A thread about photography

1246743

Comments

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    From a composition point of view, if you increase the depth of field you might want to recompose the shot so the plastic pot is less prominent - with an increased depth of field more of the pot will also be in focus and become a distraction.  That in itself might be a good feature if the pot was an old terracotta jobby with some interesting texture, but not the plastic!

     Cheers Reg. Though there was no artistic intent in that photo at all. I was just trying to get a little sharpness going and it just so happened that plant was on my window-sill. It's a decent Venus Fly Trap specimen save for the fact the bright sunlight has caused a little burning of leaves, but were I to be taking a 'proper' photo of it I'd definitely take your advice find a better pot.

     

    love that shot!

     

    Me, too!

     

    but a good photo image takes me to somewhere else, away from my normal surroundings, and let's me look through someone else's eyes as it were. It's refreshing and good stuff

     

    I agree. It's like books and music! I've actually started looking at photos in a different way following all this focus (excuse the pun) and I'm amazed at how much is in them that I've never noticed before - not only content, but technique, skill, vision, etc etc. It's not until you try and do something that you can really appreciate those that do it well.

     

    That said, I'm also surprised at how many photos in books and magazines I don't like, or rather, that simply don't do anything for me. Abstract photos, a lot of the time, fall into that category. And I'm not keep on arty photoshopped photos where cats are floating in the air with wings and stuff. But usually it's something intangible that makes me really like one and not another. Same with music, I guess.

     

    Cheers

    Derek

  • BryBry Posts: 652Member
    Originally Posted by Reg Sox:

    Bry, love that shot!

     

    Cheers, Reg.

    Ta, I wish I could remember how I did it, even in bright sunlight it's taking 8-10 second exposures to get anything visible on camera today. 

    Maybe the built in IR filter is better on this camera?

     

    Just done an experiment. 2nd pic is the same flower with IR filter on a D70. 3rd pic is the same shot, same settings and same IR filter on D90 (+3 exp with Photoshop).

    1

    2

    3I had planned to have the D70 converted to IR once I got the D90 but the price quoted was more than I paid for the camera when new.

     

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    This working in RAW is amazing.  What a lot better and more subtle control you have over the finished image.  It is possible to do almost everything I need to do using Camera RAW 3.7 and next to nothing in Photoshop.  I shot off some more photos today, to give me something to experiment on, and here are a couple of examples I have just processed.  

    Heriot Row, Edinburgh 10-7-14

    Heriot Row in Edinburgh's New Town 10-7-14

     

    These would have been difficult to get right working with JPG's.

  • Reg SoxReg Sox Posts: 3,121Member
    Originally Posted by Bry:
    Ta, I wish I could remember how I did it, even in bright sunlight it's taking 8-10 second exposures to get anything visible on camera today. 

    Maybe the built in IR filter is better on this camera?

     

    Just done an experiment. 2nd pic is the same flower with IR filter on a D70. 3rd pic is the same shot, same settings and same IR filter on D90 (+3 exp with Photoshop).

    1

    2

    3I had planned to have the D70 converted to IR once I got the D90 but the price quoted was more than I paid for the camera when new.

     

    I'm wondering if it's a subject matter issue.  IR is basically registering wavelengths associated with heat emission.  Your pics above are a flower with a foliage background.  Maybe there's not a great heat differential between them hence the poor contrast.  Whereas the previous shot of the church had different materials providing lots of heat differentials.  That, and you could well be right that IR filters have improved.

     

    Cheers, Reg.

  • Reg SoxReg Sox Posts: 3,121Member
    Originally Posted by Jocko:

    This working in RAW is amazing. 

     

    These would have been difficult to get right working with JPG's.

    They look good Jocko.  Have a look at your file sizes.  With my Cannon D60 the highest res RAWs come out between 20 and 22mb, whereas high res JPEGS only 7 or 8 mb.  Therefore with the RAW there's a lot more information to work with and far higher granularity.  I've not 100% got my head round it but my understanding is there's far more levels of information per pixel available for processing in raw, not just the colour palette, but also the intensity and other stuff.

     

    Cheers, Reg.

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    My camera produces RAW images 3872 by 2592 which works out at 10Mb or there about. I convert them to JPEG's after I am done with them and they are about 5Mb.  I have started to save both but use the JPEG's for showing and printing.

    The book I got, "Camera RAW for Dummies", explains all you can do with the RAW image. With that knowledge I have worked out my own means of doing things.

    Thanks 23rdman for getting me started down that road.

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    This is a dangerous thread!


    I went to see a guitar-picking buddy last night and he lives up on the Cotswold escarpment in a lovely little village. So I'm driving along these little country lanes and the sun is getting nicely low and the fields are stretching out with lovely leading lines where tractors have driven through acres of corn and there's hills in the distance and beautiful Cotswold stone walls in the foreground and there's a buzzard just perched on the wall bathed in golden sunshine and I'm thinking that would make an awesome photograph and now the road drops away and you can see clear to the Malvern Hills forty miles away and - Bloody 'ell! There's a car coming!!! Concentrate Derek. Concentrate.

  • Reg SoxReg Sox Posts: 3,121Member

    Ditch the car and walk!  Get out on the RIdgeway.

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    Good plan!

     

    Alas, I'd have still been wending my way home if I'd have walked last night. Would have been a nice wend though.

