PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

In summary, PF Photography offers valuable tips and tricks for improving photography skills and techniques. They also provide a platform for photo sharing, allowing photographers to showcase their work and receive feedback from others in the community. From beginner tips to advanced techniques, PF Photography has something for every level of photographer. Additionally, their photo sharing feature encourages collaboration and growth among photographers. With a focus on education and community, PF Photography is a valuable resource for anyone looking to improve their photography skills and connect with other photographers.
  • #1,121
I had to get a 'new' image processing program (GIMP, while possibly the *worst* name ever, is available free at http://www.gimp.org/) in order to submit a paper to PLoS, and it does some things that ImageJ does not- one thing in particular is a 'perspective tool'.

Recall that, given a fixed 35mm image format, lenses with a focal length equal to 50 mm provide images with perspective matching human vision, while lenses with shorter focal lengths provide exaggerated perspective and lenses longer than 50mm reduce the perspective.

Here's an example: I used a 15mm lens to take a photo of Cleveland's tallest building, the Key Tower with 57 stories and almost 1000 feet tall:

[PLAIN]http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9895/dsc70402.jpg

The short focal length let's me get the whole building in the frame, but because of the increased perspective distortion, the building appears to recede rapidly into the distance, much more that it appears when looking at the building by eye. Of course, you can't fit the whole building on your retina unless you stand much further away from the building than I did here, which is why I used a wide angle lens to begin with.

Using the perspective tool, I can mimic the effect of using a tilt-shift (or long focal length) lens- parallel lines remain parallel:

[PLAIN]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/3540/dsc70401.jpg

This image is impossible to obtain 'naturally'- in order to flatten the perspective this much by using a telephoto, I would have to stand so far back that the view would be obstructed by other buildings. Although Canon makes a 17mm tilt-shift lens (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17ts.shtml), I'm not sure it could move enough to accommodate this building. A telecentric lens would need to have a front element 1000 feet in diameter to take this image.

An important reason I was able to perform this manipulation is that the lens has no distortion- straight lines remain straight. That's a major reason I got this particular wide angle lens (Nikkor 15mm f/3.5) instead of other wide angle lenses.

I like the result- the building looks normal and different at the same time. I'll be on the lookout for other opportunities to try this out- lighthouses could be very compelling subjects, for example. The Statue of Liberty would be *excellent* since it's so iconic, but I don't know when I'll be in the city next.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,122
Nice Andy, indeed a great result making lenses worth a fortune obsolete.

I also use Gimp sometimes, with a HDR plug in.

Nowadays Canon's software Digital Photo Professional (DPP) can apply lens corrections for the lens errors dedicated per lens, the peripheral illumination, chromatic abbaration, distortion and color blur.

Also, standard lens 50mm for 35mm film format (FX) yes that is the common assumption. However the focal distance of the standard lens (normal lens) is defined as equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format and the image diagonal of full frame FX is 43.3 mm
 
  • #1,123
Andre said:
Nice Andy, indeed a great result making lenses worth a fortune obsolete.

I also use Gimp sometimes, with a HDR plug in.

Nowadays Canon's software Digital Photo Professional (DPP) can apply lens corrections for the lens errors dedicated per lens, the peripheral illumination, chromatic abbaration, distortion and color blur.

Also, standard lens 50mm for 35mm film format (FX) yes that is the common assumption. However the focal distance of the standard lens (normal lens) is defined as equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format and the image diagonal of full frame FX is 43.3 mm

Thanks- and I agree that there's nothing objectively correct about calling a 50mm lens 'normal'.. what's normal? :) I've read screeds on a few Nikon pages that go on about 55 mm lenses. The bottom line is how the printed/displayed image compares to how the naked eye views the object.
 
  • #1,124
an alternate edit of the photo I submitted this week:

[PLAIN]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/996/dsc86757.jpg

This image has been manipulated enough to disqualify it as a submission, but I like the 'discomforting' aspect of the image. I should set this as my desktop pic.. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,125
Andy Resnick said:
Thanks- and I agree that there's nothing objectively correct about calling a 50mm lens 'normal'.. what's normal? :) I've read screeds on a few Nikon pages that go on about 55 mm lenses. The bottom line is how the printed/displayed image compares to how the naked eye views the object.

50mm is normal because it is almost the same magnification as your own eye. However, if you are on a crop sensor you will not see 50mm with a 50mm lens, rather you will see ~80mm.

