frode

November 25, 2015

I bought Photoshop because I thought I needed it, but after a learning ACR I do most editing (99%, maybe more) in ACR. From what you said I would therefore recommend LR, since ACR is more like LR that PS. Btw: Any changes done in Photoshop's camera raw converter, i.e. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) are just as non destructive as in LR (I believe they are more or less the same tool when it comes to image adjustments): contrast, colors, sharpness, cropping, spot removals, local adjustments of most settings by using a brush, noise removal, vignetting, lens corrections, perspective corrections etc. etc, most of the editing you can do in LR i believe (I have however not used LR, so I might overlook something). You can also have multiple conversions saved with one raw file in ACR (as "snapshots"), and you can make your own presets, have camera profiles, lens profiles, etc, etc. You can also edit JPGs in ACR if you want to do that. All this goes at least for PS CS6 (the last version before CC). However, if you as me only are going to use ACR, you throw a lot of money out the window. The only thing I use Photoshop for is printing ans saving, and I think printing is at least as easy in LR as in PS.

Cheers,

November 25, 2015

Hi

The short answer is no. There is however at least one camera that can make multiple exposures into one single raw file, both for simple multiple exposures and for in camera HDR. As with ocus stacking, HDR is much more complex than simple pixel value adding or averaging as is done with ordinary multiple exposure. Therefore HDR is fully automatic - as would focus stacking have to be - and you loose any control of the merging itself (except for a simple "strength" setting). Most of the complex work in HDR and focus stacking is done on each single layer (including their layer masks) before they are merged.

I haven't heard of any raw file format that supports multiple layers. You would therefore have to merge the files before you could save them to a raw format. But to merge them you will have to convert them to an image format supporting layers first, and then put each image to a separate layer and merge these layers into a single layer. However, then there would be no need to go back to raw format since now you now already have a single layer and can edit the way you wanted on this layer.

And then there is that Lightroom and Photoshop do not edit raw files. They keep the raw files unchanged and change a layer (or probably a set of layers) between the raw file and the image displayed on the screen (i.e. they change the transform itself via transformation layers). To you this is transparent, except that you in fact can have several conversions from one singe raw file at the same time. If you were to save back to a raw format you would have to do a "reverse raw conversion", i.e. reverse bayer interpolate. reverse gamma correct etc. And you would have to do this for every change you made to the image. At best you would not gain anything by doing this, at worst you would ruin your image after repeated conversion and reverse conversions. And you would have to make a copy of the raw file if you wanted to keep the original raw file and also for each version you would like to make from the same image, for example color, b&w, different styles, different crops, high resolution print, low resolution web image etc. etc.

Hope this was understandable and of any value. If not, print it out, curl it up and throw it in the waste.

Cheers,

November 22, 2015

And here is how the images looked with ACR default settings (and how they would look at the camera's LCD screen). Somebody will call the ISO100 image underexposed. I suggest that the ISO 1600 is overexposed, even though it looks correct on the camera LCD screen and even if most light meeters will tend to suggest an exposure in the same ballpark. BTW: This strategy is nothing that I have developed myself. It is often refereed to as "expose for the highlights" and keeping ISO low gives more headroom (dynamic range) for doing exactly that.<div>

00db9u-559344384.jpg.76638cead7dbd711c42d46c54edff55a.jpg

</div>

November 22, 2015

Would it be better to shot at the native ISO and underexpose, correcting in PP or shot at a higher ISO and have not to brighten the image in PP?

</blockquote>

This is camera (sensor) dependent. With my Pentax K3 I very often use 1-3 stops lower ISO than the camera recommends and correct in post processing as necessary (most often on ISO 100). If I take two images of the same scene, one with correct ISO, say 1600 and one with 4 stops lower, here 100 (exposure kept the same, that is unchanged aperture and time), I can hardly see any increase in noise at all. I can however easily see decrease in dynamic range (4 EV in this case) for high contrast images. Look at the lamps on the attached image. Especially when photographing back lit scenes, maybe including the sun or sunlit clouds on the sky I keep the ISO well below what the camera says, some times even 5 stops (5 stops is the limit of adjusting exposure in Adobe Camera Raw).

