PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[GeorginaS]

Here is that setof tubes and a close up lens with the Panasonic (bridge) camera, which is roughly the same idea as the SX-20

Thank you for your help, turbo.

Andre, my friend told me to tell you that you're brilliant to say thank you to you. She's going to go get the attachments tomorrow. She's otherwise been very pleased with the camera save that function.

 

[Andre]

My pleasure Georgina,

Your friend is also to experience that there is quite a bit more to it, catching a bug real good, balancing shutter speed, aperture, ISO, but beyond all, the focussing. (S)he should also anticipate deleting hundreds of failed shots. Luckily it's only electronics, in the old days it was pretty frustrating (costly) shooting, develloping and printing several films of 36 exposures for only a small handful of reasonable pictures.

The message is: practice.

 

[Andre]

To elaborate a bit more on the quality difference for bug hunting between the Panasonic FZ-18 bridge camera with close up lens (#1) and the Canon 450D with 100mm macro lens I shot some roses:

For both: F8 , distance about 2-3 ft, image reduced to 20% size:

The best of the Panasonic (8x zoom) and #1 close up lens:

The best of the Canon

Although the colors of the Canon are much more accurate, there is not a lot to choose in between in this magnification in terms of detail. Note also that the back ground clutter is more reduced in the Canon (better bokeh)

Mind that Canon $ + macro lens $ = 3 x Panasonic $ + close up lens $

The real differences can be seen on pixel level in the 100% crops below (Canon left, Panasonic right).

Original JPG output on ISO 100 sensitivity:

Original JPG output on ISO 400 sensitivity

Note the substantial differences in noise, note also that the crispness of the Panasonic is surprising. The ISO 400 shot of the Canon appears to be slightly blurred due to vibrations perhaps, but that's what you can expect without image stabilisation.

We can edit the noise and sharpness somewhat by manually processing in dedicated software like photoshop. This is the best result using the dedicated DPP for Canon and Silkypix for Panasonic:

For the ISO 100 shots:

For the ISO 400 shots:

So, the bottom line is that you pay a lot $$$ for extra image quality only visible when printing poster format.

 

[Borek]

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/11/16/beautiful-examples-of-tilt-shift-photography/

 

[turbo]

There's a guy that writes action plug-ins for Photoshop, and this is the result of applying one of his latest actions. It's called StarFilter Pro (there's also a Lite version). Pretty cool. You have complete control over the number of spikes, the length, intensity, rainbow effect and many other variables. Just the thing to "spice up" images from car shows, or make dewy flowers sparkle.

He's also got image processing plugins for sharpening and correcting common image problems. http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/

 

[Borek]

Lol, when I started to read for a moment I thought he made enough money on his latest plugin to buy this bike.

 

[turbo]

Lol, when I started to read for a moment I thought he made enough money on his latest plugin to buy this bike.

Not yet! When I bought this bike it was goobered up with all kinds of HD "bling". I stripped off about 50-75# of stuff, and trimmed it out as simply as possible so the paint would steal the show. It was almost 20 years old when I took this shot to make some on-line ads, and I still got $12K for it. I should never have let this one go, but my wife's back was bothering her, so I bought a big comfy Road King and sold the Wide Glide. What a mistake that was.

 

[Andre]

If you can't beat them you can always shoot them.

 

[matthyaouw]

An absolute age ago I remember someone saying they wanted a really strong Neutral Density filter but were put off by the price. For anyone who is interested, here is the cheap option: welding glass.

You can pick it up off ebay for very little money. I paid a couple of pounds for mine from this guy: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Glass-filter-welding-lens-shade-10-/170494160622?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item27b23e6eee. Once you've got it you need to attatch it to your camera in a way that won't let any light in round the back of it. The easy way is buy a http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Kood-P-Series-58mm-Adaptor-Ring-Also-Fits-Cokin-UK-/350351913782?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item519299f336 and fix the glass on tightly with a ring of blue tack. It's not the most elegant solution and can cause bad lens flare if direct sunlight strikes one of the exposed edges (which are pretty sharp by the way!) but it does the trick. Since I got sick of hurting my fingers on the edge of it and having to shade it with my hands to stop flare I picked up a http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Stepping-Ring-Step-up-77-82-mm-77-82mm-/120578665753?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item1c130c6d19 then asked a man at a glass workshop to cut my glass down to fit. It took him about a minute and he charged me £1. It rested nicely in the ring so I fixed it in with superglue and plugged any gaps round the edges with blue tack, job done.

I now have a 13 stop filter (that is, I have to double my shutter speed 13 times to get the picture as bright with the filter as it was without) for just a few pounds. I used shade 10 glass, but it also comes in shades 9 and 11 if you want a lesser or greater light reduction.

It's not perfect. Pictures actually come out extremely green, but if you set a custom white-balance with the filter on it should sort it out nicely. I'm pretty pleadsed with the results, for the price I paid anyway:

f11, iso100, 141 seconds on an overcast but quite bright day.

f11, iso100,243 seconds in early morning sun

 

[~christina~]

great idea matthyaouw since ND filters ar very expensive
Have you tried it out at sunset?

