jcuknz

<p>Thinking about the dog photo .. it works because o the back lighting so flash pointing someway towards the camera but the latter with a good lenshood etc shielding the lens from the light. second thought he dog is shaking large amounts of water off itself and rain is usually small drops quite a distance from each others so unless in a heavy downpour such as I experienced prior to the second photo which deposited large drops on my windscreen as I sheltered the results will not be particularly wonderful. One of the advantages of digital is the freedom to experiment at little cost and to see, if only on a tiny monitor what you got immediately instead of guessing an exposure and having to wait for it to be processed. </p><div></div>

<p>The thought crosses my mind that a cheap Bridge camera with PASM manual over rides would be useful tool to experiment with and learn what works and then use the successful settings for your film camera?</p>

<p>Though I think that the drops of rain after falling can be interesting .. this was edited from two frames, elementary focus stacking :)</p><div></div>

<p>While flash is one approach I found that a 1/60 shutter captured this shot quite well and rain is drops of water as is most of this shot ....</p><div></div>

<p>I would suggest that it is a question of balance between the flash and ambient/painted light if they are reasonably equal you will get a ghost while if the flash is stronger you will see the subject as whole.<br> Really trying to do things in the camera is old fashioned film technique and far better and easier is to do it with layers in editing after getting the subject against a black background in a regular exposure. Anything in an upper layer with normal exposure blocks out the lower layers.</p>

<p>EArier he had run between my legs as I sat in a chair, I was at 10,000 feet having come from sealevel four days before, and out of my sight he had attacked a loaf of bread so I gave him the damaged slices to gorge on.</p><div></div>

<p>Actually there is not much difference between 800 and 950 equiv angles of view and I at one stage shot with that using a Raynox 2020 on my x12 432mm zoomed Panasonic FZ's ... various models FZ20 to current FZ50 though prefer to use my Olympus TCONx1.7 on the end of my 014140 zoom that my GH2 has 99.9% of the time. It is only around 500mm but can be cropped the way the earlier stuff could not be.</p><div></div>

<p>An example of two layers done with Paint dot Net, a free download .... adding motion blurr except for front of loco and rails.</p><div></div>

<p>I do not use Lightroom or Photoshop so I do not know how limited you are with them but to me it is a simple duplicate the layer, apply the effect to one layer and then erase the area I do not want the effect on to reveal the original on the layer below. Certainly the second example suggests that would work fine. Often it doesn't call for any great preciseness and using an eraser with a soft edge is fine. The second photo looks rather cut and paste to me.*<br> Get and learn to use layers and you have a very powerful tool at your finger tips :)</p> <p>* I remember reading about an Australia fashion tog who was putting todays models on 'old master' paintings having a matching 'set' made so that the separation between model and painting was some distance from her and not around her body/clothes.</p>

<p>I 'failed both my Ishara tests, first when I joined the railways for awhile and refused to believe it because I was a 'photographer' most of the time. Second time was when my TV station changed from B&W to colour transmission and I knew my problem was not that bad and was more relaxed as I knew the answer. I am not colour blind simply colour deficient and ignore discussions about colour. It may be a problem for you Jim but likely it is not that serious, so get a proper test so you know Also remember that colour is a small part of what photography is all about ... though to many churning out beautiful rubbish it is all important.</p>

<p>note of left photo .. the flash reflection you can see is from when I photographed the set-up not when I copied the slides.<br> With the right hand camera I was using my regular two dioptre close-up lens to enable the zoom to be used for framing down the the negative size. For the left the camera then used was capable of filling the sensor with the 36x24mm slide image.</p>

<p>In these days of high wages I doubt if there is a 'cost-effective' service because it is a manual intensive activity. If you are prepared to put the labor into the project the simplest way is to use your camera to copy each slide and then handle the results in an editor.<br> <br /> But this assumes you know how to make your camera do this and it is capable itself. Basically you just need to hold the slide/negative to a diffused north light with the camera set to AWB.<br> <br /> But to save time and effort it is probably worth doing a selection of the best and most interesting and copy then rather than everything. This would save money I expect too if you find a service you think you can afford.<br> <br /> I bought a Thomson, made in China, and it does a reasonable job of slides and 35mm negatives, B&W and color. But for 120 and larger I made my own holders. The Thomson has a 5Mp 'camera' which is plenty for the job assuming you do not want to make large prints of the copies. The first camera I used was also 5Mp though subsequently I used a 10Mp.<br> <br /> The photo shows an early slide copy set up I used and it would be easy enough to make a slide holder out of cardboard to stick to a north window which held the slides. The right hand picture is the 'tunnel' I made when I wanted to copy my old glass plates from the 1950's and based on earlier problems of the camera being reflected by negatives so one needs to ensure as little light as reasonably possible in shining on the camera/lens.<br> <br /> Without the 'luxury' of ICE, which I do not have, a major problem is dust on slides and careful cleaning of the slide/negative helps ... else work at the editing stage :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Since for years with digital I used a bridge camera where OOF backgrounds were impossible except for the obvious situations I learnt to do it in editing and read discussions such as this with amusement, particularly the descriptions of what good Bokeh is.</p>

<p>google 'Free Music Downloads'<br> This could be a useful site http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/best-free-and-legal-music-download-sites/</p>

