Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[apocrypha]

Ahh ok gotcha.

Well my only personal experience of that kind of workflow then is with Capture One, but my stuff has always been much more processing-orientated. Give Lightroom a go to compare to Aperture, from my brief playing with it it seems as if that's exactly what it's aimed at.

[Righ]

I'm going to beat on Lightroom (and then Capture One) next. I've been distracted by discovering that recent versions of Aperture can maintain masters by reference, allowing them to exist outside the database. This sort of gets me what I want, but I would still rather not have to import things into the database before the initial 'light table'. I probably have a slightly odd set of needs in my work flow. Concert lighting means that I fire off a lot of shots, many of which are disposable. But I don't want to really throw anything out, I want to put it on DVD and get it off my computer. Once I've done the fast first pass through the many hundreds of shots, those than aren't 'discarded' are ones I'll want to look at in more detail and rate.

I think I can force Aperture to work if I use a different tool to import, burn everything to DVD and use Quicklook in Finder to pare down the images. If I can use Automator to build a plugin for the Finder, I might even be able to supplement the "Add To iPhoto" button in Quicklook with something to add to Aperture. Then if can assign that to a key press, I'm in business.

But before I get into that, I'll see what the other packages give me - I've already discarded SilverFast, Silkypix and Expression. Bibble doesn't currently do the asset management things I need, but allegedly will in the version that will support my camera. No way to try it currently though. Capture NX doesn't do the management stuff either but might do some other stuff that is useful before the catalogue tool. I still have 28 days left on all the evaluation periods. Finding a efficient work flow system is a tough job.

[Righ]

What the hell? The Lightroom UI looks like Goo. I suppose for Adobe, $300 puts you in the Happy Fun Toy market. And is it too much to ask to be able to easily put the light table into full screen mode so I can use all the limited number of pixels I have on my laptop? Shift-tab, f, f, t, l, l. Brilliant. I have a feeling this one won't work for me, but I'm not ready to can it until I see how it performs.

[nurtsi]

I broke my 50mm f/1.8 II lens I guess it got hit by something from the front as I've just kept my camera in my backpack. If I put it on manual focus and try to turn the focus ring, it doesn't move freely at one point. It seems the  lens assembly inside the housing is tilted. If I use auto focus, I get this horrible screech from the motor when it tries to focus the lens but it resists.

I haven't asked a shop to repair it yet, as I'm pretty sure it would be more expensive than buying a new one (if it even is possible to fix it). As this is dirt cheap lens (< 100€), I guess I'll just buy a new one, but any idea if I could fix this by myself somehow?

[apocrypha]

Well if you're already resigned to buying a new one then you've got nothing to lose by trying to take it apart and having a go yourself, right? Autofocus lenses are complicated beasties though, chances are low that you'll be able to do much yourself. Just be careful about putting it back on the camera - would be bad to fuck the AF mechanism or lens mount up.

[Righ]

Trying out Capture One Pro now. it knocks everything else into a cocked hat as far as ease of light and colour control is concerned. Makes it much simpler to pull details out of difficult partially lit stage photos. On the other hand it's pretty dreadful compared to either Aperture of Lightroom as a fast cataloguing tool. As far as I can tell the big things the Pro version adds over the standard one are tethered shooting, support for Phase One backs and (heh) the cataloguing. The normal version is probably something of a bargain if you use another tool for the cataloguing features then.

[Righ]

I came across this page which got me to boot my PC notebook into Ubuntu, so that I could look at some of the software mentioned here. I'm very impressed at how far open source photography software has come. UFRaw handles Nikon curves, digiKam is an astonishingly good photo management package. I'm not likely to make Linux my normal platform (not least because my PC notebook is a beast to lug around) but its good to know that it's viable if I don't have access to other tools. I might put a system packed with all the tools on a USB pen drive to go in my camera bag.

