mart_e

July 30, 2010

Bit of a sideways view, but have you thought of shooting it with a wide-angle ? My 12-24dx allows me to get reasonably close in to subjects that are about 20cm high, and the wide angle view helps to 'scale' the model up - it gives a perspective as though you are looking up at it.

It also helps with regards to depth of field. The Micro/Macro lenses will naturally end up with shallow depths, whereas the wide angles can get much greater depths which result in more 'natural' looking images.

Only had a few mins here - and couldn't find any quick examples though,

Martin

Posted July 28, 2010 · July 28, 2010

Looks to be a very good idea to me. It adds a degree of personalisation to a thread - it may not relate to a specific discussion, but anything that places users work on display in such a randow way can help introduce the viewer to new galleries / portfolios / photographers.

Many thanks,

Martin

July 28, 2010

Thanks Roger - yup, for processing the image for web-use only I personally would probably have settled for using NX and a combination of exposure correction / DLighting and PS for some further tweaks. I pulled that image out to demo to a friend simply because it did have blown highlights and clipped shadows in the unedited original - I was a good ex. to use.

For printing, I think that image did need a combination of exposures (in my case taken from the one image) simply to extract some detail from the underside of the top stone. I couldn't get enough detail out both highlights/lowlights of the single exposure without resorting to psuedo-hdr.

Using multiple shots for the blending of exposures wasn't an option mainly due to the speed of cloud movement / wind - unless going down the route of 2 shots - one taken for the sky, the other for the foreground / shadows then using masks to merge the 2 therefore only using the sky component of a single shot.

I tend to use HDR as a tool to try and get a balanced exposure rather then going down the line of 'HDR as an image style' - ie trying to replicate the oversaturated, haloed images the are so prevailant.

Interesting discussions :)

Martin

July 27, 2010

Dan - I think the workability of using a single image to generate the alternate exposures depends on how much info has been captured in the RAW file, which in turn is dependent on the camera/sensor/techinque.

Generally - I probably is best to use multiple captures, but as you point out, that is not always workable. Here in Ireland wind plays a big factor in landscapes with trees / fast moving coulds - so I often use the one image.

This was a quick and dirty one I did a couple of days ago to show a friend how to use Photomatix. I post the original and the tonemapped version. The image needs more tweaking - as I say it was churned out pretty quickly, with an attempt to keep the appearance fairly natural.

Original - taken in harsh lighting conditions with dark shadows and blown highlights - no amount of Dlighting was going to recover enough detail in NX <img src="http://www.martin-ellis.com/Legananny_original.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="425" />

Tonemapped hdr version (single RAW and approx 5 mins tweaking - needs more work / contrast) Small amount cloning in PS to remove Coke can from right hand side too: <img src="http://www.martin-ellis.com/Legananny_hdr.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" />

I actually just noticed that the original had more shadow detail in the cloud on the extreme rights hand side of the image towards the horizon.

Martin

July 26, 2010

Agree with what everyone has written above, but would partly disagree with Ann re using a single shot. I use this technique fairly frequently to get more detail from a single image than I can with say a combination of DLighting (Nikon) and curves adjustments. I have found that it can really get a wider dynamic range from a single exposure than using 'straight' adjustments.

With Photomatix, I find the skills are in the tonemapping settings used to map your HDR back to standard depth. BY default most of the software (I use Photomatix and Photoshop CS2) tends to err towards the garrish overly saturated and haloed images, but tweaking settings can get the image back towards normality.

Maybe post one of your images here - it may give some indication on what settings could be adjusted ?

Martin

In my eyes - a successful tonemapped HDR is one that doesn't look like an HDR, but that balances sky / foreground / shadow details for eg. but that retains natural looking colour. It depends on the image, but reducing HDR strength, reducing saturation, using light smoothing and then the micro adjustments on

July 24, 2010

One other thought.

