gdw

<p>E J, you are absolutely correct. Once a photograph is put out in the public, the photographer can no longer control how it is preceived. That is one of the best reasons to try to learn everything you can about photographs so that the ones you publish convey what you want them to convey. A critique is an opinion. It is not carved in stone. It is simply the way the viewer sees the photograph. Unfortunately it is much easier to talk about the how of photographic technique rather than the why.</p>

<p>Tim, there is probably no better place to get a critique than on Pnet. However, if you have browsed the forums you will notice that the vast majority of photographs that request critiques are never critiqued. That is sad. It wasn’t that way ten years ago when I first joined. I love to critique but over time I learned that most of the people that now post to the critique forums only want to be told how good they are. Anything that they perceive to be negative is met with hostility because their fragile self esteem has been totally shattered. I am not the only one that has gone from multiple critiques a day to maybe one or two a month or less. I have some strict requirements about the photographs that I do critique. If you would like, take a look at my bio and if you feel that my critique might be of help, just reply and I will be more than willing to give it a try. Just remember I am old and extremely opinionated and I am likely to state my opinions much to the chagrin of many of the Pnet members. LOL I may not cover it in the bio but I also feel that to critique a photograph requires asking questions. Actually I am of the opinion that questions are much more important than answers. So I am likely to ask questions.</p>

<p>I have never tried this, never considered it. But I have a question. When you say that you wish to use it as an incident meter when the white "cap" is attached, do you mean that you are going to walk over to the subject position and point the camera back toward the selected shooting position to take the reading, which is what you would do with an incident meter; or are you planning on pointing the camera toward the subject to take the reading. Seems there would be a lot of difference in the two readings. I would say that if you are planning on pointing the meter at the subject that it would not be workable because it would still have all the shortcomings of a reflected meter--basically the light reflectance of the subject matter would still have to be factored in manually. Seems that spot metering on a gray card, which should give close to the same results as an incident meter, would be much less hassle than using a white "cap".</p>

<p>Kent, I am not sure that I can agree that switching a lens between a FX and DX body will change the depth of field.</p>

<p>DOF is a function of the lens, not the camera body. A 50mm lens at the same specific aperture and same specific distance to subject will give identical DOF regardless of what body the lens is mounted on with the caveat that you calculate the DOF using the same sized circle of confusion.</p>

<p>Generally, calculating acceptable DOF between the two bodies is done by changing the circle of confusion. The DX is generally calculated using 0.02 mm whereas the FX is generally calculated using 0.03 mm. When done that way the FX actually achieves a greater DOF with any particular lens than the same lens on the DX. The reason for changing the circle of confusion in the calculation is that the DX format requires greater magnification than the FX format to achieve a particular print size.</p>

<p>There are two situations that might create the perception that the DX gives greater DOF. First, I can agree that using a 50mm lens on a DX body with an apparent focal length of 75mm is going to give greater DOF than switching lenses and using a 75mm lens on the FX body. In that case, yes the DOF will be greater because the focal length of the lens has actually changed. The other situation is where you retain the same framing, in other words you include all the same area in the DX that you would have in the FX. This can be done by increasing the camera to subject distance. Increasing the camera to subject distance makes the image to subject ratio greater and thus does increase DOF. DOF is influenced by focal length, aperture and distance but it is governed by the image to subject ratio. </p>

<p>You are correct that changing the same lens between different film formats does make a change in the angle of view making it a perceived wide angle on some formats, a normal on others and a telephoto on still others but that is governed by the film format, not the lens. Again, changing the same lens between different film formats in no way affects the DOF created by the lens, only the angle of view. Just because changing the angle of view makes the lens appear to be different "perceived" focal lengths doesn't mean that the DOF changes.</p>

<p>Jenna, to your second question, I do not know for sure but I can give you some suggestions on what to look at in the photograph that might come close to answering your question. Notice that the shadow is almost directly behind the person. That indicates that the light was not coming from above the person, actually it was on about the same level as the subject. The light coming from above the subject, like it would if it were sunlight for example, the shadow would have been lower behind her. Conversely, a very low light source would have thrown the shadow higher than the subject. The relationship of the shadow to the subject tells up where the light source is located. The other thing that is obvious is that the edges of the shadow are very soft, not real sharp and distinct. That indicates that the light source was fairly large in relation to the size of the subject, it did what is called "wrapped" around the subject and created a very indistinct edge to the shadow. A single light source like the sun, an unmodified flash or a single light bulb would have created a very distinct, sharp edge to the shadow. My guess would be that the photographer used a relatively large softbox, bolly or something similar such as a large scrim, something that created a significantly large light source, between the light source and the subject with the light positioned at about the same level as the subject. </p>

<p>I simply do not have the patience to read all the comments so this might have been said previously.</p>