[eldaec]

Just started using Bibble, it blows away anything I've ever tried. The interface doesn't look as cool as some products, but you get past that and this is a fantastic product for image processing - I take a lot of indoor no-flash images, which often need a lot of work to really shine (either that or my photos just need a lot of work because I'm shit), I'm finding I just get stuff done fast, found it far more intuitive than the other products, and I have yet to come across a feature that is missing or not as powerful as I'd like it to be.

Admittedly I'm not fussed by cataloguing tools which are largely absent, so ymmv in this respect.



Fake Edit: I tried Lightroom last year, and I agree with Righ, the UI sucks monkey balls, plus Adobe have been a little too obvious in the features they've crippled to defend photoshop's territory. The designer of that godawful curves tool needs to be shot.

[nurtsi]

I don't get all this Lightroom dislike. I think the UI is pretty good. I use it to catalogue and develop my photos (only shoot RAW). It's really quick to go though hundreds of shots and flag the good ones, then work on those and develop them. Of course the software has loads of features I never use, but it does the basics really well.

[JWIV]

Took a trip out to home depot and the various craptastic shit stores in search of supplies to put together this:
http://diyphotography.net/readers-projects-the-midas-umbrella-touch

I'm using an assortment of spring clamps to hold it on an old tripod I have from Best Buy.  So far, it is WEIRD AS SHIT TO SHOOT WITH as I've NEVER done anything with off camera lighting before ever.   Paint isn't fully dry, but this is going to be fun as hell.

[apocrypha]

Righ - I've been intending to check out open source photo tools for years now, never got round to it. I think that one time I managed to install linux on a PC and then sat there with a command prompt blinking at me thinking "ok, what now?" put me off 

JWIV - awesome, have fun with it :)  Important thing to learn with an umbrella are that there are two distances that make a huge difference - the distance between your subject and the umbrella, and the distance between your subject (and light) and the background. Play around with those and you'll have all the control over tonal ranges you could ever want!

[JWIV]

Umbrella is a bit larger than I realized when I bought it, but it's still awesome.   I'll probably pick up a second smaller one (and another can of chrome paint) just to have some options.     The next project is to try and put together the backdrop I think, but that'll take some time.

[Ookii]

This is purely conjecture:

Since you are using a hot light instead of a strobe wouldn't you have to get the umbrella super close to the subject you're shooting?

The aforementioned reason is why I want to buy a white umbrella.  And a light stand.  And a clamp.  And a SC-28.

[JWIV]

Probably.  The rule of thumb I came across is apparently if you're not cussing that the umbrella is in the way, it' s not close enough.

[apocrypha]

Depends what look you want.

The softness of a light (i.e. how soft the shadows are, how slowly the falloff from light to dark happens on your subject) is purely a function of it's effective size from the subjects point of view. Big light source = soft. Small source = hard.

So, take your silver umbrella and put it 20m away and it'll be a pretty hard light source. Put it right next to your subject and it'll be soft. The sun is 865,000 miles in diameter, which is a pretty damn big source, but it's also 83,000,000 miles away so it's effective size is tiny and thus very hard. You don't always want soft lighting, and being able to choose exactly how hard or soft you want your light is the key.

Plus, light has depth of field. Further away it is, the greater the light's depth of field. Closer it is, the shallower it's depth of field. This means that a (really) large light source a long way away will have a softer falloff on your subject than the same light close in.

The problem with using a hot light in your umbrella is that it reduces your ability to balance flash and ambient. With a strobe in the brolly you can control the flash exposure with flash output + aperture and you control ambient with shutter speed. Since your umbrella light is also effectively ambient the only control you have over the flash:ambient ratio is with light to subject distance and subject to background distance. I'd strongly advise getting a flash for the brolly if you can :)

[JWIV]

Oh I want a flash.  But between baby proofing the house  and diapers the buy myself toys fund is a bit strained at the moment. 

[Ookii]

I might of spent some money today:



Wasn't too much though.