Selling in packs of 8-10 cards - people usually are looking for added value for quantity, so prices of the cards would be lower and cheaper each than buying individually. By going for luxury packaging, I guess the added value would be the box itself. We have found (when we did do pre-packaged packs) that customers still preferred to buy individually as they could pick 'n mix rather than rely on the pre-packed assortment.

My gut reaction on the box is that it will really depend on the shop / market on whether it is a success. It would need to be a shop where people are prepared to pay that premium for the luxury packaging - they do exists, but my feeling is that it would limit the outlets that you could get these to work in. Also depends on the box.

We have used various boxes for cards - but mainly for jewelery. Prices have typically started at around £0.50 for simple brown eco-recycled boxes (thetinyboxcompany.co.uk) but go up as you go larger, stronger and more fancy.

Martin

July 24, 2010

I looked around for getting cards printed a short while ago, but restricted my search to here in the UK.

To get anything like workable prices you had to order in bulk - about 100 of each design was a minimum for vaguely workable prices - better to go towards 1000 where bigger discounts kicked in. I have yet to take this step and have stuck with printing myself and bulk ordering card blanks, envelopes and sleeves.

We sell A6 cards individually (£2.50) or 3 for £6 - select yourself from range at craft fairs - and larger A5 cards at £3.50. We also sell prints, but the cards are useful in that they can normally cover the table fee + costs for each fair.

We have also tried getting cards into the shops - and this is where some problems start. The shops round here in tourist areas are normally looking to at least double the price from wholesale price - this really forces the wholesale price down.

Our minimum A5 card cost is around £1 - that is everything bar labour - I would like to get at least £1 on top of that to make something from it and cover labour and running around. That means I'm looking to sell wholesale at £2, which is unrealistic given that they will want to sell on at £3.50 to £4.00 minimum.

We therefore shopped around for printing - and ended up with pretty similar figures, around £1 per card (that relied on orders of over 100 for each design) - we would need to go to 1000 to drive costs down to £0.50 per card which would at least get more towards realistic margins for myself and the shop (still not ideal though).

1000 cards is a lot, both in investment (around £500 per design), and to sell on. They need to be 'banker' images, ie ones you know will sell wherever.

Where are you based ? that may make a difference to where is the best to get packaging.

Good luck,

Martin

July 20, 2010

I've done some more digging around, and found a very useful resource that also contains links to other articles, but this one seems pretty good at describing the overall issues involved (and that I'm experiencing):

<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/match_prints_to_screen.html">http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/match_prints_to_screen.html</a>

One thing that had escaped my attention until reading that article - we are using energy saving bulbs, and that seems to make a big difference to colour perception (something we are not using at work - hence printing on the R1800 there does not have the same issues).

Looks like a day spent reading is called for.

Martin

July 20, 2010

Thanks for the comments, I'm using a PC with XP, and the drivers are the latest from Epson (as of Saturday).

To some extent I can deal with the darkness issue, it's consistent and I can alter the screen brightness to compensate for the shadows (although this tends to blow the highlights so I need to work on them first then alter the screen). More of a problem is the colour, where prints tend to have too much cyan, red or yellow in them. The fact that it is inconsistent is the real issue, I can't seem to set anything up that deals with it across the range of images.

I have chatted to a few people regarding the various hardware callibration tools, and the consensus amongst those I spoke with was that they were not worth the £ - admitedly this is a small sample of people, and who's to say that they were using it correctly. I'm willing to be convinced though - at this stage I'll take anything that helps.

Irrespective of using a tool or trying it manually, Does anyone have a link to a good tutorial that explains the process of callibrating the whole system ? I've found plenty that deal with part of the workflow, or brightness, or Photoshop etc. but nothing that takes that step back and looks at the whole thing.

Many thanks, Martin

July 19, 2010

OK - I feel a bit silly posting this, as it is something that I should be able to resolve myself, but instead I've ended up hitting my head against a brick wall.

I'm after a resource that can take me through step by step the process of callibrating my system.

