ricd

Rodeo Joe,

You state "...No metering system is perfect, although an incident reading from the subject position towards the camera is

probably the most reliable. Handheld wide angle incident readings are almost certainly the least reliable...". Was your

intent to say "...Handheld wide angle reflective readings are almost certainly the least reliable..."? If my guess is incorrect

please correct me.

<p>Hi Stephen Hipperson ,<br />You state, "… accurately capture the colour that I am seeing…".<br>

<br />My suggestion is at the time of the shoot, regardless if shooting raw (not RAW) or JPG, create a custom white balance (CWB) by using a gray card, flip out Lastolite gray card and the like, or a WhiBal.<br>

<br />Another techniques, shot with one of those items in the photo then the remaining without it (as long as the light is the same). During PP you would use that shot containing the gray device for setting the correct white balance for the remaining photos. Again, doing a CWB eliminates white balance adjustments in PP. We should not be using PP for correcting white balance.<br /><br />The OP asked, "…accurately capture…", he did not ask what format to use for better PP. During PP many folks will not remember the correct colors of the scene, thus having shot in raw is not of any help. Many times we guess, or it may be that we like it better our way rather than what the real colors were. Raw has become a crutch, whereas ones computer skill is the thing people are most proud of not their photography skills.</p>

<p>When you want correct accurate colors do a CWB.</p>

<p>Hi Ruchika Karda,<br /> Without knowing what your output will be web or prints, if prints then the final size, how is anyone expected to provide the proper answer to your question that fits your needs.<br /> <br />At one time I only shot raw. However as digitals become more powerful todays DSLR JPG files are better than the raw files of three to four years ago. When I now shoot with a DSLR it is 99.9999% JPG, Fine, large file.<br /> <br />Consider this, at 4x6 to 8 x10 viewing at four or six feet you will not be able to point to which photo was shot as JPG or raw; they will appear identical. More than anything else raw vs JPG is more about saber rattling. Shooting raw is about computer skills not photography skills; time in front of your computer rather than behind the camera.<br /> My suggestion is, "rather than concern yourself over raw vs. JPG you should sharpen your behind the camera skills. Doing so will have a gazillions times more impact on your photo quality than this ole, tired, banal, useless, go nowhere, teeth gnashing, flag waving, debate over raw vs JPG".<br /> <br />To me the raw vs JPG debate is the same as, which way does the flap on the toilet paper roll go, over or under.</p>

<p>Cordially,<br /> RicD</p>

<p>Hi Naomi,<br>

There are a gazillion tomes written about shooting raw (raw is a word not a acronym as in RAW). Ah, the furious debates on each side of the raw vs JPG. Who is correct? Both are. One can manipulate a RAW to the n-th degree, and one can manipulate JPG (not to the same degree) quite well. <br>

<br />Here is my take and what I found. Unless you are almost nose to nose comparing the final print raw to JPG, raw does not matter. Raw shooting is more about computer skills than photography skills. <br>

<br />Most folks print at 4x6, at the most 8 x10, and post to the web. At those sizes stand back six feet look a the photos you cannot tell a difference raw and JPG appear identical. With a photo album on ones lap one would be hard press to say which was raw or JPG.</p>

<p>Enjoy the photos for what they are not what format they were shot in. When it comes to photography folks major in minors.<br>

<br />Shooting a good JPG, do a CWB, and set the best exposure you can obtain, when possible I use my incident meter. Set your camera internal settings to obtain the look you want. From there it is your technique that matters most; not JPG vs raw. Doing as much in camera will lessen computer time.<br>

<br />All the raw shooters I know are more enamored with their computer PP skills than their photography skills. If it makes one feel superior or more professional to shoot raw then do so, but the client will not be able to tell the difference. Regardless of the format a beautiful photo is a beautiful photo. There is a YouTube video of a pro shooting a fashion shoot with a iPhone. Photos are outstanding. Many commercial pros shoot only JPG, their clients love the photos. Their PP is quite reduced, and their turnaround for their clients is much faster.<br>

