Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[Righ]

No, I suspect he means the exposure compensation - it forces the metering to overexpose or underexpose - you could let the camera set the aperture and/or shutter speed and the exposure compensation will take care of the adjustment. But yes, you can also leave the metering unaffected, switch it to a manual setting and just adjust the exposure manually too. The D40 doesn't do automatic exposure bracketing unlike some of the more expensive bodies.

[Mosesandstick]

Yeah, kind of. An HDR is supposed to be a composite of multiple photographs (usually taken at different shutter speeds) so that your photo can display a bigger range of light. One of the ways in which you then compress these photos in to one is called 'tone-mapping', which is what produces the 'HDR-look'. If you just want a photo to have the same look without actually taking multiple photos, you can do what you did, and adjust the exposure in post-processing, get multiple photos and then 'tone-map', which is generally called 'pseudo-HDR'. I thought you'd actually taken multiple photos, which would've made you a miracle worker. Kids are notorious for staying still for only a couple of nanoseconds 

[Mosesandstick]

CS5 Content Aware Fill doesn't work perfectly:

[NiX]

It was saving you from yourself.

[Samwise]

I'm impressed how well it did with the hair.

[Samwise]

Playing around with nighttime photography.  Got this picture by balancing my camera on the roof of my car and doing a 10 second exposure:


I think I need to study the manual more so I can remember how to fiddle with all the knobs when it's dark out and I can't see them.  What I really wanted was a clear shot of the moon, but I think that'd require setting the aperture and the shutter speed independently so as to make the whole image darker, right?

[Furiously]

Moon is basically a daytime picture... F5 or so at 125 I think....

[Mosesandstick]

You're camera probably has an "info" button, if you press that it'll give you your shutter speed/aperture/etc. on the LCD screen. The info button is usually somewhere on the back.

The 'easy' solution I find is to shoot manual. It's digital, so keep playing with your ISO/SS/aperture until you get an image that looks like something you want. If not, you can either adjust the exposure compensation so the camera takes a darker picture, or you can change the metering mode (which is how the camera chooses how bright your photo should be).  The metering mode is a button that looks like a little matrix with 4 corners and a circle inside.

There are 3 modes of metering: matrix, centre-weighted and spot. Matrix takes some complex sum of most of the photo, centre-weighted includes the whole thing but gives the centre more weighting, and spot only evaluates a spot in the centre. For objects like the moon which are much brighter, one way to get it right is to choose spot metering, then put in some exposure compensation (probably between around +2 and +3), point at the moon, press 'exposure-lock' (so the camera keeps the same exposure details), then readjust your camera to the photo you want to take. (This is only if you're shooting in a mode other than manual)

Sorry if that's a mouthful, it's why I'd shoot manual if you have the time to set it up at night.

[Famine]

I can never get a good shot of the moon over Oslo, Norway. It looks so big from my flat on the mountain, but the moon always comes out too bright. :(

Here is some I took at night too (need a tripod):

[Bunk]

Nice effect on those, I like em.

You have to manually set your exposure when it comes to the moon. Setup a tripod, ignore the meter, and start trying different exposure lengths. Once you have one that the moon shows nice detail on, rather than being over exposed, then you adjust to take a slow exposure of the sky around it. Merge the two together and you have a nice shot.

[apocrypha]

Nother couple of recent model shoots. I really need to start using new locations!

[IainC]

My camera is a harsh critic. I've noticed it before but it's particularly evident in the last set of pictures I took of a figure I painted. If you look at those pictures (concentrate on the final ones rather than the work in progress shots - these would be the ones where the base is painted) then you'll see that the figure looks very messy and rough, the gradients between colours are sharp instead of smoothly blended and there are a lot of scrappy little details all over the figure that basically make it look as though I painted it whilst in the throes of a seizure.

