frode

July 25, 2016

<ul>

<li>Is photography hard or easy?</li>

</ul>

Photography is as easy as pushing a button - and as hard as earning millions for a picture you took.

<ul>

<li>How does either of these characterizations influence the way beginners approach photography?</li>

</ul>

Someone starts because they want to take pictures, someone because they want to be famous.

<ul>

<li>Should practitioners take offence if photography was said to be easy?</li>

</ul>

This is psychology, and not ethics nor law, and therefore not a question that can be answered with "should" or "should not". It would however be interesting to know _why_ some practitioners will take offense.

<ul>

<li>Should we lean more toward "Photography is easy"?</li>

</ul>

Good starting point!

March 6, 2016

Hi

From what you say, I suggest trying a different card reader. You may also try to connect the camera directly to the computer with a suitable cable if available.

Cheers,

February 7, 2016

My camera has 9 auto focus points, should I select just one and try to focus on something that is roughly at the same distance (say 4 feet).

</blockquote>

Yes. This is correct.

Using the hyperfocal distance everything will be in acceptable focus from 3.91 feet to infinity.

</blockquote>

A tiny correction: The "acceptable focus" (depth of field) will go from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity, i.e. from 1.96 feet to infinity in this case.

January 25, 2016

Hmmm...I think texture is more about contrast (hard vs soft light) than whiteness. Contrast will be extremely low when the light is extremely diffuse (overcast and foggy) as in my example image. You can in fact see details all over the place if you adjust contrast to its extreme, but that would not reflect my liking (and also no what I saw when I captured the image). In OP's image the contrast is high since the light is very hard.

I must also clarify that I did not mean that OP's image should have been adjusted to show the sun lit snow as white as the snow in my example image. I do however believe that OP's image is not the typical snow image where a light meter will fail, both because there are large areas that is quite dark and because one (or at least OP) would not want the sun lit snow to be very white in the final image. I would like to see a light meter that would expose my example image correct by itself. My didn't (Pentax K-3). By correct I mean that a JPG straight out of the camera would be correctly exposed (usually - also in this image - I will expose such scenes darker on purpose to avoid burnt out areas and I use RAW)

Hope this added some useful meaning to my previous post.

Cheers,

January 23, 2016

couldn't this also be done with a single exposure via the tone curve?

</blockquote>

I found an article that might put a bit more flesh on the HDR bones:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

BTW: I know what HDR is about, but have little experience with HDR myself.

;-)

Cheers,

January 23, 2016

Except from small spots in the image the sunlit snow is far from white. Most of it has values up to about 200 (of 255) and some small areas approach white (~240). The snow in the attached image may be considered white (and still not burnt out) Cheers,<div>

</div>

January 23, 2016

Agree

Cheers,

January 23, 2016

HDR (high dynamic range) is more a technique than a pictorial expression.

Even if many of the type of images you mention is created with the aid of a HDR tool or plugin, they do not catch the basic idea of HDR which is representing a high dynamic scene (a scene with very high over all contrast such as a sunlit landscape with deep shadows) in a much lower dynamic media (for example a JPG image) in a way where it looks as if the scene actually was captured as is (i.e. it looks as a true representation of the scene).

"Artistic landscapes", "Non-naturalistic landscapes" or something like that would in my opinion be a much more descriptive category name for the images you address. This is not to say that there in any way is something wrong in making those images, but if clarification by category name was the goal, one should not use a name that (at least historically) describes the exact opposite which is making a high dynamic lit scene look as natural as possible in an image. If not, confusion will still remain.

Best wishes,

January 23, 2016

The part you address is usually called a "clamp".

January 16, 2016

Hi

You should also consider luster photo paper.

What is best will depend heavily on the image itself and your preferences. Most of my prints are on luster papers (currently I mostly use a 310 gsm baryta paper). If you are printing yourself you might consider one of those discovery packages that contains several types of papers.

Cheers,

January 16, 2016

If I want a shallow DoF, and can't set the ISO lower than 100, what else can be done other than a ND filter? Is shutter speed the only way to control the picture in this situation? I ended up with a lighter picture than I wanted.