I had previously used various sites to set up my monitor for web-proofing and was reasonably happy with the results. My problem is that I now have an Epson 3880, and I'm struggling to get to a WYSIWYG in relation to screen > printer. I am consistently getting darker prints than are shown on screen, and getting slight colour irregularities (ie images very slightly too cyan or red etc..)

I use a Nikon D90 (set to Adobe RGB 1998) - process RAW via Nikon Capture NX. Tweak before exporting TIFF (ensuring still in Adobe RGB 1998).

I then bring image into Photoshop CS2 (working space set to Adobe 1998) and tweak away.

My problem is that no matter how I convert the file for proofing (Whether switching to one of Epson's own profiles for various paper types) or use soft proofing I just cannot get images matching once I print out (on Epson Premium Glossy or Fuji Pro Satin)

I have got to the point where I realise I need to take a few steps back and go back to first principles. I realise that I shouldn't use my own images in trying to callibrate as they are not necessarily 'true' - but I have the same problem with various callibration images.

The odd thing is that I haven't had this problem before. Editing images at home on this system and then taking to work for printing (on an old Epson 1290 and a newer R1800) - prints have been fairly accurate compared to screen.

Many thanks,

Martin

July 19, 2010

Undoubtedly raising price can increase the perceived value of something, and therefore make it more desirable. I would hazhard that it works more for people who have to look at numbers to ascertain the value of something rather than seeing something for what it is.

Sure, it can help raise an item but I think it depends where you are selling, and the context. At fairs for eg. we are seeing consistently people buying cheap, with lower priced items outselling higher prices consistently. Not just us, but at other stands, and across various mediums.

I think each item (it works in other areas as well) has a tipping point in price - probably based around it's real value - above or below this price and it seems to struggle. Value of course is based on a whole host of things including desirability, materials, quality, where it is being sold, your market etc. etc. making this judgement can be pretty hard, and it can change depending on point of sale.

There may be an identifiable trend in increasing price = increasing sales, but I would also say that it is probably outweighed significantly by cheaper = more sales. If that were not true, then Supermarkets have based a business model on a wholly wobbly concept.

Etsy I think has had it's day, we find it saturated and sales are very low (my partner makes and sells jewellery, and she has now stopped using it - concentrating instead on her own website).

July 16, 2010

We do a few art fairs here in Ireland. Kevin's post is a very useful place to start, he highlight's pretty well all the common pitfalls / considerations.

A couple of others that I would throw into the ring...

Local sells - looking back at those images that have sold at fairs, and the trend has been to local scenes rather than more abstract ones, although maybe that's just be a tendency here.

Trying to second guess what will sell is a black art. Many a time I have produced more copies of certain images thinking they will be bankers, only to find I'm still lugging them around 12 months later whereas other 'throw away' shots have sold well. Be prepared to have some wastage in trying to establish the core sellers (by wastage - I mean be prepared to have £$ tied up in inventory that may not sell).

'Happy' sells - this is the most frustrating for me, it's not the images with the dramatic seas and overcast skies that seem to sell well, it's the ones where the sun's out.

Those images that don't sell, I carefully discount - ie. I don't mix these images at the same venues as others (it is amazing how 'cheap' bargains can drag the rest down).

Try and avoid the tendency to do lots of cheaper prints or cards. We did (and still do) this, it can be a false economy. The mark ups are smaller, and you have to shift far more to start covering costs, especially if you go overboard on quantity (we learnt that the hard way, throwing £$ at 100s of cards, that do sell, but not enough to warrant the hard work that went into them).

If you decide against future exhibits, the leftovers can be given as presents to interested friends and relatives.

</blockquote>

Ha, think my friends and relatives have got sick of receiving my cards now, bar one or two.

Good luck,

Martin

July 8, 2010

I had a f1.8 AF-D, and gave it up for the 1.4 AF-D (this was pre G version being available). I found what others here have said, the 1.8 only really started delivering what I was after (sharpness) beyond about f2.8. The f1.4, is a big up in price, and all things considered probably didn't deliver the equivalent step up in IQ. That said, for me it delivered what I wanted, and I use it frequently at f2 - occasionally f1.8 - and very occassionally at 1.4.

