Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 11/22/2004 @193 | edit post

11/21/04 - I need all the help I can get so I figured I'd start a thread asking all my dumb questions, hoping you experienced photogs will answer. But I don't want to inundate you with all the things I am wondering about. So my questions will come once a week. Hope the admins don't mind. Thought it would be good for us nooby photographers. Anyway, here's my first stupid question: I'm having a hard time with the relationship between aperture setting and exposure setting. I kinda understand what they do but if I make a change to one, how does it affect the other? For instance, I've seen some nice photos of the beach with the water frozen in time. But I saw a really good photo of a beach where the photographer must have left his shutter open longer to blur the water. If he left his shutter open longer, how does he not overexpose the image? Does he reduce the aperture? But if he does, doesn't that affect the depth of field? Does the lens matter for a shot like that? For experienced photographers, this is probably an easy one, so I hope I get some decent feedback. Thanks!

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
arenhaus | 11/22/2004 @338 | edit post

Exposure time influences only, well, the exposure and also the motion blur (obviously). Aperture also influences exposure, but it indeed is used to change the depth of field more than for that. In case of your puzzling photo, the photographer might have used a neutral filter, to reduce the brightness and allow a longer exposure to get the desired motion blur.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
grwpaterson | 11/23/2004 @817 | edit post

May I join in with the "dumb Q routine"?. I have a few very clear crisp photographs, however, is there something I am doing wrong when resizing?. What used to be very smooth lines now become jagged. I don't want to use the "small" setting all the time just to get a size I am happy with. Should I use "raw" and convert at a higher resolution?

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 11/23/2004 @831 | edit post

By all means, all are welcome. It would be nice for this to become a haven for all "dumb questions." Anyway, about your question. I'm not sure of the problem you are experiencing. But you do want to make sure of some thngs before resizing. First, make sure you are in a color mode that will resize well. Index color, for example will always resize using "nearest neighbor" method of interpolation, which means it will suck when resizing (especially down). Second, make sure you are using an appropriate interpolation setting. In most cases bicubic is the way to go. You can set/change your settings in the general preferences. Another thing you can try is stepping your resizing gradually. Some information is found here: http://www.imphotography.com/downloads/ssimagesize.htm If this doesn't help, you might want to post a before and after image here so we can get a better look.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 11/29/2004 @673 | edit post

11/29/04 - This week's question: What do you feel about post processing of photographs? Do you feel that photos should capture a moment as it is with little or no post processing? Or do you think that the photographer, as an artist, should process his photo as much as he wants to acheive whatever effect he's looking for? Is it no longer a photographec work of art, if there is too much post prcessing done to the image? I'm not really talking about manipulations, although the line that distinguishes manipulation from post processing is probably very fuzzy. Some may feel that a photographer has not mastered his camera if he relies on Phtoshop to polish it up. What do you feel?

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
arenhaus | 11/29/2004 @699 | edit post

Should a photographer crop his photos? I mean, if it's cropped, isn't it meddling with original... Of course the photographer is entitled to as much post-processing as he wants.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 11/29/2004 @743 | edit post

But does the amount of post-processing say something about the talent of the photographer? For instance, I don't quite have the grasp of controlling depth of field, but I can sure blur pretty well in photoshop? Is that cheating? Is there something to be said about acheiving everything in-camera? Or are those skills no longer important/necessary if you are skilled in Photoshop?

