The Professional Photography and Photoshop Thread

[Vegas]

I love it!! thank you for the feedback i actually took the picture in my room with little space for anything due to Mac toys everywhere. I will use a tripod next time. I haven't really learned to use the ISO or adjust it (still reading the D90 book by J. Dennis Thomas on page 60 Chap 2). Still learning on the shutter speed and spot/metered. Thank you so much Lynx I will keep reading and thank you for your feedback I will work in getting a better background =)

this place is awesome!!

nice start man, keep it up! again i love those customs

[Dante74]

For you Dante:

Excuse the pics.. still learning..

*wakes up, wipes drool off beer belly, pees, gets out of chair and makes mental note to use bathroom for that next time, puts on a new pair of shorts, gets back behind computer and realizes he's just sat down in his own pee, puts on another pair of fresh shorts and cleans chair, presses F5 for the fifteenthousandth time*

*Likes what he sees and wants more*

Did you get a flash yet? If you haven't gotten a flash yet, go get one and play with it. Use it to light your subject from the side. It'll do wonders and it's loads of fun.

[eugimon]

Hey,, what's with all this talk of shallow depth of field is no good?

[Lynx7725]

Hey,, what's with all this talk of shallow depth of field is no good?

Nobody said anything about not good -- it's all about the effect you are going after anyway.

Sufficient DoF is harder to achieve than shallow DoF, so it's probably better to learn how to do suffcient DoF then figure out how to achieve a particular effect than the other way round.

TBH, overly-shallow DoF is overdone, especially in super-robot shots. When it's appropriate and well done it's nice, but often it just end up (literally) blurring out details.

[Kicker773]

damn thats a lot of lingo i need to learn still.. here is the ones i took with of the VF1S

25th VF1S

Eye See You!!

[eugimon]

TBH, overly-shallow DoF is overdone, especially in super-robot shots. When it's appropriate and well done it's nice, but often it just end up (literally) blurring out details.

[eugimon]

damn thats a lot of lingo i need to learn still.. here is the ones i took with of the VF1S

25th VF1S

First, the LED custom is sweet... that's just impressive.

Second, try changing the AF from 3D or auto to manual control and use it to select where you want the camera to focus. You can control that with the d-pad on the back. Right now it looks like the camera focused on the nacelles which is a really small area and makes the image just look out of focus on first look.

Edited November 2, 2009 by eugimon

[Kicker773]

I'll try that.. but i was so worried not to mess with the lens too much and to make sure that i don't start turning it when it was in auto mode.. (it did say in the manual that if i turned the lens during auto it can damage the lens or the camera)

I think I will join a flickr group for d90 in chicago.. i hear they have meets and stuff.. i gotta get some directions..lol.. i'm such a newb =(

[wizartar]

IMO these images are a little too dark and detail is being lost in the shadow. But it looks like that's because the highlights are blowing out the color histogram so it's under exposing most of the image. Are you using the Active D-Lighting? If not turn it on, as it will help with this type of picture. Also you should look at HDR imaging, here's a link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging You'd take one picture for just the highlights then another for the main dark sections. Then in something like Photoshop composite the two images together. But HDR needs a tripod and a remote control helps.

Or you can turn down your spot lighting and turn up the ambient light this will stop the over exposure of highlights and allow a longer exposure so you get more detail, but might add a little grain. Also side reflectors can help, cheap & cheerful way, get some tinfoil using the dull side pat it down on a bed to ripple it up a little then fold it over some cardboard (again dull side out). Great way to get more light into a scene without adding more lamps.

[eugimon]

So this is an example of manually selecting the focus point and using spot metering and using a reflector to bounce some light back up on the target.

[KiriK]

Nice pictures! I want to take some nice pics with my Nikon D40, but i'm still learning to use the manual setting and stuff. Plus i don't have a good backdrop to use for my pics

[Vegas]

Nice pictures! I want to take some nice pics with my Nikon D40, but i'm still learning to use the manual setting and stuff. Plus i don't have a good backdrop to use for my pics

buy a white poster board at you local office depot, the bigger the better and they only cost $3 tops

here's another with semi backlit background, no reflectors though

[Vegas]

heres the exif data for anybody interested on how i shot this. hope it helps

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vegas-macross...157612269020796

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vegas-macross...157612269020796

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vegas-macross...157612269020796

[eugimon]

Where you decide to meter is important as well:

Nothing changed in these two shots other than first one was metered on a bright spot while the second one was metered on a dark spot. So the AI on the camera basically decided that the whole thing was in correct exposure because the metering said so and the whole image is too dark as a result. The second the AI decided the whole image was too dark and over exposed it and now everything is blown out.