Now in reality the figure doesn't look anything like that, it's smooth and tidy looking, I spend a lot of time around exquisitely painted figures and I'm confident that the standard of my work is up there with professional painters. The camera I'm using isn't anything particularly impressive, just a 7.2Mpixel Panasonic point and shoot thing of around 5 years vintage. Normally I use it in the macro mode as the normal picture mode doesn't focus well on the figures - for those unfamiliar that figure is about 2.5" tall to the top of his banner pole. What can I do to try and smooth out the image?

[apocrypha]

Use a softer light source, i.e. a light source that is larger in relation to the figure. Put a sheet of white A4 paper between whatever your light is and the figure, close to the model but out of frame. Put another one on the other side to reflect some soft light back into the shadows.

Then photoshop the crap out of any rough bits that you still see in the photos. Our eyes are very good at missing rough and harsh things in real life that cameras are very good at picking up. Cameras and eyes+brain work very differently, don't be afraid of technologyising the shit out of things to get a more pleasing final effect 

[IainC]

Hmm, thanks for that. I'll try and build a lightbox/photography booth and see if that helps. Currently I'm using the natural light augmented by the camera's flash which has a couple of layers of white printer paper taped over it to diffuse it a little.

[Mosesandstick]

I really like the first pic Apoc. There's something off with the bokeh on the second shot...

[apocrypha]

So there is, I hadn't noticed that. How odd, I'll have a play with it later and soften it off a bit, see if it looks better.

[Bunk]

I love the second shot actually. It's like everything about the whole shot is a little off kilter, and it works.

[apocrypha]

Cheers :)  The model wants to do another shoot when we've both got some free time, and she says she has an old wedding dress. Time to find an abandoned mental hospital or textile mill or something 

[Righ]

Hunslet Mills.

[apocrypha]

Looks nice, good call. Dunno how accessible it is now, will go hunting next week. Got a very similar location that's a lot less run down lined up however, have to see if it comes off :)

[Nerf]

We're finally biting the bullet and ditching the shit point and shoot cameras - I've been browsing adorama and found this:

http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/INKD3000KR.html


What we want to use it for:

Indoor shots - people, dog, closeup stuff (like the engagement ring)
Outdoor shots - both night and day, sun/shade

Basically, we want to be able to take nice pictures.  We picked up a Samsung SL605 P&S at Fry's the other day on the "camera guy's" recommendation and it is a piece of shit - 80% of the shots come out incredibly blurry, even if both camera and subject are still.

Would really like to keep the whole thing under $500, so if that camera/lens combo isn't our best bet, what would be? Adorama has D60 bodies for $350, is there a $100-150 lens that will do most stuff well?

Shopping for this stuff is so much more complicated than shopping for guns. 

[tgr]

I've had no issues with the nikon 18-200 (as opposed to the sigma 18-200 I had, which was just always slightly soft/off), but I fear it's a bit outside your pricerange. Having said that, isn't the default kit lens that come with most nikons okay for normal use?

[Merusk]

Yes. It's an 18-55mm f5.4 vibration-reducing lens these days.  They used to sell D40 and D60 kits that came with an 55-200mm zoom as well, but I don't know if that's still the case.

[Bunk]

Yea, an 18-55 will work fine for the type of stuff Nerf is asking about. About the only thing those kit lenses are weak on is low light situations, due to the relatively narrow aperture range. The quality tends to be pretty good on them though.

[apocrypha]

Thanks to the ring discussion, here's some pics from this afternoon:

[Mosesandstick]

Indoor shots - people, dog, closeup stuff (like the engagement ring)
Outdoor shots - both night and day, sun/shade

Probably getting a bit over your head, but if you want indoor shots, the cheapest way to get decent photos is to buy a bouncable flash. The "SB-400" is dirt cheap and works like magic. For outdoor shots you just need a decently sturdy tripod, but that's always a hassle. If you get those, you'll pretty much be able to take photos of the things you want without any problems.

[K9]

Thanks to the ring discussion, here's some pics from this afternoon:

The ring one is really good. The necklace image just looks a bit cluttered, I'm not sure why, although the way you have the reflections set up is a really nice touch. Your partner made all the items?

