robert watcher

April 15, 2008

There are moments and there are moments. Moments can be ruined. They can also be created. I'm not putting down candids. They have an important place. But sometimes asking and getting permission from a stranger will set up a dynamic that becomes palpable and translates extremely well through the camera. Don't get hung up thinking that only real moments happen candidly.

I totally agree with this statement. I have just completed a 2 month stay in Costa Rica where my agenda was mingling with the natives and capturing the essence of their wonderful personalities.

I was very concerned with the response that I would get if I were to just start shooting or using a long zoom to peak in on their goings on. I also was worried about loosing any spontenaity if I approached them and asked to take their picture.

I chose the latter - to ask if I could take a picture (even though no one spoke English and I spoke no Spanish). I pointed to my camera and implied I would like to take their picture. Some shots in the markets, I encouraged the vendors to proudly hold their product instead of simply smiling for the camera. The results were spectacular. The beauty of digital cameras is that I could show them the shots I took right away - - - which resulted in big smiles and pats on my back. Sometimes I would continue with a few shots once I had unarmed them and taken a couple of shots with them being aware of me.

I ended up shooting close to 7000 shots in the 2 months - of which I edited down to 2700 final selection. I took many of the people back a 4x6 print - and I would definitely keep a book so that I could jot down addresses to send a print to them if I were doing this back home.

December 13, 2007

QUOTE ".. it is only amplification of a given signal after all :-)

It is only two stops more than what I did several years ago. 6400 ISO equivalent done in editing."

-----------

Interesting that you mention this. One thing that I have noticed in many of the current cameras is that a blurring and lack of detail accompanies lower noise levels - leading me to believe that the smooth appeaance on some of the newer cameras is simply more in camera noise reduction being applied. I know that with my new Olympus E-510 the default Noise Filter is "Standard" which softens the image a lot and eliminates much image deatil. I have turned it off for much sharper and detailed image - albeit more noise.

Thought I'd try your method on an underexposed image. Only one that I could quickly find was a 1600 ISO image shot with my D200 that is a good 1 to 1 1/2 stops underexposed I'd say - placing it at least at 3200 ISO and probably more around 4000. I did the levels adjustment and was surprised that I still had an image. I've done this before and had usable images but never even considered that they essentially much higher ISO shots. I then copied the adjusted shot and applied a modest Noise Reduction using Neat Image and Edge Sharpened for a significant reduction in noise while still not blurring out the detail too much or making the shot look plasticky. Of course this was starting out at 1600ISO from the camera setting - - - now I've just got to try out underexposed 100ISO and see what I am able to come up with.

1600ISO from camera underexposed about 1 1/2 stops

Effective 4000 ISO with levels adjust

With Modest Noise Reduction and Edge Sharpen

November 23, 2007

QUOTE "even though it looks awful"

I have to agree with you on that. LOL

November 23, 2007

Got a chance to test shoot the new Olympus E-3 this evening. I

mainly wanted to feel the camera in hand and play with the controls to see how

intuative they are. Also, 2 concerns for my style of shooting are Image

Stabilization and decent 1600 and 3200ISO PRINT quality (I sell prints so I

don't care what they look like on a monitor).

THIS ISN'T/WASN'T A TECHNICAL TEST. I don't care about all of

the details or benchmarks - - - I just wanted to see results that were

satisfying to me, for my work.

I fell in love instantly with the feel in my hand. The E3

sample was mated with the new and impressive 12 to 60mm f2.8-4 ultrsasonic lens

(24mm to 120mm in 35mm film format). It was perfectly balanced in my smallish

hands and amazingly felt very light compared to my D200 - even though reviews

show it as heavier. As it was when I tried the E1 years ago, I could swing my

arm all over the place and hang iot by my side and never feel like I was losing

the grip. This sample did not have the battery pack. Auto Focusing was

incredibly quick.

Here are a few samples using the camera in IS mode and higher ISO settings.