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
arenhaus | 11/29/2004 @826 | edit post

One of the "professional secrets" of any art-related trade is: you show successes, not failures. If your photo would have benefitted from a blurred background, I don't see why it is "cheating" to use a filter on the raw shot. You might have changed your mind; you might have experimented; you might have taken the deep field for other reasons, after all. It's no more cheating than color adjustment. And if you can achieve a complex depth of field effect using a filter, then I absolutely don't see how that makes you less skilled or professional. A professional is the guy who gets the job done - what tools he uses is none of anyone's business.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Beanz | 11/29/2004 @841 | edit post

I agree... The end justifies the means! I know some purists will be disgusted with that sentiment, but i feel a work of art is a work of art however you make it.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Phryneas | 11/29/2004 @913 | edit post

Well, I think here's a difference what the camera would process itself (if you look at a RAW file, there's nothing color corrected or sharpened yet) and you just want to do by hand or major changes like blurring out special areas - I think it's not a lack of skill if you're just better with your photoshop but it'll never look as real if you edit a blur as a real DOF-blur caused by your lens. By the way, DOF is an easy thing to do if you have a bigger lens - you can't really avoid DOF unsharpness on a 300mm lens, it's just there and you have to deal with it. As I know you have just a short lens (70mm isn't it?) there it will be really difficult to get a DOF-unsharpness and I think it's okay that you use photoshop. PS: on your question above: I think it's the best thing to use aperture-preferred mode on short lenses and just adjusting your aperture to your needs, on a longer lens you should use speed-preferred mode with a speed of at least 1/<focal length>, everything beyond that will just work with a tripod. Don't go to fully automatic mode, if you want it darkened or brighter, just use your exposure compensation - in most situations this works best. If you're unsure about that, just use your cam's bracketing option until you got a feeling for it. Okay, that's much text and if you find some spelling failures, you can take them and put them into your signature

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 12/03/2004 @698 | edit post

12/03/04 This week's question is kinda related to last week's. How much post-processing is enough to call a photograph a manip? I work on all my photos in Photoshop as I think of my photos as artwork. And as the artist, I feel I should work a photo until I can mold it into what I want out of it. I try not to move pixels around. Like painting or smudging or stretching. But I will clone out distracting features, dodge and burn, soften, adjust hue and saturation, add/remove shadows. I have an image called, "My God, It's Full of Stars," that I put under manip, because I composited a moon image into the background. But to me, I still consider it a photo. What do you think?

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Beanz | 12/03/2004 @713 | edit post

I think if you're actually adding stuff to the photo, that wasn't originally in the scene, it's a manip. Post production work, like levels, curves, colour alteration, dodge and burn etc. i'd class as normal photography, as you could just as easily do that in the darkroom...

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
arenhaus | 12/03/2004 @734 | edit post

Rearranging things in any way is manipulation. Just color correction or retouching (including removal of scratches etc.) is not photomanipulation. Consider that in some languages the technique is called "collage", not "photo manipulation" - it implies combining parts of photos, not altering one.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 12/07/2004 @807 | edit post

12/04 - New Question I'm posting a bit eariler this week because I might not be around this weekend. Anyway, this week's question is about Black and White photography. I have a Canon 300D and I don't think there is a Black & White mode, so I convert my images to grayscale in Photoshop. Somethimes though, just a simple conversion doesn't do the trick as well as I would like. So sometimes I convert to LAB and use the lightness channel. I find it has good contrast and tonal range. What are some of your techniques to convert a color image to B/W? Also, what do you think about color vs. B/W photography? [Message edited on 12/07 @808]

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Beanz | 12/07/2004 @824 | edit post

I'm a bit lazy when it comes to this lol! I just desaturate, then play with the levels and curves. There are better ways, using channels, but i've never tried it personally. I don't really have a preference between b&w and colour, some images look stronger b&w, some don't!?! Just depends on the image i guess.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 12/07/2004 @840 | edit post

I just posted a new image. I was amazed what the red channel produced!

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Phryneas | 12/07/2004 @921 | edit post

there's a tutorial about converting to b/w on gimpguru.org that discusses different methods, of course the channel mixing mehtod is discussed there, too. it's for GIMP but I think it's interesting for the photoshoppers out there, too http://www.gimpguru.org/Tutorials/Color2BW/

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 12/21/2004 @687 | edit post

Been away for a few days. Sorry this question is late (does anybody read this anyway?). 12/21/04 - Since winter is here for us in the northern hemisphere, please post your techniques for shooting in the cold. How do you protect the camera from the cold? How do you adjust for getting the right exposure for a good balance between bright snow and dark trees, or hills or other background? Does the cold affect the performance of the camera, like the sensor for instance?