The more you pay = the sharper your photos are. Goes for tilt shift too...
 
  • #1,126
Speaking of tilt-shift lenses, here's another corrected image:

[PLAIN]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9803/dsc5866a.jpg

This building has fascinated me for years- it's a bombed-out hulk that's been abandoned for at least as long as I've lived in Cleveland, sitting in the middle of a high-priority redevelopment zone. A glorious example of urban decay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,127
Driving by the building on my way home today, I realized I didn't fully correct the above image. While I did correct for perspective (lines that are parallel in depth are not imaged as parallel lines), I did not correct for the angle between the optical axis and the wall of the building- the aspect ratio of the building is incorrect. Here's the effect of correcting for that, so that the line of sight appears perpendicular to the building:

[PLAIN]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9803/dsc5866a.jpg

It's apparent something's wrong- parts of the building that are closer than the main wall (the central and right-side projections) have a different magnification. I'm not sure I can fix that...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,128
I worked with the above image in GIMP to produce this:

[PLAIN]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2471/dsc58661telecentric.jpg

This image has been (crudely) manipulated to produce a telecentric image of the building: there is constant magnification with object distance. The foreground is now out of scale to the building (those telephone poles are not 80+ feet high...), and the wires don't line up like they should.

To produce an image like this without digital manipulation, you would need a telecentric lens about 300 feet in diameter, with a working distance of 200 feet: an f/0.6 lens the size of a football field. But then the foreground would be in proportion...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,129
Long exposure.
101_0481ofsmall.jpg
 
  • #1,130
^redpenguin, that's gorgeous! What did you take a picture of?
 
  • #1,131
I actually turn all of the lights out in my house and just take a picture of my television. This particular movie was Red Cliff (which is an awesome John Woo movie if you haven't seen it). Sometimes I get lucky.. most others I don't. But I have noticed that there is a method to the madness.
Couple other examples (sorry for the size of some)..
Morgan Freeman:
101_0105s30.jpg

Pretty Lady:
101_0276ff2.jpg

Time:
101_0123dLST800.jpg

Is there a sixth sense?:
101_0306gz.jpg
 
  • #1,132
Really? Wow, that's amazing. I have to try it out.

I didn't see Red Cliff. But I have to add it to my list. I have a soft spot for Tony Leung :)

I really like the first one you posted and the pretty lady. Never would have guessed that was taken by a camera. I would have said you did some image manipulation.
 
  • #1,133
Yeah.. beats being bored at home doing nothing. :wink:

Red Cliff is epic! Prepare yourself for a 4 hour journey if you do get around to it. (Best version is in Mandarin with English subtitles)
 
  • #1,134
Random pictures I took over the summer. There should be more since I'm going camping tomorrow :)

misc525.jpg


misc1252-1.jpg


misc304.jpg


misc1264.jpg
 
  • #1,135
Nice!
 
  • #1,136
sourlemon said:
Random pictures I took over the summer.

Nice shots! Here's some of my summer vacation pics:

[PLAIN]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/82/dsc9162d.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2448/dsc9165i.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/8903/dsc9693.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/3144/backscatter2.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/251/dsc9870.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5906/dsc9193y.jpg

Anybody else?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,137
Bleargh! some of these look like $hit on my Mac. If you'll pardon the following, so I can compare them across my monitors, hopefully I'll get some insight about what is going on.

[PLAIN]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/251/dsc9870.jpg
[PLAIN]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7787/dsc9870w.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,138
andy, the beach looks so blue! where did you go? Lovely picture. Cute baby.
 
  • #1,139
sourlemon said:
andy, the beach looks so blue! where did you go? Lovely picture. Cute baby.

We spent a glorious week in the North Carolina Outer Banks (Hattaras, specifically)- we were there last week, and have been following Irene with some concern. It's weird to think about what is going on there right now...

The girl is my youngest (4 y.o.)- she ain't no baby- she's mad that you said that, but you got redemption points for 'cute' :)
 
  • #1,140
Nice work Andy,

Some of mine (not really holiday, but anyway)

sd0gu8.jpg


rsy4pf.jpg


ac5s7t.jpg


Playing with bokeh:

v7cpoh.jpg


2uszr05.jpg


zw1cg3.jpg


And for the cuteness factor, the daughter of a niece:

20a2btz.jpg

(in available light with ISO 3200 - see EXIF)

Furthermore, currently the last 7 pictures in my album here are all from the last three weeks on my mission in France
 
  • #1,141

I like the little sunglare spot in #5- it's dead center, was that intentional?
 
