Photo tips

[Olorin]

Very interesting observation, Olorin! Maybe I can do a PhD. Thesis on this. Thanks for the idea.

You can try, but the work's already been done.

[DrWho]

hey, I've got my monitor calibrated...took me like a month to get used

to the "dimness" (because I was so accustomed to having the contrast

and brightness up all the way). It was done using the E-Deep

calibration wizard thingy...it's actually quite amazing how much better

stuff looks now (and the few graphic art stuff I does transfers to

other mediums better). Though this is probably one of a hundred

different methods of color calibration []

If I may add a few more photo tips (which are in my own words an interpretation of some things colter has told me in the past):

First of all, hold the camera close to your body....and if you got a

digital camera, don't use that big LCD screen, actually bring the

camera to your face and look through the window. You will be surprised

at how much better the pictures come out (even on cheapy digital

cameras). This essentially does two things for you....lets you see the

actually framing of your picture (yes the lcd screen is decieving) and

it makes your shot cleaner because your arms are more stabile (less

shaking).

Secondly, actually line up your shot. Take your time and breathe

slowly....snap the picture after you're done exhaling. In the digital

age it is so easy to want to point, click, and move on with your life,

but that extra second you spend taking the picture makes a world of

difference. You gotta look through the camera as if you were looking at

a picture on the wall....if it doesn't feel right, then it probably

isn't. Move around and be creative with your angles. I find that if I

try to get it right in one shot rather than snapping a bunch and

crossing my fingers that the single shot looks better (provided I

didn't shake the camera to oblivion).

If you want to practice, try taking pictures of rectangular objects and

try to get the edges to line up. I spent a few hours practicing one day

and was getting pissed off at how hard it was, lol. You can tell a good

photographer when he gets it lined up first try AND can do it quickly.

Anyways, I am by no means an expert at photography and I've got my

bro's fancy camera to take care of all the techy details (auto shutter,

auto white balance, auto focuse, auto other stuff I dunno what it's

called) [] Though he just moved out to Texas so now I'm cameraless

*sniff*

[bkrop]

Do NOT stick a spare finger in front of the lens....

[]

[colterphoto1]

I just made top ten list. Time to bail out?

Michael

[RAPTORMAN]

Moderator, please delete this entire thread. I'm tired of trying to help people here with my professional advice only to be constantly baited by the same individual.

Or just delete my user id.

Thank you,

Michael

It could be very frustrating, but you have to let the kids play. Anyway, the best way to minimize your pics is just set your camera to "Small" instead of "Large" when you take the picture of something you would like to post. That should do the trick.[][]

[jt1stcav]

This is a test of the "National Klipsch Forum Image Sizing System". If this had been a real emergency, you would have been directed to your nearest Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Paint program for further instructions.[co]

[colterphoto1]

This is also 750 pixels across, but it's 1.5 mb file. Does this run slow?

[Seadog]

"The most common problem is UNDERexposure. This is usually caused by inadequate flash, being too distant from the subject, or other light sources. Open windows and bright interior lights 'trick' your camera into thinking there is more light available, thus the flash shuts off too soon. Solution is to either eliminate these sources from the frame, or reduce their output by closing drapes and using dimmer bulbs in fixtures."

True. However, sometimes I want the picture to come out exactly the way it looks (with the naked eyes) in the room with the available light, UNDEREXPOSED as you put it. So when the photo looks underexposed, it does not necessarily mean that the photo is underexposed. It could be the intention of the photographer to capture the photo under the EXACT lighting condition in the room at the time the photo was taken. I don't much appreciate when you photoshoped some of my photos when my intention is to have these photos show the exact lighting condition in the room (as seen by my naked eyes) when these photos were captured.

I use an incident light meter and expose for the area where I want the film to properly record detail. Then it becomes a creative photo, not an underexposed photo.

Oh, I forgot, no one uses film any more ..... never mind.

[WMcD]

Michael,

Please do not get discouraged. Your tips are well appeciated.

We've all got a lot to learn on all levels.

Basic settings and composure. Exposure, etc. I spent a lot time learning how to do this with "old" cameras and film, and flash. Just when I got things down, the automatic film cameras came to fore when the automatic systems were supposed to do a better job. Of course, then we had to learn how to un do the automatic systems. I liked my F3.

Similar issues have come to the fore with point and shoot digital media cameras. Exposure, depth of field, focus, etc, are not in control or well explained.