  • BryBry Posts: 652Member
    Originally Posted by Reg Sox
     
    I'm wondering if it's a subject matter issue.  IR is basically registering wavelengths associated with heat emission.  Your pics above are a flower with a foliage background.  Maybe there's not a great heat differential between them hence the poor contrast.  Whereas the previous shot of the church had different materials providing lots of heat differentials.  That, and you could well be right that IR filters have improved.

     

    Cheers, Reg.

    You're right but I was only testing the exposure times. I could use the D70 hand held but to recreate the same shot with the D90 takes 10 second exposures. 

     

    I found a "can your camera do IR" test online and both failed miserably.

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    That's why I used to love the motor bike.  I could just pull onto the verge and take my photo.

    Unfortunately my single pot Honda eventually shook my Nikon EM to pieces.  Just as well digital came along.

  • Reg SoxReg Sox Posts: 3,121Member

    How well can you pilot your camera then?

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28262942

     

    Cheers, Reg.

  • BryBry Posts: 652Member
    Originally Posted by Reg Sox:

    How well can you pilot your camera then?

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28262942

     

    Cheers, Reg.

    ...and would you do this with your camera?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9KZ3jgbbmI 

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    As there's a 300mm zoom lens with this DSLR I've borrowed I thought I'd try that malarkey where by you zoom in to something close with a wide aperture and thereby blur the background. There was a stone wall about two feet behind this flower. The technique clearly works! Shame there wasn't a really rare insect crawling up this flower at the moment of capture.

     

     

     

     

    Hosta

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    Now that is stunning.

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator
    Originally Posted by Bry:
     

    ...and would you do this with your camera?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9KZ3jgbbmI 

    I'd be more worried about losing the drone!

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    Tried a few more close ups this morning. On the majority of them I found I was getting the flower in (reasonable) focus but the bee was not. Maybe I had the aperture set too low and thus the depth of field was too narrow? It all looked fine through the viewfinder... next time I'll try increasing the F numbers. Anyway, these three weren't too bad - luck rather than judgement.

     

    Cheers

    Derek

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    I think the secret is to use the smallest aperture that keeps the background out of focus, consistent with sufficient light to allow the shutter speed necessary to capture any movement.  Nice photos and nicely timed, particularly No 3.

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    Still playing with images captured in RAW.  Think I have got to grips with landscapes and the like but still not comfortable getting the most out of portraits.

    As they say on Blue Peter, "here's one I did earlier".

     

    Inchcolm Island 10-7-14

  • The23rdmanThe23rdman Posts: 1,560Member
    Originally Posted by Derek_R:

           

    Tried a few more close ups this morning. On the majority of them I found I was getting the flower in (reasonable) focus but the bee was not. Maybe I had the aperture set too low and thus the depth of field was too narrow? It all looked fine through the viewfinder... next time I'll try increasing the F numbers. Anyway, these three weren't too bad - luck rather than judgement.

     

    Cheers

    Derek


           


    When you're that close to the subject you cannot have enough dof and as small an aperture as possible is the answer. The trade off is shutter speed and defraction, which is why so many macro photographers use off camera flash.
  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    Cheers 23rd. I will try again and up my F's...

     

    I spotted this mill on this morning's ride. It was a grey rainy morning and the sky was pretty flat, but I thought it worth a snap.

     

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    Nicely taken photograph.  Do you take your pictures in RAW?

     

    EDIT:  Just read back through the thread and I see that you do.

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    Just playing with the Hue and Saturation controls.

     

    Heriot Row Edinburgh 10-7-14

  • JockoJocko Posts: 6,871Member, Moderator

    Which reminds me of one I did years ago.

     

    Meeting N Queensferry 21.8.05

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    How do you do that? Is it a Photoshop mask - not that I know what one of those is! I've just heard the phrase :-)

  • The23rdmanThe23rdman Posts: 1,560Member

    A couple from the weekend. 

     

     

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    I'm still trying to find that elusive sharpness. This is another close up with the 70-300mm lens but this time with the aperture stopped down (or possible up) as far as it would go: f40 according to the EXIF info. I didn't even know lenses went that far. See, I'm learning all the time.

     

     

  • Derek_RDerek_R Posts: 1,659Member

    A couple from the weekend. 

     

    Excellent. Especially like the second one.

     

    Sigh... perhaps learning to play like Jerry Reed is going to be the easiest of my current projects after all!

  • The23rdmanThe23rdman Posts: 1,560Member
    Originally Posted by Derek_R:

    I'm still trying to find that elusive sharpness. This is another close up with the 70-300mm lens but this time with the aperture stopped down (or possible up) as far as it would go: f40 according to the EXIF info. I didn't even know lenses went that far. See, I'm learning all the time.

     

     

    At f40 you're going to lose sharpness due to diffraction. The sweetspot on a cropped body is about f8 on most lenses. It's always a tradeoff between DOF and diffraction. 

  • The23rdmanThe23rdman Posts: 1,560Member
    Originally Posted by Derek_R:

    A couple from the weekend. 

     

    Excellent. Especially like the second one.

     

    Sigh... perhaps learning to play like Jerry Reed is going to be the easiest of my current projects after all!

    Thanks. They're just snaps. image

Sign In or Register to comment.