dark, but the light brought up. I tend to like extremes in parts, but not full on HDR very often, although a few do look good when handled well.

This thread has certainly taken off - I logged in this morning and had to go into the Big Skip to find the last post I read yesterday!

I seem to be with the majority on file formats. Like Meirion, I use a Pentax and shoot in .dng +.jpg (so I can see the images quickly in Explorer without always having to open Photoshop). Edited files are saved as layered tiffs, with a final jpg or png copy for uploading - png is useful for the images I send to Zazzle, because it keeps the transparency round isolations.

For processing, I've just switched from CS2 to CS4. There's no comparison between the two, especially in the RAW converter - I keep finding new bells and whistles to play with! One great advantage is being able to open old tiffs in the converter for further tweaking. The RAW sharpening in CS4 is a bit better than CS2, but I still prefer the USM Lab method that somebody mentioned earlier, even though it's a bit more long-winded, especially if you want to avoid losing adjustment layers.

For Vivian - the first thing I do when I get a new program is to buy a book! if you browse round Amazon you'll find lots of books on how to use Elements. It'll be worth it in the end, because you'll probably find there are lots of things the program can do that you'd never even have thought of!

Murray - have you ever tried generating different exposures from a single RAW image and then using HDR on them? I've heard two schools of thought on this - one says that it's possible, the other says that it can't be done because even a RAW image can't hold a wide enough range for the process to work. Any thoughts on this?

Yes, Jane, it can be done. Here's an example. I started with a well-exposed 4x5 negative (the same can be done with a RAW capture) and scanned it at different exposures. The digital files were then combined using Photomatix. The result yielded a range of tones that I was never able to successfully print optically:



There was even more detail visible through the open door and in the deepest shadows, but I found it to be a bit distracting and darkened it.

I don't think that's quite what I meant - surely scanning the negative at different exposures is the same as taking several photos at different exposures? What I read was that a single RAW capture, even if processed at different exposures, can't yield the same range of data as a series of images captured separately (whether by camera or scanner).

Actually, it is the same, Jane. All of the scanned exposures came from the same single exposure (the negative), which is analogous to the single RAW capture. It doesn't matter whether the one original capture was on film or digital.

But the essence of your assertion is correct. No one single exposure, no matter how cleverly processed, can duplicate what you get with multiple original exposures.

Thanks, Jane..email to you now. Just adding here, thanks to Murray...how marvellous is this thread. Also, how friendly all the photographers are...as well as talented.....I'm proud to know you.

Vivian, I'm not sure which Photoshop Elements you have, but these are two very basic books for pcs for pse8 which I use as well as two for macs.

Teach Yourself Visually. Adobe Photoshop Elements 8. Mike Wooldridge, Wiley, 2010 ($44.95)

Photoshop Elements 8 all-in-one for Dummies. Wiley, 2010, ($52.95)

The price is what I paid in Readers Feast bookshop in Melbourne last year. No doubt you could get them cheaper elsewhere, and I'm sure Jane will give you some good advice. The first book especially has lots of clear illustrations, and I think I have seen editions for pse9 if you have that one. Marg

Edit: Murray, I've bookmarked your great thread to study later, and books like these may be helpful for people like me who have only recently started using 'photoshop' and want to learn more about it to use together with all the other information available in this thread.

For those seeking an "hdr" look without the blending of several exposures, most good HDR programs offer a "single exposure" mode. The results can be interesting although they do not look like a multiple image blend. Photomatix, Nik HDR and CS5 offer those particular options. The file can be saved as a 32 bit and tweaked further if desired.

Vivian - I've just replied to your message.

Margaret - I thought you might drop in here, it's a great thread. Have you tried any of Scott Kelby's books? I've got several of his, and once you get used to his style, there's a lot of useful stuff in there.

Murray - yes, I see what you mean, I hadn't thought it through properly.

Has anybody tried using a luminosity mask to bring out detail in shadows or tone down highlights? It can be a quick fix at times, without going down the whole hdr route.

Jane, you are correct. The best way to create a true HDR image is to use separately exposed files at the settings you need eg 0EV, +1, +2, -1, -2.
One of the other problems with HDR built from a single exposure (done it myself many times) is that when you push an exposure by 2 stops you inevitably generate "noise". Photomatix will then multiply that noise when the exposures are combined.
To put it briefly, yes you can make HDR from a single exposure but multiple exposures is much better ;)
You may have to compromise at times of course because things move around don't they. If it won't sit there while you fire off 5 shots then the single shot method is all you've got to work with.

Jane, you can also give Shadows/Highlights a spin. It's in the Image>Adjustments menu. It will recover detail on either or both ends of the spectrum, and is very adjustable. I often use it to make relatively coarse adjustments when I'm optimizing images early in the workflow. It's sweet for fine tweaks, too.

Oh dear - my 'things to remember' list is getting longer and longer! I've lost track of the number of times I've looked at a photo and thought "Why didn't I expose that a bit more/less?", or "Why didn't I try that from a different angle?" (I once photographed a picturesque row of houses in Yorkshire and only noticed when I got home that one of them had a white ceramic toilet bowl as a 'feature' in the middle of the front garden). Now I'm going to be saying "Why didn't I take the time to bracket that shot so I could try making an HDR from it?" as well!

Seriously though, that's one of the reasons I fond photography so fascinating - there's always something new to learn..

Murray - cross-posting again - I use Shadows/Highlights quite a lot, but sometimes there's more control with a luminosity mask. You can use the mask on a Levels or Curves adjustment layer, adjust the mask separately if necessary, or use it as a selection to create a new layer and play with blending modes. Maybe I'm just a sucker for finding complicated ways to do things!

No, I don't think you are, Jane. Everyone finds ways that work for them. You'd be shocked to see how destructively I work. I figure out where I want the image to go, then make it go there, usually (but not always) without masks and layers. I make incremental saves whenever I do something major that works. Personally, I don't always like the way layers can interact. All too often, changes to layers can affect those that came after, or ignore those that came before.

My methods seem to be just the opposite - I try never to do anything in such a way that I can't reverse it, go back to an earlier stage or try a different combination. I haven't noticed any unexpected changes to the way layers interact, but maybe I've just been lucky.

I guess I'm referring to the way some brushes work, or sometimes don't, when you're trying to use them and already have a stack of layers. I find that sometimes I have to repeat an operation on more than one layer when the image area I'm working on has been affected by several of them.

I don't know why, but I rarely feel the need to reverse anything, although the Undo button on my mouse does get a workout. I tend to work in small measures, building up to the state I envision. Once I get there, I move on to the next thing.

I can relate to that. My clone stamp appeared to stop working the other day, until I realised that a mask on another layer was hiding the part I was working on! As for reversing things, I just like to keep my options open. When I learn a new technique, I sometimes like to be able go back and use it on an old image, without having to rework the whole thing from scratch.

You're using Photoshop more closely to how it was intended than I do, for sure. It's part of the old dog/new tricks dichotomy, I think.

I wouldn't say that - I just like exploring new possibilities.

Earlier this morning, I posted my HDR rant, which is about to be swallowed up by the Big Skip before most people, including many of our 'regulars' have even logged back in from dreamland. I'm going to re-post it here in the hope it will find some more exposure while I'm gone. If you've already seen it, simply leap to the next one. So, without further adieu:


Okay, it's time for my promised (and no doubt eagerly anticipated) HDR rant. ;-)

Once upon a time, when darkrooms were all the rage, photographers wished upon their jewel-encrusted film canisters for a way to expand the dynamic range that their film was capable of recording. Photography, as was life, was all about compromise; and dynamic range was no different.

What is this mysterious substance called "Dynamic Range," you ask? For one, it's the meaning behind two-thirds of the holy acronym, "HDR." And no, the 'H' does not stand for holy. Dynamic range is the range of values (light to dark) that a medium can capture. Neither film nor digital can capture all the shades that the eye can see. With film, the problem is at the dark end of the scale (typically shadow detail), since silver-based light-sensitive materials do not record low levels very well. Digital is the opposite, and we've all experienced "blown out" highlights. This is because digital sensor elements are easily overloaded. But, on the other hand, digital's ability to record in the shadows is truly amazing.

In the olden days, if we wanted to, for example, shoot an interior picture which was lit by the light coming in through a window, we'd have to choose between letting the window (and the scene outside) go white in order to preserve interior detail; or else expose for the outside scene, leaving the interior go black. The solution was somewhat complicated. We had to shoot two pictures on a tripod, one exposed for the outside and another for the inside. Then each image was exposed onto the same sheet of light-sensitive photo paper. This was the tricky part, since precise alignment was often difficult or impossible to achieve, and masking was required. It was an expensive, trial and error process.

And then came digital. And thereafter came HDR. And photographers finally could put down their very worn jewel-encrusted film canisters. A new god was discovered, and it was called Photomatix. And it was good. HDR (High Dynamic Range) now allowed photographers to take the olde two-shot procedure and improve upon it. We could now combine three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and even more, different exposures into a single image. The magic was all done electronically within our computers. Even though processing times can run into several minutes, it beats the pants off of the old wet method.

Now, I could stand in a pitch-black hallway that looked like this . . .



and shoot five images at different exposures; which, when combined (and with some of my own personal magic stirred into the brew), could yield an image like this:



It was a miracle! Photographers near and far began using this new tool, reveling in their newfound capability. Some then discovered that they could even invoke the gods of HDR outdoors, revealing detail never before seen, like the tones and details in this relatively simple shot:



Nothing is lost to shadows OR to highlights. We had found the holy grail.

But then, the forces of darkness discovered HDR, and a new genre was born. They called it "Grunge." You've seen it, I'm sure. Everything looks moody and like it's been out in the elements for centuries. At first it was kind of cool, but it's now been so overdone that a mere glimpse can inspire retching in some photographers.

WARNING: The following image is an attempt to illustrate grunge. I just whipped it up for this rant, and it is not intended to represent either fine art or the best of the genre. It's just a parody, a grungy frickin' example of what's become so easy to do with HDR software; almost a one-trick wonder nowadays:



This genre has become all about the 'look.' Gone is the extended dynamic range, replaced by moodiness and decay. Some like it, but it's not my personal cup of meat. What irks me is that, now, when someone mentions HDR, this is what many (especially younger) photographers think of. There's no sense of HDR's relatively brief history, nor what it was originally intended to do. It's become just another trick.

I'll now step down from my soap box. It's safe to relax again.

Being new to the digital format I have found much useful information in this discussion. For the most I have taken what the digital captures with some minor adjustments and an occasional departure from reality. I have found the discussion on HDR particularly interesting since the blown hightlights (clouds for the most part in my work) were a challenge in my silver image work. Once I can relate the photoshop tricks to the burn, dodge, develop from the darkroom I think I can improve my digital images. If some one has some advice in this area it will be appreciated.

Hi Robert. Yes, many of the Photoshop tools do mimic those we used in the darkroom. It's just that now, they're usually so much easier to implement. I still think and operate much the same way that I did then, and can only wonder what might have happened with my own work if I had come of age in the era of Photoshop.

Hi Murray. Wow. i was away for almost a day and this thread exploded! lol
First of all, you're welcome Zeana for the video I posted. Hope it helps somewhat.

Murray, I for one use HDR very sparingly. I don't think its as easy as saying . . . I'm going out in my neighborhood and shoot some HDR images today. I think the situation and conditions must be right for it. It shouldn't really be forced, or you will get results such as the many we see posted regularly on FAA. Many are justified and look fine, but most are well overdone and probably would have looked better if shot non-HDR.

As for myself, I prefer your Hallway Middle Exposure. Its a little dark, but not real dark. There are things that can be done to improve it still at this point. I think it can be a nice image when completed.
The HDR version i am not so much a fan of. The hall is too bright for my taste and not as realistic looking. It does have more of a painterly feel to it which is fine if that was your intention, but as i said, i lean more towards the middle exposure version and work from there.

As far as the "HDR Grunge look" you mentioned, I agree. I am not a fan. There may be a very few instances when this may be applicable, but i don't see a need for it that much at all.

- my 2 pennies

Yesterday i briefly mentioned about doing your sharpening (or at least some of) as part of your Raw format processing, before you bring the image into photoshop. This was told to me by a friend and photo instructor. I found out from him today that the new workflow pertains to CS5 users, since there has been huge improvements made in this area in CS5. He also said this new workflow was announced by both Adobe TV and Chris Orwig on Lynda.com, but Lynda is by subscription ($400 yearly). So here is a free clip by Adobe TV. Hopefully some of you will find this interesting. It speaks of sharpening and several other Raw format adjustments.

New Camera Raw Features in Photoshop CS5

Very informative video, John. Some new and updated features to experiment with. Thanks!

No problem Murray. Glad i am able to share something helpful.

well i just upgraded from CS3 on the strength of it. Am playing now so I'll update you at some stage, if I can get off it...LOL.
Right, I'm off to find "content aware" now ;)

I'm sure you'll find lots of interesting things in there, Meirion. I did. I thought that CS5 was more evolutionary than revolutionary. It now does things better than it did before.

Meirion, Content Aware is an awesome feature. I used it a number of times now. ususally it does a great job and cuts down editing time quite a bit! You'll love it!

Thomas Schoeller;

In my reference( David Busch's NIKON D-90 Digital SLR photography) it is pointed out that a Nikon 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom telephoto lens rig has an excellent focal length and sharpnes for use in sports photography but the besty lens for action at night is ;
AFS Nikkor 300MM f/4D IF-ED mated to a 1.4 teleconverter(giving 420MM f/5.6) lens.

What I have is a Nikon 70-300MM f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR.

Anyway as I go through the explaination exposure with ISO settings and aperture priority as well as shutter priority, program modes I'm going to try some practice shots. I've already discovered that an ISO setting above 400 gets more noise. I think this is where I've not been understanding things in some of my shots tried manually. My book tels of a product called Noise Ninja which wipes out noise after the picture ha been taken.

I'm working on a daily study session untill I get it right and then I will get back with you all. Thanks again Meirion, Murray and Thomas for your encouraging input.

It would still help if a Nikon user would step up and show a picture complete with settings they have used to show various positive or negative effects. I am a visual learner more than from written words.

Vincent, whenever I have a noise issue, I turn to Noise Ninja. It's infinitely customizable, and unlike a lot of other anti-noise utilities, you can get rid of noise without losing sharpness. I highly recommend it.