Additional things which are not explained are jpeg compression versus bitmap, effect of resolution on file size. Maybe you should do that.

Excuse the ramble. Do keep up the good work.

- - -

Here I'd like to point out that there are similar issues in posting technical data, which I do from time to time. The goal is to get a good presentation with a small file size.

Adobie Acrobat Professional does a very good job and is pretty much the industry standard. I've only scratched the surface of its many features. Everyone has to learn this stuff and quit complaining.

Smile,

Gil

.

[colterphoto1]

Excellent points Gil. With the advent of digital photography, as in the early days of auto cameras, many users thought the camera could do all the work. The problem is that the computerized functions of any camera must be factory set for an average condition. Many users do not know how to compensate for this or how to manually adjust their camera settings. I liken this to using a $2000 PC to play solitaire. Most cameras, especially digital, are grossly underutilized. Even with the best modern Nikon 35mm cameras, I frequently switch off all the auto functions, relying instead on the computer between my ears. The novice need not go to this extreme, but an understanding of how the camera processes data is integral to an understanding of the sport.

The basics of photography remain the same regardless of what type of machine is at the end of your arm. Photography literally means to 'paint with light'. The well informed photographer has mastery over his manipulation of light and the manner in which the film or digital chip 'sees' this light. One of the reasons that photography is one of the worlds' most popular hobbies is this blending of science and art. In order to produce pleasing images, one must have at least a basic understanding behind the technology.

Basic concepts can be found on any volume on photography. Film speed, shutter speed, aperature and focal length of lens are ideas that are relatively simple to grasp. Do not be put off my the numbers used in camera settings. There is very little math involved, but one must have scales to discern how the camera is to see the light.

Michael

[LarryC]

This is also 750 pixels across, but it's 1.5 mb file. Does this run slow?

Yes, a little, but not nearly as slow as the full-sized files. The forum snapped it back to 550, which I think is too small.

Larry(dial-up)C

[colterphoto1]

This is a 500K file, saved in Pshop at level 5 jpg for some compression. It started life as 640 pixels wide. I think this size would be a better on-screen standard. Does it pop up pretty quickly?

[LarryC]

This is a 500K file, saved in Pshop at level 5 jpg for some compression. It started life as 640 pixels wide. I think this size would be a better on-screen standard. Does it pop up pretty quickly?

Yep, it came up fairly quickly (for dial-up). Vastly faster than many recent pics on the forum. If this is still 640, it only takes up a little over half the post's width and could still be wider on my monitor & settings.

[Cal Blacksmith]

So you guys liked the car shot? No neither of the cars were mine. I

took the photo at a car show held in Big Bear Ca. It took 20 min to get

enough of a break in the crowd (with a little help from the wife

directing traffic) to get a clear shot after I composed the image the

way I wanted it. There was about 50 feet between the cars. Either of

them is sweet and I would like to have them but my love is Mopar. I am

waiting (forever I guess) for a 68 to 70 Charger 440 R/T (a real hemi

is way out of my price range!) in ANY color!

[colterphoto1]

Larry, thanks for helping us test the photo uploads. I didn't know you were dialup. SOftware is shrinking these down from 640 to only 350, that's why they're so small on screen. Last one left me as 500K file, came up as 72K, so they're really losing a lot of detail.

I'd like to see screen size of 640 and 200Kb file size, if that wouldn't hurt speed or server space too much.

Michael

[Olorin]

Michael, if I click on your mug shots and open the picture in Photoshop,

it's still 640 x 235. The photo is there, but it's being shrunk

for in-line presentation.

[J M O N]

Oh, I forgot, no one uses film any more ..... never mind.

That's all I use -- in fact, I don't even have auto-focus. Still using my trusty old Canon T-90, what a great camera it is. One day I'll convert to digital, but will probably wait for the full-frame sensor SLRs to come down in price.

[J M O N]

So you guys liked the car shot?

Yeah, I did. It looks like some of the photos I take when I go to car shows -- I don't have many shots of the entire car.

[jt1stcav]

This was taken in '83 on ISO 200 Kodak print film with a Minolta Maxxum 9000 and 28mm f/2.8 lens, no tripod with available light only, and cleaned up on Photoshop CS. Is this too slow?

No, I no longer own this equipment, dammit![]

[jt1stcav]

Epcot Center, taken several years ago with an old Fuji FinePix 1400Zoom digital camera...