jim_doty

January 9, 2015

Does Photoshop offer both thin and thick crust options?

January 9, 2015

My guess would be an intermittent mirror or shutter problem.

You can eliminate metering problems by going outside on a bright sunny day, manually setting the ISO to 100 (or load ISO 100 slide film in the camera), set the aperture to f/16, and meter a gray card in full sunlight. You should get a shutter speed close to 1/100 second. You can eliminate aperture problems by taking identical exposures with different lenses. If the problems happen with only one lens, you found the culprit. If it happens with all the lenses the problem is with your camera. It could be the camera to lens contacts aren't good, but I wouldn't think that would cause your particular problem. It would still be worthwhile to clean the contacts in the camera (pins) and lens contacts.

So that brings us back to shutter or mirror problems and the advice others have given you.

January 9, 2015

Will the contract allow you to use the photos to promote your own photography, even though they will own the copyright? That would make a difference to me. If the person is famous I would want to be able to use the photos on my own web site. If the person is an unknown, it wouldn't matter so much. The bottom line: Is $800 worth it to you for your time and effort? Do you want the $800 in your pocket or some other photographer's pocket? (I am assuming your instincts are right and if you try to change the deal they will just find someone else.)

January 4, 2014

For my first ever trip to Banff I went looking for a photo location guidebook and found an excellent eBook by Darwin Wiggett. It covers locations by seasons so you know where to go for any season of the year. 180 plus pages for $10. I highly recommend getting a copy. Darwin also has eBooks for other Canadian Parks.

The Banff guide is here: http://www.oopoomoo.com/eguide/banff-national-park/

Other eBooks are here.

http://www.darwinwiggett.com/ebooks/

Have a wonderful time in Banff.

Jim

December 11, 2012

For a mid-range "protection" filter I have used and been happy with Hoya multi-coated filters. I prefer the Hoya skylight 1B for a bit of warmth (a hangover from slide film days). But my current preference is B+W filters for better quality (I use the B+W KR-1.5 Skylight MRC). Hoya = good, B+W = better. I haven't used Heliopan filters but they have a good reputation. Don't buy cheap off brands. I have had photography students show me filters that were so poor in quality that their telephotos lenses couldn't autofocus.

After trying several brands of polarizers, my brand of choice is now Singh-Ray. Lots of less expensive brands have a color cast that is just not acceptable to me. There are other good brands (I bought a Hama polarizer in Germany that was surprisingly good), but I have never seen a cheap polarizer that I could live with.

December 11, 2012

It would help if we knew what kind of photography she likes to do. For example, if she likes to do low light, hand held work, a fast 50 mm lens (f1/8 or f1.4 maximum aperture) or a fast 35mm lens would be a good choice. On the other hand, if she needs a lens with a longer focal length, a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 lens with image stabilization would be a good idea. If she want to do wildlife photography, a longer lens like the Canon EF 100-400 mm zoom lens would be a good idea. Lots of good choices depending on what she wants to do.

January 3, 2012

When you set your camera for ISO 1600, if you metered properly you underexposed all of the photos by 2 stops. In essence you fibbed to the camera by telling it you used faster film than you actually used (EI 1600 vs the manufacturer's speed of ISO 400) with the expectation of pushing the film (over developing) later to compensate for the underexposure.

However you "overexposed the best shots on the roll by 2 stops". Do you mean you overexposed 2 stops from the EI 1600 you set on the camera (which means you really shot at the original speed of ISO 400). Or do you mean you overexposed them by two stops from the manufacturer's speed of ISO 400 (taking you to the equivalent of EI 100)?

My guess is you overexposed by two stops from the camera setting of EI 1600, so you were really shooting at ISO 400 and should process the film at ISO 400. All is good.

If by two stops of over exposure, you were really shooting at the equivalent of EI 100, I would suggest you process the film for 200 or 400 and allow the natural overexposure latitude of the film to take care of the extra stop.

If you aren't sure, just process for ISO 400.