<p>I do not know anything about the lens in question but the 67/77 filter thread prompts my comment that there are things such as step-up and step-down rings and since I was using 55mm CU lens etc on my older cameras when I bought my latest MFT lens with its 58 thread I simply bought a 58>55 step down ring as the thread is quite a distance outside the lens itself.<br> Just an Idea .... hope of value to you :-)</p>

<p>The problem as you get the wider lens for this work is that it includes a lot of sky and foreground and an alternative which I have followed for the past decade is to learn how to stitch two or more overlapping frames in your editor. I recently got a 15mm bug-eye for 'fun' but previously used a 35mm and often longer. By taking more frames you increase the number of pixels in the finished product whereas if cropping a WA shot you are likely throwing away half the available pixels .... do the maths .... as even a small crop throws away a high proportion of the pixels.</p> <p>Plus there is an eronious concept around that to take landscape you need a wide lens 'to get it all in' whereas many experienced people find they need a tighter lens to make a representative selection.</p>

<p>For this job, assuming the carpets are hung, you do not need a tripod ... just a firm support for the camera and use of the ten second delay release while not touching the rig. I have perched my camera on flimsy cardboard boxes for sharp result using the delay to allow the rig to settl down after pressing the trigger , as suggested.<br> A mini tripod from B&H in New York costs you around $30 and it sitting on a firm support, chair or table would be better than my cardboard boxes :-) , and will do the job for you. That is the tripod I use most and have with me most of the time. My MFT is likely as heavy as the cheaper DSLR you will get.<br> Knowledge and lateral thinking is more important than gear :-)</p>

<p>I am very glad that financial restrictions saved me from changing from SLR to DSLR and I went for a 'DSLR Like' bridge camera and after an excellent Nikon I changed to Panasonic FZ, the larger variety 20/30 and 50 as they were released before changing to MFT where I have tried to duplicate as far as possible what I had with the FZ cameras. However in your case I expect the DSLR and lens will not cost you less than a Pany FZ200 which gives you an f/2.8 constant throughout the range of focal lengths 25<600 I gather. IMO DSLRs while excellent cameras do rather have limitations for those on a tight budget ... being a rich man's pastime.</p>

<p>Mind you there is a limit to what PP can do for you so the lettering below Olive Leaf is not sharp so you need to heed others suggestions [ bearing in mind that the reduction in size for web use can loose sharpness too :-( ]</p>

<p>Though I have not read it for awile there used to be a saying "You get sharp pictures out of P&S cameras and blurred ones from DSLR" The rational behind this statement is that the P&S does more for you than a DSLR where you are expected to know what you are doing ... having graduated up from simpler cameras .... At least that was the situation in the 'old days' before digital sold DSLRs to every tom dick and harry with the advice ' they will make you a PRO ' LOL.<br /> My solution to your problem is to be aware of what post processing can do for you and here taking just a sample of your picture I sharpened it in editing.<br> Add PP to all the other suuggestions and you will get good result you want .... PS that suggestion about 1/50 shutter with the 50mm lens only applies if firstly you are using a full frame camera and know how to properly release the trigger when hand holding.... personally I almost always also use the ten second delay release when using a tripod and leaving camera and tripod untouched after pressing the trigger. The only snag to this with a DSLR [ which I do not use, being a mirrorless worker] is vibration caused by the mirror lifting and cameras have 'mirror lock' up for this reason.</p><div></div>

<p>If you want to save money then you will find excellent bridge cameras with built in flash which are completely capable of accurate photography... cameras such as Panasonic FZ70 for instance. Though I doubt if a single flash will give you more than an amateurish snapshot and multiple flash or hot lights is the answer. Either two or four equally powered lights depending on the size of the carpet.<br> The big problem you will have to face in selling on the web is the complete impossibility of knowing if the customer is seeing an accurate color rendition of the carpet or any object. That is one of the facts of electronic life.<br> Indeed you would be well advised to include a waiver pointing this out on your website.</p>

<p>I do not bother about Bokeh ... it is all blurr to me and I can add this in my editor when I want to isolate the subject from the background.</p> <p>Instead of expecting to get everything from the camera stage you need to learn, by practice, what a good editor can do for you ...ie GIMP, Paint Shop Pro, or Photoshop. My choice and preference is PSP but a lot depends on what you start with as they do the same thing but in different ways and one gets used to working and liking each's approach to the subject.</p>

<p>It is a further example of the theory of natural selection, unfortunately unsuccessful.</p>

<p>Awhile back dpreview listed a system of comparing sensor size to number of pixels and in it the DSLR came out tops and bridge cameras worst ... though some conservative bridge cameras were 'not too bad'. Funnilly I had a Canon P&S which rated with the DSLRs ... it was only 3.3Mp but given everything equal turned out excellent exhibition images [ A3 ] ... mind you back then DSLR's were only 5Mp anyway :-)</p>

<p>If as myself you are not bothered about that dreadful 'B' word and simply put areas of my photos out of focus in editing as required I ignore comments earlier BUT seeing the work on another forum of somebody who recently changed from a 15Mp bridge camera to a 20Mp APS-C I would suggest that the difference is there and it is the size of the pixel which is making the difference that 'bigger is better' ... if assuming that is what you look for in a photos opposed to what the photo is saying.<br /> I changed bridge to MFT a couple of years ago and immediately noted the improvement though some of that was 12<16Mp though now I believe without checking it is pixel size.</p>