It was evening and the room I had to work in was gaudy colouring as a result of

the carbon arc lighting the camera store uses. These images except where noted,

are straight out of the camera without cropping, levels, sharpening or any

processing. They could all be improved slightly with post processing, however I

just printed out the series of 1600 and 3200 ISO images AS-IS on 8x10 glossy

paper using my Epson 1400 - and the 1600ISO image of the sales lady is

stunning, while the 3200ISO shot of the camera bags is incredible considering

it is 3200 ISO.

This was the first shot I took when I went in - the camera was set at

800ISO. That was the perfect place for me to start as my standard general

purpose ISO when I shot film wsa 800 Fujicolor:

<img class="" alt=""

src="http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img807.jpg" />

I asked the sales clerk if she minded if I took a shot of her

to see the skin tones. Keep in mind that I new nothing about the camera and had

little time to play - and so did not change many of the defaults it was set at

including Auto WB which accounts for the ruddier skin under the carbon arc

lighting - plus the fact that I think the Auto Exposure was trying to retain

detail in the bright white signs in behind her. Still not bad though when I

printed it out at 8x10. Could easily be adjusted in PS. This was shot at

1600ISO:

<img class="" alt=""

src="http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img808.jpg" />

This was the true test - - - 3200ISO. Not that I expect

noiseless images or grainy deep shadows like the new Nikons exhibit - but I

know what the 3200 setting on my D200 looks like and besides the excessive

noise, there is a loss of detail and colour. If these camera bags could

maintain their texture and colour, I was going to be happy. In the 8x10 glossy

print, the detail is amazing and the colour is just fine - - - and this from a

file straight from the camera without tweaks. Sure if I look hard enough I can

see some noise in the blurred out background - but the print is perfectly

usable and probably salable. I'm sure a dose of Neat Image could easily cure

any noise if I chose to use it:

<img class="" alt=""

src="http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img809.jpg" />

I shot these one after the other for a direct comparison of

100ISO and 3200ISO on a white sign. There is a huge difference between the 2

obviously, with the 100ISO being creamy smooth and the 3200 showing more

texture or noise. Is the 3200ISO shot useless - it depends - I don't think so

for the type of work I shoot. These are the only files from this test, where I

tweaked the curves to brighten the whites and also adjusted the WB in photoshop

to have them match colour as closely as possible:

100ISO (slow shutter speed so a little movement and blur

incurred):

<img class="" alt=""

src="http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img810.jpg" />

3200ISO (noise/grain is noticable in the dark shadows and

orange highlights in the background)

<img class="" alt=""

src="http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img811.jpg" />

This shot to see the effect of image stabilization, was the

only one where I free handed the camera in a normal fashion as I would at a

wedding. I was standing in the middle of an aisle turned and shot as steadily

as I could. Most of the other shots I was able to set my stance for stability

or lean against a counter or wall. Equivalent 90mm focal length at 1/15'th of a

second isn't too bad I don't think.:

<img class="" alt=""

src="http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img812.jpg" />

Just before leaving I gave a quick jab at Live View, setting

the camera on the counter and using the LCD screen to compose and set the WB.

It's pretty cool when you can see the white balance change on the screen before

you take the shot. Made it very easy to select the right setting for the light,

just by scrolling through the presets and stopping at the one that looked best.

It does not function like a point and shoot LCD live view does - - - it is

great for shots where you can take the time for the second or two of delay that

is required. That doesn't bother me either. I will be using it for the

impossible shots that I used to be able to take while laying donw on the floor

or climbing up on narrow trespaces when I was young - room shots, cake shots,

macro shots where the off axis viewfinder puts the screen right where I want

it:

<img class="" alt=""

src="http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img813.jpg" />

--------

--------

I am a die hard Olympus guy since the early 1980's - who has

been shooting Nikon out of necessity (not that I have a problem with that) for

the last 6 years - - - and am so pleased that they have finally brought this

camera out. I was afraid it was all just going to to be talk and no go. I will

start buying into the system next week with an E-510, couple of lenses and the

new FL-50R wireless flash. When I get back from Costa Rica in a few

months and am ready to start my 2008 wedding season, I will already have a head

start with the Olympus system and add in the E-3 and 12-60mm 2.8-4 lens. In my

hand, this combo was the perfect setup. For weddings I don't know if I'll need

anything more (well I'll need the E-510 backups). What a perfect focal length.