January 3, 2012

My Canon 100-400 wheezes a bit when it inhales. Could be a touch of asthma. (jk)

No dust problems with mine.

January 3, 2012

So long as you can live with long shutter speeds (30 seconds in bright sunlight), an infrared filter (like the Hoya R72) will work just fine to create both black and white and color infrared images. Info at these two links:

http://jimdoty.com/learn/Digital/20d_color_infrared/20d_color_infrared.html

http://jimdoty.com/learn/Digital/20d_infrared/20d_infrared.html

January 3, 2012

One advantage of using studio lights is having modeling lights which make it so simple and convenient to see precisely where shadows will be. This will be a big help to your portrait photography when it comes to placing the lights. The added power of studio lights is also a big plus. Light modifiers (umbrellas and softboxes) eat up a lot of light. Using light modifiers with hot shoe flashes like the Nikon SB800s can eat up so much light that you will sometimes need to shoot at higher ISOs to get the apertures you want to use. With studio lights, you can use the same light modifiers at ISO 100 (for optimum image quality) and still get the apertures you want to use.

AB800 studio lights from AlienBees will give you all the power you need for a small studio (12 x 20 feet). I rarely have my AB800s set above 1/2 power. If I want wide apertures, I just dial down the power. If you think you need more power than the AB800 units, get the AB1600 units. When you are away from AC power, you can use a Vagabond II to power your AlienBees studio lights.

January 2, 2012

I can usually manage to keep my reflection out of the mirror, using the kind of suggestions in the posts above. If I can't, I set the self timer and step out of the photo. It is a lot easier to digitally remove a tripod and camera than a photographer.

January 2, 2012

Bigger is better. Most of the time, it makes good sense to shoot at your camera's highest resolution. If you don't, some day you may come to regret it. An overly frugal photographer lost out on a nice, paid publishing offer because the resolution of his images was too small. A publisher found his images online and wanted to use them, but the resolution was too small to meet their quality standards at the intended output size. Shoot big and downsize later!

January 2, 2012

I am guessing you want to demonstrate on screen the loss of image quality from an image that doesn't have enough resolution. It is easy to do with prints. Take a 2400 x 3000 pixel file and print it as an 8x10 print (at 300 ppi) and you will have a nice 8x10 inch print. Resize the file (check the resample box) down to 800 x 1000 pixels and make another 8x10 print (at 100 ppi) and the drop in quality will be obvious. Scan both prints, and resize them to screen size and you have a good illustration of the drop in quality.

You can simulate this digitally. Take a high quality 1000 x 1500 pixel screen size file (call this version A) and resize it (check the resample box) down to 100 x 150 pixels. Then resize this file (check the resample box) back up to 1000x1500 pixels (call this version B). The drop in quality from version A to version B will simulate the drop in quality of of trying to make a print with a file that has a resolution that is too low.

January 2, 2012

At lot will depend on the quality of your scan. The better the quality of the scan, the happier you will be with your enlargements. With a high quality scan at 4000 dpi (giving you a 4000x6000 pixel file), you should easily be able to get 21.5 x 14.5 inch enlargements that you are pleased with. With a poor quality or lower resolution scan, you won't be so happy.

April 15, 2011

Underexposure in P mode is usually the result of being too far away from the subject for the flash to put out enough light, even at a wide lens aperture.

Try this simple test at night in a dimly lit room (or during the day in a room without any outside windows). Make sure the flash exposure compensation has been set to zero (no compensation).

Have someone stand five feet away from the camera with a wall another 4 or 5 feet behind the person. The wall should be dimly lit by a lamp.

Take a picture of the person in Program mode. Look at the photo information on the LCD and make note of the aperture the camera used.

Set the camera to Av mode and set the aperture to the same one the camera picked for the P photo and take another picture of the person.

The flash exposure for the person in both should be the same. In the first photo (P) the flash exposure for the person should be good and the wall should be dark. In the second (Av) photo, the flash exposure for the person should be the same, but camera should pick a slower shutter speed for more ambient light exposure on the wall.