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
BaronImpossible | 12/21/2004 @747 | edit post

Sub-zero temperatures reduce your battery life, I know that much, and also, when you slip on your arse on the ice like I did at the weekend it can jar your shot. That probably is the sum total of my photography knowledge (I just got a 300D and took my first photos on Sunday - maybe I'll post one if I'm feeling bold )

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Inabottle | 02/21/2005 @847 | edit post

Bringing new life to this thread, or atleast I want to know about things, and I think this thread needs to be revived. I was wondering about filters... I just bought a camera, and am waiting for it... I was wondering what filters are good to have and what they do. Thanks in advance

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Phryneas | 02/21/2005 @966 | edit post

good to see this thread again - a UV or skylight filter for each of your lenses - just for their protection, it's better to have a scratched filter than a scratched lens. - a circularized polfilter to remove glass & water reflections (if you get at the right angle to the reflecting surface at least.. I think <45° goes best) - a gradient gray filter helps to get a good overall satuated landscape pic as you can darken the sky a bit with those. reminds me I have to get one myself. Next question would be where to get those... well it's your choice of balance between price & quality - I got a polfilter 72mm for 12Euro from ebay instead of 70Euro in a store and as far as I experimented with it it works quite well. For the UV filters I payed a bit more, 25-30Euro each (1Euro is a bit more than 1$, I think around 1,2 or 1,3... don't know the exchange course) as I got those on my lenses all the time and want best quality for that reason. [Message edited on 02/21 @969]

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Inabottle | 02/22/2005 @594 | edit post

Thanks for answering my question so quickly, but I have another and I dont think I want to wait... So here it goes OK, camera's are getting up there in file size, and speed is of the essence. I was wondering whats a good Compact flash card to use? For speed and size me personally I just bought a 20D but I havent yet decided on a memory card. Are microdrives any good, im just wondering... and if you know of any places that sell them cheap

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 02/22/2005 @694 | edit post

I'm surprised to see this thread ressurrected. I don't know much about these memory cards, but for me, I'm happy with two 512 MB compact flash cards. It gives me a lot of photos if I shoot JPG and still quite a few if I shoot RAW (can't remember the exact number off-hand). My theory is that if I rely on just one big card, then all my photos will be lost if that card goes bad. I have a photographer friend who shoots film and sends his film out to a lab to be processed. When he's on a shoot, he sends every other roll in one package and the others in another package. If he has a lot, he may break it up into thirds. This way he feels that if he were to lose one package he would not losean entire session because he staggered the rolls. I kinda apply that same logic to my cards. I'll shoot for a while on one card, then switch to the other, then back and forth. Although, my photos are not valuable, I'm trying to get into a good habit. I took a vaction to Florida last year and shot over 300 pics on my point-and-shoot digital camera on a 512 MB card. If I had lost that card or it stopped working, I would have lost all my vacation pictures.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Inabottle | 02/22/2005 @756 | edit post

Thats a neat lil idea, I guess its better safe than sorry, rather lose some than all... Do you know if the speed of the card matters? Especially for larger images, or do you not notice? Yah I read about this thread in another one a few days ago and decided to go look for it. I think t his thread is an awesome Idea, and I believe it can help a lot of people

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
Almost-Human | 02/22/2005 @765 | edit post

with regards to quality its RAW files you need to be looking at. Or a camera that produces jpeg2000 which is lossless format.

Re: Weekly Digital Photo Question
emarts | 02/22/2005 @846 | edit post

For me, speed is not an issue. I take a long time composing the shot anyway. And when it's time to download, I just set it up and walk away. But I do use a high speed card reader instead of hooking up the camera directly to my PC. It's a bit faster.