SDN Photography Talk Thread

[The Grim Squeaker]

Indoor events are where compact digital cameras go to show how in various situations, DSLR's really do kick the crap out of them :d.

I would question the intelligence of anyone who claimed the compacts were superior in any regime other than size and cost.

No one's claiming parity in IQ, but in excellent light or with @large@ (more shapes than fine detail - clouds, sea, mountain ranges) compacts can put in an excellent showing at ISO 100.
It's when the ISO goes up that the difference becomes one of magnitudes (as opposed to needing prints or decent sized screens to notice).

Compacts and bridges are poor cameras overall, but they have a market because not everyone needs or can afford a full-spec camera.

Don't forget usability, weight and basic ease of use .

I am not familiar with US tax codes, but in Canada I could write it off as a business expense if I were doing paying work as a photographer or if my pictures were exhibited in a gallery.

)

I'm at that uncomfortable stage where I'm trying to figure out how to present/sell photos without doing any presenting/selling yet. I know fuck-all about small business and self-employment, so I really don't want to mess around with that unless I have a good reason to do so.

Tell me about it.. (Seriously, I could use some ideas )

I do limit the flash out of politeness, and an unholy loathing for the results of an on camera, non softened flash. (Attempts to make a flash bounce with socks, fabric and plastic have not succeeded).

I've had pretty good results by taping a piece of notebook or computer paper over the flash. .

That...Just might work. (Especially a funnel shape over the external flash). Thanks!

[J]

That...Just might work. (Especially a funnel shape over the external flash). Thanks!

Just stick it right over the front of the flash, like this, but actually tape in on instead of just holding it like the doofus in the picture.



Basically, you're turning the flash from a bare light bulb with clear glass to a light bulb with a soft white frosted finish, you're going from the one on the left in this picture to the one on the right. It's a lot less harsh but the downside is the range is reduced and you might have to dial in some exposure compensation.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's a lot less harsh but the downside is the range is reduced and you might have to dial in some exposure compensation.

I always down the flash down a stop anyway, internal flash or with the Speedlight (external).
I HATE Flashes .

[aerius]

In the why the hell didn't I think of it earlier category, you can use the street view feature of Google maps to scout out locations & angles for urban photography. This assumes that Google maps has the street view photos of the city you're in or want to photograph, Toronto & other major Canadian cities weren't added to the database until just a couple weeks ago.

[The Grim Squeaker]

In the why the hell didn't I think of it earlier category, you can use the street view feature of Google maps to scout out locations & angles for urban photography. This assumes that Google maps has the street view photos of the city you're in or want to photograph, Toronto & other major Canadian cities weren't added to the database until just a couple weeks ago.

That's a rather huge assumption .

1. Has anyone here purchased a Canon S90 compact by any chance? If so, how is it, and how does it compare to other premium compacts?
2. Does anyone here know any good online albums with photos from geek conventions, LARPS (live action roleplaying - people hitting each other in arenas with padded fake "weapons" - swords, axes, etc')? I want to study action shots of such arenas for the next con I work in, my continued failure to get any decent shots of such duels is annoying. (It's a failure of imagination, not technical constraints, there's always plenty of light).

[Simplicius]

Unless you can get into the crowd with a lens on the wide end, pictures of the crowd will just look like a clusterfuck. Your options will be limited when spectators are kept a given distance away from a clash for safety reasons. Pick out two (or a few) likely combatants out of the mob, isolate them with a long lens, stand where you'll be able to see all of them clearly, and don't trip the shutter until they collide. That's a good start.

Instead of looking for con photos to study, look for photos of 'martial' Olympic sports - fencing, judo, wrestling, whatever has been covered - and 'group combat' type sporting events to see how those photographers approached the matter. The quality of work will also be much less shitty than at a con board, since they were taken by experienced professionals and then vetted by editors.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Pick out two (or a few) likely combatants out of the mob, isolate them with a long lens, stand where you'll be able to see all of them clearly, and don't trip the shutter until they collide. That's a good start.

I always work on only 2 duellists, three at most if it's a melee.

Instead of looking for con photos to study, look for photos of 'martial' Olympic sports - fencing, judo, wrestling, whatever has been covered - and 'group combat' type sporting events to see how those photographers approached the matter.

Huh, that's an excellent idea, can't believe I didn't think of that.

The quality of work will also be much less shitty than at a con board, since they were taken by experienced professionals and then vetted by editors.

Hey! I'm an excellent self editor

[TimothyC]

I'm at that uncomfortable stage where I'm trying to figure out how to present/sell photos without doing any presenting/selling yet. I know fuck-all about small business and self-employment, so I really don't want to mess around with that unless I have a good reason to do so.

Even though the idea of getting to write off the cost of a new camera, unless you file quarterly tax returns, you can get in a world of hurt, trust me, I've been there.

[aerius]

I've found a solution to one of my serious photo problems. I often have photos where I'm shooting towards the light and end up with photos where the sky or area around the light source is properly or slightly over exposed while the the subject is still way too dark. I can usually fix this with the curves tool in Photoshop, but it's a pain in the ass and pretty time consuming since the curve has to be some pretty funky shape to keep the photo from looking fake.