One area where Nikon's newer cameras really excel is in low light photography. You can now shoot at ISO settings that were unthinkable only a year or so ago, with virtually no noise, or even none at all. This will take a lot of pressure off of lens selection for photography in less than optimum light conditions.

Either of the zoom setups you mention should do a decent job for night sports, provided you have a lot of light.

It seems like we've slowed to a halt. So, let me try to get things moving again by asking something that I've been wondering about.

With all the automation available on today's cameras, how much of it do you take advantage of? I'm thinking primarily of focus and exposure options.

For example I generally use autofocus to get "into the ballpark" and then adjust from there to put the depth of field where I want it. I've also learned that, despite being able to focus quickly and accurately after doing it for forty years, Nikon's current system is, sad to say, faster and at least as accurate as I am.

As far as exposure goes, my cameras are never, ever, in program or full-auto mode. Most of the time, they remain in Aperture Priority mode, which gives me immediate control of depth of field as well as overall sharpness. Of course, when motion is a consideration, I'll switch to Manual so that I can also control shutter speed. The reason I like AP mode is that Nikon's ISO Auto function permits me to select a the range of shutter speeds and ISO settings that I prefer for a particular situation; so not only am I virtually guaranteed to get the shot I envision, I seldom have to worry about camera movement, noise, or any of the other evils we have to contend with. I will, however, bracket any parameter that I feel will help me get the shot or provide a creative alternative.

I sometimes will also use a handheld spot meter for unusual situations, but that doesn't happen very often. It's good to have one when you need it, though.

So, what's your modus operandi?

Like most people, I started out using auto mode, but soon found that it didn't give the results I wanted. I tried AV priority next - that was better, but I found I was making a lot of adjustments to the EV compensation to try and get a faster shutter speed (too lazy to use a tripod most of the time, which is a BIG fault!). In the end, I took the plunge and switched to manual. I set the aperture first to control the depth of field, and then dial in whatever I think would be the 'ideal' shutter speed (taking acount, among other things, of the length of lens I'm using). Then I check the exposure slider in the viewfinder and juggle the aperture and shutter speed until it's no more than about 1 stop above or below the zero (knowing that I can 'rescue' a certain amount later). I keep the ISO at 100 most of the time, unless there's really not enough light, and I nearly always use autofocus, because the camera seems to do the job better than my eyes.

I'm sure there's a better way of doing things (I know I should bracket more, for instance), so I'll be watching the replies with interest to see other people's methods.

Hallo Murray, cool thread......

Question,,,, luckly I have 2 canons, one powershot d10, and my 450 ,

but my d10 has decided to go blank on me , any ideas, i cannot find my book on it, and cannot ask the right question to get answer on internet ...lol lol
lcd, is just black,it won't do anything... :( .... battery ok, im sure its something stupid, but can't find what it is....

I don't have a clue, Jo. Sometimes, cameras just die. Or, it could be something repairable. Is there any sort of master reset button? Just thinking out loud. If all else fails, have a tech look at it.

Thanks Murray i think i need to find the master reset button, gonna see if i can find the cd that came with it ,i have a feeling if its reset il be ok. when i find an answer il postback on here in case someone else gets the prob ...
cool thread ...

Hi Jane. It sounds like you may be chasing your tail a bit with your camera settings. First, you might want to up your ISO to 200, or even 400 if you don't get too much noise. This will get you a faster shutter speed. Trying to shoot at 100 all the time can be a real handicap. It's almost as if you're willing to sacrifice a proper exposure for . . . for . . . I'm not really sure what. Getting the exposure right is as important as focusing in my book. If you give away one end of the brightness spectrum, you'll never get the image to look really right. Rescuing is one thing, but I can't imagine constantly having to correct exposure.

Maybe consider a monopod? They're a lot lighter and more convenient than tripods. I swear my Chinese-made carbon fiber Induro monopod weighs about as much as a ballpoint pen, collapses down to nothing, and with a quick-release, it's really a no-brainer.

Thanks, Murray, I should have explained my reason for sticking to ISO 100. I do a lot of stock photography, in fact most of my photos are taken primarily with stock in mind, and the slightest hint of noise triggers rejections there. I've tried noise reduction software, but that triggers a rejection for 'over-use of noise reduction software', so the general consensus on stock sites is that it's best to stick to the lowest ISO available to the camera, which in my case (Pentax K10D) happens to be 100.

There's been so much fuss made about noise that I'm almost paranoid about it now, although I admit, it does make life difficult!

Just to let you know, found the reset, that didn't work, so phoned canon, (they were really cool ) and she said it sounded like loose wire or sensor , needs to go to the docs... :( my camera's got flu...... thank heavens i got another ... :)

As an old film guy I found long ago that the automatic features just did not get the exposure and hence negative quality that is needed for a really outstanding black and white print. There was the rare time that lighting conditions and camera automation controls coincided for a proper exposure. The automation system in digital cameras is confused very easily as I have found so back to what I learned many years ago. I am still finding my way with the settings on my digital and when I am not sure I resort to bracketing. I have been thi9nking about using my hand held spot meter and getting some calibration between that meter and manual settings on the digital camera. Has anyone tried this and had success???

I bought a new lens for my Canon Eos, when I attach it I get the error 99 anyone familiar with what to do,, I googled they suggested cleaning the connections, let the camera sit with no battery or card in it for 20 minutes to clear memory,, but I still get it.. aaargh,,,, love to hear your thoughts.. thanks,,,j

Robert - have you experimented with the different metering modes on your camera (spot, centre weighted, matrix, with or without AE lock, etc)? Changing the settings there can sometimes make a difference..

Julie, try this http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2005/04/29/50mm-lens-contact-points/
I don't know how you cleaned the camera and lens contacts but this about the old pencil eraser trick which is the best way going ;)
If it only happens with the new lens then it's either that particular lens contacts are greasy or it's a problem deeper in the lens. If you've cleaned the contacts as well as you can then return the lens to the shop.

Jane
Thank you for responding. Yes I have tried the various settings with mixed results. The in camera metering system has difficulty handling a high contrast scene. I do landscapes in the main and the shadow to cloud spread is a problem. I notice it mostly when doing black and white. I expect that with practice I will get this under control. I am a practitioner of the Zone System for my traditional film work and the hand held spot meter is a helpful tool getting the exposure right for high contrast scenes. Of course in all of this there is the intangible of variation in response from different computer monitors.

Jane, you know I'm a Pentax man here. K10D, K20D and K-7.
The way I operate is this. Full manual when tripod mounted. When I'm on the move or too lazy to carry the tripod I use Pentax's SV (sensitivity priority).
Rear dial programmed for aperature adjustment, front dial programmed to shutterspeed adjustment. ISO, sensitivity is at 100 so I choose my aperature and let the camera set the shutterspeed. Most of the time my experience allows me to set a EV adjustment before I click but I always do a quick "chimp" to check. If it still doesn't look right on the camera's own screen I can make a further EV adjustment and reshoot immediately.
That's how I like to do it anyway.
Autofocus unless the camera is struggling to lock then a tweak by hand to help it. Again, on the tripod it's manual focus too.

Robert, high contrast scenes are always a big problem - it's not just the metering, but the ability of the sensor to handle extremes of contrast. Sometimes the only thing to do is to take two shots, one exposed for the sky and one for the landscape, and then combine them in whatever program you use for processing.

Meirion, I don't use SV very often, mainly because I'd be keeping it at 100 most of the time anyway, but I'll try it out. I'm not making full use of the EV compensation either - I find I get sort of stuck in a rut and do the same thing over and over again. Must try new methods!

PS - Thank goodness there's somebody else out there who uses something other than a Canon or a Nikon! ;)

we're rare but privileged breed Jane, they don't know what they're all missing....................LOL.

Thank you Meirion, that was a great article,, I've tried the cleaning connections etc.. I only get the error from one certain lens,, so I have to believe thats the problem... Thanks again!!

quick update from me on my playing with CS5. WOW, loving it right now. Maybe not such a biggie for the more experienced photoshoppers but I just found that I can now open my jpg and tiff files in adobe camera raw!!! Now that's nice!!! I haven't even found "content aware" yet but I'm liking CS5 a lot straight out of the box :)

EDIT - Julie, I hope you have some joy with taking the lens back for one that works ;)

Meirion, Content Aware isn't a thing, it's a method. It's the way that some Photoshop functions now work. For example, when you used to burn or dodge, PS simply made the areas lighter or darker. This often resulted in graying, bleaching, or off-color effects. Now, PS recognizes what's already there and matches the effect (reasonably well, from my experience) to the content. Burn and dodge now have check boxes to preserve the tonality.

Photoshop can be a wonderful adventure. I only scratch the surface of its capabilities and am fine with that! When I think of something new I want to accomplish, it seems that there's always a way.

Aaaaaaah, I wondered what the "preserve tonality" thing was. That's really nice 'cos the burning especially was hard work sometimes with that greying. If that's a thing of the past I'm a complete convert ;)

Great thread Murry!

All my life I've been interested in light and color. So, I've become dissatisfied with the 19th century theories on the nature of light - despite using them in my 'Art Head Start' ebook (where I felt they were good simplifications for artists who didn't want to study today's more accurate Quantum Mechanical theories).

But maybe some here would like to really understand how light works.

Light is not waves, nor some hybrid of waves and particles "wavicles". The modern view (supported by much experimentation and able to explain all aspects and behaviors of light) shows that light is only photons (particles) and that, on the macro level, the randomness inherent in the sub-atomic domain causes light to behave in ways that can be partially explained by the old wave theory. Einstein and other world class physicists wanted to understand why the wave theories didn't always work. Their work led to the current Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) theory.

One of my favorite authors is Richard P. Feynman, the famous physicist (and character), who worked on QED. Knowing Richard Feynman was also an excellent teacher, I was recently delighted to find that a book was published containing his public lectures on QED!

Since these lectures were meant for lay people as well as physicists, I hoped they would let me learn more about the nature of light, armed only with my amateur understanding of Quantum Mechanics. It worked and I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a deeper understanding of light and it's behaviors:

"QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter", by Richard P. Feynman
Princeton Science Library. 1985.
Amazon has it.

Feynman's other books are great reads too - especially "Surly You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!". He really was an amazing character.

I'm glad you've come by, Jim. Welcome. I've always liked both your art and how you apply your knowledge to its creation. You're right about Richard Feynman. From what I've read about him, he was a trip; a real intellectual renaissance man.

Thanks Murry. That "Surly You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" book will have one rolling on the floor laughing, as well as pondering the cosmos, learning about learning, discovering how to succeed with women and much else. Guess I've read it six times at least.

@ Vincent. I dont put too much creedence into David Busch's camera users guides when it comes to chosing lenses and other gear. He does an appropriate job of breaking down the menu's and function chores of all the advanced gadgetry attached to specific camera bodies. For truly advanced test on Nikon products I would bypass all the rest and refer to Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell.

ISO of 400 should not be causing you excessive noise with a body as advanced as the D90. ISO of 1600 should only provide minimal noise, and to be honest it shouldnt be a factor until 3200. Im curious if you have diagnosed the issue correctly as noise, and you not having a problem with your memory media (SD or CF card) and maybee have some hot pixels.

You closed your last post by asking for other Nikon users to offer up examples of various effects so you could learn from visualizing. I cant help there because: If I had anything from photoshoots that would show "negative" effects, it simply wouldnt last but a moment in my hard drive (if it survived me chimping the results on the cameras LCD) I aggressivly and ruthlessly edit the hell out of my photoshoots and anything with the slightest flaw gets sh!tcanned so fast.......I purposely over and under expose when shooting for high dynamic range photography-those are the only ones I keep because they are of use to me.

I'm going to refer you to a website that I feel you will find to be of immense help to yourself. (yep, you can upload pics there too) Its a wonderful community loaded with advanced Nikon users and beginners alike-and anyone inbetween. I see Fine Arts America more as a "sales" website and less a source to find out the specifics you are seeking. The website link is www.nikonians.org It might cost a just few bucks for basic membership but for yourself the forum will be worth it. You will have access to information technology engineers (by trade) and dedicated experienced Nikon users happy to help. Hope to see ya there!

Meirion tis the joy of ebay,, aargh,,, thanks for the help!!

Julie, ooops! Hope you can resolve it satisfactorily.

It's all gone quite in the world of photography today.

Who wants to talk about "depth of field", aperature selection, diffraction etc, etc?

Sure, Meirion, but that's lot to cover. Why not start us off with a question?

Well before we go getting waaaaay too complicated with the likes of diffraction, there's a whole host of "learners" watching this thread so how about some basics on aperature selection and the effect that has on the final image?

Just want to say...great thread Murray! Thanks for the info, I'll keep reading.

The best understanding of photographic principles I learned from my father. I added to my knowledge by reading the series of books that Ansel Adams produced. While his books are directed to black and white photography they are well written and understandable. The first two volumes are good starting points they are
Book One Camera and Lens - camera fundamentals, lenses eetc

Book Two The Negative - lighting, exposure, zone values etc

I believe they are still in print and should be available online or through a bookstore.
Much of that information and knowledge can be applied to digital. I have found that the complexities of a digital camera, all the exposure options etc, has been the main challenge for me. I found that measuring and applying exposure in black and white was simpler.

DEPTH OF FIELD - PART ONE

Depth of Field refers to how much of an image lies within the zone of sharp focus. In theory, a lens can focus at only one distance. However, there is a range (about 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind the focus point) in which things will appear to be in focus, even if they're not. This is caused by a phenomenon called "circles of confusion." Skipping all the technical stuff, circles of confusion refer to how far out of focus picture elements can go before they're actually perceived as unsharp. The range of apparent sharpness is what's known as depth of field, or simply DOF.

Depth of field (DOF) is determined by two principal factors, the focal length of the lens (or its zoom setting) and the aperture being used to take the picture. We can dispose of the focal length issue by simply stating that shorter focal lengths (wide-angle and fisheye) permit deeper DOF, or a longer range of apparent focus; while longer focal lengths (telephoto) are more restrictive and present a shallower DOF.

How aperture affects DOF is the fun part. "What is aperture?" you ask. A lens's aperture is a measure of the width of its optical path relative to its focal length, expressed as an f-number. For example, a 50mm lens las a focal length of 50mm, or about two inches. A 50mm f1.0 lens would have an optical path that's two inches in diameter at its narrowest point. Such lenses are rare and used mostly on very high-end cinema cameras. Understand that, as f-numbers get larger, the lens opening becomes smaller. As a general rule, professional lenses offer maximum apertures of f1.2 to f4, while consumer optics fall into the f3.5 to f5.6 range.