My biggest irk with the lens is close focusing - or lack of, it always seems just that bit long for what I want.

On my D70 - I found both lenses to be fairly bad at blooming in high contrast situations - not so bad on my D90 (although I suspect that is as much to do with internal reflectance and in-camera correction).

Martin

July 7, 2010

Does 'camera equipment' not include lighting ?

It's a fair point, and one that is often made - but for me, this it's just an Apple ad.

Martin

July 1, 2010

Couple of things - the offer / acceptance required to for a contract at point of sale is an offer from the buyer (or tender) to make a purchase at a given price - if this is accepted by the vendor - then a contract has been established. The advert is simply an advertisment for someone to tender an offer and as such does not form part of the contract.

In this case it would appear that there is no contract to break - you are perfectly able to change your mind - particularly if the perceived value of the item has gone up (as in a comparison with the 'as new' item). Must happen all the time with items like antiques where something is put up for sale and then increased in price once a vendor realises it's true value.

There is no obligation for you to sell - you can simply withdraw it and repost at a higher price. If the demand is there for the new price - it will still sell.

Martin

June 27, 2010

I have used Nikon's software (well - badged by Nikon at least) since Nikon Capture 4, and NX2 is obviously the most up to date version.

As mentioned above - there is a fundamental difference in approach to PP in NX2 compared to Adobe. I use Photoshop extensively as well - and each has it's place.

NX2 uses what I call a non-destructive 'stack' approach to modifications to the image. There are 3 core areas where alterations can be made to the camera settings in PP (things like levels, exposure, White Point, Colour settings) - and also to apply any corrections for lens distortion, chromatic aberrations etc.

You then add modifiers to this 'stack' for other corrections / alterations for colour, light etc.

Each of these can be independently turned off, or made opaque (with the transparency modified in %).

Of course the other key element - is that all these modifiers are non-destructive - you can revert back to the original image state at any time - either by switching the modifiers off -or deleting them.

This of course sounds like Photoshops layers - but it is fundamentally different - each level in the stack contains a modifier that effects the whole image, not an image itself. If you are used to Photoshop - it is similar to the 'adjustment layer' concept - but more extensive.

It can take a bit of getting used to - but once you've got over that initial hurdle - it's a really powerful piece of software.

It is not without it's idiosyncrasies - cropping multiple times can cause some wierd distortions from time to time, and there's a memory issue - it doesn't seem to clear the system fully when closing files, so it accumulates system resources as you go requiring a software restart every now and then.

Martin

June 26, 2010

I'd back up what has been said above. Looks to me like a mix of a very shallow depth of focus + camera movement.

As has been mentioned above - not sure what your experience is - so apologies if I'm stating the obvious. An f2 aperture is pretty wide open - hence letting in a lot of light, which should lead to a fast shutter speed (doesn't need to stay open as long). Thing is a wider aperture like f2, or f1.8 (the widest your lens will go) will effect the range at which objects will appear in focus at a distance from your camera.

The smaller the aperture - the larger the ratio f number - ie. f11 is a smaller aperture than f8 etc.

There is a very good tutorial on it here: <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm">cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field</a> - and a calculator here: <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htm">http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htm</a>

With a 50mm lens (and assuming a Canon crop factor of 1.6 ?) at f2 and a distance of approx 0.5m - the depth of field works out at approx 7mm - which is pretty tight.

Camera blur from movement whilst the shot is actually being taken is only one part of the equation too. you could set a shutter speed of say 1/1000 and still get caught out by camera movement affecting the sharpness of your image. That narrow depth of field - assuming you use auto focus to lock on, then recompose - or even just delay the shot slightly - it is highly likely that your body and camera will sway either towards or away from your subject. - in this case if you swayed away from the subject by say 10mm (a very slight and un-noticable amount) - the subject will have moved outside the DOF and will therefore appear to be out of focus.