Earlier this week I discovered contrast masking, it makes everything so much easier & faster. Now all I have to do is use the contrast mask as described on the link, then do a quick & easy curves correction and I'm done, and I get better results than with my old method.

Before & after sample of the editing.
Before
After
It literally took me more time to upload and link the pictures than it did for me to edit it, it only took me about 2 minutes to go from before to after, previously that would take me a good 10-15 minutes and I'd be lucky if I could get it that good. Note how the sky doesn't get blown out, trying to do that with curves alone while sufficiently brightening up the darker parts that I want to is next to impossible.

[Simplicius]

I got an old 4x6 contact printer today.




I get the basic idea - neg + paper on the top glass, close the lid for the necessary exposure time, then develop the paper. The safe and regular bulbs still work, the integrated switch works. I know to track down contact paper if I want to use it (in a darkroom, of course).

There are a few details that mystify me, though. 1.) What purpose could the fold-out strut on the outside of the case serve? It's not flush with any significant plane of the box, though its top is butted up to the underside of the lip of the top. 2.) I don't know what purpose the safe window in the front is supposed to serve, unless the box is meant to double as a safelight when the exposure is being made. 3.) There are two slots on the inside, thus:


One holds the frosted-glass diffuser; the other is for...? 4.) There is a round hole in the bottom capped with a white plastic part that could still let light shine out.


I don't think it's a light bulb mount, since the other mounts and the wiring are all internal and lead to the back wall - even though bottom center would be a logical place for the exposing bulb.

Anyone have an inkling?

[aerius]

3.) There are two slots on the inside, thus:

One holds the frosted-glass diffuser; the other is for...?

One possibility I can think of is that it's convertible to a condenser type enlarger. There might be a fresnel lens kit that goes into the pair of slots to change the enlarger into a condenser type, or maybe it's for some kind of filter. Then again it's a contact printer so I don't know if either one of those really makes sense.

[phongn]

For all of you film shooters, some guy on eBay is selling very nice (and large) light tables for a very low price. See this listing.

[Karrick]

Hope this is still the right place to ask this. I signed up for a photo course next quarter so I'm now in the market for a DSLR camera. I'm planning to use the course as an introduction to the hobby, but at the moment I know jack and shit about cameras.

Instant Sunrise's guide on page 1 of this thread was pretty helpful, but I'm looking for more specific info on a model I've more or less arbitrarily chosen. I'm currently looking at the Nikon D3000 as the upper limit in terms of price. I'm probably going to use whatever lens comes bundled with it, at least for now. Does that sound like something too complicated for a newbie? What say SDN's resident photographers?

[phongn]

Talk to your photo course instructor on what camera is required for the course. Many introductory courses require a film camera with manual controls.

[Karrick]

Right, the only requirements are SLR with manual controls. Digital is preferred over film, though I don't remember the reason she gave for this.

[phongn]

Pretty much all of the basic DSLRs are good enough. They will all have manual controls. Some will have features like in-body image stabilization but the kit Nikon and Canon lenses now have basic image-stabilization even with the kit lens.

The main thing - if you are really interested in photography and want to do more later on - is buying into the system.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Instant Sunrise's guide on page 1 of this thread was pretty helpful, but I'm looking for more specific info on a model I've more or less arbitrarily chosen. I'm currently looking at the Nikon D3000 as the upper limit in terms of price. I'm probably going to use whatever lens comes bundled with it, at least for now. Does that sound like something too complicated for a newbie? What say SDN's resident photographers?

At that price range the D3000's great, Canon 500D as well. Play around with them in the shop, look through the viewfinders and try to change the settings, play with the dials and weigh them in your hand.

The main differenence is in the ergnomics, UI and the system you buy into.
Personally, if buying a new camera system I'd go for Micro 4/3 (Panasonic & Olympus) - very small, compact and light, with excellent lenses. (and, yes, manual controls).

[aerius]

Right, the only requirements are SLR with manual controls. Digital is preferred over film, though I don't remember the reason she gave for this.

My personal thought is get the most basic simple camera you can, a photography class is about using the basics of a camera to take great pictures, not twiddling with 101 buttons, dials and settings. The fewer buttons, menus & crap it has the better, everything other than a focus, aperture, and shutter speed dial is an extra that you don't really need. By keeping the camera simple, you'll have more time to focus on learning the technical & artistic aspects of taking good pictures and less temptation to fiddle with the features to "improve" things. Image stabilization isn't needed IMO since the class should be teaching you good habits like how to hold a camera steady & choosing the right shutter speeds. Starting right away with IS can lead to sloppy habits later on. Start with a simple basic camera, get your fundamentals & skills nice & solid, then figure out if you really need or want to upgrade your equipment.

This post by my wife needs repeating.