Returning to our theoretical 50mm lens, if its aperture is set at f4, this means that the light traveling through the lens (from front to back) has been restricted in width to 1/4 of its 50mm focal length, or about half an inch in diameter. Think of it as an hourglass, with the aperture located at the skinny part.

Nearly all lenses have variable apertures. This is accomplished with a device called a diaphragm, which is simply a disk with a hole in its center. The disk is not solid, but is made up of a number of blades, usually five or more (the more the better) and it opens and closes in much the same way as does the iris in your eye. In fact, your eye's iris is an aperture, and your eye also experiences depth of field. But I digress . . .

Before digital cameras, lenses had what's called an aperture ring (some still do, see the picture below), which rotates just like the focus and zoom rings. The aperture ring contains markings for the f-numbers, often called f-stops because the rings would click into position at the most common settings: f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, etc. Most lenses "stop down" to f16 or f22, while macro lenses go further to f32 and sometimes f45. There are specialized lenses for larger format cameras and unique uses that can be closed way down to f64, f90, f128 and beyond, but they're not part of the world as we know it. Aperture rings have been replaced with electronic controls on our digital cameras. We now control the lens opening with an adjusting wheel, or we can let the camera handle it as an automatic function.



The aperture ring is at the bottom of the lens.


More to come . . . For even more excitement, stay tuned for PART TWO, coming shortly.

DEPTH OF FIELD - PART TWO

First and foremost, lens aperture is one of the two principal ways to control exposure, or how much light reaches the camera's film or sensor. The other method is by controlling the shutter speed. Exposure decisions are made based on balancing the two methods, considering the characteristics of the scene being photographed as well as the photographer's creative choices.

In addition to helping control how much light passes through the lens, lens opening (aperture) controls depth of field. There are lots of diagrams online, so I won't draw one here, nor will I get into all the technical stuff. All that needs saying is that the smaller the aperture, the greater the DOF, and vice versa. If you want, for instance, to shoot a portrait with only your subject's face in focus, use a large lens opening (lower f-number). Look at the following picture. I decided that I wanted the model's foreground shoulder, face, bead bracelet, hands and the gold coins to be in sharp focus (if you click on the image and then use the green square preview, you can even see the veins in her eyeball), but her left shoulder and arm weren't important to the shot, so I chose my lens opening accordingly and let them go soft; hence, the DOF did not include her left shoulder and arm:



If, on the other hand, you want virtually total DOF, use a smaller lens opening. This is particularly useful in landscape photography:



While not quite in perfect focus, you can still see the spaces between the rocks on the horizon. Many better cameras have what is called a "depth of field preview" button. Learn to use it. It can be a great creative tool.

This brings up a compromise that we need to be aware of. While very small lens openings extend depth of field, they usually also degrade sharpness somewhat through a phenomenon called diffraction. Again, optical theory is a bit much to go into here, but the important thing to remember is that every lens has what we call a "sweet spot," in both its zoom and aperture ranges. Generally speaking, the sweet spot usually coincides with the middle of the respective ranges. For instance, a 17-55mm zoom lens will typically have least distortion at about its 35mm setting. Most lenses will be sharpest at about f8, so if you shoot mostly in Aperture Priority mode, as I do, that's good place to start out, and make changes to suit the situation.

Both of the pictures above utilize what is called "hyperfocal distance." This is the theoretical depth of field limit at any given lens setting. It varies dramatically with focus. DOF markings used to be commonplace on lenses, but are rare nowadays. Note the scale beneath the focus numbers on the lens illustration in the previous post. It indicates the in-focus range at any given focus setting. In this case it's between about 2.0 and 2.7 feet at f16. Nikon, and I suspect some other brands also, furnishes extensive technical specifications and charts with their professional lenses. All the information you need to get maximum performance from your camera/lens combination is right there for you to use; but it can take some determined reading, comprehension and practice to put it to use.

One last thing. Depth of field issues are exaggerated when working in the macro world. In fact, you may have barely the thickness of a coin to work with. However, the same rules still apply, just be careful to make sure that your zone of sharp focus includes everything in the shot that's important, and if your camera has a DOF preview, use it. It will help you to judge the quality of the out of focus areas and use them as a creative element of your images. The spider in this image was less than a quarter of an inch long and really put my macro lens to the acid test:




I hope that these two posts have answered any questions you might have. If you've got others, feel free to ask. I'll be happy to give it my best shot and work up an answer.

Here is a little excerpt from my Art Head Start ebook about Diffraction (edited a bit):

Diffraction:
When a light wave encounters a straight on edge that is large and smooth, relative to its wavelength, it bends by Diffraction. Because of the microscopic wavelengths of light, diffraction is sometimes demonstrated with a “Knife Edge”. For instance you can focus a light beam at right angles to a precision edge - like a sharp razor blade.

Two such razor blades can make a “Knife Edge Slot” demonstration. It focuses light without a lens. Such a slot or slit, can be made by mounting 2 razor blades, almost touching, over a hole in a piece of cardboard, as my illustration shows.

The right image below shows a computer simulation of light waves (by Paul Falstad) coming from a great distance at the top. They are parallel (collimated) and diffracting from the sharp edges of a narrow slot (white), such as the one in the left image.



.......A precise narrow slot...............Diffraction through a slot or hole
You can make such a diffraction “lens” from any small hole with fairly precise edges, like a pinprick in aluminum foil. For a quick example, just hold your hand very close to your eye and make the smallest possible opening you can, by holding your first and second fingers against the pad of your thumb, leaving a tiny triangular opening between your thumb and two fingers.

Such a small hole doesn’t let much light through, so the image is dim, but if you look through it at a bright light source, you will see that you have made a diffraction focusing lens without any glass.

Photo hobbyists use diffraction to make “pinhole cameras” - boxes with film in them and a tiny precise hole in a piece of metal as a lens.

A CD/ROM has millions of tiny "pits" etched into an otherwise mirror surface, to record and playback digital information. The CD is meant to be read by a Laser light beam. The laser beam reflected from the CD recovers the digital ones and zeros, since it directly reflects into a sensor where there is no surface pit and is scattered away from the sensor where there is a pit.

Diffraction Colors (The Diffraction Grating):
Each of these millions of microscopic mirrored pit edges can bend light by diffraction. So, they reflect to your eyes many beams of any light that strikes them at the correct angle. It happens that different frequencies (wavelengths) of light reflect at slightly different angles, breaking up white light into colors. In Quantum Electrodynamics, this is because of the spacing between the pits Vs the wavelength (color) and the location of the observer. In the old and inaccurate wave theory, it's thought of as an effect of constructive and destructive interference between the reflections of waves of different wavelengths in the white light (which are out of step, that is, "out of phase").



Colors from diffraction

How did I know that you'd do exactly that, Jim? ;-)

In fact, I almost alluded to your as-yet nonexistent post when writing mine. Thanks for the explanation. You mentioned pinhole cameras. Here's mine (made of thin plywood), which takes 4x5 sheet film. Its name is a parody of my Linhof Super Technika view camera. It features a brass lens plate and tripod sockets, as well as twin viewfinder arrows to indicate which way to point it. :-D

Hey Murray - I had a Linhoff Technika 4X5 once! Loved those swings & tilts and the rotating film plane. Didn't love the 55 minutes of hand film agitation in an open tank in complete blackness (Ansel's Zone System, which I used to teach).

Great thread Murray. Love the explanation of DOF. Could you post on settings you would use for photographing a moving target. I see you have sold an image of a Sea Gull in flight recently and am interested in how to get the best image possible for this type of photography and how does light affect the settings, such as sunny and overcast. I am using a 300 mm. myself

Murray
I like your description of f stop and depth of field. It is quite helpful. One of the things that I miss is a good depth of field preview feature on a digital camera. I am used to that on the view camera and 6 x 6 Rollei SLR and TLR that I have used for many years. The small view finder and lcd screen on my Canon digital SLR does not give me a really clear view of depth of field variation with aperture. My use of eyeglasses makes it more difficult for me. Have you found a way around this difficulty?
Also have you read any of the Ansel Adams books and if so what do you think about them?

Thomas, for a moving target (and assuming I want sharpness and not some motion blur), I use the fastest shutter speed/ISO combination that will freeze the action and not give me unacceptable noise levels. 1/500 or 1/1000 second will work for most situations, including sports.

In the case of the image you mention, the gull was barely moving, just floating on the air currents. It was shot at 1/2500 sec and f5 at 200mm (300mm, effective). The lens was a Nikon 70-200mm f/:2.8. I chose the relatively wide aperture in order to keep the clouds soft and not compete with the bird's sharpness:



Robert, while I wear glasses for reading and close-up seeing, I keep my camera's viewfinder adjusted for use without them. Yes, the depth of field preview on my Nikons is something less than optimal due to the small sensor size/cropped viewfinder; but it's still adequate for my needs. I can't imagine using an LCD for DOF preview.

Murray
On another matter posted here I noticed a comment about Zone System practice. I have found that it is a sound basis for excellent black and white work. As I noted previously I am looking for a way to apply some of those principles to my digital work. Also I have gotten around the many minutes in darkness developing negatives including 4 x 5 cut film with the use of a Jobo system that is a combined temperature controlled water bath and rotation system operated in full light after the film is loaded in the appropriate tank. I dont want to take this discussion away from your intent just curious what the experience of others has been and the applicability to our digital efforts.
One thing I am hoping to do is to be able to better take my view of a scene and take it to a digital image with some degree of control and certainty and in the process reduce the amount of adjusting I would have to do with my computer prior to going to a final print. Maybe this is not possible like I have done with black and white or it may be that I just need much more experience with the digital system. Any thoughts on the matter?

Robert, I also started out with film. You're right, daylight processors were a godsend. I used Uni-Roller gear, mostly.

I learned the Zone System early on and kind of intuitively apply it to my digital color work now. The main difference is that the sensitivity curves have pretty much reversed themselves with digital. Now you have to fight to retain highlight detail, where before it was shadows. Generally, I now expose for the highlights and process for the shadows.

The learning curve isn't really all that steep. You just have to evolve a workflow that works efficiently for you. You can even make batch-processing adjustments like we used to do with developer temperature and agitation.

Murray
Thank you for your thoughts. I understand your premise and the reverse thought from the traditional exposure measurement. Do you regularly make a series of bracketed exposures ie. one or two stop over and one or two stop under the norm?

I generally shoot only one, maybe a second underexposing a bit if I think it will be necessary. If exposure looks like a nightmare, I'll get out the tripod, bang out a 5-shot sequence (-2 to +2 stops) and process as an HDR in Photomatix.

Thanks Murray.

@Robert:

Don't know how much this has already been discussed above, but digital dynamic range control can be had to some extent with Photoshop "Levels" (apply first thing in your PS workflow) and with "Curves" (both sometimes applied separately to each RGB color channel), or (with "Curves") to a "Selected" portion of the image - usually with a "Feathered" edge.

Of course HDRI (High Dynamic Range Images) are a theoretical answer to limited Dynamic Range. Just as you need a Woofer, Mid Range speaker and a Tweeter to reproduce the full range of music frequencies perceptible by human hearing, it makes sense to make Bright Part, Mid and Shadow exposures and combine them in the final image to approach the dynamic range of human vision (maybe 100,000:1?).

The problem in practice is that current display media also lack the dynamic range to present your HDRI image well. This leads to some pretty awful compromises. After all, a computer monitor displaying a 100% dynamic range HDRI sun-lighted landscape into a dark room really should project strong sunbeams into that room.

@Murray:
Could you write something about how you "fit" your HDR images into the limited dynamic range of your display media. I've experimented a bit with HDRI (Vue Infinite 3D modeling can output HDR images and you can also "illuminate" your 3D modeled scenes from HDR "environment" images - known in 3D modeling as IBL or "Image-Based Lighting"). But the final displays have been pretty disappointing to me.

Thanks...

Murray and Jim Thank you for the guidance.
I see that I must work more with the digital system and that some bracketing is inherent in some cases, not what I am used too in my b and w work. And then there will be some digital darkroom work, perhaps more than I anticipated when I entered the digital world. At least in the digital darkroom you can make it a lightroom and drink your coffee or other beverage of choice while you work and your hands are dry!!

It really depends on what you're after, Jim. Your audio analogy is a good one. With two huge 12-driver speakers, a powerful subwoofer, plus in-wall surrounds, I can reproduce pretty convincing music or SFX. I have ceiling cracks to prove it. lol

I don't worry too much about the display, except to the extent that it mirrors what I print. For me, prints are the product. As long as I can achieve a complete detail range from light to dark with a realistic middle, I'm fine. My problem is with the way that a lot of HDR work is being processed nowadays; it looks like people don't understand what the world really looks like. Either that, or they live in a pretty grim place.

That sounds very sensible and pragmatic Murray. I take it then that you're not using HDR to try to extend the dynamic range of the final display medium (not really possible) but to achieve more realism within that given range.

I agree about the odd look of many HDR images. Perhaps they are letting their fascination with this new technology drive them, rather than them driving the technology.

You've got it exactly, Jim. To try to expand the dynamic range of the display medium is a fool's errand. It can't be done. All we can do is to perfect how well we work within its constraints.

I think it's a matter of them (those who work in the 'grunge' motif, for example) having found an 'easy' way of creating images that look distinctive to them; despite the fact that, taken in their totality, the sheer number of grunge images out there (in a relatively short period of time) has eliminated that distinctiveness.

I know I've used this image to illustrate a post before (on a different thread), but I like it as an example of what I prefer to do with HDR. I keep a 16x24 print of this one on the wall in my studio just to remind myself what digital can do when everything goes right:

Murray..."First and foremost, lens aperture is one of the two principal ways to control exposure, or how much light reaches the camera's film or sensor. The other method is by controlling the shutter speed. Exposure decisions are made based on balancing the two methods.


Hope this is not a dumb question, but I was just wondering... (in relation to the above statement)

When you first started with digital...did you find that doing what you always did before a shot with film was the same as with digital?... Or...does film and it's different speeds make your decisions on settings different than with digital. Is digital...for lack of a better word..."easier" in that regard? (thinking process before a shot)

As far as 35mm, I've used my good old Pentax K1000 since the 70's...:)...and have a Nikon Coolpix 8700...but someday I have to get a decent SLR, I don't like not having the control they offer, even with my limited knowledge of what to do.