There are of course situations where you should avoid this strategy. Raising the exposure in very dark areas might give you some problems, especially with banding/pixelisation type noise. Other camera sensors will have more of so called "read noise" which in (very) short is noise that will increase signal to noise ratio with higher ISO, especially for the lowest ISO values. Typically these cameras will show no or low increase in dynamic range towards the lowest ISOs. For these cameras you should almost never use the above strategy as I use for the K3. Experience will show you how much your camera will take before things start to happen.<div></div>

October 27, 2015

Hi, The best approach to reduce noise is always to use as large an exposure value as you can for the scene you are photographing. And the lesser light that is available in the scene, the larger exposure value you will need. Exposure value is a value describing how much of the available light will hit the sensor when the picture is taken. Technically, the exposure value is decided by two camera settings, the f-number (=aperture) and the exposure time. The smaller the f-number you use (=the larger aperture opening you use), the more light hits the sensor. And the longer exposure time you use, the more light hits the sensor. And more light means larger exposure value. At the same time, when more light hits the sensor you can crank down the ISO (which in turn makes very many people thinks it is high ISO that generates noise when it technically is (mostly) due to too little light hitting the sensor during the exposure). So if you want to optimize for lowest possible noise, you should use as small f-number as you can and as long exposure time as you can. How small f-number and how long exposure time to use in a given scene will be a decision to be made by you based on the actual scene and how you want the image to be. Things like movement in the scene, whether you want these movements frozen or visible, how trained you are with keeping a camera still during exposure, whether you have a tripod available, wanted depth of field etc. will be the deciding factors. Available light in the scene will also be a factor since to much light reaching the sensor will burn out the brightest parts of the scene. So don't crank up the exposure value too much then. ;-) This may look complicated to you, but is pretty simple as you focus on it when taking pictures and gain experience. There is a description of exposure value on Wikipedia with a table of exposure values (EV) for different combinations of f-stops and exposure times, but don't go to technical about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

October 21, 2015

Hi,

I suggest that you try this question on the Norwegian photo forum <a href="http://www.foto.no">foto.no</a>. There might be some people knowing the answer. Generally this is regulated by "<a href="https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1961-05-12-2">Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk</a>" . You might also find some information on Gisle Hannemyr's site, for example here: <a href="http://hannemyr.com/faq/legal_dm07.shtml">http://hannemyr.com/faq/legal_dm07.shtml</a>

Cheers,

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

October 14, 2015

Frode, there was only one grammatical mistake in your comment.

</blockquote>

;-) You should hear me talk. Or maybe not...

October 13, 2015

Hi

I think selfies most of all is a natural and necessary extension of everyday communication via social media and text messaging. It replaces body language that is a natural and important part of communication where people are present and can see each other.

Cheers,

Frode

(and excuse my English, it is not my native language)

September 8, 2015

The vertical scale in the histogram is scaled automatically to occupy the full height of the available space for the histogram.

In statistics a histogram is usually called "frequency distribution". The vertical scale shows the frequency of each binned range of values. The sum of the height of all the vertical lines will always be the number of pixels in the image (or 1 if you prefer to view it as a relative frequency distribution).

Hope this was of some help. If not, print it out, curl it up and throw it in the dustbin.

Regards,

August 24, 2015

I don't think they are trying to give or refer to an authoritative general definition of the term "nature photography" (which I doubt even exist) The "General guidelines" (for that forum) that you have partly cited do state explicitly that the term "nature photography" is used "In the strictest sense". At least that mean that the term "nature photography" is not used in that text in a very broad sense. Therefore, an attempt to criticize the text while applying a broad sense of the term will most probably be more confusing than clarifying. Also, stating that it is to be understood "In the strictest sense" implies that the author(s) of that text admits that there also exist (at least might exist) a broader understandings of the term. ;-) Cheers, (and excuse my English. It's not my native language)

August 21, 2015

I found if I have to I can just set by experience and then chimp and it's still faster.

</blockquote>

Agree. When I use manual flash, it is for macro where things tend to be more straightfarward.

My post was ment for explaining what the guide number is (and maybe what it isn't).

August 20, 2015

Hi

There is a very simple relationship between guid number (GN), object distance (D) and f-number (N):

GN = D x N at ISO 100

Remember that D is in meters if GN is in meters, D is in feet if GN is in feet.

Have a look at this article in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_number

Regarding zoom flashes and guide numbers, have a look at this discussion over in dpreview (GN varies with zoom):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3386098#forum-post-55965701

Cheers,

August 16, 2015

I would say the figure is correct in the context it is used. You are correct in that the f-number is different in the two cases, but the text where you found the figure (assuming it is coming from here: http://www.photographycompendium.com/) does not say that the f-number is equal in the two cases. As I understand it, what the author wants to show is what will happen to the DOF when you only changes one single physical property of the lens, namely the focal length. The physical size of the aperture (the aperture diameter) is held constant. The f-number is not really a physical property of a lens. It is a relation between two physical properties, namely the ratio between the focal length and the aperture diameter (and from what you write, I understand that you already know it). If you keep the aperture diameter constant and changes the focal length, the f-number will of course change. I think the article explains the basics of DOF very well. I do however think that it would have gained in clarity if a more explicit term had been used instead of only "aperture", for example "aperture size" which is used one place in the text, or even more clearly "aperture diameter". Then there would have been no room for ambiguity.