Just a thought. Take a look through the entire "Photo a day" and "Photo Contest" threads and pick out all the best pictures. Then look at the cameras & equipment used to take those pictures, in most cases the gear is quite modest, many of the standout photos in those threads were taken with basic compact cameras, cellphone cameras and 50 year old flea market specials.

[Bounty]

Is a negative scanner worth the investment?

I now get my negs scanned when I get them developed at 1500x1000 or thereabouts. Is an affordable scanner able to do a good job at that resolution or a bit higher?

[Simplicius]

It depends. On the one hand, you pay maybe $5 extra per roll for lab scans. A low-end flatbed will pay for itself in 20-25 rolls, then. Third party scanning software (which is worth looking into; I'm contemplating buying VueScan myself) will add another 8 rolls or so to that.

Arguments for self-scanning with a flatbed: you don't like the lab scans you get; you want to have options and flexibility; you don't mind spending time but don't like spending money.

Arguments against: You don't want to spend a few hours per roll doing scanning and post (scanning is about 1 hour for a 35mm roll cut into strips at 1200 ppi); you are fine with paying some money to save yourself time and effort; you don't want to buy anything that won't give you a huge leap in quality like a dedicated film scanner will (at 10x the cost).

I use a Canon 8800F; I got it because it was the cheapest, entry level-est scanner I could find that was still new and good. I really only have three gripes with it that aren't covered by "Should have bought a better scanner." They are: 1.) No ICE. Fighting dust is a royal pain in the ass. 2.) Software auto-only functions (frame detect, negative-> positive) are sometimes performed poorly. 3.) Plastic neg holders could be more sturdy and seat in frame better; medium-format holder is the worst of the three.

Examples:



1200 ppi, full and 100%. Full size is 1132 x 1696, 1.83 MB (TIFF).



2400 ppi, full and 100%. Full size is 2264 by 3392, 7.33 MB (TIFF).



4800 ppi, full and 100%. Full size is 4528 by 6784, 29.3 MB (TIFF).

No sharpening or anything applied; film is Tri-x 400 (in otherwords, grainy).

I have never seen a lab scan that I know for sure has not been sharpened in any way, so I can't compare well. I do know that flatbed scans are soft, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were much softer than lab scans. There is a tradeoff, I guess - sharpness vs. (eventual) cost-savings and higher ppi if you want it.

Another thing I have noted is that there is really shitty tonality in black and white at full res. Pixel-peep at those crops I posted and you will see that it looks like a 32-bit sprite or something.

EDIT: Regarding sharpness, whether a lab scan is naturally really sharp or 'fixed' by the flunkies, it can be too/ sharp:



Too crunchy for my taste.

[phongn]

I was looking around photo.net and indications seemed to be that your scanner's true resolution - at least when scanning film - is around 1600 ppi; this seems borne out by the high-quality scan at 1200 ppi but a soft one at 2400 ppi.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Any chance that someone on the forum has or knows someone with the new Canon S-90 compact? Thoughts? (The reviews on it are great, and I'm planning to get it as my no2 camera).

[Bounty]

EDIT: Regarding sharpness, whether a lab scan is naturally really sharp or 'fixed' by the flunkies, it can be too/ sharp:

I've been meaning to ask what my photo place does to my negatives. I know they go to some lengths to correct for brightness (occasionally too far - they'll bump up completely botched prints until they are recognisable when I wouldn't have bothered) but that's in development, not scanning. I've been meaning to ask but the last few weeks I've only ever bumped into the assistants and they only handle the register, not the lab.

I was thinking of a scanner mostly because I'm drowning in CD's with maybe 30 scanned pictures on them which is a damn waste, and it would knock a few euros of each roll.

I honestly doubt if the equipment I use can justify pixel-peeping for sharpness. There won't be a massive drop in quality between a so-so photographer taking a so-so photo with a so-so lens and the scan of the result, at least not something I think would worry me.

What's holding me back is the initial cost and, silly as it may sound, that I'm taking business away from my lab.

[Simplicius]

I honestly doubt if the equipment I use can justify pixel-peeping for sharpness. There won't be a massive drop in quality between a so-so photographer taking a so-so photo with a so-so lens and the scan of the result, at least not something I think would worry me.

What's holding me back is the initial cost and, silly as it may sound, that I'm taking business away from my lab.

A 1200 ppi scan prints very nicely at 5x7. I made 8x12s from a 4800 ppi scan a while back and those didn't look bad either - scanner sharpness probably made less of a difference than the fact that I was enlarging a 35mm negative by a factor of 64.

If you want to keep business coming to your lab, why not get wall- or portfolio-sized prints of the photos you most like? It beats only looking at your photos on a computer, gives you home decor, gives you hard images you can easily give or show to others on the spot, and is a more posterity-friendly format than a mess of jpegs.

[Bounty]

If you want to keep business coming to your lab, why not get wall- or portfolio-sized prints of the photos you most like? It beats only looking at your photos on a computer, gives you home decor, gives you hard images you can easily give or show to others on the spot, and is a more posterity-friendly format than a mess of jpegs.

I hadn't thought of that, but that's actually a really neat idea.