<br />YMMV<br>

<br />Cordially,<br />RicD</p>

<p>Hi Pete S,<br>

Though you asked about LR, my software of choice is Apples' Aperture; yes, LR is a wonderful product. Also, maybe because I shoot film then scan the negatives it is ever so rare I would use Presets. Horses for courses. :-)</p>

<p >Hi Dan South,</p>

 

<p>"Ric, my mileage does vary. Processing RAW files with Lightroom is extremely fast and far more flexible than JPEGs. True, a perfectly adjusted JPEG is just about no work at all, but I'm not clever enough to get all of the settings right in camera. I like to be able to correct for lens distortion, reduce noise, sharpen files to match output size, remove pimples from people's faces, and edit out the bothersome birds, airplanes, and bits of rubbish that fly into my shots occasionally."</p>

<p>Thank you for your response. Yes, processing raw, it is not an acronym :-) is quite fast in Lightroom as well as in many other raw converters. As for those tweaks you mentioned they can be quite easy to accomplish in a JPG as well. Of course I must tweak as well.</p>

<p>Color balance is not one of my tweaks. One of the few things I see value in using raw is correcting for the wrong choice of color balance. To fix incorrect color balance can be much more difficult with JPG—if not impossible. Using a color balance card, WhiBal, Lastolite Ezybalance, and the like, will solve color balance issues. Whether shooting raw or JPG, color balance should not be an issue, if it is the photographer may want to assess their technique.<br>

My observation is many photographers substitute photography skills for computer skills being more proud of their computer skills than their photography skills. Shooting raw or JPG the mentality becomes "I will fix it in post". With a bit of tweaking most photos can be enhanced, we did that in the wet darkroom. My observation is more emphases being placed on tweaking skills less on correct photography technique.</p>

<p>Photo magazines use much less prose about photography technique, reams more about photo manipulation. Thus, that is where I see most photographers placing their emphasis. Many of my photo friends cannot wait to get back to their computers to 'tweak'. Be it raw or JPG they think it is easer to fix it than be correct with their capture.</p>

<p>With respect to each other we can agree to disagree. Again, thank you for your input. Happy shooting.</p>

<p>Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

 

 

<p>My suggestion is to analyze your shooting technique, not PP. Create a CWB, use a incident light meter. Also, when conditions dictate consider a screen between the light source and the flower. Many reflectors are five in one; of the five one is a white translucent screen.</p>

<p>Next, I would set the camera to its default factory settings for contrast, saturation, and the like.<br />Many years ago raw shooting was my mainstay. Though now I have returned to 99% film, when I do shoot digital it is JPG. With my above suggestions you may notice your PP time diminish. You may only have need to crop, straighten, sharpen, and minor tweaking; not color correcting. Also, I will suggest to shoot in sRGB.</p>

<p>The above works well for me, YMMV</p>

<p>Cordially,<br /> RicD</p>

<p>Hi <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4128029">Brittany R. Dunks</a><br>

At home take a few photos then transfer them, as you did for the wedding shots, to your computer. Do they appear the same as the wedding shots? Have you tried other cards as well. Maybe it is the card maybe it is the camera. <br>

Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

<p>Hi R Nelson,<br /> For inexpensive reliable radio triggers do look at Paul C Buff's Cybersyncs. He is the Alien Bees person. In all my Cybersync shooting they have been 100% reliable.</p>

<p>Price wise two receivers and one transmitter are less expensive than one PocketWizard.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff,<br /> Here is a product not mentioned: B-Grip. It fits a waist belt the camera sits in it secure to ones side.</p>

<p>One of my unused carry bags has a removable strap. Connected one end of the strap to the other end then, connected it to the left side of the camera. The strap crosses my body from my right shoulder to my left hip (I am left handed) where the camera hangs. This past weekend shooting a five hour event using this inexpensive (read 'free') black leather strap it performed as well as some of the $60-plus straps mentioned above.</p>

<p>"She who must be obeyed" thought I purchased a new thingy-bob. She was quite pleased and surprised it was scrounged from my closet. Points gained.</p>