I've always felt too restricted in the wide angle end of my standard zooms,

with 28mm equiv - 24mm is perfect. I also dislike the short long end of the

fast 2.8 standard zooms that only reach to 75 or 80mm - 120mm is

perfect.

Just thought some might enjoy the results of my playing

tonight. I'm not really trying to convince anyone and am not saying this is the

best out there. The battlefield is strong with the mainstream Canon 40D and

Nikon D300 - - - and after playing with the Olympus E-3, have to say that it

also is a strong contender in my eyes.

<a href="http://rwoutsidethebox.com/?page_id=91">rwOutSideTheBox Olympus E-3

test</a>

<hr />

Rob

<a href="http://robertwatcher.com">www.robertwatcher.com</a>

November 21, 2007

Thank goodness I have some support here. I HAVE NEVER HAD CLOGGING WITH MY 2400 OR WITH MY PREVIOUS 2200 (or my newer 1400). But then I do put thousands of prints through my printers. I always had terrible problems with the single cartridge printers like 720 and 1280.

Most don't agree with me here:

November 18, 2007

QUOTE "This means that objects near the left/right edges seem to be stretched so that people appear fatter! Apparently this is normal for very wide angle lenses and there does not seem to be any program that can correct for it."

Yes it is normal, but Photoshop's distortion control can handle that petty reasonably too. It quite often takes a combination of all 4 corrections in the Lens Correction filter - - - Remove Distortion, Vertical Perspective, Horizontal Perspective, and Angle.

This picture shows an absolutely extreme worst case scenario that I corrected quickly for this post - and so you do lose some of the image area as a result of having to crop (could clone the blank areas in too). Corrections of groups where there is space around are quite successful without much effort and loss of real estate:

November 18, 2007

QUOTE "More than half of what I print digitaly is B&W so very good performance is needed in this area."

If that is the case, then the only printer that will not disappoint you is the Espon 2400. It makes stunning black and whites as a result of its 3 black inks. The 1800 and 1400 make adequate black and whites using black ink only, and slightly better B&W prints using the full color set. I use both the 2400 and 1400 interchangably for their strengths. It may also be that you don't mind the B&W prints from the 1400 - the only time they didn't look as good to me was when I was comparing ones I made using black ink only to B&W prints from my 2400 - and so I continue to use the 2400 for B&W prints. However for my wedding book page layouts where there are combinations of colour and black and white images on the same page, I am quite satisfied with the look as a result of having to use the full colour set for these prints.

November 18, 2007

You can use any number of photos if they are exposure variations of the one image - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9. For this shoot we bracketed 1 stop apart for a very large range and assembled the HDR in Photoshop. It wouldn't matter whether they are Jpeg or Raw.

November 17, 2007

The Epson Stylus Photo R280 is the current version of the 200/220 series. I have had several 200/220's and they make excellent prints. The printers are cheap at under $100. Canon printers are excellent and the budget $50 PIXMA iP1800 may work well for you, but the PIXMA iP3500 or PIXMA iP6310D which use USB2 may run faster. My preference has always been with printers from one of those tow companies. There are cheap printers from Lexmark and HP that many of my family and friends have, use and are satisfied with. There will not be any ink jet printer that will be economical from the ink cost standpoint. The inks cost a lot (yes large format printers have bigger cartidges and run cheaper) and good quality photographic style paper costs. If ink cost are a primary concern then you would do better with a colour laser printer - although the unit is more expensive to start with. Guess no one can have everything.

November 17, 2007

QUOTE "Of course, performing absolutely no sharpening is an option too..."