Excellent thread!!

Welcome, Lawrence. Not a dumb question at all.

My transition to digital was a no-brainer. The principles are all the same, just sometimes a tad different in execution. Understand, I had a very long photographic history under my belt when I went digital in 2002, when Nikon came out with their D100. It did virtually everything my pro SLRs did, used the same lenses and had Nikon's already familiar ergonomics.

As for ISO speeds, since I can set my dSLRs at virtually any speed I want (except for the really low ones below ISO 50), there's no difference there, either. The thinking/shooting process is the same for me, too. I've always been deliberative when I shoot, and still have a 'film' mindset, where every shot is important. Digital gives more immediate control over many aspects of the shooting process, so of course there was a learning curve. But, I sure don't miss the hours I spent toiling in the dark. As much as I liked the magic of making B/W and Color prints using 'wet' processes, I'd rather be sitting at the computer doing post-processing.

Regarding your future upgrade, I've always maintained that a better camera will not make you take better pictures. But, if you're serious, inquisitive, and apply yourself, it can make you a better photographer.

The Nikon DSLR I have is basically a computer and it presents shooting data in comparison to 35mm film at the push of a button. I'm using a program called Aperture Academic. This transferes shooting metadata you have uploaded and all your work and sends it to photoshop or anywhere you desire.

Hi Vincent. All digital cameras are more or less equal parts camera and computer. It's interesting that when a digicam has a problem, it's usually the computer part.

I've never used Aperture, but know people who have. It's a good program, they tell me. Metadata stays with an image no matter what software you use. It's part of the image file.

my mention of diffraction was more in context of aperature selection than the pure physics of it.

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00NX5k

I rarely use higher than f16 due to diminishing returns of sharpness Vs DOF.

One "The switch to digital from film", I found several advantages to digital Vs film, which affect my work.

The most important is that (like the Polaroid 4x5 "negative/positive" film I once used) you get instant feedback about the quality of your visualization of a shot. This speeds your learning curve because you don't have the delay in seeing your results that allows you to fool yourself about your intent Vs your results. And that means you can try again right away. This is a huge advantage to students.

Some incidental things about my particular camera ("prosumer" Fujifilm Finepix S-6000):
With an LCD through-the-lens viewfinder (not optical SLR), the scene light is amplified and I can also overlay a scene light curve (histogram) and other useful tools.
RAW format and a camera hard drive lets me improve the technical quality of images while never running out of storage space (like Murray, I'm pretty deliberate about making exposures).
The camera is light in mass, so a monopod is sufficient for most shots - meaning I don't have to lug around a stiff tripod. My camera was made before image stabilization was common in that price range - its biggest drawback for me.

I've mentioned the "Neat Image" digital noise reduction program in other discussions, but not here before. Neat Image is a very smart program. I think it uses a Neural Network or other AI (Artificial Intelligence) component - but not sure of that.

I use it often to remove digital sampling artifacts from my 3D modeled renderings, as well as for photos. The results look like magic, as your noise and other digital artifacts vanish.

You basically sample a noisy area of your photo, then apply the custom filter which that creates and then manually manage various settings to further improve the results.

Neat Image

Thanks Murray!

Good point, Jim!
(re:instant feedback about the quality of your visualization of a shot.)

Murray, I have a question that's been bothering me and I don't really know how to find the answer.

I just don't understand how file sizes, compression and re-sizing works and it's final effect - for getting the best quality print - here on FAA and if I want to upload a file to another site for printing or when I want to print my own 8x10.

So far, I edit all my photos at picnik.com and I'm not talking about their resizing options under the edit tab.

Here is what I have been doing, once I finished editing, I save my work to my computer. When I click safe, a little box pops up with a slider called JPG compression quality.

It's set to automatically compress the file - to 8 - on their slider and all I can tell you is that it says "Sweet spot of really good quality and file size". When I looked a little closer just now, so that I could ask you this question using the right terms - I noticed it also showed a file size of 1.73 MB for my photo. (I have a Nikon D90 and this particular picture showed as 4288x2848)

So then I tried to move the slider and sure enough I can move it up all the way up to 10. Then it said" Best quality huge file size" and 5.21MB

Each number on the slider apparently creates a different file size, I just never paid attention to it - 6 for instance said "OK quality somwewhat small file size - 1.24MB"

So here are my three questions:

1. Should I have been using the best quality large file size all along - why or why not?

2. Do I need to change all my FAA photos to best quality so I can get the best print results? Or do they have some kind of magic to undo the file compression once I upload the file?

3. What about photos that I want to upload to my own photo blog, social websites I contribute to and a friend's blog that I sometimes contribute to - should I go down to the OK quality on all those, or what do you suggest?

One more thing - just to help me understand this once and for all - is this compression business the same as if I went in under the edit and resized my file or is that something different?

Another thing that I have noticed that when I want to print a photo at say Ritz Camera, it often only lets me go to say 16x20 in size - so how is it possible for the same picture on FAA to be printed at a larger size say maybe up to 30x40?

Hope you can sort it all out for me - thank you for your help!

Hi Rose. Thanks for dropping by. I'll Your questions are not uncommon.

The terminology they're using to describe file size is simply not accurate. 5.21MB is not a "huge" file by any means. 1.24MB isn't small. It's tiny, especially for a file from which you intend to make 16x20 prints. To answer your questions:

1. Always use the highest quality, regardless of file size. Storage has gotten downright cheap nowadays. Reducing JPG quality can have significant consequences on image quality, especially if the file is changed and re-saved several times.

2. Your FAA uploads should always be of the highest quality or print quality will suffer. You may not notice the damage on the previews, but it will be obvious on prints, especially larger ones. Once a file is compressed, the damage is done. There is no magic wand.

3. Website and blog photos can be uploaded at a lower quality, but always use the best quality that you can.

Compression isn't the same size as resizing. It's a file handling technique aimed at saving as few 1s and 0s as possible. While the compression routines are very complex, they still damage the image. Re-sizing, on the other hand is based upon interpolation, where individual pixels are adjusted based on those that are adjacent to them. If you are reducing size, pixels are eliminated. If you are upsizing (not recommended for images that will be printed), new pixels are added.

Chances are that the Ritz printer is basing image size on 300 pixels per inch, while FAA uses a 100 ppi limit for the largest prints. This will impact quality, and I recommend leaving the largest size box unpriced on FAA, or even the largest two.

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, let me know.

"So here are my three questions:

1. Should I have been using the best quality large file size all along - why or why not?

2. Do I need to change all my FAA photos to best quality so I can get the best print results? Or do they have some kind of magic to undo the file compression once I upload the file?

3. What about photos that I want to upload to my own photo blog, social websites I contribute to and a friend's blog that I sometimes contribute to - should I go down to the OK quality on all those, or what do you suggest?

One more thing - just to help me understand this once and for all - is this compression business the same as if I went in under the edit and resized my file or is that something different? "

Hi Rose, Murray may want to expand on this but it's quiet in here right now so I'll give you my personal take.
1 - Yes, definitely. Best quality, large file size equates to better quality, larger prints. Print a large print form a low resolution file and the image becomes "mushy". JPG compression removes information from the file. This works fine for display on the web because most browsers cope with image resolution of 72ppi. Most printing needs at least 140ppi to get a print that looks sharp and detailed.

2 - Yes again in my opinion. If you have uploaded low resolution files the prints from your files will be substandard. I am not aware of any "magic" at FAA.

3 - Any pics for use on the web can be saved/uploaded at lowest quality settings and still look good. I don't know your software but in photoshop you can "save for web" and I think this saves at 72ppi, lowest resolution.

Your final question, I don't really know the answer but I'm going to guess that it isn't. Re-size usually means a physical change to the dimensions of the image. Re-size would normally be change from 3000 x 2000 to 300 x 200 pixels or in centimetres or inches rather than a change to the resolution, ie pixels per inch. Like I say, don't know your software so I could be wrong on this question.

EDIT - looks like I was typing at the same time as Murray ;)

Murray and Meirion - thanks a million - and practically identical answers too:)

OMG - should I cry now or later?

My next questions then

1. I can still go to my original photo (not the compressed file version) and edit it, since the original image hasn't been compromised, right?

2. So if I used photoshop or a similar program I wouldn't have this problem?


"Chances are that the Ritz printer is basing image size on 300 pixels per inch, while FAA uses a 100 ppi limit for the largest prints. This will impact quality, and I recommend leaving the largest size box unpriced on FAA, or even the largest two"

Yes, I vaguely remember seeing something like that at Ritz. I'll take your advice about leaving the largest two unpriced, I had started doing that already, because I felt uneasy about the quality issue.
I think I'll just order a couple of prints of my favs and see for myself.

This year is the first time I will be taking photo classes and I am seriously trying to at least understand enough about the technical aspects to improve my work while learning new photo programs.

Looks like I'll have to delete everything and start over. I am so glad you explained this to me in an understandable fashion.

THANK YOU both so much for taking the time to explain.

You're welcome, Rose. Sorry about being the bearer of bad news (answers to your previous post). Remember, it's very important not to shoot the messenger.

Regarding your new questions, good news:

1. Yes, just open your original files and do your editing. Then save at high quality. Replace or delete the compressed ones to avoid future confusion.

2. Photoshop will give you the same options, but you should still save at high quality. PS will also give you more file type options. For example, you can save your FAA uploads as PNG files, rather than JPGs. The advantage is that, while they're still somewhat compressed, there is no quality loss.

Enjoy your photo classes. :-D

There are so many tools in PS that they can be hard to sort out. When I open an image in PS - not a raw file - the first tool I click on is the Curve tool. It is such a great tool for adjusting lighting and contrast. For creating High Key and Low Key images. It is a tool that is well worth exploring.

On the subject of compression - I don't think anybody has mentioned this yet (unless I've missed something), but jpg compression is progressive.

Opening a jpg file, editing and then saving again as a jpg will re-compress the original (compressed) file, losing yet more quality. Doing this several times, even if you choose the highest quality available each time, can cause deterioration to the point where the file is unusable. For this reason, you should always save the working version of a file in an uncompressed format such as .tif or .psd and only at the end, when you've finished editing, save a single copy as .jpg or .png for uploading. That way, should you decide that you want to go back and do some more work on the image, you can re-open the uncompressed .tif (or .psd) version, work in that, and save a new .jpg copy when you've finished.

Yes, Jane. This was mentioned a while back, and by now has probably been swallowed up by the Big Skip. However, it's important to know and certainly well worth restating. Thanks.

Oops!

PNG's cause less compression and quality degradation? So save them in that format? Ok.....I will keep that in mind for the future.

Yes, Ang. PNGs can be uploaded to FAA and are the best way to upload your images. Their file sizes are somewhat larger than JPGs, but not excessively so.

PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics.

It was orginally designed to replace the GIF. They both offer transparencies but, unlike GIFs, PNGs can't be used for animation. They are great for uploading Tshirt designs though, since they carry more color information.

PNGs actually work best with more grahic-like images that don't carry a lot of shadings as you find in photos. This has mainly to do with file size. The amount of info found in a graphic is considerably less then a photo, so a graphic saved as a PNG would be a much smaller file size. Also, you will actually get better compression with lossy compression than you will with lossless compression.

Keep in mind that JPG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group. It was designed by the group as a standard format for storing and transmitting photographic images. As we discussed earlier and no doubt lost in the big skip, JPGs work very well if they are only saved once and uploaded.

There is one good reason to suggest using PNGs generally, and that is because the average person will tend to overwork JPGs before uploading them. So, yes, overall it is the best recommendation.

Well it's all getting a bit deeply technical and eerily quiet.....LOL.

What's your favourite style of, or subject matter for photography and why?

I've never really thought of myself as having a favourite subject matter because I'm happy to point a lens at just about anything if it is "worthy".
From a style standpoint I think my portfolio has a leaning toward wide-angle with a dash of drama?

Great Thread!

Meirion, dash of drama and rich colors definitely make a great combination. Which of your images do you feel best demonstrates this?

well I guess these two are the sort of thing that really "floats my boat" so to speak.
.

.


It's hard to choose 'cos I've got a good handful in this style ;)

Meirion, yes you do and both of these are stunning. Love the angles. You spend a lot of time close to the ground :)

Kathleen, I have a philosophy regarding wide-angle photography. If I come home without filthy dirty knees, wet feet and legs and even backside then I haven't done it right ! I know I've been doing a good job if I get home looking like a 12yr old boy who's been out to play football.........LOL.

Time to chime in. I have gone back through the dialogue and low and behold everyone has been talking about compression issues that I have had questions about for weeks now. It always seems the image I upload is nowhere the quality I see it in in my iMac. I have figured out how to get around this but my concern is just how good is the file faa will use for printing. I am very picky about quality and the stuff faa prints better be the best. Obviously, I have not field tested their printing quality. It would help if I sold something and got some feed back. I guess it is time to have my Mom buy something so I can see the end result-lol!

My favourite subject was originally landscapes, with sunrises and sunsets in particular. More recently I've been getting into still life and trying out different ideas. This is a recent image that I really like.

Kathleen, I also use a very wide-angle lens. I would buy a fish-eye (7mm digital) if I had the money. For the recent Yosemite trip I purchased a 10-18mm Nikon lens. One of the best purchases I have made since I bought my 300mm f4. Expensive but must haves for lansdscape photographers.

this was a little thing I wrote for a stock site blog. Not a very good writer, I have to admit but you may just get the idea of where I come from on wide-angle lenses.

http://meirion.tastylemon.com/blog/34-Ultra-Wide-Versatility/

I love seeing terrific photos; and the ones above are no exception. Wide-angle photography is an art in itself. It's more difficult than it seems to use a lens with distinctive qualities and not let the optics dominate. Rather than looking simply "lensy," Meirion's and Chris's images show that when content is married to technique, magic can happen. Nice work, guys!


Chris, regarding print quality, FAA is printing directly from your digital file. I haven't seen a large sample of FAA prints, but virtually every comment I see from people who have seen their own work 'in print,' reflects a feeling that the reproduction is spot on.

You really can't judge an image by how it is displayed on the Internet - too many compromises are involved. All we can do is trust FAA management to be responsive to our needs within the realm of what they can actually control, image-wise. I came to FAA exactly a year ago, and almost immediately began 'lobbying' for an improvement in the way our images were displayed. It took until recently, but Sean, to his credit, listened to our voices and figured out what the issue was, then corrected it. Well done.


