PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around photography tips and sharing personal experiences with capturing images. Participants offer advice on hosting photos, suggesting platforms like ImageShack and emphasizing the importance of image size to maintain thread readability. Several users share their photos, including pets and wildlife, discussing composition, focus, and post-processing techniques. There is a focus on improving image quality through tools like GIMP for editing, with discussions about color balance and white balance settings to enhance photos. Users also exchange feedback on each other's work, highlighting the importance of constructive criticism for growth in photography skills. Additionally, there are mentions of joining photography groups for more in-depth critiques and learning opportunities. The conversation touches on the challenges of capturing wildlife and the technical aspects of photography, such as aperture settings and lens choices, while fostering a supportive community for beginners and experienced photographers alike.
  • #1,101
Thunderstorm over Warsaw and Marki (I can still hear it). I have heard it early enough to prepare to shot a video from the attic, these are just selected frames:

thunderstorm_03819.jpg


thunderstorm_04751.jpg


thunderstorm_07164.jpg


thunderstorm_09863.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,102
Borek said:
Thunderstorm over Warsaw and Marki (I can still hear it). I have heard it early enough to prepare to shot a video from the attic, these are just selected frames:

Awesome! I was getting ready to ask about photographing lightning- how did you do it (e.g. exposure times, method, etc)?
 
  • #1,103
I suppose you more or less already guessed, but just to to clarify: video, with each frame shot at 1/30 sec. At 25 frames per sec "lost" time is about 17% of total, so it is hard to miss anything. But that also means pictures are shot at 1920x1080, and - as I signaled in some other tread - their quality is much lower than expected. This is 1:1 crop of one of the images exported from the video (using Avidemux):

thunderstorm_04751'.jpg


and 1:1 crop of the same view, the same lens, but picture, not video:

IMG_0893.jpg


Difference is huge. Night pictures (with long exposure times) are much better.

I just realized I have neutral filter ND8 somewhere, so I could try long exposure times. Unfortunately, at the moment thunderstorm is away and it is quite nice.
 
  • #1,104
How much video did you need to shoot in order to get those few 'good' frames? I guess I'm asking about the efficiency... I can imagine shooting minutes of video and then having to extract out 3 or 7 frames.
 
  • #1,105
Much less. For sure it depends on the thunderstorm. I got 11 OK pictures out of six minutes, plus there 2 or 3 that were technically unacceptable (artifacts - like only half of lightning visible in one frame, and other half in the next frame). Thunderstorms in Poland are not that active when it comes to lightnings. I have a feeling lightnings were much more frequent about 15 minutes later; unfortunately at that time thunderstorm was already on the other side of the house and we don't have a window on this side of the attic that would allow tripod use.
 
  • #1,106
Must have been years since I saw my last good thunderstorm :-p

Anyway, this decent fellow, upon observing my activities, enquired if he could be of any service.

spc9ax.jpg


So I mentioned that I would not discourage him from giving an aerial display by any means. So he wasn't:

243lo1z.jpg


I should not have zoomed in that much though, as he did not fit in the frame.

14a92y0.jpg


2dhbfa8.jpg


2mpzuvo.jpg
 
  • #1,107
The http://www.lightningtrigger.com/index.html#home . I've never used one, but a lot of people say they work great. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,108
Arrgh.

Few months ago I bought two Kingston Elite Pro Compact Flash 8GB 133x memory cards for my camera. They work perfectly. I decided before going for vacations I am going to buy another two. I bought two Kingston Elite Pro Compact Flash 16GB 133x cards (same line, same specification, just twice the size) from exactly the same, trusted source (one of the largest hardware distributors in Poland). And they don't work as expected - they are too slow.

It turns out those bought earlier work much better than the specification, they work at at least 266x. That's why I have not realized 133x is too slow. Now I have two useless 16GB cards and around $75 in the hole. One I will probably sell, as it is unopened, but the other...
 
  • #1,109
random change of subject:

Last night I re-watched Gaspar Noe's film "Irreversible"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/

and was again astonished at the opening cinematography. I'm not I could 'recommend' watching the movie (if you haven't seen it, it's rather disturbing in places), but if you choose to watch it, the opening 5-10 minutes are really impressive. I was completely disoriented; I had no idea if I was looking up, down, upside down, rightside up, sideways, backwards... I would have *loved* to see whoever physically moved the camera around do their 'dance'. Noe did the cinematography as well as direct- it's a fine piece of work.

The opening credits are disorienting as well- some letters (E, R, K, N) are reversed, and the credits sort of go off-kilter before completely overloading your brain.

Again, I think this crowd would appreciate the technique- the way an image can take something obvious and ordinary and make it confusing and unrecognizable.
 
  • #1,110
Borek said:
Arrgh.