Cases like this is where you want to go in manually and not use the camera's AI (I usually shoot in aperture priority mode)

This time I manually set the exposure to -1.00, which got me the desired effect though I could have done the same by going into manual mode and dialing in the shutter speed to get it slightly underexposed (according to the camera's AI)

excuse the dappling, it's the shadow from my window screen...

Edited November 2, 2009 by eugimon

[Lynx7725]

First off, I think we're throwing too many concepts and some mid to high level techniques towards newcomers. Let's keep things simpler for now, ok?

I'll try that.. but i was so worried not to mess with the lens too much and to make sure that i don't start turning it when it was in auto mode.. (it did say in the manual that if i turned the lens during auto it can damage the lens or the camera)

What the manual means is that if you change the mode while the camera is focussing, it can damage the lens or camera (particularly if it's an older, screw-driven lens). This is as there are some cameras out there that has a physical Manual/ Auto switch, so throwing it while the camera is spinning the lens for focus can lead to much grinding.

Most of the new lens nowadays are on Silent Wave Motor, and they are engineered such that if you grab the focus ring while the camera is focussing, the resistance will override the autofocus. It's not really something you should do often, so having some caution here is a good thing.

For now though, there's really two things that you need to understand. First, to work out what posture is good for photography -- basic stances, stability, control. A lot of bad photography is related to bad posture, so getting that out of the way is a good thing.

Second, is to understand the relationship between f-stop, shutter speed and ISO, and how metering sits in the whole relationship. This will help you understand the idea that photography is a whole bunch of compromises thrown together.

BTW, I fully support the idea that a photographer should learn to shoot on manual mode, to gain a good understanding of the physics involved. That might seem a bit daunting at the moment, but it's not terribly difficult once you have basic concepts correct.

[Vegas]

BTW, I fully support the idea that a photographer should learn to shoot on manual mode, to gain a good understanding of the physics involved. That might seem a bit daunting at the moment, but it's not terribly difficult once you have basic concepts correct.

totally agree with you here. there were only few times ive used the aperture and shutter priority mode. i have not even tried the auto mode since got my camera.

hey kicker go to youtube. you can find alot of stuff regarding basic photography and about the D90. its way better than reading.

[Lynx7725]

Hmm, here's a little exercise for the photographers here.

Please observe the following two shots:

Both shots are taken within minutes of each other. No photo manipulations have been done other than scaling it down for web purposes.

The questions are: Which is a better shot? And Why?

Additional: What are interesting aspects of photography technicalities that these two photos demonstrate?

[eugimon]

One is in focus, the other one isn't. The one that's not in focus happens to have a shallower depth of field but the subject isn't properly in focus, with the F stop open like that you've also over exposed the image, blowing out all the contrast.

Playing with depth of field should be done to isolate a subject:

shot at f/1.8, iso 200, aperture priority.

It's entirely possibly to have a very shallow depth of field and maintain contrast and clarity of subject

Edited November 3, 2009 by eugimon

[anime52k8]

totally agree with you here. there were only few times ive used the aperture and shutter priority mode. i have not even tried the auto mode since got my camera.

hey kicker go to youtube. you can find alot of stuff regarding basic photography and about the D90. its way better than reading.

I shoot probably 80% of the time in aperture priority mode because I'm lazy and it's easier to set an EV compensation and let the camera do the work than to dial in shutter speed and aperture with every shot

One is in focus, the other one isn't. The one that's not in focus happens to have a shallower depth of field but the subject isn't properly in focus, with the F stop open like that you've also over exposed the image, blowing out all the contrast.

also the composition is crap in the first picture, much better in the second. putting your subject dead center= boring photos 90% of the time.

it is a good example of how you can compensate for fail auto focus with exadurated DoF.

Edited November 3, 2009 by anime52k8

[Lynx7725]

One is in focus, the other one isn't. The one that's not in focus happens to have a shallower depth of field but the subject isn't properly in focus, with the F stop open like that you've also over exposed the image, blowing out all the contrast.

That's an interesting observation. Can I check, which one in your opinion isn't in focus (Let's call the first one A and the second B, for clarity? Technically speaking, both photos are focussed, just on different things, and as you said, with different aperture (but IIRC, neither really had their contrast blown that far out).