</blockquote>

Yes. You have only three controls: aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Since you want a shallow DoF you will want a low f-number, i.e. 4.5 on your lens. Then you set the ISO to 100 and select the shutter speed that gives the correct exposure. This is how it works. You have to select two of the three, and adjust the third one to make the exposure correct (i.e. correct "brightness" of the image). If you ended up with a lighter picture than you wanted, then you could have used a shorter exposure time to make it darker. If your camera do not have a short enough exposure time for this, then it's time for using a ND filter to reduce the amount of light that enters the lens.

By the way: Being disappointed by the result is the first step to learn how to do it better. Study your images and find out what it is that you don't like with them. Learn from that and keep on shooting! ;-)

Cheers,

January 16, 2016

Hi

If the only thing you do is to change the brightness of the light I doubt you will see any difference at all between the two examples you mention as long as you use a tripod for your camera. Handheld you will probably do better with 1/50 sec since it is harder to hold the camera still for as long as 1/4 sec.

Cheers,

January 9, 2016

the rest is foggy but I'm learning.

</blockquote>

This is when it starts getting interesting. Just like when you start with a lump of clay and begin to shape it into something...

;-)

Cheers,

December 31, 2015

This image can be of anything. The only thing I am willing claim about this photo is that it will be hard, maybe impossible to find out what it is. That is the whole point. This is a good example of someone supporting a claim of what has been photographed by referring to that one cannot disprove that the photo supports the claim. Circulus in probando.

;-)

Cheers,

December 30, 2015

OK. I must apologize. I overlooked that you "have no grid for transparency". This renders the transparency "color" look white. But it must not be confused with white color. Transparency is its own kind of color.

When you then turn off the "white BR" layer, the checker board background in my above right image will still look white although it is transparency (this is a good reason to not turn of checker board). That part of the image is still transparent. This transparency will mix with the shadow and make it even more transparent than it already is (you might say that you mix a color with some "invisibility" stuff, so it gets more invisible). Since the transparency color is white (the "nothingness" below all layers in the layer pallet has become white), it will make more of this transparency ("nothingness") white shine through the shadow.

At least that is my hypotheses. Don't confuse a white transparency with white color (I would say: never turn off the checker board in transparency).

Cheers,

December 30, 2015

Hi, I have tried what you say. I turn on and of the visibility of the bottom layer (named "white BR"). I do not get the result you describe. Actually it becomes more dark when the white background is hidden, because the shadow is transparent and the darker background will mix with the shadow. There is however more contrast between the shadow and background when the white layer is visible. Maybe this is what you perceive as being darker?

Have a look at this page. Maybe it becomes clearer: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/do-we-perceive-reality-the-checker-shadow-illusion/ Cheers,<div></div>

December 16, 2015

Thanks for reporting back!

;-)

December 14, 2015

Hi

If you have one of those UV filters or "lens protection" filters mounted on your lens, try removing it. They often make things much worse.

Cheers,

December 14, 2015

or on the final resulting image

</blockquote>

Beware that this will also not be correct, but much better than just adding the layers. The correct result will be achieved by adjusting each image 3 stops up before you blend them together (usually in the RAW converter). This will be indistinguishable from the single 8 seconds exposure.

December 14, 2015

Hi You could have added pixel values (after aligning images) if you could do it on the RAW files themselves (before gamma encoding). The gamma encoding (which is reversed by your screen hardware before you see the image on your screen) makes the relationship between the RAW pixel value and the final image pixel value (JPG, TIFF or whatever) nonlinear. A very simple example to show what I mean: If you have two values, say 2 and 5, and add them together you get 7. But if you take 2^2 = 4 (2 squared) and add to 5^2=25, you don't get 7^2=49. Instead you get 4+25=29. So adding after squaring makes a much smaller value (29) than adding before squaring (49). Gamma encoding works just like the squaring, but it makes it the opposite way since it uses power of 1/2.2=0.45 instead of power of 2. You will get a very overexposed image as you have experienced (but not only overexposed, the colors and tones will be completely messed up)