If this was of no help, please print it out, curl it up and throw it in the trash.

Cheers,

(And excuse my English. It is not my native language)

New User Introductions · August 13, 2015

You could also try light. Many types of bugs will move towards lighter areas, so maybe you can mount a lamp a couple of feet from the camera and leave the camera in dark shadow. Just a thought...

I often use this trick when getting small water bugs (small as sand grains) out of my drinking cup when I am backpacking (in my Country you can drink most water in woodland and mountains without cleaning). You may just drink them, but I think the water is more delicate without them. I cover the cup with my hand leaving a small part open for light to slip in, maybe third of a sqquare inch. The bugs will gather there, and by pouring out a little water from that same part the bugs are gone.

Cheers,

August 6, 2015

I know uncompressed TIFF is universally supported (except for web). How about LZW compressed TIFF?

</blockquote>

LZW has been her for years (older than zip as far as I know), so if some software can handle TIFF I would expect it to handle LZW compression as well, at least uncompressing. LZW is also a very simple algorithm to implement. Conclusion must be that the question is not about compression, but if your clients have software that handles TIFF or not.

I do not have much experience with TIFF, but I have seen the advice not to use LZW on 16 bit TIFFs, only on 8 bit TIFFs as LZW may more often than not result in larger files when compressed with LZW. ZIP is better for 16 bits.

August 6, 2015

Hi,

Most modern browsers will as far as I know handle PNG, so you can use PNG on the Internet. As I see it, the main advantage of JPG is the small file size due to lossy compression and the main advantages of PNG is that it is lossless and it handles something JPG does not have at all: transparency (partial transparency or alpha transparency). The latter may be important for graphical designs which may very well include photographs.

There is something called TinyPNG that is, as I understand it, a lossy compression method that will reduce the file size of PNGs. It do so by reducing the colors in the original and using the indexed color mode.

Is PNG better than JPG for photographs? There is no yes or no to this question since it depends on your requirements/usage. There might be one very important factor other than file size and lossless compression to consider for photographs though, and that is whether sites like photo.net do allow for other formats than JPG.

people seems to be saying that PNG is best for graphic arts files rather than photos

</blockquote>

I believe this is because they presupposes that file size is the main factor. For use on the Internet that may very well be a correct assumption since graphics tend to have very few colors compared to a photo. Few colors together with indexed mode will give small files for PNGs.

But on the other hand, as you say: File size may not be that important. And lossy compression may not be desirable in some situations.

Personally I use 99.999% JPG for the Internet (and the other 0.001% might very well not exist), just because it has become a habit and because it is very easy in Photoshop to just Ctrl-Alt-Shft-S an image when I want to save it for Internet usage (it takes care of everything without me needing to do thinking stuff).

Cheers,

Frode Langset

(And excuse my English. It is not my native language)

August 2, 2015

<div>

00dQ5P-557870584.jpg.f574424e5ca359e74e01115edda57a1f.jpg

</div>

August 2, 2015

<div>

00dQ5H-557870384.jpg.28c46f5e9d6e8d9f1556ecb8656659bd.jpg

</div>

August 1, 2015

You can use it for landscape type photos (not same lens, but a Pentax M* 300 f/4):

http://www.photo.net/photo/17832741

http://www.photo.net/photo/17828556

http://www.photo.net/photo/17828557

http://www.photo.net/photo/17837779

http://www.photo.net/photo/17830739

July 30, 2015

Hi,

I haven't read what the others have responded and neither do i know your camera, but if image #1 is JPG i would have considered reducing contrast drastically and then increasing exposure by maybe 1 stop. If your camera have highlight and shadow recovery settings you could probably have used these instead of or in addition to reducing contrast.

I don't know, but I suspect your camera was on the edge of blowing out the details on the white walls in the background (there are some evidence that suggests that small parts are already blown out). If so, I deem the exposure to have been correct (if keeping all other settings unchanged). I would not say that blowing out the details in the white wall would suit this image. If that was the only option (i.e. only increasing exposure without taking down the highlights and lifting the shadows) I would have recomposed the image in order to exclude these white walls.

Another option is to edit the image now and make the above corrections there.

For Image #3 I would increase contrast and exposure a little.