It's interesting because I am having a discussion on this set of photos with another photographer, and there were some other observations made.. I'll share them later, to see if anyone also draws on the same line of thought.

EDIT:

also the composition is crap in the first picture, much better in the second. putting your subject dead center= boring photos 90% of the time.

it is a good example of how you can compensate for fail auto focus with exadurated DoF.

Eh, interesting too. My ability to compose isn't very good, I'm more a technical shooter, not that artistic in nature. Still, I fail to see the difference amongst the two pics, because I shot them very similarly... dead focus center (these are very small flowers and there's a breeze, so very difficult to control).

And yes, it's an example of DoF compensating for focus, but not quite the way you're thinking (if I understand correctly). I'll provide additional pics later tonight, when I get back home.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Lynx7725

[Vegas]

Hmm, here's a little exercise for the photographers here.

Please observe the following two shots:

Both shots are taken within minutes of each other. No photo manipulations have been done other than scaling it down for web purposes.

The questions are: Which is a better shot? And Why?

Additional: What are interesting aspects of photography technicalities that these two photos demonstrate?

i like picture "a" better, the exposure is about right.......other than that....... ok ok i give up i dont know

[eugimon]

Well, I think figure A is blown out.. the sky and clouds read as very "hot" to me and I see that some of the flower pod is in focus but it may be just the compression but the flower petals look fuzzy while the pod around it is sharper.

B, the whole flower, stem, plant, everything is in focus.

I think if you had been able to get a tighter shot of the flower, with the same depth of field but take the exposure down a step or two to maintain contrast, the results would be better

my example of what I'm talking about

[Vegas]

hmmm picture "a" has a shallower DOF? about an F/stop with same shutter speed? damnit my exif viewer is not working

[Lynx7725]

hmmm picture "a" has a shallower DOF? about an F/stop with same shutter speed? damnit my exif viewer is not working

Ok, here's the EXIF:

A: 35mm at f/2.8 , 1/6400s (yes, it's very bright that day), EV 0, center weighted. Odd, the EXIF left out ISO, I have to check the original.

B: 35mm at f/4, 1/6400s, EV 0, center weighted.

Thus, the real difference is in the aperture (and thus DOF), and the framing. WB should be on auto, I didn't set it per se.

Well, I think figure A is blown out.. the sky and clouds read as very "hot" to me and I see that some of the flower pod is in focus but it may be just the compression but the flower petals look fuzzy while the pod around it is sharper.

B, the whole flower, stem, plant, everything is in focus.

I think if you had been able to get a tighter shot of the flower, with the same depth of field but take the exposure down a step or two to maintain contrast, the results would be better

That's very odd about the "hot" part, because... well, maybe that's not what you meant. Maybe screen calibration?

But agreed, if the stops had been down by 2 or more (I can afford even more actually, at 1/6400s), might have gotten more shadows/ contrasts. It's a bit blown out, I'd agree.

The odd thing about these two photos, is that if you examine the originals (and IIRC), A has the focus on the front flower, while B has it on the back flower. Yes, B had the focal further back and the DoF at f/4 wasn't actually capable of covering the whole range -- I'll put up some additionals later tonight to show what I mean. However, downscaling the images gave a little bit more DoF, making it looks better than the original.

Technically speaking, in terms of focus I find A better, but in terms of overall effect I would say B is more to what I want. But what I like about these two photos is that they show even a not so technically good photo can convey a pic better -- it boils down to the effect that you are looking to achieve, and whether you can stretch your -- and your camera's -- capabilities to achieve it.

Also, it highlights that Auto WB.. while not sucking, can be very inconsistent shot-to-shot. That's fine if your surrounding lighting is constant, but even then your shot effect can vary. Time to break the bad habit and going back to manual WB...

As for the composition, I tend to shoot for web use, and after trying to get the composition dead on, I realised that I'm shooting at 3000x2000 (D70 is a 6mp camera, nowadays you get even MORE), I'm never going to use all that pixels, and I commonly post at 800x600, so what's the point of doing such a tight composition when I can crop it? Shoot fast, shoot right, use photoshop to get the composition tight. Film photography doesn't have this luxury, but digital does -- and should explore it further.

my example of what I'm talking about

That's a very nice shot. Good one!

[Vegas]

The odd thing about these two photos, is that if you examine the originals (and IIRC), A has the focus on the front flower, while B has it on the back flower. Yes, B had the focal further back and the DoF at f/4 wasn't actually capable of covering the whole range

i would never have guessed that ....