[Ookii]

Ok I keep buying things.

[stray]

Didn't know you had kids.

Or do you just like rubber duckies? 

[Ookii]

Came with the house sir.  I'm trying to do this with one light in the beginning but it's hard.

[Bunk]

One light's fine if you have enough things to bounce the light off of.

I'll admit though, I have two and wish I had three.

[Ookii]

I really want to get one or two to overexpose the backdrop so I can get a really clean white.

That said I need to get the basics down first.

[stray]

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the best use for those setups? Portraits, right?

[JWIV]

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the best use for those setups? Portraits, right?

Portraits and stills.

[stray]

What is the benefit for portraits? Again! Pardon my ignorance. I know shit about lighting and wish I did.

[Bunk]

Take a look at a picture you took of someone using an on camera flash. Everything is stark, there's usually a big obvious shadow on the wall behind them, etc.

The umbrella Ooki has there will let him spread the light of the flash around, making it softer, with way less harsh of a shadow. Plus he can choose which angle it hits the subject from. Take a look at most good portraits, and you will find the light hits the subject from an angle, creating interesting shadows on thier face.

He wants the second light to point at the background. For example, if the person has a white wall behind them, pointing a flash at that wall will negate any shadows and make the wall look pure white, which can be very nice for portraits.

[Ookii]

I WANT A SECOND LIGHT SO BAD.

Do you think I could overexpose the background with some bare CFLs?

[Righ]

Drool. New "cheap" Nikon street lens for compact sensor bodies:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09020901nikon35mm1p8.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikon_35_1p8_preview/

Added to the long list of lenses I want. Being at the lower cost end of the list, I can see myself getting one fairly soon. A long time before I get my 70-200 2.8 VR. Sniff.

[JWIV]

Drool. New "cheap" Nikon street lens for compact sensor bodies:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09020901nikon35mm1p8.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikon_35_1p8_preview/

Added to the long list of lenses I want. Being at the lower cost end of the list, I can see myself getting one fairly soon. A long time before I get my 70-200 2.8 VR. Sniff.

OH SHIT.  It's AF-S as well, so will auto focus on a D40/D40x/D60 body.   

[Mosesandstick]

Thanks for the find, might purchase one as I don't have a prime lens yet for my D40.

[Bunk]

I WANT A SECOND LIGHT SO BAD.

Do you think I could overexpose the background with some bare CFLs?

Well, you generally need more light on the backdrop than you have on the subject, so it could be tough to get what you want from a CFL.

A small strobe with a stand would run you about $250 from alienbees. No idea what you paid for your first light though.

[Ookii]

A long time before I get my 70-200 2.8 VR. Sniff.

Ha, that one does cost a wee bit.  The 18-200 mm is supposed to kick ass, I'm sure you could hold yourself over with that one.  Or the 80-200mm 2.8 if you want to spend a bit more.

[Righ]

I have an AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 G ED VR II. It's very nice - a killer mid-price lens that most everybody with a Nikon DX body should own. Its limitations are that its not a great low-light lens, its not the fastest AF in the world and it suffers creep in the mid-zoom at angles over 60 degrees. Other than that I love it. The expensive 2.8 glass is on my wish list because I'm into concert photography. The cheap 35mm F1.8 will be awesome for being slap up against the stage in small clubs where my 50mm is too much. There's also a rumor of a 135mm F1.8 DX being launched soon. However, If I get the promised photo pass I'm hoping for a tour this fall, I'll probably try and rent a 70-200mm F2.8 because it'll be great for decent sized venues with a photo pit.

[Ookii]

Okay here is a very dapper Cory Jacobs who is my only model to date.



It's not that great, I'm trying to figure stuff out first.  What is it lacking?  Besides the pose, he literally sat down for 5 seconds as he was rushing to work.

[Righ]

Other than perfectly lighting him to give him a black eye (probably doesn't help that he's not been getting enough sleep), its a decent shot.