There - you hit it on the head. Obviously none of us will have any more idea than you what screens 20 years from now will be capable of and how images will look or react on them. Just make sure you keep your unprocessed files archived well so that you can add whatever processing or sharpening is necessary at that time with the technology and image editing tools that will then be available.

November 17, 2007

Here is the link to the above mentioned "The HDRI Handbook" by Christian Bloch:

http://www.hdrlabs.com/book/index.html

This person also wrote a Lightwave HDR light extraction plugin http://www.hdrlabs.com/lightbitch/ and gives you a code to stop the nagware popups on it if you buy his book...pretty ingenious.

November 17, 2007

Here is a side by side comparison showing HRD and a single best exposure image from the shoot shown in this setting:

<a href="http://rwoutsidethebox.com/?p=87">HDR SETUP VIDEO</a>

HDR using 7 exposures +3 and -3 and normal

Non-HDR Single Show using Proper Balanced Exposure

HDR adjusted with curves to closely match Non-HDR shot (slightly more detail and less noise in shadows - but still similar loss of highlight and shadow detail)

-----

CLOSEUP SHADOW AREA

HDR close up

Non-HDR close up

the identical sharpening and steps to get to the web size images, were used in all images for an even playing field. All HDR originals were shot as JPEG format. More could be expected from RAW apparently - but we didn't have the processing power to handle the massive files size involved in the complete HDR stitched 360 degree dome, for this project.

November 17, 2007

Sometimes that is the case. I just did a big HDR shoot (a little video of the setup has just been posted on my www.rwOutSideTheBox.com website) and some of the HDR shots that we processed showed less difference than we thought they would when contrast was adjusted (they looked quite different - kind of bland when as-is processed). There however was a difference on screen in the deep shadow areas which were creamy smooth and had no noise. When we printed it out on 13x19 with sections of the best exposure capture laid over the HDR, we could barely noice the difference. I always find that with digital images can look far worse on screen than they do when printed - especially high ISO ones.

November 17, 2007

I always Format the card in the camera after every job - - -once the files are properly downloaded and backups saved. It is far easier than deleting files one at a time.

November 17, 2007

This is a result of the saved HDR's still being in 32bit format. They will need to be converted to 16bit or 8 bit image files before you can access printing and even other image editing features. You convert using Image > Mode > 8 Bits/Channel

Rob

<a href="http://rwoutsidethebox.com">rwOutSideTheBox.com</a>

November 15, 2007

I had a problem a few years ago that looks a lot like what you have. It happened when I was encouraged to purchase a couple of 2GB ATP Professional CF cards. They were highly rated and much cheaper than the $100 more Xtremes.

It just happens that it was a D70 camera where things happened. During a wedding reception I was shooting, I decided to take a peak at my exposures and out of nowhere I end up losing several frames and after panicking switched to my trusted Sandisk Extremes. All shots were either were unreadable, blown out with colored streaks, or a few had half a frame that on a couple of shots made them salvagable. Even though I use 2 cameras, a whole series from a specific vantage point were on that camera.

My camera store who pushed the new memory card on me, replaced that one with a new one of my choice (I kept the other for less critical shooting). I wrote about it on my ProPhotoForum and the representative from ATP came on defending their cards. I never did find out the answer - - - but I do know that I have never used the cards since, and never had the problem since.

Rob

November 15, 2007

Well I'll tell you - - - - that tip about setting the Black and Whites to "3" and "3", is the cats meow. Not that I had a serious problem with the way my 2400 B&W's looked, but the suptle cool (blue) cast is noticable when comparing side by side - - - and my new prints with the warm adjustment look spectacular even more like authentic B&W's out of a wet darkroom. I have always used the settings to get a variety of shades from sepia, red, blue, green, etc - - - but never even thought of using it to add slight tonal nuances to my prints. Thank you so much for the tip.