Emulating multi exposure: To emulate an 8 picture multiple exposure with layers in photoshop you might use the opacity control on each layer. If we count layers from the bottom, i.e. the bottom layer is layer 1, the one above is layer 2 etc, then: Layer 1 has 100% opacity Layer 2 has 100% / 2 = 50% opacity Layer 3 has 100% / 3 = 33.333% opacity (rounded to 33%) Layer 4 has 100% / 4 = 25% opacity Layer 5 has 100% / 5 = 20% opacity Layer 6 has 100% / 6 = 16.667% opacity (=17%) Layer 7 has 100% / 7 = 14.2857% opacity (=14%) Layer 8 has 100% / 8 = 12.5% opacity (= 13%) All layer blend modes are set to "Normal". Now, this is if each image was correctly exposed, i.e. each image exposed for 8 seconds in your example. What you get is an average of each image, i.e. the result will contain equally much from each image (about 12.5%). Since you had each image exposed for only 1 second, you will have to adjust the exposure 3 stops up, either on each image or on the final resulting image. Each image will then have the same quality as a 3 stop underexposed image (since that is exactly what they are), but when averaged you will get the same quality as a correctly exposed image (8 seconds in your example).

The value of multiple exposures is grossly underestimated. It has a multitude of uses. :-) Cheers, Hope this was of any help. If not, print it out, curl it up and throw it in the dust bin.

December 10, 2015

...or maybe that chain is actually standing like that, without falling. It looks like the chain's links are rather big.

Cheers,

December 10, 2015

By which I mean is it more critical to hold a 24 mp camera steady than a 12 mp camera. If so why is that?

</blockquote>

If the sensors have the same size and the focal lengths are equal, the only difference for the same amount of camera shake will be that the 24 mp camera might show more details. Under the mentioned circumstances the 24 mp camera will never show less detail than the 12 mp camera. If there is enough camera shake they might end up showing the same amount of details.

The only reason that the 24 mp camera might look soft at pixel level while the 12 mp camera does not (same circumstances as before mentioned) is that the 24 mp might show you details of camera shake that the 12 mp camera is not able to show you. In this the (potential) sharpness of the 24 mp is at least as good as that of the 12 mp camera. You might even reduce the 24 mp image to 12 mp to remove the extra blur that is in the 24 mp vs. the 12 mp.

Cheers,

December 8, 2015

Hi

Maybe the book "Understanding exposure" by Bryan Peterson? I have not read this book myself, but I have seen it recommended numerous times.

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Fourth-Photographs-Camera/dp/1607748509/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1449561568&sr=8-2&keywords=understanding+exposure

(Btw: Fourth edition is new, so if you want to see customer reviews for this book you must look at the third edition:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449561568&sr=8-1&keywords=understanding+exposure )

Cheers,

Hope this will be of any help. If not, print it out, curl it up and throw it in the dust bin.

December 4, 2015

Hi

It is difficult to understand your question.

The contrast in a scene is in general only dependent on how much light the various parts of the scene reflects relative to other parts of the scene. For example, if you have only one light in a room you cannot change the contrast in the scene just by changing the brightness of that light. If you take one picture, then turns the light down to say 1/8th of what it was you will have to increase the exposure by a factor 8 (three stops). When you now take a new picture with this new light and exposure you will end up with exactly the same contrast in the two images.

Cheers,

November 25, 2015

I usually look at an image from various distances. Any of them might be more optimal than the others depending on what I am looking for. There is no "optimal distance in relation to its size" per see. Optimization always need at least one varying input value (here "viewing distance in relation to its size"), at least one output value (here unspecified) and an optimization criteria (a rule/function that says when the output is most optimal, here unspecified).

I guess there is no upper limit..

</blockquote>

Oh yes, there might be. Most people would for example not even be able to spot a 4 in. x6 in. image at a viewing distance of 1 mile. :-)

Cheers,

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by frode