[Kicker773]

nice.. lets dumb it down a bit.. lol =T let me catch up to the lingo.. anyways i tried Eugimon's style by adjusting the ISO and Exposure.. still trying to figure out how to adjust the shutter and what button..lol.. yeah reading is taking forever so i might just watch the d90 vid i dl or check you tube. I'll post the pic of the the one i took without a tripod though.. i will try to find time this week to mess around with it more..

[eugimon]

nice.. lets dumb it down a bit.. lol =T let me catch up to the lingo.. anyways i tried Eugimon's style by adjusting the ISO and Exposure.. still trying to figure out how to adjust the shutter and what button..lol.. yeah reading is taking forever so i might just watch the d90 vid i dl or check you tube. I'll post the pic of the the one i took without a tripod though.. i will try to find time this week to mess around with it more..

In all modes but auto, the scroll wheel by the shutter button controls the aperture, on the top LCD display that number will be in the upper right "F 11", the shutter speed is controlled by the scroll wheel on the back and that number is displayed to the left of the aperture setting.

your exposure is shown in the glass viewfinder on the bottom middle: + | | 0 | | - The meter will go left or right indicating whether the scene is under, over or "just right".

[Vegas]

anybody interested on making a mw flickr group? how about a group feed integrated on this website just like collectiondx?

[Kicker773]

So I had it on 200 ISO with F3.5 and messed around with the metering.

Auto with no tripod:

Manual with Eugi's settings and no tripod:

Edited November 4, 2009 by Kicker773

[Kicker773]

As far as the shutter speed control its still saying Lo when i'm in Aperture mode, does it only increase or be adjusted in a different mode? like S shutter?

[eugimon]

As far as the shutter speed control its still saying Lo when i'm in Aperture mode, does it only increase or be adjusted in a different mode? like S shutter?

right. In aperture mode you control the ISO (assuming you have that on manual) and the aperture setting, the AI decides on the best shutter speed given those two other factors. Shutter mode, you control the shutter speed and the AI controls the aperture.

If you try aperture mode in brighter light you'll see the shutter speed change accordingly.

Edited November 4, 2009 by eugimon

[mospeadamacrosstech]

These are all fantastic tips. Thanks for helpin' the rest of us out!

[MacrossMan]

Okay, so I have been checking resellers.com for certain companies to beware of for the D90 purchase. I've seen mixed opinions (not here) about getting a refurbished body. What do you guys think about getting a refurbed body? Also, what would be a good all purpose starter lens? One more thing, any suggestions on online stores for the purchase; refurb wise? Thanks!

[Vegas]

Okay, so I have been checking resellers.com for certain companies to beware of for the D90 purchase. I've seen mixed opinions (not here) about getting a refurbished body. What do you guys think about getting a refurbed body? Also, what would be a good all purpose starter lens? One more thing, any suggestions on online stores for the purchase; refurb wise? Thanks!

how much will you be saving vs buying a new one?

i suggest to buy a new one at amazon or wait till black friday and hope that d90 will be on sale at best buy.

[anime52k8]

Okay, so I have been checking resellers.com for certain companies to beware of for the D90 purchase. I've seen mixed opinions (not here) about getting a refurbished body. What do you guys think about getting a refurbed body? Also, what would be a good all purpose starter lens? One more thing, any suggestions on online stores for the purchase; refurb wise? Thanks!

I wouldn't. buying refurbed is always a gamble even from a reputable dealer, and considering the frequent lack of warranty, it's really not worth the (usually minimal) savings.

As for lenses; the most important criteria are what can you afford and what kinds of pictures will you be taking (will you be shooting indoors, close up, far away, shooting sports etc.). for most people the best all around lens ends up being some sort of standard zoom lens. Be sure to stay away from those cheap 18-55mm compact lenses though, they are absolute Junk. Also stay away from these super zoom jobs with the huge focal range, image quality is usually poor and they tend to be cheaply made (a zoom lens really shouldn't have a range greater than 5-6x).

beyond that, look for things like internal focus motors (AF-S lenses with nikon), some sort of image stabilization (VR for nikon), metal lens mount (plastic lens mounts are a good indication of cheap construction), internally focusing (lens doesn't get shorter or longer when focusing).

D90's come in a kit with an 18-105mm lens which should be pretty good, but if you're planing on buying your lens and body separately, I'd be more inclined to go with their 24-120mm (the 24-120 is internally focusing, the 18-105 isn't).

as for places to buy, amazon is aways good, as are these two:

http://www.adorama.com/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

(I prefer B&H myself)