photography examples and learning

[mr.anderson]

I have added a 3rd version of the shot above (Link). I processed the RAW file on the camera using the in built processing/retouching tools.

I think it has come out better than my gimp effort.

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Long Exposure Noise Reduction will capture a "dark" shot with the same exposure duration as the original one, but with a closed shutter, to try and replicate the sensor noise the first original shot might have picked up, and then subtract it from the original. It does this at the time of shooting because sensor noise will vary with temperature conditions, amongst other variables, hence taking a second shot right after the fact is the closest way of getting it as accurate as possible. So what the camera was doing during those 20 secs was exactly this, taking a second "black" exposure.

Ah, thanks. So this may be a silly question - do I need to leave the camera in place for the post processing time too?

Thanks for your pointers Filipe.

Limitations of the digital lab.

As you can see from the images in this thread already, there's a lot you can do after the event, to tidy-up your images and recover ones that may not have turned out as expected.

Reading this thread, seeing some of the fantastic shots you chaps have captured, and offering a few pointers along the way (tips hat to Filipe M. who has offered much more detailed help), had gotten me in to thinking about picking up the camera again. It's something I used to love, but I somehow lost my passion for it over the last few years. So, I've started to dig out some more of my kit, and going through what I've got and decided to offer this little nugget on extra bits, for those of you who have some christmas spends left over.

Filters - much of what you can do with the sometimes bizarre and wonderful filters that have been available over the years, can now be done in your digital lab. Some however cannot.

Skylight filter
Most commonly used to protect the lens. It offers reasonably little in the way of difference to a photo, but can save you a lot of money by protecting your lens from getting scratched. Worth considering if you have expensive glass or are a clumsy so and so.

Polarising filter
These come in several types, circular and linear, Hoya do them that screw on to the end of the lens, or Cokin do the holder type variety. Have a google for what they do if you don't know, or wait for Filipe to expand , or go get your polarising shades and sit in front of an lcd wobbling your head about for a bit. These are a must have for fluffy white clouds in a blue sky, and shooting through glass, or around water.

ND (Neutral Density) filter
Various styles and strengths, these simply reduce the amount of light coming through the lens, allowing longer exposure times. Or graduated ones, that allow you underexpose a bright sky for balance. Some cameras even have these built in now, although I'm not sure how, or how well, they work.

Filipe, over to you.

It's here!!!

Originally Posted by mr.anderson

Ah, thanks. So this may be a silly question - do I need to leave the camera in place for the post processing time too?

Thanks for your pointers Filipe.

You're welcome! And the answer is no, you can move it around as it's just capturing a black frame with closed shutter, just try not to trip the Off button while you do it

Originally Posted by boot

Limitations of the digital lab.

As you can see from the images in this thread already, there's a lot you can do after the event, to tidy-up your images and recover ones that may not have turned out as expected.

Shooting digital is wonderful for that, and the ability to shoot raw files is just the icing on the cake. While shooting jpg is similar to having minilab prints of your shots (fully "optimised" and processed with automatic "averaging one-size-fits-all" algorithms, which you can still process further but it won't be long before they break up), shooting raw is even better than having developed film in your hands. It's a bit like still having the film in its canister, waiting for better chemicals (software, in digital terms) to be invented so you can develop it with even better image quality, while at the same time having the prints in your hands, processed with the current state-of-the-art.
As a quick example, Adobe has released a preview / beta version of Lightroom 3.0, and already the processing differences are substantial in the image quality stakes. So much so that I'll probably be going over my "pick" shots again to see what more I can get from them.

Reading this thread, seeing some of the fantastic shots you chaps have captured, and offering a few pointers along the way (tips hat to Filipe M. who has offered much more detailed help), had gotten me in to thinking about picking up the camera again. It's something I used to love, but I somehow lost my passion for it over the last few years.

Good man, we'll be waiting!

So, I've started to dig out some more of my kit, and going through what I've got and decided to offer this little nugget on extra bits, for those of you who have some christmas spends left over.

Filters - much of what you can do with the sometimes bizarre and wonderful filters that have been available over the years, can now be done in your digital lab. Some however cannot.

(snip)


Filipe, over to you.

okay I'll bite. I'll write after your original text then.

Originally Posted by boot

Skylight filter
Most commonly used to protect the lens. It offers reasonably little in the way of difference to a photo, but can save you a lot of money by protecting your lens from getting scratched. Worth considering if you have expensive glass or are a clumsy so and so.