I don't shoot JPG, but I do believe that if you want to have JPGs straight out of the camera without any post editing, you should at least adjust contrast in addition to setting correct exposure.

Hope this was of any help. If not, print it out, curl it up and throw it in the trash.

Cheers,

Frode Langset

July 30, 2015

Hi, There is no "best practice" since there is no standard result to measure the outcome against. You should challenge these scenes and find your own ways to do them. You will soon find out that there are multiple ways to catch the scene, and each one emphasizes different aspects of the scene. Back-lit scenes are by no means bad practice. I would say that you should rather seek them and challenge them instead of avoiding them. They might be challenging in that you will have to make decisions before you take the picture, decisions that cannot be changed afterwards in the post processing. But they also have opportunities that is difficult to find in other scenes. There are of course different techniques that will help you, like flash, reflectors, HDR etc. that you have already been advised on. You can even use lens "faults" creatively by letting lens flare, stray light and reflections be part of your creative image. But the important part is first to decide how you want the scene rendered.

Hope this was of any help. If not, print it out, curl it up and throw it in the trash.

Cheers,

Frode Langset

(And excuse my English. It is not my native language)

January 2, 2015

Image magnification describes how big an object in focus is being imaged on the sensor in relation to the real size of the object itself, and thus also how big (or "near") it will be in the final image.

Image magnification is not only influenced by the focal length. The distance between the object in focus and the lens' front nodal plane, and the distance between the lens' back nodal plane and the camera's sensor (or film) also influences the magnification. You can use a variety of focal lengths to obtain a given image magnification. Field of view will however be different for same magnification with different focal lengths, so the image will not look the same.

You manipulate the distance between the front nodal plane and the object by moving back and forth. This alters the magnification (nearer for higher magnification).

Extension tubes and bellows both change magnification by manipulating the distance between the sensor and the back nodal plane, as well as does the simplest way of lens focusing mechanism by moving the complete lens away from the sensor for more magnification. Extension tubes insert "distance rings" between the lens and the camera. Bellows achieve the same with a retractable bellows with the camera mounted on one end of the bellows and the lens on the other end.

You can also alter the lens focal length by placing optical elements in front of the lens, usually a simple close-up lens, but stacking two ordinary lenses will also work, the front one usually inverted. Or you can place optical elements between the lens and the camera (a tele converter).

Two or all three of these methods can also be combined. Experimenting is encouraged (and is very fun).

A good book (but somewhat old and from the film era) explaining this and lots of other things in macro photography in an uncomplicated way is John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature". I am sure there are lots of other good (and even better) books explaining this in a comprehensible way, but I have not read them and thus cannot point at any of them as better than others.

Hope this was of some help. If not, print it out, crumple it up and throw it in the bin.

HNY & regars, Frode Langset

(and excuse my English, its not my native language)

January 2, 2015

PPI (pixels pr inch) is a scaling factor, nothing more, nothing less (just as DPI is, but then you are talking about dots pr inch for a printer). It says how large you intend to print the image.

Say you have a 3000 pixel wide digital picture from your camera, if you print this picture with 300 pixels pr inch, your image will print 10 inches wide (you need 10 inches to print all the 3000 pixels in the image). If you instead print it at 3000 pixels pr inch, your image will print 1 inch wide (you need only one inch to print all 3000 pixels).

The "math":

(printed image width in inches) = (digital image width in pixels) / PPI

Same for image height:

(printed image height in inches) = (digital image height in pixels) / PPI

Note: The PPI could also be used (and is sometimes used) for scaling the image when displaying it on a computer screen. This is however not normal. I guess this is because one usually wants to display the image with the computer screen's native resolution (the screen's PPI) to avoid artifacts like moire and blurring (the later possible corrected for with an automatic sharpening that usually is not very predictable). One just re-samples the image to a reasonable pixel width and height that one guesses will show the image in a usable size on most computer screens (like for example 400x600, 600x900 or somewhere thereabout) and hope for the best.

Hope this was of some help. If not, print it out, crumple it up and throw it in the bin.

HNY & regars,

Frode Langset

(and excuse my English, its not my native language)

December 21, 2014

Since you are on Windows 8, have you looked at Windows Movie Maker? If you don't already have it, I believe it is free download.

I have ProShow Producer myself, but I have also successfully used Windows Movie Maker from time to time. It has transitions, some effects, sound and text. Don't be deceived by the very simple look.

Wikipedia has an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Movie_Maker">article about Windows Movie Maker</a>

November 16, 2014

And if both cameras had 9 MP?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by frode