Few months ago I bought two Kingston Elite Pro Compact Flash 8GB 133x memory cards for my camera. They work perfectly. I decided before going for vacations I am going to buy another two. I bought two Kingston Elite Pro Compact Flash 16GB 133x cards (same line, same specification, just twice the size) from exactly the same, trusted source (one of the largest hardware distributors in Poland). And they don't work as expected - they are too slow.

It turns out those bought earlier work much better than the specification, they work at at least 266x. That's why I have not realized 133x is too slow. Now I have two useless 16GB cards and around $75 in the hole. One I will probably sell, as it is unopened, but the other...

Apparantly the optimum choice seems to be the Transcend 400x CompactFlash Card, 32GB goes for some 65 euro. I'm just ordering one.
 
  • #1,111
Andre said:
Apparantly the optimum choice seems to be the Transcend 400x CompactFlash Card, 32GB goes for some 65 euro. I'm just ordering one.

Please let us know how it works. Seems cheap.
 
  • #1,112
Borek said:
Please let us know how it works. Seems cheap.

Sure, happy to.

Until now I managed with a single 8gb Extreme Sandisk 60MB/s (400x), nice and fast. Sure enough using standard RAW and the occasional movie, it fills up fast, but I always travel with my laptop and an additional external harddisk, so I emptied the card very frequently to process the pix and back them up on the external harddisk.

However, should the card fail somehow -and I lost several SD's in the past-, I'm stuck, so it's more for redundancy than for lack of storage to have a second card and then this 32Gb seems to be the most bang for the buck.
 
  • #1,113
I have two 8GB cards (as explained earlier - Kingston Elite Pro, nominally 133x but in reality faster). With a laptop and external HDD that's perfectly enough for pictures, but not enough for HD movies, and I plan to shot some. Unfortunately I won't be able to buy anything more before leaving Warsaw for vacations. I sold one of the 16GB cards, I plan to use other for pictures - while it is too slow for movies, as long as I don't shot more than a picture per 2 sec that shouldn't be a problem (especially taking into account buffer built into camera). For fast situations (sport/bird pictures) it won't work.
 
  • #1,114
raining1.jpg


Sorry, no strawberries.

(For newcomers: larkspur was a user at PF, active up to about two years ago. Her pictures were always great, one of them was a picture of strawberries in the rain - in a way similar to what I took today. Unfortunately, her pictures are no longer hosted at old urls.)
 
  • #1,115
No apologies necessary (IMO), it is wonderful without strawberries!
 
  • #1,116
Borek said:
Please let us know how it works. Seems cheap.

The card just arrived, it's in the camera. Burst in RAW+JPG roughly on par with the sandisk card, that is, after the first 6-8 shots the rate goes down to maybe 4 frames per second. Movie mode seems fine too.
 
  • #1,117
Update

I downloaded the evaluation version of flash memory toolkit and did a read test with both cards (write test blocked). Both claim to be 400x with reading (up to) 60MB/s for scandisk and 90MB/s for the Transcend.

On my computer though, it was 16.7MB/s average for the old Sandisk and 18.8MB/s for the new Transcend. Not what you expect but it compares better

Edit:

Of course you can test write speed too just by writing. So I formatted both cards and then wrote a 1.05 GB big folder containing 45 pix to each.

A modern duracell 8MB USB memory stick required 3:19 minutes for that or 5.3 MB/s, the scandisk was ready in 1:38 minutes (10.7 MB/s) and surprisingly the Transcend 1:06 minutes (15.9 MB/s)

Verdict: it's a keeper, the scandisk is now permanent reserve.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,118
Thanks for the update. I see them here as well, unfortunately, I won't be able to buy one before leaving (it won't arrive in time).

So far your tests confirmed speed, let's hope it will be also reliable. I am always afraid of things substantially cheaper than equivalents.
 
  • #1,119
Borek said:
Thanks for the update. I see them here as well, unfortunately, I won't be able to buy one before leaving (it won't arrive in time).

So far your tests confirmed speed, let's hope it will be also reliable. I am always afraid of things substantially cheaper than equivalents.

Yes I know the feeling, but it is just a feeling. Maybe, if you aren't a famous brand, you'd have to compete both with quality and low budget prices. I've seen a lot about that in the jeans branch.

So I am not pessimistic but I'll download the pix frequently.
 
  • #1,120
Andre said:
Thanks Turbo

Here is a small selection. I just happened to shoot them this evening, unaware of this thread. The dog loved to play model and I got her all over me after the dash, every time, when I was laying there on the ground.

ve7z4n.jpg


ddjbep.jpg


1zfife8.jpg

We won!

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=477595
 
  • #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:
  • #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
 

Similar threads

Back
Top