[apocrypha]

Probably getting a bit over your head, but if you want indoor shots, the cheapest way to get decent photos is to buy a bouncable flash. The "SB-400" is dirt cheap and works like magic. For outdoor shots you just need a decently sturdy tripod, but that's always a hassle. If you get those, you'll pretty much be able to take photos of the things you want without any problems.

If you do decide to look into flash photography then getting the flash off-camera and find out a little bit about lighting will make a *huge* difference to the kind of things you can do and the control you'll get. You can learn more at Strobist and there's cheap ways to do it, including this flash designed specifically for the job.

The ring one is really good. The necklace image just looks a bit cluttered, I'm not sure why, although the way you have the reflections set up is a really nice touch. Your partner made all the items?

Cheers, and I totally agree about the necklace one. I took about 30 shots of different arrangements and wasn't really happy with any of them in the end! The set-up is actually really simple - just a sheet of white acrylic, a large white backdrop and large white bounce cards all round, then one light on the background and one tight gridded one on-axis for sparkle.

She made everything except the glass/ceramic beads. She really wants a kiln to do ceramics but they're kinda expensive...

[K9]

So, I'm having a lot of fun with my D40, but I'm looking into getting another lens for it. The 18-55mm kit lens is really good and has done me really well, but I have come to realise that there are some situations where it falls a bit short. The two main situations are, when I can't get close enough to something and want to take a bigger picture of it, and low-light situations. From what I have read on Ken Rockwell's site (which as far as I know is a good guide), he reccomends the 35mm f/1.8 and the 55-220mm VR which are both within the range of what I can afford and seem to cover the places where the kit lens feels a little weak.

I'm just wondering if anyone has any comments on these lenses, or can suggest similar alternatives. Also, any advice on situations where these lenses would be good, and the sort of things they are suited to photograph would be welcome. The situations where I have recently felt a bit stuck with the kit lens were trying to take photos in a restaurant at a friends birthday, and then again at an evening BBQ (low light), and then trying to photograph deer in Richmond Park, where a bit of zoom would have been handy. I'm also not sure what else the 35mm f/1.8 lens would be good for other than low-light shots.

Cheers.

[apocrypha]

Hmm, I really don't know what to say about those lenses. First off, Ken Rockwell is a wanker. He makes a living from Adorama click-throughs, his photography is rubbish, so he will say nice things about whatever he thinks people are going to buy.

They're both OK lenses, but only OK. The zoom is a standard kit zoom really, just one with a longer reach than your existing one. Yeah it's cheap, in fact very cheap, which is a good thing. You'll get marginally better low-light ability with that than with your existing because of the VR but it means you'll be hand-holding at something around 1/15th-1/60th second depending on how far you're zoomed, so you're only going to be getting a stop or two more than your existing lens. The quality is only going to be so-so and you'll notice edge softness at anything much outside f7-f11 probably. But it's only £140 so whatever. It's not a lens for life, it's a short-term stop-gap. And remember it's a DX lens so it won't be much use to you in 2-4 years time if you move up to a full-frame sensor.

The 35mm is a more classic lens for a DX sensor, roughly equivalent to a 50mm on a full-frame. A prime lens of that focal length though is, in my opinion, a difficult lens to use. It's a very "purist" type lens. You're gonna have to move to frame your shots and if you do decide to open up to f1.8 you're going to get a VERY shallow depth of field - you'll struggle to get both eyes in focus on a portrait for instance. I've got a Sigma 30mm f1.4 DX lens that I got when I was shooting with a D80, and I hardly ever used it. I dunno, I just think that if you're wanting to do dusk BBQ type shots then you'll find that with a 30mm shooting at f1.8 that almost everyone in the shot is going to be out of focus. You'd be better off with an off-camera flash or two and/or a tripod IMO.

[Bunk]

Agreed, I learned the hard way that shooting at f1.8 is not a good alternative to a good flash most of the time. That being said, I do love my 50mm 1.8 prime for portraits, though I seldom shoot all the way down to 1.8 due to the depth of field issues.