Like boot said, Skylight / Haze / UV filters are essentially used for lens protection now. They were normally used in the film days to increase the image contrast by filtering the UV content in sun light (Skylight would also give the image a slightly warmer tone because of its light pink colour).
Digital sensors are not as sensitive to UV light (they've got their own filtering layers), so they're usually seen as "cheap" neutral protection devices for the lens more expensive glass.
On the negative side, they will increase the ammount of light travelling back and forth between the lens elements and the sensor, which might actually decrease contrast and create ghosting.

Polarising filter
These come in several types, circular and linear, Hoya do them that screw on to the end of the lens, or Cokin do the holder type variety. Have a google for what they do if you don't know, or wait for Filipe to expand , or go get your polarising shades and sit in front of an lcd wobbling your head about for a bit. These are a must have for fluffy white clouds in a blue sky, and shooting through glass, or around water.

Ah, the secret weapon of landscape photographers.
Polarising filters, through some black magic , will make sure that all light rays hitting the lens will do so polarised in the same direction, removing stray reflections and increasing colour saturation. Want deep blue skies? Slap one in front of the lens and shoot at a 90º angle to the sun. Rotate the polariser until you get the desired effect. Careful though, it's not hard to get Disney-like colours.
DSLR users beware: you'll have to use circular polarisers (linear will make your autofocus system very un-cooperative - see I told you it was black magic!).
All users beware: polarisers will eat light, forcing you to use much slower shutter speeds, or wider apertures (or increase ISO, but I wouldn't really recommend this - you'll be saturating colours and working with darker tones all around, and the higher the ISO, the less leeway your camera will have for dealing with this, and the noisier the image will be). Tripod territory!
I'll try and come up with a couple of examples of use.

ND (Neutral Density) filter
Various styles and strengths, these simply reduce the amount of light coming through the lens, allowing longer exposure times. Or graduated ones, that allow you underexpose a bright sky for balance. Some cameras even have these built in now, although I'm not sure how, or how well, they work.

As boot said. These will allow you to get creamy, smooth water in waterfalls, or "hazy" sea shots, or "remove" people moving in your street shooting. Brilliant things. Tripod mandatory!

Originally Posted by lily

It's here!!!

Yay! Now you smell of wee!

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Shooting digital is wonderful for that, and the ability to shoot raw files is just the icing on the cake

Digital's nice 'n' all

But as technology improves, the ability to extract a better scan from the negative does too

The other solution for avoiding white balance problems is to use black and white. If using digital, shoot in colour at the time as normal, then if you want later, use your raw editor to convert to B+W taking more or less of a contribution from each colour channel separately until it looks good. magic.



(film rather than digital, but you get the idea)
For a classic look, then jack up the contrast something crazy - it'd normally unbalance the colours, but since we've gotten rid of them, who cares.

Here's Peter's original image reworked:

Only had a small go this evening but i like!

my poor cat has been subject to a lot of photos tonight

Originally Posted by cmsd2

Digital's nice 'n' all

But as technology improves, the ability to extract a better scan from the negative does too

That's the reason why I keep my F100 loaded and within easy reach at all times

The other solution for avoiding white balance problems is to use black and white. If using digital, shoot in colour at the time as normal, then if you want later, use your raw editor to convert to B+W taking more or less of a contribution from each colour channel separately until it looks good. magic.

Indeed it is a brilliant way of doing it, the results can be amazing.

For a classic look, then jack up the contrast something crazy - it'd normally unbalance the colours, but since we've gotten rid of them, who cares.

And with some careful processing you can make image noise look like film grain result!

Originally Posted by lily

Only had a small go this evening but i like!

my poor cat has been subject to a lot of photos tonight

Off to a very good start, focused on the closest eye and everything else falls where it will

[Drew Carey]

Guys, as you can see from Lilys posts our new toy arrived.

One thing we are keen to do is get a new lense as the 18-55 is good for simply taking basic pics, but we want something with a bit more range. Am I right in thinking that a 55-200 as a compliment to what we have would be a good start?

Have found this one in Amazon and quite a decent price.....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-55-200.../dp/B000O161X0

[anna]

Drew you are right in your thinking, you might want to check out the 70-300 VR as well a bit more pricey but, might be worth getting the next step up. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-7...2993061&sr=8-1

I have 55-200 and have got some amazing results, so much so that the standard 18-55 rarely comes out of the bag first now.

.... this is an uncropped image only with standard lightroom processing.



Although I would say that I have now got to the point of recognizing the limitations of this lens, and would love to have a bit more flexibility with closer focusing.