If I were a betting man - that is what I would put my money on being the cause in this particular shot.

Tripods will help to eliminate that last cause - even when not entirely necessary for the shutter speeds that you are using.

Martin

June 26, 2010

This is from memory - my partner had a D40.

I think it is the focusing. The camera needs sufficient light to focus, if it cannot 'lock' on focus it won't release the shutter. I think it normally tries to use the small focusing light on the front of the body - which isn't that strong.

If you tried it on manual focus - it maybe would have taken the shot.

The 'Auto' setting defaults to popping the flash up whenever it deems that there is insufficient light - but I don't think the D40 uses the flash's light to assist focusing (as I say - I could be completely wrong on this as it is totally from memory of a few years ago).

There is another Auto setting - next to 'Auto' there is a flash symbol (lightning bolt) with a line through it - that turns off the flash, and forces the camera to rely totally on available light.

Martin

June 25, 2010

Can I thank you all again for your responses - they've been extremely helpful (especially John who must have taken a big chunk out of his day to write that essay)

Having said that - I'm, still no closer to to deciding which to go with - but the delay in itself has been useful. I found out yesterday that I'm to get hit with a 30% pay cut. That of course throws a huge spanner in my plans, and a lot of re-prioritising in the immediate future.

A lens / camera purchase will now have to be put on the back-burner - unless I can justify the expense as an investment into a new (to me) revenue stream. I have had partly implemented plans for getting a photography business off the ground for some time (hence the aim for architectural photography D700/PCE 24mm combo).

I'm going to have to take some time first to re-assess things.

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide so much useful information.

Martin

June 23, 2010

Thanks for the further replies. I took a step back and pondered on why/if/when I would upgrade to FX, as Wouter has highlighted, it's critical in lens selection here.

My main reason for FX would be to get benefit of full 24mm on a PC-E lens that is also on my list. I am an architect, and plan to increase my architectural shooting - for that the two paths are either view camera (which effectively means going back to film on my budget) or the PC-E 24 + D700. The timescale (and to be honest - the economy and job security issue here) is the grey area. My current plan is to go with the D700 in say 6-12 months time.

After pondering - it became obvious to me that I would still retain my D90 after getting a D700 - so a DX lens would not become obsolete to my needs - so I would probably run DX & FX in parallel. The 17-55mm Therefore comes back into play to some extent.

Reviewing my current style - doesn't really help due to the lack of parts of the range - existing shots naturally fall into the 12-24 and 50mm. Use of the 12-24 is fairly evenly spread, although it does peak in the 20-24 range, with another spike at 12mm.

This brings back memories of my Dad and I in a sweet-shop when I was younger. After about 10 minutes of procrastinating over exactly which gob-stoppers to go with, my dad would grab a handful of any-old sweets, give me a light clip round the ear for wasting his time and drag me out the shop.

Martin

June 23, 2010

Thanks again for the replies - more food for thought.

Peter - the limitation I find with the 18-70 is mainly around colour, bokeh and not being quite fast enough. I'm not knocking the lens, it has served me well for 6 years or more. It lacks a touch of sharpness, and isn't great across it's entire range, and suffers from a bit of unpredicatable distortion and colour fringing / CA. I do find a difference when comparing images.

My need for a new lens is that I am consistently finding that I lack something in the 24-50 range (I don't pack my 18-70 for the aforementioned reasons) - and end up switching between the 12-24 and my 50mm in the field - and still have a shortfall in coverage.

My thinking in going for the 24-70, is that whilst it wouldn't resolve my needs in one lens and would still require switching, at least it would cover 12-70 between the two - and I would probably stick with the 24-70 for most of the time.

Buying / selling second hand here in Northern Ireland is harder that it probably is in the US, or London, not impossible, but hard. For that reason, I always assume that I will hold onto a lens for some time once bought (hence the hand-ringing before plunging in with a hand-full of cash).