<p>Hi Erwin,<br>

VR2 can compensate for camera shake at lower shutter speed not f/stop. When you need a wider f/stop than f/4 VRx will not help. For sharpness not available at its wide open f/stop most lens need to be stopped down a tad. As an example f/2.8 becomes f/4 whereas, a f/4 lens becomes a f/5.6. True, some f/4 lens are wonderful at wide open most are not.</p>

<p>Myself, I would keep with a fast lens. That is why I sold my zooms went with fast primes. My slowest prime is f/2.0, that is one f/stop faster than f/2.8, two stops faster than f/4. If my math is correct f/4 brings in 1/2 half the light of f2.8, and 1/4 the light of f/2.0.</p>

<p>You did not mention whether you are shooting FX or DX. That would make a difference recommending a lens.</p>

<p>More folks will jump in offering suggestions. Enjoy the wealth of information provided you.<br>

Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

<p>Neither have I heard of this however, a quick Google search returned many hits. It seems it is formal photos of the bride in her dress. Thought it could be in a studio or on location, it is dedicated to showing off her dress.</p>

<p>That was my take on the subject but, I have been known to be incorrect.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Annette,<br /> Matt and Howard suggestion is 100% correct.</p>

<p>Another solution is to consider wireless trigger and receiver. There are many brands, I prefer Cypersync from Paul C. Buff.</p>

<p>Wireless outside are much more reliable than using Nikon CLS infra red (IR) system. Outside in bright light the IR sensor needs line of sight to catch the flash from the camera, otherwise the sun or ambient light may overpower the IR beam; using IR triggering outside will produce very erratic results. Inside the camera flash bounces off all the walls until it hits the IR sensor. Also, outside when you want to hide a flash so the camera cannot see it fire yet the light hits the subject, the Nikon CLS will not trigger the flash whereas wireless will.</p>

<p>Another thing is outside using a flash in a light modifier, umbrella, the flash sensor may be blocked from the camera flash; again wireless is a better way to go.</p>

<p>Always something new to consider.<br /><br /><br /> Cordially,<br /> RicD</p>

<p>John Spirer,<br>

There is an issue formatting FAT 32 from a Mac. Our family is Mac users having four in our home. When we formatted a thumb drive on a Mac as FAT all our Macs could read it. My better half took it to a Kiosk to have family photos printed from it, no can do, the Windows kiosk could not read it. She took it to a few other Kiosks as well same issue the Windows computers could not read it. She brought it home I reformatted it still Windows could not read it; the Macs could. It was formatted on OS 10.5.8</p>

<p>My neighbor, a Mac Head, has a Windows PC for his employee to run specialized software. That PC could not read the thumb drive. He formatted the thumb drive on his PC. We again copied the photos to it, the Macs could read it and Kiosks could as well. Thus we keep one dedicated thumb drive in the house formatted from a PC as FAT 32.</p>

<p>YMMV</p>

<p>Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

<p>Hi Wil,<br>

You received very good advise. Allow me to inject a bit of humor: Your f/4 zooms will not speak to your primes, in other words it should read "...complement...". Bada-boom :-)</p>

<p>Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

<p>Hi Craig and William,</p>

<p>Though we digressed thank you for your input. Yes Craig, isles was "a" mistype on my part, thank you for bring that to my attention. Blame it on my tri-focals.</p>

<p>Cordially,<br />RicD</p>

<p>" <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4763889">Bob Boudreau</a>,<br>

Way back when I used to do part time wedding photography, I tried to take group photos in the church. The bridal party would walk down the aisle, then back up to the front by a side aisle to the altar/front."</p>

<p>Hi Bob, Please accept my apology for my statement: The center passageway of a church is called the nave whereas the isles are to the outside of the seats along the wall (other criteria for isles do apply as well). This was pointed out to me with a firm but polite manner by an officiant. He stated he becomes annoyed when folks call it an isle that it is not. He also, stated he makes sure all the workers at his church know to call it by its correct name. I smiled, nodded my head, thanked him for his correction. </p>

<p>That happened many years ago, if not decades. Often I have used the term nave and, when I did officiants were most surprised and pleased I used the correct term.</p>

<p>Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

 