Andre, great photo of aphids!

 

[Borek]

Interesting idea & some material for thought.

 

[Borek]

There was a thunderstorm over Warsaw about an hour ago.

Unfortunately, looks like I have to buy a new camera. ISO 100, exposure time 90 sec. This is unacceptable and partially visible on both images above (especially on the second one, as it is cropped to about 50%).

 

[Borek]

LOL

I just took a closer look at the pictures. When I started taking them there was a short firework show, here in Marki. Unfortunately, it was in such a place that it was obscured by part of my roof, so I couldn't see it in full. But it seems like I got both kinds of fireworks on a picture - those natural, and those human made. This is a very corner of the picture, no crop, so very poor quality - still, you can see both

 

[waht]

There was a thunderstorm over Warsaw about an hour ago.

Nice filaments.

 

[matthyaouw]

Nice pictures Borek!

Unfortunately, looks like I have to buy a new camera. ISO 100, exposure time 90 sec. This is unacceptable and partially visible on both images above (especially on the second one, as it is cropped to about 50%).

For 90 seconds that's not too bad. 5 minutes with the clone tool would sort it out but if you'd rather not go to the trouble then long exposure noise reduction would sort it out for you.

 

[matthyaouw]

great idea matthyaouw since ND filters ar very expensive
Have you tried it out at sunset?

Not yet. 13 stops might be a bit much for sunset. I've worked out exposure times could be over an hour (assuming the light doesn't fade, which it would)

 

[Borek]

long exposure noise reduction would sort it out for you.

Trick is, when taking pictures during thunderstorm automatic noise reduction is unacceptable - I want to take pictures one by one, and automatic noise reduction means I have to wait between pictures for as long as I was exposing them.

Edit: oh, and it wasn't that bad 3 years ago. It is getting worse each year, that's what troubles me.

 

[redpenguin]

First post here... biology student from Minnesota. Thought I'd drop by and share a few shots with you guys.
Thanks for looking.

 

[Borek]

Nice ones

Please remember to resize the pictures, when they are too large they break forums formatting. In my experience 800 pixels wide is a reasonable maximum, but if you want to enter one of the contests you are limited to 650 pixels.

 

[redpenguin]

Well... there goes my introduction. Sorry Borek.

 

[Borek]

Is it just me, or does this leaf look concerned?

 

[turbo]

I keep seeing a perpetually angry cartoon character's face in my wife's pansies.

 

[Borek]

Faces, faces everywhere.

We are preprogrammed to see them.

 

[lisab]

Faces, faces everywhere.

We are preprogrammed to see them.

Indeed, our brains are hard wired for it.

http://happychairishappy.com/" .

 

[lisab]

First post here... biology student from Minnesota. Thought I'd drop by and share a few shots with you guys.
Thanks for looking.

Those are great, redpenguin! The red bridge is stunning.

Welcome to PF!

 

[~christina~]

There was a thunderstorm over Warsaw about an hour ago.

Very nice pictures, Borek.

I took a lighting picture awhile back but it needed a lot of editting.

 

[Borek]

While taking pictures of Wisła water level I looked up.

 

[redpenguin]

 

[Andre]

Thanks Redpenguin, nice.

Looking at these, it occurs to me that management of background blur (bokeh) is very important in this kind of photography with a clearly defined subject.

If you do some basic math with the lens formula you'll discover that the circle of confusion is a function of aperture (Av), focal length (f) and magnification. The modern small cameras have very small sensors (hence small agnification) and small focal lengths, so they won't excel in blurring the background. Then you're better off with DSLR's. Let me demonstrate:

The subject is a little tree with a disorderly piece of garden in the back. All pix are reduced in size the crops in lower right corner are on 100% showing background just to the left of its trunk.

Camera: good old Panasonic FZ18, small sensor (crop factor 0.17 compared to original SLR size) of and at minimum focus (4.6 mm wideangle) and max aperture (f 2.8). No blur:

If we move backwards and zoom in a bit (4x), it only helps a little bit, also because the maximum aperture reduces with this type of zoomlens (f 3.6), countering the blurring.

So if we take the DSLR with a larger sensor (crop factor 62.5% compared to the original SLR size) with a 100mm telelens at full aperture (f 2.8), we get this:

Note I was using small size pictures (2592 x 1728 pixel) for experimenting. On large size the crop would be about twice as big).

So if you want a blurry background, move backwards, use the maximum tele position of the lens and, if you can control it, the widest possible aperture (lowest (Av -) number).

But then again if you want a real wide depth of field, then reverse all those numbers, like this: DSLR f: 12mm, Av 11

 

[~christina~]

The second image is the best looking image even though it is from the Panasonic. It might be the composition and the white balance though. (DSLR image seems to be a bit on the blue side)