  • #1,142
Last edited:
  • #1,143
Nothing compared to what you guys have posted but these are some shots from last nights stargazing session. First one is a low mag shot of the Pleiades and Jupiter coming up over the horizon. Second is just a close up of the Pleiades.

28tgpdy.jpg


2db2kic.jpg


I'm really starting to outgrow my FZ-40. The short exposure times and lack of removable lens is really starting to limit what I can do. Any recommendations on a DSLR that works well in low light conditions that doesn't cost a fortune?
 
  • #1,144
Topher925 said:
I'm really starting to outgrow my FZ-40. The short exposure times and lack of removable lens is really starting to limit what I can do. Any recommendations on a DSLR that works well in low light conditions that doesn't cost a fortune?

Those images are extremely reasonable!

I can't comment about the various camera bodies, but in general you want a lens with the largest aperture (low f/#) you can afford: for example the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a very reasonable lens, while the f/1.2 is more expensive and the Leica f/0.95 version is outta sight.

Larger apertures let you use both shorter acquisition times and lower ISO settings-short acquisition times are important with longer focal lengths. Even a 2s exposure using my 85mm is long enough to show star trails, and I'm forced to use < 1/10s with my 400mm.
 
  • #1,145
Topher925 said:
I'm really starting to outgrow my FZ-40. The short exposure times and lack of removable lens is really starting to limit what I can do. Any recommendations on a DSLR that works well in low light conditions that doesn't cost a fortune?

You may want to do some comparisons here:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras

I would consider the Canon 600D, the Nikon D5100 and the Sony SLT A55

Here live size crops of a studio test comparing ISO 3200 shots (jpg):

2q0twfm.jpg



Todays selection of some 250+ frames for the photo challenge bottled water

68C41F57599D432397E93BE495D7E119.jpg
 
  • #1,146
Fun with glass nuggets

t56e0l.jpg


1zfo6l1.jpg
 
  • #1,147
Andre said:
You may want to do some comparisons here:

I would consider the Canon 600D, the Nikon D5100 and the Sony SLT A55

Here live size crops of a studio test comparing ISO 3200 shots (jpg):

Todays selection of some 250+ frames for the photo challenge bottled water

I really like the Nikon D5100, but it doesn't have as many software options as the Canon 600D. They both seem to have good and reasonably priced lenses. I won't be buying one until after I pass my qualifiers this fall, so are there any new models coming to market soon? I don't want to have buyers remorse 2 months after I buy a camera.
 
  • #1,148
Well the Sony SLT A65 has absolutely amazing specs but a detailed review is not yet available. Discussions mention disappointing hi ISO performance sometimes, which may be biased, but with the fixed translucent mirror technology there will be loss of light to the sensor and the relative small size of the individual pixels increases noise problems.

No known announcements of new Canons and Nikons, which is a bit overdue for Canon, especially the high end models (EOS1D and 5D) but they were affected by the Fukushima disaster. But if you wait for a newer model, chances are that you keep waiting forever.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,149
Optics is awesome. Being an experimental scientist means playing = learning:

[PLAIN]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/109/lampm.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,150
Nice Andy, Camera obscura?

Some glass fragments about 2-3mm in size, with the flash behind it.

314E08DAC5BD42C69556D73299F6EA37.jpg
 
  • #1,151
Wow, fabulous Andre. Love it. :smile:
 
  • #1,152
Thanks, drizzle, http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/IMG_yellow.JPG is the original if you like to add it to your wallpaper collection, or maybe make a big print of it.

Notice that I cropped the lower right corner and then mirrored it vertically to get the composition I liked the best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,153
My eye. :) (Selfshot)
IMG_0306.JPG
 
  • #1,154
Andre said:
Nice Andy, Camera obscura?

Good guess, but no... I'll give you partial credit, tho :). No post-processing, either.
 
  • #1,155
Here's one I took last night, called "it's starting to feel a lot like christmas":

[PLAIN]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9467/dsc05552m.jpg

becasue a 1:1 crop shows:

[PLAIN]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9839/dsc05551z.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top