<p>Hi Michael,<br /> I tried the BlackRapid strap however, for me when bending over, moving fast or squatting down the camera was always moving, swinging, or hitting the ground. The camera behaved similar to a pendulum—always swinging about. For me that swinging of my camera did not take long to became old.</p>

<p>My search took me to the B-Grip that I purchased from Adorama. Here is one YouTube video that you may enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w2pIHNA9Hs , there other videos for the B-Grip as well.</p>

<p>In the video as the fellow jumps a railing and runs off the camera stays secure to his side not banging about. Now when I am shooting the camera is safe and secure not bobbling around. Dropping to one or both knees the camera is still off the ground.</p>

<p>When I am out hiking, climbing, or just taking a walk about my camera is quite secure. When I was in a nature preserve I could bend over without the camera dangling in front of me also, my hands were free to pick thing up. Mine is carried on a separate waist belt so moving through brush, tables, or folks in congested areas, I rotate the camera behind or in front of me.</p>

<p>Nope, I am not at all affiliated with B-Grip. I am a satisfied customer. For now B-Grip fits my needs. YMMV</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Jeff Spirer,<br>

Why would you say they did not have a UPS, yes they did. Maybe you have not seen a house hit by lightening? Some house strikes are at best minor, some are devastating making the house unlivable—his incident was in between. His HVAC also needed to be replaced, his lightening strike blew through the house wiring and UPS.</p>

<p>One of his backyard trees literally exploded as well, there was tree parts four houses away—quite a mess. Good news nobody was hurt, as I said it was scary. Home owners insurance covered them, they are seeing if the UPS company will cover their computers.</p>

<p>UPS are terrific devices folks should not do without them. We have a few here as well however, a big enough, strong enough strike, direct hit, can blow through them. Some folks have a whole house type UPS that can be fried with a strong enough strike.</p>

<p>Folks we do not need to belabor this, you were not there to see the damage nor how his equipment was protected. Again, when the strike is strong enough our UPS may not survive nor may our equipment; his did not.</p>

<p>Thank you for your comments.</p>

<p>Hi Rick,<br>

Luminous-Landscape has a good review of your lens, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml . Their review is with photos, techniques and, explanations on that page. It is not in-depth however it will get you started in the correct direction.</p>

<p>As for view camera techniques, the book I like is, "The View Camera" by Harvey Shaman—ISBN 0-8174-6375-5, 144 pages. This book shows the tilts, swings, shifts, with diagrams on how it effects the photo—with photos. For me it leaves nothing to the imagination. As Jose stated: "...the principles are exactly the same."</p>

<p>Wow, it has been too long since I have used a view camera. Scheimpflug effect, bellows factors, and the like. It was fun taking pictures at wide open f/stops having the entire scene—front to back, left to right—sharp as a tack. Clients did not want apertures stopped down, it must be shot wide open. View cameras are way-cool.</p>

<p>Hi Rui,<br /> Thank you for providing good information about that drive. Yes, it does sound very interesting, as my needs change it is something I will look into.</p>

<p>Another thought on backups, print your photos. When an irrecoverable something happens to the hardware at the least one could scan their photos. Nope, printed photos do not scan as good as a negative or slide, nor do they appear as good as the digital file.</p>

<p>My neighbor has a terrific backup system going covering his family's computers and home network however, Murphy came over in the form of a lightening strike. BAM! knocked out the TV with a bang, refrigerator, of course the computer with his backup drives, along with other home appliances all fried. It was their luck they did not have a house fire—scary. Anyway, from my earlier suggestion they had printed their photos. The prints ended up being their backup.</p>

<p>So, when our photos are important same with documents, print them. Develop a backup system that can be lived with, or the consequences will be to live with out our photos/documents.</p>

<p>Hi Rui,<br>

Nothing to be sorry about. We are all voicing our opinion, offering suggestions. As long as one keeps in mind RAID is to protect against hardware failure there is nothing wrong with RAID.</p>

<p>Your idea of the WD MyBook, how it operates (as a computer) sound very good. Having two drives appear on the laptop where one can see the drives then, manually copy/paste or, drag/drop, I like.</p>

<p>My concern with the setup is the software you speak about. If it does it from a user manual command I am okay with it. However, if it does it on its own from the GUI, nah not for me. Too much like a RAID in that:</p>