I don't doubt the 17-55 is a better one-lens-suits-most applications than the others, part of me is reticient about this lens because it duplicates coverage with the 12-24, and that it may not be as useful for me once I make a move to FX (although I would retain my D90 - so the 17-55 would still be usable there).

I'll sleep on it tonight - and tomorrow, I'll probably switch allegiance to the 17-55 and back to the 24-70 at least a dozen times.

Martin

June 23, 2010

Many thanks for the quick replies.

I think I'll head out next time with the 12-24 - and keep it at 24, see impact it will have on my shooting style.

If it causes me too much grief in preventing me widening that extra beyond 24mm then I'll know that the switching point of 24mm will be a real pain - and that a range of 17-55 would be more useful.

Having said that - I already have to switch from 12-24 to 50mm prime - and have to miss out on that range from 24-50. The 50mm alone is too restrictive as a walkaround - apart from those occassions where I deliberately want to work at composition by having that limitatation (one of the reasons I got that lens - along with interior table-top work).

The 17-35mm is outside my budget at present - and likely to remain so, if I had the cash I would spend that extra £500 over the 24-70 on a trip, or put towards the upgrade to FX.

Thanks,

martin

June 23, 2010

Apologies for yet another post seeking lens advice - but I am trying to decide whether to invest in another lens - and which one.

I currently shoot with a D90, and have the following lenses for everyday shooting :

12-24 DX (probably my most used lens - although frustratingly short a lot of the time when it is my only lens - mostly used in the 18-24 range)

50mm 1.4 AF-D (used for low light, and for some table-top photography)

105mm f2.8 Micro VR

I also have a 18-70 lens that came with my D70 - a lens that I no longer really use as I find the results dissapointing compared to my other lenses, but will keep due to an attachment to it as my previous workhorse, and as a back up. I also have a 300mm f4 AF-S which I use for specific excursions.

With my main 3 lenses - I have a pretty fundamental gap in focal length from 24-50 50-105.

I'm looking to plug this with a lens that will be my main walkabout. I am looking for a good quality lens, and don't mind too much weight (I realise both the 24-70 and the 17-55 are on the weighty side).

I have tried to work out what my main shooting length would be - but it various so much. Ideally I would like a lens that I could lug about on city breaks for architectural shots, details, streets, landscapes etc. Neither the 24-70 or the 17-55 would give me exactly what I'm after (either falling slightly short, or too long) - but from reading reviews, they would meet my desire for IQ (photographer permitting of course).

I plan to upgrade to FX at some point - primarily due to wanting to use perspective control lenses for architectural shots, and needing the FX (D700) to access the wider end of the 24mm PCE. This may not be for 6-18 months though.

I'm edging towards the 24-70 at present, as it dovetails well with my 12-24DX and would allow me to extend to 70 (useful for building details / portraits). The 17-55 would probably satisfy more of my typical shots with a single lens - but would hamper me at either end (compared to carrying the other 2).

The fact that the 17-55 is DX is also a concern for me if I upgrade to FX in say 6 months time.

Any thoughts - How does IQ compare between the two lenses ? and are there any other candidates out there ? (I'm not too familiar with non-Nikon glass).

many thanks,

Martin

June 15, 2010

Well - in our experience it can be a problem. My other half makes jewellery, and we frequent a lot of craft fairs. We have had 2 specific incidents of people taking photos of her products, and then copying the designs, in one case actually being pretty open to others about offering the exact same product for less. We obviously were not aware that she was a 'fellow' craftswoman at the point she took the photos.

It's not a common problem - but it can still be a real pain. Our case it is a bit different fromt eh OP because the photo itself wasn't the breach of copyright - it simply facilitated it.

I can see why people have the 'no photography' signs, but we have yet to go that far and generally allow photographs to be taken, as pointed out, it can be good advertising.

Martin

June 14, 2010

That's amazing. Amazing, that two of you actually watch soccer.

</blockquote>

Well them and about another Billion people :)

Martin

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by mart_e