Kathy, you've raised a point that I'd never considered. Are you saying that the range of colors and/or tones is compromised with PNGs as opposed to JPGs? That would be something to consider (as regards print quality), although I'm pleased by how my PNGs now look on FAA.

In keeping with the wide-angle theme, here's shot I took in Baltimore, while attempting to woo the art gallery across the street (yellow storefront). The lens was a 10.5mm fisheye, and the shot was taken with the arch almost directly overhead (the lens has 180-degree coverage). The real challenge was to draw a reasonable range of tones out of the darkness in in which I stood; without using HDR because people were walking through the shot.

Murray, what follows is information I found at Wiki that will help to explain the difference perhaps better then I have.

Also, JPEG suffers from generation loss (repeatedly encoding and decoding an image with JPEG will degrade its quality), whereas lossless formats such as PNG do not. Since PNG is extremely inefficient in compressing photographs, sometimes a lossless compression format designed for photographic images – such as lossless JPEG 2000, or Adobe DNG (Digital negative) – is used for storing photographs which might require further editing. When the photograph is finally ready to be distributed, it can then be saved as a JPEG: a single pass of high-quality JPEG encoding will not noticeably degrade a photographic image. Furthermore, PNG does not provide a standard means of embedding Exif image data from sources such as digital cameras, which makes it problematic for use amongst photographers, especially professionals. TIFF, JPEG 2000, and DNG do support such meta data.

Kathleen, that's a good point about the Exif data - I'd forgotten that PNGs didn't support it. PNGs and JPGs don't support layers either, which is all the more reason for keeping an uncompressed TIFF or PSD version, complete with title, description, keywords, etc.

I have heard wide angle lenses are a must have for landscape...do you think that is true Murray?

Absolutely, Ang. While there are some landscape situations where a 'normal' focal length would be appropriate, and fewer where a telephoto would be desired (to compress distance, for example), the wide-angle is the workhorse lens for landscape photography. A moderate wide-angle can nicely increase the angle of view as well as emphasize distance without looking unrealistic. Depth of field is also generous with wides. Extreme wide-angles are also appropriate as long as you're willing to accept some 'stretching' near the sides of the frame. On the other hand, a super-wide can really emphasize the depth of a scene. Owing to the great software available, it's also become common practice to stitch several separate shots together to create panoramic images. Usually, the component images are shot with a lens of normal focal length in order to eliminate distortion.

The last time I went to the moon, I actually needed a fisheye to get most of the crater into the frame:

LOL...by the time I have enough money to buy my first body, it will be a long time before I will be able to buy the lenses I am going to need to go with it.

That shot looks really cool!! =) It looks like you did go to the moon.

You mean I didn't??? I could have sworn I was on Apollo 18.

LOL....I know I am opening myself up to be made fun of here....but when I was writing the last post...I started to say "how did you get a shot of the moon?" Then while I writing it I realized my gaffe.

=)

You have a giraffe? Wow!

;-)

Gaffe! As in "gaffe".....man.....=P

I like giraffe's btw. =P

Jane, my point and shoot, Nikon5400 has Tiff as an option. Many cameras do. I was also able to d/l firmware for RAW for the 5400. Once I started shooting RAW I never looked back. I archive all images as .NEF (RAW).

A RAW image file (often referred to as an image 'negative') has minimally processed data from the image sensor and often have a wider dynamic range or color gamut and preserves most of the information of the captured image.

The purpose of raw image formats is to save, with minimum loss of information, data obtained from the sensor, and the conditions surrounding the capturing of the image (the metadata). A RAW converter allows you to make endless adjustments while 'developing' the image. With a JPG or TIF, the camera makes those decisions for you based on the camera settings.

I agree with you absolutely, Kathleen, but I was talking in my last post about formats for archiving an image that had been further worked on after it came out of the RAW converter. I always shoot in .dng (RAW) and use ACR for the primary 'development', but any work after that gets saved separately as .tif - that gives me the option of going back to the .tif for further work, or even going right back to the original .dng and making a different version. The .jpg or .png version is the final stage, when the image is ready to be uploaded. I usually do keywording etc at the .tif stage and any info added there is retained in the .jpg.

I usually end up with each image in three or four different formats. It uses up a lot of space, but it means that practically all the processing I do can be reversed or improved as I learn new techniques - it's very annoying to discover a new method and then find you can't use it because the original is no longer available!

Jane, I had a good laugh when I read your last paragraph. I am sorting, burning and deleting in a backup drive right now and have come across some old images - jpgs - I want to work with and the orginal is no where to be found. Very frustrating. I have developed a whole new language as a result :)

Have you tried opening jpgs or tiffs in the new Adobe Camera Raw converter? I know it's not the same as working with the original RAW file, but it opens up a few new possibilities.

new to CS5 Jane but I just found that ability and it is worth having. I've set it as default open your image in setting, or whatever it's called :)

Something I've just discovered - it will only open tiffs if they've been flattened (so that's another version to add to the list of archives).

I open my images and do the initial tweaks in ACR after first copying the entire batch into a "From Camera" folder indexed by date (YY/MM/DD) and subject/location. After opening, images are saved individually in the appropriate Portfolio or Working folder. That way, I can go back to the original shoot just like I used to do when I'd pull a sheet of negative strips.

Jane's right, ACR won't open TIFFs with layers.

My may have missed this in a previous comment. But? Do any of you use a software program to archive your photography and what program?

Hi Darrell, I don't use any dedicated archiving software as such. I archive everything through photoshop and adobe bridge. I probably don't do a very good job of it and my workflow sucks big time but that's just me, I'm a bad boy...........LOL.

It's quiet in here, where are all the photographers?

What's your favourite lens or even your top 5?

My list:

1 - sigma 10-20mm (just got pentax 12-24 for improved IQ)
2 - pentax 77mm limited
3 - pentax 50-135 f2.8 DA*
4 - pentax 300mm DA*
5 - pentax 16-50mm

Hi Murray! I hope you are doing well! I haven't talked with you in maybe a couple of weeks. I'm glad you have this thread going! I really LOVE photography! I use Picasa and sometimes even "Picnik!" I love it so much! I love creativity in almost any form you can do it! It is the reason my head tilts so much! Smile! It's a joke!...LOL!

The picture of me that is my profile picture is a picture I took! Nobody much from this part of the country likes to have their picture taken but like a little child I'm all for it! So I volunteered to be the victim in this! What do you think??? I had FUN! That's what matters!

Meirion, here's my list:

1. - Nikon 17-55mm f:2.8 - Most of my pictures are taken with this one.
2. - Nikon 18-200mm f:3.5-5.6 - For when I just want to carry a camera, it's a great walkaround lens.
3. - Nikon 12-24mm f:4 - a wider zoom
4. - Nikon 70-200mm f:2.8 - super sharp heavyweight zoom for longer shots, sometimes with the 2x doubler
5. - Nikon 60mm f:2.8 Micro - for shooting super close

I'll sometimes carry a second camera to have two lenses at the ready.


Darrell, I also use Bridge to set up my archive system. It's a very basic tree arrangement.

you got it all covered there Murray ;) I am a little surprised that you haven't got a mid-range prime in your favourites list. I had money on you quoting a 50mm piece of fast glass in there but I've just lost my bet. Hand in my pocket again, giving up on the gambling..........LOL.

I have a 50mm f1.8, but hardly ever use it. The micro lens covers the mid range, is extremely sharp, and f:2.8 is fast enough. And then, there's the 10.5mm f:2.8 fisheye for those special occasions.

Hope you didn't lose very much.

I don't know all of that technical stuff! I trust in my little Fugifilm Camera! It's a 12 megapixel. That's just about as far into it as I go! I aim, snap and edit what I've got! And I have a party doing it!

Haha, lost a packet Murray and it's all your fault ;(

I do like my Pentax 50mm f1.4 but I don't use it much to be honest. The 50-135 f2.8 is so sharp that you need chainmail gloves to hold the prints so it has to be special to break out the 50mm prime. If I'm being really honest though I would probably break out the 77mm limited and take a step or two backwards 'cos that lens is a complete stunner :)

edit: Nothing wrong with that Linda, we're just equipment whores, boys and their toys etc ;)

Not just boys...because if I could...I would drop a cool 5k+ on the equipment I dream of.

It's all about money. If you have the money to buy the equipment...the work will be better. At this point...I'm so disgusted by my blurry/noisy shots with my point and shoot....I want to empty my whole account of images. But then I couldn't sell any...and I need to sell to get the equipment I want....

That Nikon D7000...

Some day soon. Before nesting season.

Yup..the d7000....and I will want at least 3 lenses to start with. A walk around, a micro, and a wide angle.

My husband cringes when he hears me talk about the cost.

Ang, look at the 18-200mm It will take care of the walkaround and wide-angle requirement. Then the micro, then a super-wide if you feel the need.

I will, I bookmarked it. It will be my first lens I buy after I get the body...I appreciate the recommendation Murray.

As well as the Pentax kit lens, I've got a Pentax 75-300 zoom, a Sigma 18-200 and a Sigma 105 macro. The most useful so far has been the 18-200 - maybe I'm just lazy, but it seems to do everything I want most of the time.

My storage system is a bit of a mess, sort of spread out over three external hard drives, but I have a large Access database to record all my finished images, with their titles, descriptions and keywords, and details of which sites they've been uploaded to and whether or not they've been accepted. I use it mainly for my stock work so I can keep track of what went where and which images still need to be uploaded to the various sites.

Jane, I have a friend who uses a storage system like yours, minus all the indexing. He can never find anything quickly. Glad you've set yours up so well.

All of my images fit on a .5 TB external, plus a second for backup. I guess I need to shoot more.

I work with one desktop TB external, A desktop computer, a laptop and a 100 gig portable drive. The laptop and portable drive, along with my Nikon, travel with me in the field - most often literally. The Dell laptop has one slot and it is for SDs. This allows me to review my photos as I am shooting and empty the SD as I go. I have one shoulder bag that holds the laptop, the camera and one lens.

Now, what to do with that D7000...

That's interesting, Kathy. While I carry a laptop and external storage when I travel, I've never felt the need to empty my CF cards in the field. I do carry spares, but I've never had one go bad. As for review, if the shots look okay on the LCD, I'm on to the next. I rarely, if ever, get any surprises when I open them on the computer. I carry a shoulder bag or backpack with a second body, several lenses and all the little stuff that you often wish you'd brought but didn't.

Maybe keep the D7000 hanging around your neck.

Murray
Have you found that the performance with the 18mm-200,mm lens is consistent throughout the range? My digital gear is Canon and I have an 18mm - 55mm and 55mm - 250mm lens set. They are both satisfactory but at times I wish I did not have to do the switching. I am used to the Zeiss lenses I have with my Rolleis and Rodenstock and Zeiss Lenses with my view camera.

Murray, in time I hope to have more lenses and another camera body. I will eventually have to rethink my travel setup, but for now its what I have to work with. In the past I have had to wait until I got back here at home to upload images to my website, but we will have Wi Fi at the Marina so my routine will change accordingly. I will be spending alot more time there now.

I have been shopping Ebay for lenses. For awhile it was a 'camera or lenses' question for me. Since I have decided on the camera the lenses will have to wait. Now, if I new a fraction of what you do about both, I could work far more efficiently. I have a lot to learn, that I am aware of.

Robert, Nikon's 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR is a super lens, and performs excellently throughout its range. It was so well reviewed when it came out that many people waited several months for theirs to arrive after ordering. I was lucky and got mine right away.

Its only vice is some unusual distortion at the wide end. Most zooms exhibit barrel distortion there, but the 18-200 has what has been called "mustache" distortion. It's principally barrel distortion that becomes pincushion near the corners of the frame. It's not severe or readily correctable in Photoshop, but unless you shoot a lot of straight lines right near and parallel to the edges, you wouldn't notice it.

The lens is incredibly sharp, and surprisingly so. My "Morgue" shot (the third from last image that I posted, now residing in the Big Skip) was shot with it.

interesting thread, Thanks

My question is when I shoot jpg fine, several exposures, and only save only once after post, am I that far off by not using Raw files?

My question is why after I shoot in the highest raw settings on the camera it is reduced in size when I load it into the computer. This results in too small a size for any prints over a few inches.
Should I load it in JPG,GIF, or anything else?

Hi Bob. Welcome.

If I understand your question correctly, the short answer is yes. RAW is superior to JPG from the beginning, as it essentially comes straight from the sensor, while the JPG is processed and converted by the camera's electronics. The initial save begins the process of further degradation. So yes, even after the first post-post-processing save, the image has already began to degrade, although it can be argued that the degradation at this point borders on negligible. The best thing to do after post is to save the image in a lossless format such as PSD or TIFF.


Snake Dog, what you're asking doesn't quite resonate. What are the pixel dimensions of your images as they come from the camera?

I agree with Kathleen. I have limited equipment, but i have to make due with what i have for now. As she said, there is just so much to learn.
Murray, I just posted a still life on a new thread. When you have a moment could you check it out and give me a critique? I didn't want to post into your thread and veer your discussions.

Murray, I just got an ImagePrint RIP to better manage my 9600 prints sent to it from a MAC.

Have any advice for me before I begin?

Murray; 4288x2888 is usually the max at 11.24 MB.

Hey, Patrick. I've never used ImagePrint. I use QuadTone. However, I suggest making a test print and going from there. If it's anything like what I use, you can adjust it for paper type as well as the overall look of the image, with a few parameters. Just study the tweaks you can make and do a little experimentation. Let me know how you make out.

Vincent, at 300 ppi, you'd get prints that were about 9.6x14.3 inches, not small by any means. I wonder if your image editor is set at a higher resolution than it needs to be.

Thanks, Murray.

The profiles that Colorbyte has included in this RIP are mindbogglingly extensive, and I intend to take full advantage of them for everything from PhotoLuster to dbl-weight matte and eventually, canvas.

Speaking of canvas, do you print on it, and if so, what do you use for a sealer?

No Patrick; when it comes to canvas, I'm still a virgin. I had no idea that sealer was required. I sort of assumed that canvas that was intended for print use would already be sealed.

A friend recommended Frog Juice by Superfrog as a UV top coat and sealer, as I'm using Ultrachrome inks...but it's the application process that scares me a bit.