November 10, 2007

Here are a few methods for the older versions - not sure about version 6:

<a href="http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html">http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html</a>

November 10, 2007

The Espon 1400 a wonderful photo quality printer using dye based inks with

claims of 100 years longevity. Unlike earlier Espon printers that came with

their so-so proprietary software - this one comes bundled with a registered

copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements. I have not looked at this software for years,

and was amazed at the features it contains. With it's Layers, Healing and

Cloning, almost all of the Filters found in the full blown Photoshop - the

average photographer (professional or amateur) may find it hard to justify

spending the serious money required for Photoshop CS2 or CS. Of real importance

to me is the printers ability to easily and accuartely print my CD's and DVD's

for a professional look. Over the years I have used labels with no sucess,

LightScribe which takes far too long to burn the image, and more recently a

series of DVD's from Verbatim designed for movies that have a somewhat more

serious look to them. All of this last week for around $350 Candian dollars - -

- plus a $50 Epson mail in rebate. And if I had of been on the ball a week

earlier could have benefitted from an additional $20 off from the Vistek camera

store in Toronto.

I am still using my Epson 2400 for watercolor and other heavier art papers, for

black and white (the 1400 B&W's are acceptable, but no where near the look of

those from the 2400), and when I am producing critical prints where I do not

care about the Gloss Differential look, that is always evident on RC style

Glossy, Luster and Semi-Gloss papers. But now that I can be more confident

about the lasting power of current dyes in the 100 year range (not much

different than the claims for pigment ink sets like the 2400 has) - I am using

this printer for all of my client work where standard 5x7 and 8x10 glossys are

the final product.

It's the CD/DVD printing that has really made this printer a great value for

me. A large part of my business now includes supplying DVD's and having a

professional look is imperitave. I have put together a little video that

quickly summarizes the CD/DVD printing process and contains the real time

printing of a DVD - that shows how quickly, simply professional looking

printable DVD's and CD's can be produced:

View the Google Video here:

<a href="http://rwoutsidethebox.com/?p=81">Epson 1400 - CD/DVD Printing

Video</a>

-------------

November 7, 2007

QUOTE "I'm all RAW, all the time (ok, most of the time). I don't have an 18% grey card, but I do have to adjust almost everything in Camera Raw after each indoor session without strobes. Working outdoors usually gets me closer to good white balance. Can you point me to a website that explains how to use and adjust for a grey card?"

If you are shooting in RAW format, there is no need to set your White Balance or any other JPEG formatting options that are included in the camera Menu Settings. RAW data is manipulated in the RAW conversion software and White Balance is applied there. RAW DATA is literally the raw information from the camera sensor only and is useless without a program to convert the bits and bytes into a useable form and add any tweaking like WB, custom curves or any other settings that would normally be applied to JPEG files in camera.

November 6, 2007

Quote "but I won't be able to bounce much flash. I'm hoping Gary Fong will come to the rescue there"

Using the Gary Fong is bouncing your flash. That is what I did by using the plastic dome over the flash head - it just sprays the light around the sides too for some directional light hitting the subject.

Quote "I don't understand about dragging the shutter is what it means for the aperature,"

To a flash, all that matters is the aperture setting. The shutter speed controls the abient light only. Using a lower shutter speed (dragging) will allow more of the ambient light to fill the scene for a more natural look. So at a given aperture that the flash has enough power for (example f5.6), the flash output will always be the same and will be provide the same exposure on the subject regardless of the shutter speed. The variable that the shutter speed provides has to do with the amount of ambient light that is included in the exposure. Too fast a shutter speed will create a black or dark background as a result of an underexposed ambient reading - and too slow a shutter speed may allow the ambient light to overpower the proper flash exposure. Depending on the room you are shooting in, distance from the subject or reflective walls, and the Flash Aperture/ISO setting you will be using, 1/30'th second may provide not enough ambient fill to make much difference - or it could over power your flash and blow out your exposure and cause all kinds of light quality issues. As mentioned - that is the beauty of digital - - - you can experiment and check on the screen to see what it looks like.