I actually enjoy using a prime and having to move around to frame a shot. Saves me from myself, as with zooms I tend to always go to the extremes, rather than sticking to the "sweet spot" ranges. Plus, I got my prime for under $150 and it's nearly as sharp as my L-Series lens.

My experience with lower priced zooms with big ranges, is that they generally suck. Poor results at either end of the range, and generally poor sharpness.

[K9]

This is exactly the sort of stuff I need to be told, thanks a lot. From my point of view, I'm still learning so stop-gap lenses that just give me room to practise before I move onto the next step is fine by me. Not that I can afford to shell out a grand or five for some awesome lens, but equally I doubt that I'd be able to make the most out of it. I take your point about Ken Rockwell, if you have any other sites you'd suggest I'd gladly read them.

In place of the 35mm lens, are there any other practical lenses that would fill a similar void, or should I just forget about fixed-focus lenses until I'm a bit more experienced? I have learned a lot about framing pictures and placing myself in relation to what I am photographing, but I'd hardly say I'm a pro. A decent flash is also something I'm in the market for, my issue is that I don't want to be toting around a ton of gear to small stuff like BBQs and dinners, so tripods and multiple off-camera flashes are a bit impractical in that regard. If there's no cheap and simple way no worries. Part of me suspects that an off-camera flash and a zoom lens might cover my bases better, I'd value your opinion on that though.

Thanks again for the help, trying to understand the difference between lenses without the benefit of actually playing with them is proving difficult.

Agreed, I learned the hard way that shooting at f1.8 is not a good alternative to a good flash most of the time. That being said, I do love my 50mm 1.8 prime for portraits, though I seldom shoot all the way down to 1.8 due to the depth of field issues.

I actually enjoy using a prime and having to move around to frame a shot. Saves me from myself, as with zooms I tend to always go to the extremes, rather than sticking to the "sweet spot" ranges. Plus, I got my prime for under $150 and it's nearly as sharp as my L-Series lens.

My experience with lower priced zooms with big ranges, is that they generally suck. Poor results at either end of the range, and generally poor sharpness.

Thanks too. Looking at Nikon's list, the 28-70mm and 24-120mm lenses aren't realistic for me pricewise. Would you think the 18-135mm or 18-70mm lenses would be a better call than the 55-200mm? My main feeling is that I wouldn't mind a bit more zoom when I'm out and about, since I often feel that even as close as I can get to an object of interest, it still comes out small and insignificant in the resulting photo. I don't know where the limit of usefulness on a zoom is though, is 200mm too much? My main photographic targets are friends, food and scenery out and about. I realise this is fairly typical, but finding a tool that will help me do this better would be nice.

Cheers for the help

[tgr]

You haven't thought about looking at the Nikon 18-200mm VR one? I'm not using it too much myself, but the times I have used it it's been damn sharp, and should be plenty versatile for most people.

[K9]

£600 is a bit more than I was looking to spend right now, otherwise I'd be seriously considering it.

[Mosesandstick]

Don't buy the 55-200. There's a new 55-300 coming out to replace it, which chances are will be better than the 55-200 in most ways. Better to wait and see.

I also wouldn't get the 18-200 VR. The 18-55 and 55-200 cover the same range, will produce better looking pictures, and due to the physics the 18-200 doesn't always function as a 200mm lens.

I'd really recommend buying the 35 1.8. Nothing will improve your photography like a prime lens. You stop thinking about 'zooming' and start thinking about perspective, space, framing, etc. Combining the low-light capabilities with it's price makes it awesome. For outdoor low-light photographs like at a BBQ, nothing I can think of will beat a prime lens with a bit of fill flash. A zoom lens with VR would also be useful, but in my past experience the kind of shutter speeds you need are too slow even to get people to stand still (unless posed).

If you're looking for just a bit more range in zoom I'd recommend the 16-85 or 18-105 VR. VR is really worth it's weight in gold for these kinds of lenses, don't go without it.