<ul>

<li>If the first drive becomes corrupt it copies the corruption to the second drive.</li>

<li>Delete a file from the first drive it deletes it from the second drive.</li>

<li>If a virus, worm, trojan, gets to the first drive it will be copied to the second as well.</li>

</ul>

<p>One could use one drive for a daily manual backup (not incremental), the second drive used for end of week data copied from the first drive. Thus if the first drive has corruption the second drive should have clean data, albeit up to seven days old. Prior to doing the once a week backup one could run a virus check on the first drive, maybe a defrag as well (Windows not Mac). Then copy first drive data to the second drive.</p>

<p>Many folks believe in incremental backups. Oh, the sad horror stories I could tell you about folks attempting to recover files then finding some of the incremental files are FUBAR; ugh not a pretty sight.</p>

<p>There are many ways to do this backup stuff, find a system that works for you and you are comfortable with however, do not make it complicated. When it becomes complicated backups are not accomplished.</p>

<p>Back in the day we backed up to tape. We had one tape for each day, we rotated them, we had four that were used at the end of each week of the month; they were rotated, and we had one for each month. It was very easy to recover files. Each six months we throw out the tapes we used daily purchased new ones. Rotated the weekly to daily, monthly to weekly etc. etc. We never had restore issues.</p>

<p>Remember, Murphy lives with those that do not backup. </p>

<p>Hi David,<br /> You are very close but no cigar, a terabyte (TB) is 1,024 gigabytes. Same with one megabyte is 1,024 bytes not 1,000. Notice when you go to sites that sell HDD they usually have a asterisk or number next to the term megabyte, then they have the correct number in there someplace look for the asterisk or number. Okay, we mentally round it off to 1,000 it is easier on our brains.</p>

<p>Nadine, you are very correct, please accept my sincere apology for getting off topic. It was caused by internal cerebral chaotic meltdown.</p>

<p>Hi Rui Marto<strong>,</strong><br>

The OP stated, "...I know nothing about hard drives (or any method of back-up)...". My thought is at this time RAID will be way over his head. RAID is for hardware failure not data failure nor for backup (folks do think it is a backup). <br>

Think of this:</p>

<ul>

<li>If a person has a corrupted file copied to the RAID (which RAID, 0-1 etc. let us think RAID 1), that corrupt file is copied to all drives in the RAID.</li>

<li>If a virus from the local HDD is copied to the RAID all RAID HDD are effected—could corrupt data.</li>

<li>When one RAID drive data becomes corrupted it corrupts all RAID drives.</li>

<li> When one wittingly or unwittingly deletes a file from the local HDD that is copied to the RAID it then removes it from all RAID drives as well. Oops do not have a backup, oh-well file is el-gone-o.</li>

<li>If the RAID controller messes up then unless they can obtain the same model controller and software driver one <strong>may</strong> never get the data off the drives. Maybe the drive could be connect in another system or external enclosure that might be able to read them perhaps</li>

</ul>

<p>Some of my most tech savvy friends have RAID 1, when it messed up they came crying to me; been there done that got that T-Shirt. It was sad they did not have a real backup and, their RAID data was FUBAR. They put faith in their RAID, not a backup.</p>

<p>Nope, I do not recommend RAID. A true backup such as drag/drop or, copy/paste of files is better. RAID is not a backup, it was designed to save our kazoo when a HDD fails.</p>

<p>Yes, I agree with the others that suggest purchasing an external HDD in the terabyte or more size. Having one you then can drag/drop or, copy/paste your files—you now have a real backup. Another advantage is you can take that external drive with you plug it in another system then copy files to or from it—not with RAID.</p>

<p>My recommendation is if you can afford it and, your data is important have two separate external drives to copy data to; no, not as RAID. For my data I am not a believer in the incremental backups; I use drag/drop or copy/paste. When I need a file I can go get it. When I need to take my external HDD with me I can, it contains full data files not incremental ones that the other system cannot read. There are many proponents of RAID, I know I am repeating myself but, RAID is to protect against hardware failure not data failure.</p>