Let us know how the flash test comes out.

Jim

April 15, 2011

The White Lightning studio units are manual only. They do not automatically stop putting out light when the proper exposure has been reached.

Try this simple test. It will get you by until you get a flash meter.

Set the white balance on your camera to flash (the lightning bolt). Set the ISO to 100. The aperture to f/11 and the shutter speed to 1/125 second. (Other settings will work, this is just to give you a known starting point.)

As has been pointed out, aperture alone affects the the flash exposure. Aperture plus shutter speed affects the ambient light exposure. Using a faster shutter speed insures the ambient light in the room doesn't affect the exposure and the color balance of your photo. Keep ambient light in the room to a bare minimum (put ambient lights on dimmers, or use very low wattage bulbs).

Use just one of your studio lights with the umbrella. Put the studio light about 10 feet from your subject so the light bounces out of the umbrella and back at your subject. Choose a test subject that is medium in tone (not white or black or very light or very dark).

Take a series of exposures with your White Lightning at full power, 1/2 power, 1/4 power, 1/8 power, etc, until you reach the lowest power setting. You should see a change in the exposure with each power setting. If all the exposures are the same, something is wrong, probably with the studio light.

If the exposure changes with the power (output) settings, but they are all overexposed, move the light farther from the subject and repeat the experiment.

If the exposure changes with the power (output) settings, but they are all under exposed, move the light closer to the subject and repeat the experiment.

Hopefully, one of the power settings on the White Lightning will give you a good exposure. Remember that setting for the future. Let's pretend the ideal exposure was at 1/4 power. For smaller apertures, use more power (1/2 or full power) or move the light closer to the subject. For wider apertures, use less power (1/8, 1/16) or move the light farther from your subject. With a little experimentation, you should be able to figure out how far the light should be from your subject for a given aperture and power setting.

Jim

April 15, 2011

My original, brief response to Martin's post (which began this thread) was as follows:

"Short answer: If two sensors have the same number of pixels (technically called "photosites"), but the sensors are a different size, the pixels/photosites on the larger sensor are bigger than the pixels/photosites on the smaller sensor. Bigger individual photosites (everything else being equal) will give you better image quality."

It wasn't long before my statement was disputed (and the statements of others) and the debate was on.

Reliable sources of information have have been asked for, so I thought I would add one more source to the ongoing discussion/debate. Those of us in this thread who have stated that the photosite/pixel size really does matter are not alone.

Two quotes from Roger N. Clark (Ph.D. from MIT):

"We have considered cameras with the same number of pixels and different sized sensors and shown that cameras with larger sensors and larger pixels collect more light, thus have better low light and high ISO performance."

"Because good digital cameras are photon noise limited, the larger pixels will always have higher signal-to-noise ratios unless someone finds a way around the laws of physics, which is highly unlikely."

Those of you who are technically inclined will enjoy reading his articles (and if you aren't technically inclined, the illustrations and graphics are still interesting and informative and the mains points of the article are easy to follow):

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html

So who is Roger N. Clark? From his online bio:

"Dr. Roger Clark earned his Ph.D. in Planetary Science from MIT in 1980. Roger's expertise is identifying and mapping minerals and other compounds on the Earth, other planets and their satellites using imaging spectroscopy. He develops laboratory, telescopic and spacecraft spectrometers and imaging spectrometers. He has published over 200 scientific papers, including papers on every planet in the Solar System. His research includes discoveries of the compositions of planetary and satellite surfaces, and mapping the locations of minerals on the Earth and planets. In 2009 he discovered widespread water on the surface of the Moon. He also publishes on environmental issues on the Earth, such as ecosystems in Yellowstone, led the USGS environmental assessment of the World Trade Center Disaster, and leads an assessment team studying the oil in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Dr. Clark is an ST scientist with the U. S. Geological Survey.