<p>The first thing to do is to determine where the problem lies. There are generally four reasons for less than ideally sharp photographs that you can identify by looking at the photograph.</p>

<p>Missed Focus: This is where the camera focused on some part of the image rather than what you wanted. In a photograph where you missed the focus there will be some items that are sharp, where the camera focused. The remainder of the photograph will be soft. The correction for this problem is to take more care in focusing and be sure the camera does not refocus or your subject does not move out of the focus area before you take the shot.</p>

<p>Inadaquate Depth of Field: Here the focus may be on the area that you wanted sharp but it does not cover all of the area you wanted sharp. The correction for inadequate DOF is to move farther back which reduces the size of the image on the sensor and will increase DOF or to use a smaller lens opening, aperture to increase DOF.</p>

<p>Subject Movement: Here the shutter speed is inadequate to capture the speed at which the subject is moving. Generally with subject movement, things that are stationary will remain crisp and sharp but objects that are moving are not sharp. The correction is to use a faster shutter speed or if possible to shoot the moving object at a different angle, like oblique or strait on, either of which would not require as fast a shutter speed to stop the motion as if it were traveling across the sensor plane.</p>

<p>Camera Movement: Here there is nothing in the photograph that is really crisply sharp, everything is fuzzy. Objects that fall within the DOF will be less fuzzy than the objects that are outside the DOF, but still, nothing is really crisp. The correction here is to practice holding the camera steadier, us a tripod or support—or to use a faster shutter speed. There is a general rule of thumb for handholding a camera: most people can hand hold down to a shutter speed that is the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens. For example on a 50mm lens you would normally need to use a shutter speed of 1/50 or 1/60 of a second—or a shutter speed shorter than that. Some people are capable of hand holding at slower speeds but some people cannot hold the camera steady at the rule of thumb. It all depends upon your camera holding skills.</p>

<p>It is always difficult to tell in downsized photographs because downsizing creates some fuzziness, but from looking at your photograph I would say that your primary problem is your camera holding skills. They could use some practice. I am not seeing anything in the photograph that is as crisp as the 50mm lens is capable of producing. Start by using a faster shutter speed if possible, then use the guide lines above to make further adjustments if needed.</p>

<p>Rene, to your first inquiry, does the appearance of the out of focus area change when the same lens used on two different sensors sizes. I replied that it does not. I said that your eyes were correct when they could not see the difference because there was no difference. I did mention a caveat--the shooting distance and the focal length used MUST remain the same for both sensors. However, to your second inquiry, where you changed the focal length of the lens when you changed between bodies and still could not see the difference, your eyes were not functioning nearly as well. Because in that case there is a difference in the appearance of the out of focus areas because there is a difference between the DOF of a 52mm lens and the DOF a 35mm lens. </p>

<p>You say that when you switched sensor sizes you switched focal length; you "adjusted" the focal length. That does indeed change the depth of field and WILL change the appearance of the out of focus areas. Now the difference in appearance may not be pronounced enough that it is a big difference or even a discernible difference. It will depend upon what is in the background and how close or how far away those objects are to your point of focus--but it will change because depth of field between the two focal lengths will be different. And as far as bokeh is concerned it could well depend upon whether or not you had bright areas or point light sources in the background that makes the bokeh of a lens more evident. As explained before, bokeh and the appearance of out of focus areas is not the same thing although the word bokeh has been corrupted and often used to mean the appearance of any out of focus area.</p>

<p>When you move a lens from one sensor size to the other it does not change the focal length of the lens. I know this is confusing because it is such an ingrown urban myth of photography when we talk of putting a 50mm lens on a DX sensor as though it becomes a 75mm lens. It doesn't. All the DX sensor does is crop out the center of the FX sensor, the center of a 50mm lens. Switching between the two in no way affects the focal length of the lens. It is still very much a 50mm lens with all the same characteristics on the DX as it had when it is on a FX sensor--identical. If you want to compare the appearance of the out of focus areas you will need to leave the focal length, and the shooting distance, the same on both cameras.</p>

<p>Because the focal length does not change is why we talk of DX sensors having a greater depth of field than FX sensors. They don't. The just give what appears to be a 75mm lens the same DOF as a 50mm lens because it actually is a 50mm lens.</p>

<p>If you can, wrap your head around that one simple fact: the focal length of the lens is the same on both sensors. That will simplify a lot of your questions. It's something that a lot of photographers that fall for conventional wisdoms can't seem to do.</p>

<p>Rene, from some of the answers posted here your confusion is understandable. I’m not sure how such a simple topic can be made so complicated. Accept the fact that your “primitive eyes” are more accurate than most of the information you are getting. Your eyes are correct: same lens at the same aperture and distance on the two different sized sensors will have identical bokeh.</p>

<p>As Matt says, yes, lens design affects bokeh so changing lens will or at least can change bokeh appearance.</p>