With the Nikon's you could either set the exposure manually (for most a preferred choice with dragging exposure), say f5.6@1/30'th second or slower and all should be fine - - - or you can shoot in Aperture priority by setting the aperture to say f5.6 and then in the Menu set the lowest shutter speed for flash to 1/30'th second or slower. Even if you have a fast f2 or f2.8 lens, you may still want to use f5.6 or smaller aperture settings to keep everyone in focus.

November 5, 2007

I haven't shot that particular type of awards ceremony - - - but one I shot a couple of weeks ago probably involved a similar scenario and style of shooting. It involved some politicians, sports stars and dignitaries. The room was very dark and had high ceilings. I have free roam around the stage - but still tried to be as discreet as possible. For the most part I was bouncing my SB800 flash using either the included plastic dome with the head aimed almost straight up or angles off of a wall if one was close by. BTW - while I was the offical paid photogrpaher for the event, there were many press photographers there also and their shooting methods were similar to mine. Here are a few of the shots:

<a href="http://rwoutsidethebox.com/?p=63">www.rwOutsideTheBox.com</a>

---

October 24, 2007

Sorry - meant to include that my standard outdoor compensation is minus 1 1/2 to 2 stops or more for a pleasing natural not overflashed look. That should be the same setting you need when your Joe Demb is attached also.

October 24, 2007

OUTDOORS - it really won't matter whether you use the Demb, Lightsphere, Gary Fong, small softbox, or straight on flash on camera when fillflash is needed - - - the look of all will be roughly same. The light is always coming from a small light source (relative to the subject).

The key to getting a natural look that is not overfilled with flash, is to cut your flash compensation down until it is just filling in the right amount. I always use straight on flash to benefit from all of the power the flash has to offer (all of the attachments reduce power output) - generally using a minus flash exposure compensation of anywhere from 1 to 3 stops (set at the camera with my Nikons). If find for my work that a brighter sun light condition or strong backlighting may require much less minus compensation and a stronger fill flash and so many times I end up using minus 1 stop in these scenarios. Depending on how close or far way I am from the subject may require slightly different compensation.

The shot that I have included was taken only a couple of feet away from the subect, and while it is stronger fill than I normally prefer, because of the strong backlight I allowed for more flash to balance the exposure - - - but it is sill totally acceptable and is accomplished with the bare flash head aiming straight ahead (as can be seen in the glasses):

Rob<div></div>

October 24, 2007

As I mentioned above:

Many starting out now expect that all of this valuable information should be freely available to whoever asks so that they don't have to go through the process.

And I will add - Painless. Unfortunately many who are wanting feedback are expecting the feedback to be their way. Some are only wanting glory for images they post and so can't take critism. Others are asking for critique but are not really ready to accept what is replied. Try getting a licensed job in any profession and see how hard your boss or supervisor will be on you and how impatient he/she becomes when silly things happen - - - or try entering your photo in a competition or photo magazine and if their is a public response to what is right and what is wrong, you may not like what may seem like a mean spirited trashing of your image. It isn't mean spirited though, it is part of learning - - - and the school of hard knocks (which few are willing to accept) is more than likely the most painful and best way of honing skills. Remember that the inexperiened ones are catering to the experienced for something for nothing. If you get that "something for nothing" on return, you are a prividged person (most of us didn't have that courtesy when we went through the ranks) - but if the responses aren't what you want or given in the way you'd like them to be given, no need to get frustrated.

I tend to agree with you about the useless "hire a photographer" statement - - - but hey this is a public forum with every type of personality involved (cheary, helpful, straight to the point, grumpy nasty and rude). As it is with emails, the intent or tone of a forum response cannot be accurately surmized. Also you or I have no idea who are making the comments that you don't like - - you're presuming they are professional photographers and they may well have little or no experience or they may just be full of themelves. I'd just forget about it and get what you can benefit from publis forums, if it is offered

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by robert watcher