"Roger is a science team member on the Cassini mission to Saturn, Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer <a href="http://wwwvims.lpl.arizona.edu/" target="_blank"> (VIMS) http://wwwvims.lpl.arizona.edu</a>, a Co-Investigator on the <a href="http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro" target="_blank"> Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM) team</a>, which is currently orbiting Mars, and a Co-Investigator on the Moon Mineral Mapper <a href="http://m3.jpl.nasa.gov/" target="_blank"> (M3) http://m3.jpl.nasa.gov </a>, on the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission which orbited the moon (November, 2008 - August, 2009). He was also a Co-Investigator on the Thermal Emission Spectrometer <a href="http://tes.asu.edu/" target="_blank"> (TES) http://tes.asu.edu</a>. Team on the Mars Global Surveyor, 1997-2006.

"Dr. Clark served on the <a href="http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/complex1.html" target="_blank"> National Academy of Sciences, Space Studies Board, Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX)</a> 2006 - December 2008."

http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/index.html

If you are interested in astrophotography, he is the author of Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky, published by Cambridge University Press.

http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Astronomy-Deep-Roger-Clark/dp/0521361559/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

April 4, 2011

A copyright overview:

http://asmp.org/tutorials/copyright-overview.html

Best practices:

http://asmp.org/tutorials/best-practices.html

Registering a batch of photos online is simple, but all of the steps aren't totally intuitive. The first time I went through the process, I had this page printed out to walk me through all of the steps:

http://asmp.org/tutorials/online-registration-eco.html

April 4, 2011

Just a thought. With a model coming Friday, that doesn't give you a lot of time to practice. I would go ahead and use the white background for some photos, but I would suggest you also use one or two Alien Bees to light the model and use a black backdrop a fair distance behind the model so it goes totally black. It can be very effective and it will eliminate a lot of lighting complications.

April 4, 2011

I would be comfortable buying a used camera with a warranty from a reliable dealer. B&H Photos, Adorama, and KEH are three that come to mind.

April 3, 2011

Strong, hard, directional sidelight enhances texture, whether it is a landscape or a human face. Small light sources (flash without accessories, light bulbs) make for hard light. For a dramatic look, you could try cross lighting with a light to each side of your subject. Experiment with the exact angle of each light to get the best look.

A quick search turned up these two photos:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xHxPbqohqSc/Slye_vyYEKI/AAAAAAAACzg/-5WZ2xvCuLE/s400/mehmet+akin+the+old+fisherman+galery+photo+net.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/localmotion/4134285524/lightbox/

April 3, 2011

For Sports:

AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II lens

and maybe second mortgage to pay for it. :)

April 3, 2011

This is a great page:

http://www.zarias.com/all-of-these-are-just-like-the-others/

Although the background in the photos ranges from white to gray to black, and even red or green, all of the photos were photographed using the same white background.

There is an excellent 8 part tutorial on how to do it that starts here:

http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/

If you have a hard time finding all of the tutorials, all of the links are here:

http://www.blog.jimdoty.com/?p=499#more-499

April 3, 2011

With a Hoya R72 filter and shooting in bright sunlight at ISO 100 and an aperture of f/8, a shutter speed between 30 to 60 seconds works best for me. That matches well with the other recommendations here. 1 second is 5 or 6 stops underexposed.

Here are two older articles on infrared with Canon digital cameras. The specific Canon model doesn't really matter much. My 5D acts like my 10D and 20D.

Color Infrared:

http://jimdoty.com/learn/Digital/20d_color_infrared/20d_color_infrared.html

B&W Infrared:

http://jimdoty.com/learn/Digital/20d_infrared/20d_infrared.html

April 3, 2011

The official word from Nikon:

"Nikon DSLRs cannot be used with linear polarizing filters due to its affect on AF and exposure metering."

http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13987/~/using-nikon-filters-with-nikon-dslrs

I should add that if you focus and meter manually before you put the linear polarizing filter on the lens, then add the filter and add about 2 stops of light to the exposure setting (to allow for the loss of light from the filter), it will work just fine.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jim_doty