<p>Changing aperture will change DOF which will change the appearance of bokeh.</p>

<p>Changing distance will change DOF which will change appearance of bokeh.</p>

<p>Bokeh is a function of the lens. So, in spite of all the complicated, convoluted and confusing explanations—changing sensors does not affect bokeh.</p>

<p>I apologize for not addressing your second question. Why a person buys any piece of photographic equipment has about as many answers as there are photographers. Most often we justify our purchases to ourselves whether or not there is any actual basis in reality to our justification.</p>

<p>Matt, the OP is asking about using the same lens, not two different lenses. Yes bokeh is affected by the number of shutter blade as well as other lens design factors--neither of which is going to change just because the lens is put on different camera bodies. The aesthetic quality of the blur is not going to change.</p>

<p>Good gravey, the question was "what is the difference in bokeh using the SAME lens on the two different sensors." There were a few correct answers which is--there is no difference, with the caveat--you are using the lens from the same shooting distance at the same aperture. Changing sensors does not alter the focal length of the lens. Viola, as long as the aperture is the same, shot from the same distance the DOF will be identical because the size of the image does not change. The smaller sensor simply crops out the center of the larger sensor. If the DOF is the same the appearance of the bokeh is the same.</p>

<p>A couple of the posters correctly stated that changing distance so that the framing is identical on each of the sensors, thus changing the size of the image on the sensor, indeed does affect DOF and thus bokeh because the appearance of the bokeh of a lens is governed by DOF. DOF is governed by the size of the image on the sensor, not the focal length of the lens. A 24mm lens at 2 feet has for all practical purposes has identical DOF as a 100mm lens at 8 feet because the size of the image on the sensor is approximately the same.</p>

<p>One poster mentioned that there may be a difference in the capture quality or characteristics of the two sensors. That may be a factor but I would imagine it would be minimal. But again I do not know. I do know what governs the bokeh of a lens, DOF, and what governs DOF is the size of the image on the sensor in combination with the aperture. Change the size of the image by changing distance or change the aperture and you will change how pronunced the bokeh will appear. But it won't be changed by changing the size of the sensor which was the original question.</p>

<p>Does radio controlled flash record in the camera EXIF?</p>

<p>As much as it takes. Not willing to let the camera make the final decision. I may not be very smart but I'm a heck of a lot smarter than any mechanical device.</p>

<p>They are one of two things; 1. Fogged transparency film, 2. Post processed to emulate fogged transparency film.</p>

<p>You see this in holga photography naturally but most holga seems to be bw. It is easy to do in post by using colored textures laid over the original. It is not done with reflectors during the time of the shoot. If it were done during the shoot the colors would follow the contour of the bodys and they don’t. It is either real or emulated fogged film.</p>

<div></div>

<p>This is a guess since I can hardly tell what is in the photograph--what part is train and what part is background. It appears that the 2.5 second exposure was pretty correct for the ambient light and it over powered the flash on the dark colored train. Next time try using a shorter shutter speed so it does not record so much of the ambient. Changing the shutter speed will not effect the exposure from the flash unless you go shorter than 1/160 to 1/250 depending upon your camera sync.</p>

<p>I have only had one experiencee wtih Nikon service, a lens I dropped. The estimate came it at half of what I was anticipating, the service was unbelieveably quick. Very, pleased.</p>

<p>Samuel, you got a lot of advice but I don’t see where anyone actually answered your questions.</p>

<p>"Would I get better results by saving JPG as TIF, edit it and then compress it back to JPG or would it be the same as working with JPG all the way?"</p>

<p>"Would the final JPG be considerably larger than the original one?"</p>

<p>I am going to take the second question first. Since I did not know the answer to that question I opened an image. Saved it as JPG. Opened that JPG and saved it as a TIF. Opened that TIF and saved it as a JPG. Here are the results. Original JPG 1,111KB. The TIF 13,032 KB and the final JPG saved from the TIF 1,101 KB.</p>

<p>There was no processing done on this image as a TIF. As you can see the final JPG was slightly smaller than the original JPG. The first JPG was compressed as JPGs do. The second JPG was compressed a second time which accounts for the fact that the second JPG was slightly smaller file size than the first. From that I conclude that going from JPG to TIF to JPG does not make the final JPG file larger. It still takes about the same amount of file space, less the second compression.</p>

<p>For the second question, would it be the same as working with a JPG all the way through? You decide. Back to the original JPG. I opened the original JPG and again saved it a second time. I opened the second JPG and saved it making three saves as JPG. I changed the name for each JPG so I would not overwrite the previous versions. Here is the result: Original JPG, 1,111 KB; the second JPG 1,101 KB. So far we are identical to the previous test where we had the save as a TIF between the two JPGs. However the third save the size is 1,109 KB. As you can see, each time a JPG is saved you have a slightly smaller file size. This is not really a major deal when you save it once or twice. But after awhile you do get major degrading of the image quality because of the repeated compressions.</p>