I wonder what FAA's printer - Graphic Dimensions - uses to seal its POD canvas prints and by what means of application?

Snake Dog, do you by any chance use Aperture when loading photos into your computer? I don't have first hand experience of it myself, but I've heard of other people having problems similar to yours. The explanation turned out to be a default setting somewhere in Aperture that automatically reduces the size of all images so they can be easily uploaded for web use - the solution was to find the setting and turn it off.

Snake, didn't I remember you saying that you're using the academic version of Aperture? Looks like Jane may be onto something.

It seems that the more 'user friendly' they make software the more difficult it is to manage.

A double post it seems.

I have decided to buy a new lens and wait on the D7000. I believe the need of good glass outweighs the need for more megapixels right now. I have decided on the Nikon Nikkor 70-300 VR. That should serve me wall at the marina.

I am also planning to replace the Sigma 18-200 with a Nikkor 55-200 VR. The Sigma is just too soft for what I am doing.

The 70-300 - http://www.adorama.com/NK70300AFVRU.html#kits

Murray Bloom; Aperture Academic, yes.

Problem still exists. The highest resolution is a matter of choice but after I export photos shot at the highest choice programed from my Nikon from Aperture to my desktop or anywhere it drops to 72 dpi and is not of any value on FAA for printing. I suppose I could try upping the dpi but I heard it won't work once it's down.

I am trying to get the Mac and Aperture people to respond now about it and I'll let you know what happened.

Kathy, when we chatted last night, I thought we were talking about the Nikon 18-200 VR to replace the Sigma. The 55-200 will leave the lower (wide-angle) end of the range uncovered. I suppose you could still use the Sigma for wide shots, but it seems like too big of a compromise, quality-wise.

You are right. Yes.

This is the one you are referring to? -
http://getondigital.com/products/product_info.php?products_id=321609

The 70-300 I will be ordering this week - just not sure from where.

By April I want to have both. I'm going up to the Lake Erie Friday. Maybe I'll find some ice fishermen.

Note: I did actually mean the 18-200, sorry Murray :)

That's the lens, yes. But, there's something wrong with the price. The current model is selling for about $700 (new, w/5-year USA warranty) while they (GetOnDigital.com) are only asking $389 and you have to buy a warranty to get five years. It may not be the USA model.

Make sure you get the VRII model. It's possible that there are still some older VR lenses floating around out there.

For what it's worth, if you're ordering over the net, I'd stick with Adorama, B&H or one of the established biggies.

I'm still considering Walmart for the 70-300. They will send it to the nearest store for me to pickup, so no shipping fees. Adorama and B&H I am considering also.

I'd have no problem trusting WalMart. Just make sure that they will exchange in the case of an initial defect (it does happen occasionally), and that they include the Nikon bonus warranty for the third through fifth years.

Im at adorama - http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=nikkor+70-300

They have a refurbished for $375 or new for 469

I don't understand their pricing.

It is confusing because some are grey market some aren't, then there are the different 'kits'. Hard to decide what is best for the money.

The refurb has either been cosmetically or optically/mechanically reconditioned for $375. They have a gray market lens (non-USA warranty) for $440, or the one with the full USA warranty for $470.

I'm always hesitant about refurbished products, but Helen Oster (of Adorama) said this on another thread, in response to one of my posts:


"Refurbished units can have simply been pulled from the production line if something appears faulty, or if it hasn't passed the final inspection. Most of the time it is a very minor issue that needs correcting, nevertheless, once it is pulled from the normal flow of production, it gets flagged as a refurbished model, so you may get a unit straight from the factory that has never been used.

A refurb may also be an ex-store demo, possibly used in field tests or sales displays, or it may have been ordered in error and returned to the retailer (who can't then sell it as 'new' so it has to be sent back to the manufacturer for refurbishment).

All refurbished items will have been checked over by the manufacturer by hand, inspected very thoroughly, diagnosed, and calibrated by experienced technicians, and could therefore turn out to be more dependable than a new item - which will only have been checked by a process of systematic quality control protocol (ie by random sampling as it comes off the conveyor belt).

Personally, if a refurb was available and the warranty was good, I'd always go that route.

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
HelenO@adorama.com"

For a lens I would only be using occasionally I might consider a refurb, but for something I will be using frequently I would choose new with a warranty.

Kathleen ,

I have 70-300 VR. Its a good lens but have some problems. (VR and abberation)
i didint appreciate good lenses till i bought 24-70 F/2.8. I know F/2.8 are costly. But you wont regret.
If you can please go for 70-200 f/2.8 VR or VRII. Its a great lens.

Cheers,

Venura

Venura, none of the reviews I've seen have mentioned VR or chromatic aberration issues with the 70-300. Is it possible that they were specific to the particular lens that you bought? Did you try another sample?

Murray,

No my lens is not defective. I like it but if i get another chance i wont buy it rather i go for 70-200mm VRII. Specially @200-300mm levels it has relatively high CA. If you look at the charts you will find several other disadvantages too. On the ohter hand for that price its worth it. cos 70-200mm is ~2100.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13

I took a look at the review you linked to, Venura. Actually, they were very positive overall about the 70-300 VR. Yes, the chromatic aberration peaks at 300mm, but they tested it on a D200, which is now three generations old. Nikon's newer cameras do a far better job correcting for CA, and often eliminate it completely; so I wouldn't worry. Photoshop also has a pretty good CA filter.

The review also called the autofocus "quick and quiet," and I know that it's subject to interpretation as well as the test conditions. Some lenses (and cameras) focus on some subjects better then others, and at different focal lengths. For example, the D200 (with some lenses) is awful when focusing on vertical lines, but quick on horizontal ones; or was it the other way around, I forget?. I did have a play with the 70-300 VR in the camera shop (on a D300x), and the autofocus was quick and sure.

You recommend the 70-200 f2.8 as an alternative, but there's a lot of difference between 200mm and 300mm when shooting sports or nature. I own the 70-200 VR lens and it is, indeed, phenomenal. It's long been considered to be the sharpest Nikon zoom. It's also not in the same price class as the 70-300 VR, which is 1/4 the cost.

Vincent/Snake Dog - I think you are the same person? Anyway, you said, "...after I export photos shot at the highest choice programed from my Nikon from Aperture to my desktop or anywhere it drops to 72 dpi and is not of any value on FAA for printing."

I've been searching through the forums on Shutterstock, where I'd heard of a similar problem, and finally found it - here's the relevant reply:

"...if I remember rightly, you can make the changes in Export Settings.

Just downloaded the manual. The answer to your problem is on page 496.

Go to File>Export

In the export dialogue box there is a drop down menu that is labelled 'Export Presets' In that you can create new presets of you wish or choose one of the ready made ones.

Now even of the name of the preset says it is full size jpg, it is worth checking a bit closer to see if it actually is. It has probably somehow defaulted to jpg 50% or something similar."

Hope this helps!

Thanks for looking that up, Jane. You're right. Vincent and Snake Dog are, indeed, one and the same.

Thanks for re-posting my piece on refurbs, Murray.

In truth, before I came into this industry I would have been reluctant to consider a refurbished unit - but now that I know about the processes that take place, when I bought a 'new' P&S for my son recently, it was a Canon refurb!

Helen Oster ☺
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
HelenO@adorama.com

http://twitter.com/HelenOster

I found this awesome link a while back and it dawned on me to share it with my fellow photographers. Actually it's specifically for Nikon users. The ultimate resource for your lenses! Check it out.

When you have time and get on this page, be sure to clink on the link called "The Nikon FX Dream Team", for an awesome package if money were no option. lol

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

Comparing prices on the Nikkor 70-300 lens:

Walmart with 1 year warranty - delivered to the store is $549+tax= about $590

Adorama with 5 year warranty = $469 (final price)

Adorama Grey Market 90 day return-to-manufacturer warranty = $379

John, I recommend Ken Rockwell a lot. He's not just for Nikon users, but does shoot with Nikons and knows an awful lot about them.

Kathy, seems like a no-brainer - the middle choice.

Absolutely, Murray :)

Murray I want to buy a Nikon 60mm f:2.8 Micro lens for my D5000. I can't afford a new one, so i am searching for a used one. I know the AF function is lost with this lens using a D5000, but I always manually focus anyway.
My question is this.
I saw something on ebay called a AF NIKKOR 60MM F2.8D FOCUS GEAR.
What is this for? Would I need this gear to manually focus this lens on my camera?

It's a gear that attaches to the focus ring and meshes with an underwater housing.

Kathleen

I think the model you are looking at from Adorama is actually a refurb, not 'gray'

Helen, yes, the gray is $439. Sorry.

BTW I will be ordering the new lens from Adorama this week.

I found out I could revert an image to a higher resolution without loss of pixel detail. I added "One Last Look" to the sales gallery for a print size larger than the original but I do nort know what a real print looks like compared to my original canvas without spending money and ordering one of my own.

I'm considering investing in my own cad printer, plotter. A plotter printer will print any inmage up to 6 feet wide ane even more. This is where the photp/mural business has taken off from.

Vincent, I question whether a CAD printer/plotter will give you the necessary image quality. They're really designed for line drawings and fast printing. That's why good large format photo printers are so expensive. Typically, photo printers in the largest sizes will use at least eight inks at once and build up an image with several overlapping passes of the print head. I've never heard of CAD machines being used for fine art prints, but perhaps I've missed something.

Hello
Are there any Canon Rebel T1i users here? I am curious about your experience and satisfaction. Also any thought on lenses for this camera.

Murray, these cads are the ultimate. They print the images you see on billboards. Ant painting can be reproduced in perfect detail given the corect dpi for the cad system. See the sign advertising industry about details. We are talking about large format photography reproduction directly from your camera or photoshop to the cad computer to the inkjet mechanism on the plotters.

Vincent, I just did some checking. The better plotters still fall a bit short of large format color inkjet printers when it comes to resolution. Remember, billboard images are designed to be seen from afar, so photo-quality imaging isn't of primary importance. Inkjet plotters generally don't support the number of inks that a similar format graphics printer does. There are exceptions, however. Plotters have closed the image quality gap in the past couple of years, but they still haven't quite reached the level of a good graphics machine, yet.

I have worked with the Epson Pro large format printers. They are great machines.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro/Home.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&iref=printerhub_subnav_proimaging

They also make larger format desktop models -

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/ProductCategory.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-8165

The better desktop models and the Pros use archival quality inks.

(can we add active links in here?)

Thoughts on the Coolpix P500?

As much as I want a pro camera, the more I consider it I know I just can't afford a good body and then lenses.
So I am considering alternate choices. Like the P500.

Hey Robert I have a friend who has the t1i. She was happy with it for about 6 months. But now she wants to trade up because she finds the ISO too limiting.

Ang, I don't know how severe the money crunch is, but I think you might better off with the D3100 plus the 18-55 and 55-300. Adorama has the whole thing for $947. It's got better glass and sensor than the P500.

Just to keep things in perspective, even the D7000 isn't a pro camera. A true pro camera will set you back at least $5,000 for the body only.

Well, the money I earn from art is what needs to pay for it. Right now, I have $600. I just don't know how long it will take to save for anything else...

I am better off waiting for the d3100 when I may not be able to buy more lenses? Did you look at the capabilities of the p500?

Yes, but while the P500 is a versatile P&S, the image quality won't be up to what you get with the D3100. The lens is much more compromised to get the large zoom range, and the sensor is far smaller, which degrades the image quality. Apples and oranges really. Also, with the two lenses, you'll be covered between 18mm and 300mm, which is more than adequate.

Thank you. Okay...I guess I will see how long it takes.

:)

Angelina, look at Adorama -

http://www.adorama.com/INKD3100K2A.html

Murray's right, Angelina, point and shoot cameras are really only for snapshots, because the quality just isn't there. Better to save up for what you really want than compromise and regret it later!

Edit: ...and Kathleen posted while I was typing!

Thanks, I did look it up and bookmark it for future reference.
Quaility is exactly why I wanted to upgrade in the first place. Money is a factor though, and it doesn't matter how great pro cameras are if I cannot afford to buy it, right? I am going to try to wait, but if I am still waiting 6 months from now, I don't see it going on like that much longer.

Angie, one advantage with the 3100 that I linked to is that it includes the two lenses you would need and there are no additional charges for shipping or taxes. Also the amount of money you were willing to spend on a point and shoot is not that far from having the 3100.

If you bought the P/S, you would still want a DSLR. Its not about just being a Pro camera, its about quality and control and having what you need to take the kind of photos you want. Any camera you buy will be one you will be working for a long time, so I hate to see you investing that much money and limiting yourself to a P/S.

I just ordered the Nikon 70-300 lens from Adorama!

Murray, those large plotter ink jet printers are many and varied as well as expensive. HP and Epson has them but I do not know the quality. If there is a trade show around with these graphic machines it might be worth dropping in and seeing for yourself.

I'm wondering how the wall mural and art print market does it.

The majority of phorographers I know, who do their own printing (as well as FAA, I believe), print on large format Epson machines. Feeding them isn't cheap. A complete ink cycle for mine (eight 220ml cartridges, less than half a pint each) costs just over $670. Paper comes on 100 foot rolls, starting at $85 each (17" wide, for example). With costs like these, you become super aware of maintaining print quality. Everything that hits the trash bin costs about $3 per square foot. At that cost, you want everything you print to be "on the money."

Murray, we did in-house printing on the Epson 10000 at the agency. It could do textured printing on canvas and I have run smaller flattened boxes through on hand feed. Amazing machines. You probably have a newer version.

Hi Murray, I was looking at prices for the camera and came across a site called getondigital.com, have you heard of it?
The prices on there seem too good to be true, $634 for the camea and two lenses I want.

A Google search was not good. They may be a fraud. Definitely bait and switch from what I've seen.

Ok thank you.

A lot of online companies are not good. Some will call you back and try to up-sell you stuff you don't really need.Many are cheap because the warranty isn't good in the USA.
http://www.resellerratings.com/ is a place to check companies.
I just bought a Sony A850 from Ritzcamera.com.The price was fair, the camera came with a USA warranty (VERY IMPORTANT),no up-selling,no tax,free 2 day shipping with shipping that I could track. I am very pleased with my experience with this company.

Yes, Kathy, Ritz Camera is one of the good ones. They were a major player in the world of photo mega-companies, but declared bankruptcy a couple of years ago. The chain was purchased by a new group which includes David Ritz, one of the original family members. They are now called Ritz Camera and Image and have actually expanded since the bankruptcy.