<p>I do not shoot JPG. I shoot RAW. I do some processing in RAW, sometimes all of my processing in RAW. But sometimes there are features in other software that I wish to use and sometimes I want to use other software because it is faster or more convenient. Now if I know that I am only going to do one change/correction/manipulation I will likely save the image as a JPG and work on that. However, I frequently will make changes, then decided to make more changes. I tweak. When I am tweaking and know that there is a likelihood that there will be multiple saves I convert the image to TIF and do all my corrections in TIF where I have no compression issues. When I am finished tweaking, then I save the final image as JPG. I do not discard the TIF because tomorrow, or next week or next year I may see the photograph differently and want to do more tweaking. That is just my personal way of working. I do not worry about the size of the files. I am more concerned about the quality of the photograph over a period of time and the ability to retweak if desired.</p>

<p>There is one more factor. Regardless of whether you save the images as JPG or TIF, if you do major changes/corrections/manipulations--the size of that file is going to change and it could change drastically. If you crop the file size will be reduced. If you do a lot of smoothing, the file size will be reduced. Anything that reduces the detail reduces the size of the file. Conversely, anything that increases detail will increase the size of the file. This is not the result of whether you are using JPG or TIF. It is a matter of how much information the file has to store.</p>

<p>It sounds like you may have the SB800 set to SU4 mode--optical trigger.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The purpose of VR or IS has nothing to do with stoping "action." Its purpose is to allow the photographer to hand hold at slower shutter speeds and thereby sometimes eliminating the need for a tripod. And sorry, you can't sell me on the idea that if the calculations say you need 1/2000 to stop action you might get by with 1/400 by using stabilization--that is totally incorrect. VR and IS only function IF THE CAMERA ITSELF MOVES during the exposure and has nothing at all to do with the subject matter moving.</p>

<p>This is a place where Nik Color Control Points really shine. Place a point on the green, use the color picker to pick up a skin tone from the side of the arm that is not affected and the green immediately disappears. You can use Smart Masking to control the area covered if needed. I did not use masking here. It did require three points, near the wrists, mid arm and under the shadow of the sleeve on the shoulder. Took less than ten seconds. Also placed a Color Control Point on the face, brow between the eyes, and adjusted the brightness and the green slider to remove the green from the face. Another three or four seconds. There is still a little green in spots that a little more effort could be removed. You can add Color Control Points to most Adobe software by using Viveza. Great software. I use Nikon Capture NX2</p><div></div>

<p>Jin, I appreciate the attempt but nothing has changed. Since the problem I have been posting to Flickr but I got a chance today to give it a try. I quickly SENT eight images. When the upload was complete I clicked the OK and went to the page where you enter information such as new titles. The new photos were scattered among now thirteen pages that have not cleared. Only two of the eight are on the first page. Frankly it's too much hassle to dig through to find new uploads so I guess I will stick with Flickr. Sorry it didn't work.<br>

The photographs are not "stuck." They do post to my portfolio but they do not post with the corrected titles. They just never clear from the first page. If on the titling page I hit delete rather than save then it removes the photo from my portfolios so I have no way of clearing the title page or in this case pages. Basically what they seem to be doing is taking up bandwidth for no reason on your site. Actually the ones uploaded today are posted to the portfolio even though I did not indicate for them to be saved. They are posted with my image file name--and individually correcteing that to the title is a major hassle in PN which I don't care to deal with. It seems as though the process of uploading is simply skipping the titleing page and going straight to the portfolio. I even tried a nineth photo that I did upload, title and click SAVE. It still had the file name. I clicked DELETE and it was removed from the portfolio. Everything is the same as it was.</p>

<p>Find a clerk and store that agrees with you. They will happily take your money.</p>

<p>I have been uploading to Photonet for ten years so it is not a matter of not clicking SAVE. It is that after clicking save the photo is not removed from from the page where you add titles. Clicking save sends the photo to the portfolio but if, because it is still in the add title page, I click DELETE it removes the photo from the portfolio as well as the title page. Presently I have to browse through some twelve pages of images to save the new uploads to portfolios. If all the photos went to either end, the front or the back, that would not be such a problem but they don't. They can be scattered through any of the twelve pages. It is a real pain and I don't see any of the above responses that seem to have much to do with the problem unless what I am calling the Title Page is what Lex is calling the Queue is the same and even so there is no help. I see there was an earlier report of this same problem.</p>

<p>This may have been mentioned previously. You say she focuses and then recomposes. To do that you must be sure that you are on SINGLE focus and not CONTINIOUS focus mode. Continious focus continues to refocus until you release the shutter. There is no way to <em>lock</em> the focus when using Continious.</p>