I hope you enjoy your new camera.

It looks like adorama and ritz are pretty comparable as far as price.

All the biggies are, Ang. Adorama, Ritz, B&H, 42nd Street Photo, etc. In fact, my local pro camera shop will even match their prices. It's really nice to have a place where you can actually play with the equipment plus get the best price.

The fact that these places are so consistent on price is why all your red flags should go up when you see something that is too good to be true.

When I ordered the lens from Adorama, Bizrate.com popped up with a questionaire about my purchase. I use Bizrate quite alot so I was more then happy to fill out the questionaire. For those not aquainted with it, it rates on-line retailers.

If you are buying online and not sure of which retailer to use, Bizrate.com is a good place to start.

Murray ... lots of great info here, many thanks.

I am a long-time Nikon fan and here is my first one that I bought in 1969. Haven't used it in several years, but I know it still works. I even found my original guarantee paperwork and instruction manuals.

Wow Mel, that was my first Nikon SLR, too; the trusty Photomic FTn, workhorse of Vietnam era combat photographers (usually the plain F model, minus the meter head). They were tough as nails and I don't doubt that yours still works. It might be worth getting the shutter speeds tested, though. The lubricant evaporates over time and the timing gears slow down.

Prior to that I had a dinky Mamiya 528TL with a leaf shutter:



Anyone else have an oldie but goodie?

I didn't think you were old enough for this one. The few times I did carry it on patrol, I had it inside a plastic bag, in another bag up high around my neck. Even then I was still scared that I was going to ruin it, or lose it.

I have never had the inside really cleaned out, and I know I should have, That's good to know about the lubricant and maybe I will try to find a local Nikon dealer and get it professionally cleaned and taken care of.

I took color slides which I have had stored away all these years, and have just recently made digital copies with a slide holder on my 18-105 lens with my new D7000. Unfortunately, I have discovered that many of the slides are slightly blurry due to my poor techniques, low light or the fact that we were on the move.

I can understand your desire to keep your camera dry while out in the bush, Mel. Mine, which was identical to yours, with the same f1.4 lens, cost me $512 in 1970. That was a lot of money at the time.

Sorry to hear that your images were blurry. Over the years, they've probably been banged about a bit, and no doubt got knocked out of focus. ;-)

Some of my slides are fairly sharp and well-focused, while others are not. Like I said, sometimes it was just due to poor technique, low light and too slow a shutter speed, or just from being " nervous in the service".

I have a few posted in my Vietnam gallery, of those I have edited with cover-up textures or simulated brush strokes. Plus I have a brief story in the description block for that image.

Ok, I have to say that I am getting excited.

Adorama shipped the Nikon 70-300 lens Friday from NY, which means I could well have it Monday or Tuesday! That gives me plenty of time to figure how to attach it to my camera before nesting season :)

On the 28th of Feb, a week from Monday, Nikon begins its yearly rebate program. Talk about a penny short or a week late!

I'll post their choices and amounts when they are released.

Does anyone have a working Canon Power Shot digital Elph SD1000 that they are willing to sell me? Mine just died and I LOVED that camera. The new Canon point n shoots are made out of plastic and I'm a camera abuser, so I need the sturdy older SD1000 model.

Convo me at janelinders@sbcglobal.net if you have one that you are willing to unload.

Jane

Thanks kathleen. I am interested in what the discounts are.

Kathleen, have fun with your new baby!
After the discussion i had here. i decided to take my 70-300 shoot an event (International dance festical @ University of Maine).
I only used 70-300mm :) . Following is one pic out of 650 pics i took. Will upload more later to my profile.

It's curious how one thing often leads to another. While trying to understand my creative process a bit better, an interesting thought came to me.

How does your photography represent the particular way you see the world, or the way you'd remake the world (visually) if given the opportunity?

I'm not sure really if my photography changes the way i see the world. I mean what i capture originally "is" the way i truly see the world. Providing i'm not using filters, additional lighting, extreme DOF, etc.
I think what changes the way i see the world is what goes on pre-shutter snap (settings, external lighting, etc) as well as what goes on in post production that gives us an opportunity to "remake" the world or present it in a way that i want to see it. Much of the editing process for many people involves things like altering the tonal range of the sky, deleting an unwanted mailbox from view, cloning out a scar on a loved ones skin, altering the landscapes, etc . . .
Its no longer a true representation. its a representation of what you feel is appealing to yourself, the photographer/artist, and a representation of what you feel the rest of the world might appreciate. Nothing wrong with it at all. Many times i do almost no editing and alterations. Other times i edit whatever i feel it takes to satisfy myself.
And its also true you can edit pre-shutter snap as well, by adding filters, external lighting, aperature settings, etc. Altering any of that to achieve a vision in your mind is pretty much the same as what i mentioned above in the post process.
Nothing at all wrong with it, but thats how i feel as a photographer, I can change, or perfect, the world if I choose to do so.

Had a visit from UPS today-


Took this as I opened the Nikon 70-300. The weight difference compared to the 18-200 is noticable. The length is doubled. I believe Murray said the lens weighs a half pound more then the camera.

Nice Kathleen! Congratz! I would love to get that lens some day. I am saving for a good used macro first. The 300mm may possibly be next on the list. So happy you got what you were hoping for! I see its the VR model as well. Very cool.
Enjoy and have fun with it! :)

Murray, whats the deal with the "G" lenses? I read somewhere they were kind of a stripped down version of the non "G". Not sure what was meant by that.

Not stripped down, John, evolutionary. The earlier D lenses had aperture rings, and they could be used with the pre-digital cameras that didn't have the finger wheel in the front. Once Nikon went digital, the aperture ring became redundant and the G was born. In fact, D lenses had to be locked at the smallest aperture in order to work on the newer cameras. Another advantage of the G lenses was that a lot of mechanical complexity could be eliminated from the diaphragm control part of the lens system.

Murray: "How does your photography represent the particular way you see the world, or the way you'd remake the world (visually) if given the opportunity?"

I guess I see the world more in lines, angles, possible crops etc than "as is".
If I use a macro (Nikon dialect: micro) lens I kind of re-make the world, as you wrote. Things which have been hidden get visible to the audience .

That's one of the most enjoyable parts of shooting macro, Lutz. You can reveal things that most people never see. The trick is doing it in a novel way.

I think John summed it up for me: "Its no longer a true representation. its a representation of what you feel is appealing to yourself, the photographer/artist, and a representation of what you feel the rest of the world might appreciate."

A lot of the time, that involves digital post-processing, but not necessarily so. Lutz's use of magnification and selective focus serves the same purpose, only he has done it with the camera rather than the computer.

Here's an example of both:



By using my 18-200 zoom, I was able to get close enough to show details on the butterfly that would be difficult to see normally. Unfortunately, the original close-up also revealed that the poor thing had obviously seen better days, because its wings were all tattered and torn, so I had to spend two days repairing the damage, zoomed in to 500%. I've been able to submit the resulting image to stock sites, with some success, but it still feels like a WIP as far as I'm concerned - I'd like to go back to it again some time and try to work it back into a natural setting.

I suppose you could say that my photography represents an idealised version of the world, where butterflies don't have broken wings, flowers don't have bugs and mouldy bits, landscapes aren't spoilt by ugly electricity pylons and the sun always shines without causing extremes of highlight and shade - in other words, completely false and unrealistic! Ah well, so be it...

I know where you're coming from, Jane. All of my images are "perfected" in some way, often many. That's the fun of it for me; but oh, so tedious.

Nice, well-detailed shot, by the way.

Thanks! :)

Thanks for clearing up the "G" lens question for me Murray! I appreciate it.

Murray asked "How does your photography represent the particular way you see the world, or the way you'd remake the world (visually) if given the opportunity?"

I guess I see the world in a fairly dramatic fashion when I have a camera in my hand. If I could remake it visually there'd always be the perfect sky when I embark on a landscape shoot. As it stands, I have to shoot skies when the opportunity arises and then marry them into landscape shoots as I see fit..........LOL.
.

I think the most revealing thing about a photographer is the subjects they choose.

I like the lighthouse shot a lot, Meirion, especially how you've married it to the sky. Have you noticed that it's leaning a bit to the left?


You're right, Ang. In my own case, I'm not sure if I reveal much or little, since I'll shoot damned near anything. How about you?

aha Murray, this lighthouse is subsiding and does actually lean over a bit, it's a wonky lighthouse ;) The horizon on the sea is straight ;)

Yeah, I noticed that. It can be straightened without affecting the horizon, tho.

of course I appreciate that Murray and it would take around 20secs to straighten it but why would I? It's a tilting, abandoned lighthouse that has sold 36 times in the last 2 months for me. Maybe if I straightened it it would have sold more but I have to admit that I have a predisposition to liking the "quirky". There's plenty of nice straight lighthouses out there so I feel the need to fill a gap................LOL.

I didn't mean to say that you should do it, just that if you wanted to it would be an easy tweak. I'm glad it's been a good seller for you. It's the kind of picture that many would like, and apparently do.

I would say that reveals much about you Murray. That the world in general is still an interesting place in your eyes, it doesn't have to be pretty or defined.

As far as subject, peaceful places draw me in but they aren't that exciting photographically. Mundane things, like what chopped lettuce looks like or how oil looks when sitting in a dirty pan... I like it because it's things we see all the time. If I can present an object we see everyday in a way that makes people think "what is that?" it's almost like I did a magic trick.

Howdy all. I am new to FAA and new to the forums and of course this thread. I have a lot of catching up to do on what seems to be a very interesting discussion.

Just wanted to say hello and I will return when I have read and caught up.

JC

Hello JC and welcome to FAA. My, your work is gorgeous!!!

Thank you Angelina

Very beautiful work yourself Angelina

Thank you JC!

Nice work, JC. It's nice to have another landscape photographer in our midst.

And another Pentax user as well!

I discussed it with my husband and I may be getting my camera much faster than I thought. :)

I still have the D3100 as my front runner. It's kind of strange though, because for about 10 years I have been shooting with Sony cybershots. I feel disloyal or something, like I should give the Sony Dslr a chance. It is too much money to make gambles with though.

That's great news, Ang. If you can afford it, get it with the 18-200 Nikon lens. You won't regret it.

Thank you, I am so excited! I have adorama bookmarked, the one that is 946 for the body and two lenses, 18-55 and 55-300.

Should I not go for that one and get the 18-200 instead?

So what do my subject choices say about me? :) I told you what I thought about yours.

Get the 18-200 if at all possible. The sharpness is remarkable, and you won't be changing lenses all the time, getting dust on your sensor. Less to carry, too. Some of my best pictures were taken with that lens.

You seem to shoot a lot like I do, whatever catches your eye. To me, it indicates a fascination with life, finding beauty everywhere. I enjoy the post-processing, and it appears that you do, too. That's the creative side at work, taking what you find and making it better. I like your work, and your eye.

Hmm, I guess my memory is going, probably because I am turning 34 in a few days :p. I really thought the 55-300 was what you recommended to me. Ok, I will go see what they have with that lens.

Thank you! I do enjoy it all. Even if it makes me crazy sometimes, I wonder if many artists suffer with perfectionism. I get in moods where I want to delete everything I have done and just start blank. I am learning everything I can, which is hard when you work with more than one medium.

I did? I'd usually recommend the 70-300 VR. It's a better lens.

Adorama doesn't presently show a kit with that particular combination (D3100/18-200), but you can give them a call and see if they will make a substitution for the standard kit lens. Also, I understand that Nikon comes out with new rebates on Monday.

I could be mistaken...

I heard about that, I don't know if I will have the money in the rebate window. We haven't even gotten the forms to file taxes yet and the refund is what I will be using to get it.

Maybe I will get lucky and it will all come together.

So which one then? :) 70-300 or 18-200?

The D3100 and 18-200 would be my first choice.

The camera with the 17-55 and 70-300 would be second, but would probably cost more.

They do have the D3100/18-55/18-200 package for $1,250, but that makes little sense to me because the 18-200 will cover the range of the shorter lens, making it redundant; although it would be lighter to carry around with the 18-55 if you knew you wouldn't be needing the longer focal length

I'd call them.

EDIT: It's funny, I hear people complaining about camera weight all the time, usually women. I prefer metal-bodied cameras (the D3100 is polycarbonate plastic), and with a pro lens attached, they weight about twice what the basic D3100/18-55 kit does.

Ya, the second option is cheaper...$946. But it would mean swapping lenses more.

So the 18-200 is just a better lens then? I see it costs around $700 alone.

Thanks for the advice, this night owl is off to bed :).

Ohhhhh no! Its plastic!! I thought it was metal!! I wanted it to be tough in case I accidentally dropped it....bummer. I am a little concerned about weight but I need to use the tripod anyway, I thought the weight would make me use it.

Should I be concerned about buying a body that isn't metal?

I don't think so, Ang. The advantage of metal bodies is that they can take more abuse, and they also make better weapons if someone tries to take them from you. A heavy metal body swung on the end of its strap is lethal! Seriously, as long as you don't keep bashing a plastic camera into things, it should be fine. Plastic technology has come a long way, and all the important stuff inside the camera is similar, no matter what the body is made of.

Thanks....lol. Hopefully I won't be needing a weapon while I am shooting. :)

Heres another great reference site for comparing lens and sensors. Thought some of you would be interested.
Its actually 2 links to different pages of the same site. Dig around and use the pulldown menus. Theres a ton of great info here.

All Sensors compare
You can use the filter pulldown menu to choose canon, nikon, sony, etc to narrow it down if you like.

All tested Lenses


Enjoy!

Murray, maybe you can help me with this.

On the Nikkor lens:
Nikkor AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
What is the "IF-ED" referring to?

I went to a wolf camera today. Apparently Nikon isn't selling the d3100 body alone. It comes in the kit with the 18-55.
Nikon has rebates right now but they end on the 28th. They said it would be 1200 for the body, the 18-55 and the 18-200.

John, IF-ED is:

IF = internal focus. Your lens doesn't change length when focus is turned. The glass elements inside move without the body changing length.
ED = extra low dispersion. Extra-low Dispersion (ED) elements reduce chromatic aberrations providing superior optical performance even at maximum aperture.

An advantage if internal focus is less dust inside the lens and camera body. When a lens changes length, it draws in air, as well as a small amount of dust. If you shine a flashlight into a lens that has been used for a while and that has a lot of excursion (like the 18-200, which nearly doubles in length when zoomed), you'll probably be shocked by the amount of fine dust on the internal lens elements, especially on the back side of the front element. Fortunately, it has little or no effect on your images, although it can sometimes cause a bit of fogginess if you shoot into a bright light source such as the sun.

Another thing not to worry about is dust on the sensor. People used to make themselves sick about it, but many modern cameras actually have sensor cleaning functions; and you can also clean the sensor yourself without much difficulty. Just buy a package of sensor swabs and cleaning solution (which doubles as lens cleaner) and follow the instructions.

However, never, under any circumstances, shoot "canned air" into your camera. It contains propellants which can leave gummy deposits on the sensor, mirror, focusing screen and other internal parts, which can be very difficult to remove.

Murray...on the subject of dust...

have you ever cleaned the under side of the glass on a scanner.
I haven't looked at, or needed to look at, my new scanner...but on my old one I couldn't see one way (no screws etc) of opening that thing up without going the prying route???

The underside of the glass always gets that fog/dirty look around the edges on scanners!

I've noticed the same thing, Lawrence; but like you, I found no way to open any of my scanners. On the positive side, I've never seen any dust on my scans, so maybe it simply doesn't matter.

yeah...I've thought the same thing. I just wish it didn't matter so much to my eye and logic! ;))

Ang, I see the D3100 outfit on Wolfcamera.com for $750 (after the $200 rebate).
Nikon D3100 Digital SLR Camera 2-Lens VR Outfit(18-55 AF DX & 55-200mm VR f4-5.6G)

Is this the same outfit you were talking about? Ends today I believe. Great price!

Thank you for the great explanations Meirion and Murray. I appreciate it! :)

I think the D3100 with the 18-200 is a better deal if they'll substitute.

I second what Murray said about the 18-200 - I don't know anything about Nikon, but since I got my Sigma 18-200 it's hardly been off the camera.

Hallo Murray i just read mostly of this threat
you're right, ever being and working on rules wil never get something to change and go forward
i prefer taking the image as i see something and how it touches my mind
i'm using a foveon chip cause i like the color reproduction on it and it's greyscales.

by the way, you wrote from your trip to south a the loit of pictures other people took, a friend of my went two weeks to south east for hollydays and came back with 14000 pics .. what horrible.
i think such people should better take a videocam :)

i like real taken photographs but sometime they inspire me to to rework it to another kind of picture

Hi Murray, your photography is beautiful! Thank you so much for your generous sharing of your knowledge. It is very much appreciated. :)

Hiya John. No it was 600 for the body and the 18-55. But the 18-200 is also having a rebate, making the total 1200.

I know it's about to end. There is nothing I can do... I can't get my new camera until we get our income tax return and we don't even have the paperwork to file yet. All I can do is hope the sale is still running when I finally have the money.

Where are you finding these rebates, Angelina? I believe the reference I found to one that would begin soon was on an outdated web page, but I have not found any info on present rebates and not at Adorama.

Murray,

I'm about to expose my photography ignorance.

Does the chip in my digital camera have a shelf life???

I've had mine since I bought my camera over five years ago.....It's been dropped,stepped on, and missing for weeks..and seems to be working as well as when I got it.

I was at wolf camera, they said the rebates were being offered by Nikon directly, on certain items, like the ones I am planning to buy. It ends on the 28th, I can't find anything on the net about those rebates either. Maybe adorama is just listing the prices without rebates. Idk

Roger. Do you mean the chip for memory? The one that holds the images?

They last forever as far as I know.

Roger, there isn't a shelf life. Am I correct in assuming you mean the sensor chip? I've never noticed any degradation over time except once. A Nikon D100 that had sat for a year or so developed a few "hot" pixels, but they posed no real problem.

If you haven't damaged your camera by all that rough handling, I'd guess that you're home free.


For Nikon rebate information, you can go HERE and they will email you with new offers and stuff.

Thanks for the link. I signed up.

:)

Murray,

Thanks for the info..

It's that little thing, I pull out of the camera, and stick it into the computer.

Actually, that's the memory card, Roger. They do go bad over time and from rough handling. But, if it still works, then it's probably okay.

I have had two go bad that were older and my mother had one go bad that was fairly new, but over all they seem to last a very long time.

Roger,

You might also try to format your memory card once in a while. Of course make sure that there is nothing that you need on it. There should be format card option in your menu on the camera.
What happens, after you delete images from your card there is still leftover information on it, over a period of 5 years it adds up. It happened to me once, I was lucky I was in the very beginning of photoshoot, and remembered my teacher's advice, and it really saved it.
Just also remember if it is older, transfer the images immediately on your computer, you never know when it might fail.
But that is a good habit with any card...

Kathleen you might want to look at Overstock.com. I just order 2 lenses from them.
A Sigma 18-200mm & 70-300 macro. They have a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens For Nikon for $399. These are my first lenses from them but I've been buying from them for years.

I just want to say, interesting thread, and useful. Thanks.

The sigma lens does not go on Nikon cameras, does it?

Sigma lenses are made to fit all popular camera brands. However, they are generally not as good optically or mechanically as those made by Nikon, Canon, etc. Kathy (for example) has a Sigma 18-200 which is nowhere near as sharp as Nikon's. I've looked at her pictures.

There are reasons that 'off brand' lenses cost significantly less, and optical performance is one of them. There are exceptions, some individual lenses made by Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. perform reasonably well; but on the whole, you're usually better off with lenses made by the camera maker, or by high quality optics companies like Zeiss.

A good lens is even more important than the camera when it comes to image quality. It is not the place to scrimp.

Ok, I didn't understand the difference. There are some electronics that off brands are just as good but cost less, I see that's not the case here.

I am set on that 18-200 but I know I will want a micro lens so that will be next on my list. :)

I looked at the Nikon shop. The d3100 is being sold at 699, and it's being sold for only 600 at Wolf camera but tomorrow is the last day.

Just FYI

At Adorama -

Nikon D3100 14.2 Megapixels Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm NIKKOR VR Lens, 3in TFT LCD Display Final price - $596

The price includes a $100 Instant Rebate.

Looks like $600 (more or less) is the going price at the moment. Rebates change so often that trying to predict them doesn't work. I think that it's a crap shoot at best. Most companies will still honor a rebate for two weeks, or even a month, post-purchase; so if no rebate is currently offered, maybe it's better just to buy the thing, start enjoying it, and let the rebate chips fall where they may.

As to the Nikon/Sigma lens discussion: I did not buy the Nikon camera or the Signa lens. I received them in payment for some editing I did a few years ago. Though the camera was great, the lens left me struggling for sharpness, especially when shooting birds. The softness is evident in a number of my images. Being a graphic designer I know how to work with such problems, but it is often more work then its worth.

The Nikon 70-300 was shipped from Adorama last week. Its a great lens. Heavier certainly then the 18-200, but I like the feel of it. I haven't had time to take it through its paces yet - maybe later this week, but I can say from what little I have done with it that there is more then just a noticable increase in sharpness from the 18-200. This I expected and I haven't been disappointed.

The only thing I question is the use of filters. Why, how and how many.

Many people advocate the use of UV or haze filters all the time, basically as lens protection and to keep dust off the glass. However, the lens hood will also protect the front lens element. I do keep haze filters on the lenses for noticeably hazy days, but I normally remove them for shooting. The reason is that, while the effect is small, they do decrease image sharpness. Lens makers spend millions designing their lenses for best performance, and then we go and hang a piece of glass on the front.

Sometimes, though, you do need a filter. Circular polarizers are useful for darkening skies or reducing reflection; so useful that I carry three, one for each of my lens' three filter sizes - 52mm, 62mm, and 77mm. The downside of circular polarizers is that they can sometimes create unnatural looking skies when used with wide-angle lenses.

The cure for this is the ND grad filter, which are usually rectangular and fit into a slip-in, rotating holder that attaches to the front of the lens. One half of the filter is darker than the other, and after composing the shot, you slide it so that the darker part reduces the sky's brightness and the dividing line roughly corresponds with the horizon.

A cousin of the ND grad is the neutral density filter, which can reduce the effective ISO by absorbing light entering the lens. They come in varying degrees of gray and screw into the front of your lens. They permit slower shutter speeds than would normally be the case.

There are also colored filters, special effect filters and the like, but most don't apply to everyday photography.

Filters, yes.....care to discuss this murray? Wolf camera guy said uv filter and polarizer are really a requirement.

Murray this is a timely topic for me since I was about to order filters for the 70-300 tonight. Brands? Types? Cost?

wolf camera guy is trying to up his commission ;) Digital does not need UV filters as there is already one over the sensor. Polarizers? I don't own one and I do okay. In fact I don't own any filters anymore. If I was to get a filter it would be a ND grad in order to reduce the dynamic range between the sky and the ground for landscapes. I haven't bothered yet ;)

Nikon has come out with a clear protective filter for $35.

that doesn't sound too promising Kathleen. $35 is way cheaper than the $150 I used to pay for a simple but top quality UV filter. I think I would be wary of the optical quality of something so cheap. My lenses have cost me a fortune. I would rather clean them than compromise the image quality. I don't need a "protective" filter, I have a lens hood when I'm shooting and a lens cap when I'm not.

The ND grad filter sounds very handy for anyone shooting landscapes.

A glass filter for 35? But if it's only glass, wouldn't that mean you are just cleaning the glass filter instead of the glass lens? Either way, you have to clean glass.

Kathleen, the most popular traditional filter brands are Tiffen and Hoya. If you're talking ND grads, Cokin, Lee and Singh-Ray.

Ang, you're right. Cleaning glass is cleaning glass.


When cleaning the front lens element, the most valuable item is a blower bulb, like Giotto's Rocket. It's much better to blow dust off than rub it, which can scratch the lens or its optical coating. You can also use a very soft brush. For stubborn dust or fingerprints, use a lens cleaning solution specifically made for camera lenses. I use Eclipse brand, but there are many others. Never, EVER, use a cleaner designed for eyeglasses, as they often contain silicone. Also, always carry some lens cleaning tissue, which is soft and will not leave lint behind; or you can use one of the popular microfiber cleaning cloths, but keep it in its plastic sleeve or envelope, since if it accumulates dust or grit, it can scratch the lens.

If you get the impression that lens glass is delicate. You're right.

I was totally set on the d3100 but I just read some reviews that made me unsure. It seems the d7000 is superior on multiple levels.

Then, a friend of mine strongly recommended the canon t3i.... Thoughts?

The sound of taking of the lenses makes me kind of nervous... Scratch it and you are screwed. Maybe. Filters are smarter.

I love my ND filter because it allows me to "silk" waterfalls and surf about 30 minutes earlier or later than rather than waiting for the sun to be right.

I stopped using the UV filter and just let the lens hood protect the glass.

Personally I like reflection and use it a lot so have never gone with the polarizer. I have not had an issue with the skies yet so IF I Decide I need one in the future I will get it.

Just my 2 pennies of course.

JC

Ang, the D7000 is indeed far superior, BUT it's about twice the price of the D3100. In a perfect world, I'd say get the D7000, but your finances will dictate which camera to buy.

I don't have Canon experience, but if you want a brand versus brand discussion, please start another thread, as those can often take over a thread and often inspire heated replies. Everyone thinks that their brand choice is best, which may or may not be the case, but always seems true to the responder.

I want trying to have a brand versus brand. I was just trying to compare the d7000 and the t3i, can't the cameras be compared without comparing brands?

Ah, nevermind, if it bothers you I will just start a new thread.

Sure, we can compare specs, price and such. I was just trying to avoid a which brand is better discussion. More shortly.

The Canon T3i does not appear to be available yet. It fits between the D3100 and D7000 in price, and it appears, features. Megapixels are slightly more than the D7000, and it has a swing out LCD screen like Nikon's now discontinued D5000. I've been leery of such screens on a camera that will get a lot of use due to their exposure to damage.

At $800 for the body only, it appears to be priced correctly versus the competition.

Thanks murray.

IMHO Nikon and Canon are Ford and Chevy..... To be honest both offer a huge line that will cover anyone from entry level to pro and both have the glass to handle whatever you might need in the future.

I bought a Canon because I have more local friends that have them and that helps with the "glass exchange/lend" program.

There is also the used market out there where you can get a lot more camera for the money IF the newest features mean nothing to you. I too am scared of swing out LCDs because with my use they would break in a week..... (I know myself and it is simply a fact.) I have no use at all for video so a slightly older used body with enough MP for me to blow things up large met my needs. If I recall there was a Nikon D3s for 900ish in the shop when I bought my camera. That is a lot of camera for the price. Same can be said of my 5D that I bought used.

JC

Thanks JC. I won't be sharing lenses, I dont know anyone here. The swing out screen makes me nervous, I am kind of rough myself but I imagine when I finally get a camera I will treating it like a baby.

Funny comparison, ford or chevy, does that mean I need to get a foreign one? Lol, cuz everyone knows Honda rules. I haven't learned very much yet on the manufacturing of cameras and what makes them different. I think it's time to learn.

I mean you could always go Porsche and get a Leica. Even the Ford and Chevy folks will ohhhh and ahhhh over it even though the Corvette will run with the 911s. Once you are over the sticker shock you will be very happy just like a Porsche driver until you have to pay for aftermarket items or have to pay a repair bill. Then you will cry just like the folks that own German cars......

I could be wrong here buy as far as quality goes I think Canon and Nikon are closer to Honda than a Ford or Chevy. But as far as the range of products, I don't think there is another brand that come close to the options from top to bottom and that is very close to the GM/Ford analogy.

JC, Angel's on a budget. Leica, while a really nice camera, seems to be out of the question.

You're right about the depth and breadth of Nikon and Canon's systems. There's virtually nothing that I can imagine that they don't offer.

Ya...I don't see getting one of those. Lol....

just an update on the 600D it is catching a new name of the 550D flip screen, very few changes. Currently available out of Hong Kong for about $820 vs the 550D (T2i) for about $720 in the US.

they added a few bells like filters, but really nothing new to whistle about. I'll have more detailed specs before long.

yeah, they are way outside my price range as well.....

I would think the 60D would be more comparable to the D7000 though.

I really don't think you can go wrong with either a Canon or a Nikon. I grew up on a Pentax SLR but their glass selection for future growth wasn't as wide as Canon or Nikon so I jumped ship when I went digital.

JC