GKPE: Serious Photography Thread

[weka2000]

I felt it time that us kiwis who really wanted to take our photography seriously, have our work critiqued, discuss photography issues had a thread that did not contain ramblings. So here it is.

So post your photos and except honest critique (thats nice dosnt count). If you want to chat about non-related photography take it else where.

[weka2000]

Ok I went to Lake Wainamu out at Bethals Beach on Saterday. It is an amazing area with plenty of photos to be had.

Bird life (heaps of fantails) Hudge sand dunes, reeds, and at the end a series of cascading waterfalls.

Here are a couple of photos of the area.
The walk is easy, bit wet with rain. You have to follow the stream around or cut across the sand dunes. If it has rained be prepared to get wet feet.
Budget 4 hrs min for the walk to the end and back
From a light point of view, its quite open and harsh in the mid day and early afternoon.

[Kraig C]

With all the feetprints and drift in the rocks I would have cropped them out of the shot in the camera and gone for a tighter portrait of just the fall and less of the reflecting pond, or removed the drift and wet the rest of the rocks.

[weka2000]

On a first visit to a new spot I try to cature as much as the enviroment as I can.
When I then go back I isolate the subjects I want.

[somethingsimple]

On a first visit to a new spot I try to cature as much as the enviroment as I can.
When I then go back I isolate the subjects I want.

ive been there several times, there is a clifftop track that overlooks it - its surreal looking down and seeing a huge black moonscape in the middle of the bush.

i find your waterfall photo a bit too orange, the greens are off, hard to describe?
the jetty looks good colour-wise but a little flat, and if you got down lower you would get more perspective with the jetty

[naqs]

I'm not overly in love with your first shot... it seems as though it is missing something

as for the second shot it looks awesome, its just a shame you got the sun hitting those trees in the far background

[weka2000]

I was at knee level with the jetty should have used 17-40.
I find the waterfall colours in the ranges impossible.

[somethingsimple]

I was at knee level with the jetty should have used 17-40.
I find the waterfall colours in the ranges impossible.

knee level isnt low enough
sometimes u hav 2 lie down and get the camera just above ground level

[::John::]

Angle Finder C - works well for that

[somethingsimple]

Angle Finder C - works well for that

saves mashing your face into the ground anyhow lol

[akiwi]

saves mashing your face into the ground anyhow lol
Don't forget he has a 1DII.. Due to it's build it can't go as low as other cameras!!

I Like the photos. Definitley need to remove the rubbish in the rocks on the second shot.
First shot looks promising. Go back with a model. ;)

[manipula]

This is for honest critique right? ;)

Don't like either of them Tony, they're not up to the standard of some of your stronger work. The first is just lacking anything that makes it go 'wow' and as such appears to me to be more like a well executed shot taken by someone still knee deep in learning the ropes of photography.

You're past that.

The second is technically fantastic. Except I have a deep seated hatred for sickly sweet landscape shots. The waterfall effect for me here is on par with sticking a soft focus effect on a portrait. Dreamy but removes from the shot. That seascape pano you did the other day conveyed the 'knock you on your ass' beauty of the beach in the same way I'd just stand there and go "f**k me!" if I was stood on the beach myself, this looks like a photo of a nice place, pretty place with a layer of varnish on top for decoration.

Verdict: 2 gold stars, good but you can do better.

[weka2000]

Angle Finder C - works well for that

Woops forgot to put it in my bag :rolleyes:

[joeseph]

Don't forget he has a 1DII.. Due to it's build it can't go as low as other cameras!!
the lens-to-top distance is still similar, depite a recent attempt at upside-down photography failing miserably I think with an angle finder & tripod it would be feasable.

[naqs]

My turn for some serious C&C and I mean serious - tell me everything that comes to mind I don't care what it is I want to know to get better

anyway here they are - 3 shots taken at tonights Howick College Basketball game. I had my 20D and 70-200 F2.8L ISO was way up at 1600 and 3200 and aperture set at 2.8 for the whole game... not many keepers infact these aren't that great either

Tips and tricks mostly apprieciated

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/walkntheweb/IMG_5414_resize.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/walkntheweb/IMG_5160_resize.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/walkntheweb/IMG_5140_resize.jpg

[manipula]

The first one is nearly there for me. Not too fussed about the others. You say this is at f/2.8? I kinda expected less depth of field, which in my opinion would have made the background less blurry and a little more isolation for him in the shot. But it's not bad, I like it as it's more portrait than sport...

2.5 gold stars out of 5, and a sweet to suck later.

[somethingsimple]

hmm, kinda ordinary
you need to remove the orange glow on all of them. the first one is better cos its showing more of the player's expression, shame at the time he didnt really have one tho lol but thats not your fault
they arent very sharp or bright, and need running through noise ninja to clean that up a bit
try setting higher shutter speed next time for sharpness and if they are a bit dark use raw adjustment to increase exposure?

[naqs]

hmm, kinda ordinary
you need to remove the orange glow on all of them. the first one is better cos its showing more of the player's expression, shame at the time he didnt really have one tho lol but thats not your fault
they arent very sharp or bright, and need running through noise ninja to clean that up a bit
try setting higher shutter speed next time for sharpness and if they are a bit dark use raw adjustment to increase exposure?

Thanks SS - I'll keep that in mind for next time

Isn't it funny, I have no problem capturing cars at 1/160sec but I can't shoot these guys at that speed.

[scotttnz]

Ozzie Reloaded:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3558970#post3558970

[somethingsimple]

Thanks SS - I'll keep that in mind for next time

Isn't it funny, I have no problem capturing cars at 1/160sec but I can't shoot these guys at that speed.

its probably a lot darker on the bball court?

[naqs]

its probably a lot darker on the bball court?

true but you would think a car would go faster ???

[Moppie]

true but you would think a car would go faster ???


Speed is always relative :)

Cars tend to travel in a linear fashion usualy accross the lens at a great distance, with a relativly constant speed.
People tend to move in both linear and a radial fashion with lots of acceleration, and are usualy closer to the lens.


Basketball in doors is always going to be high ISO, and wide open. usualy ISO 1600 or 3200 in order to get shutter speeds of around 1/400th. If you can get higher then even better.
Also get in close to the action, need to see more player and less action, and shoot from the ends of the court not the sides. You need to be able to see the players faces and expresions as the game comes towards you.

[naqs]

Speed is always relative :)

Cars tend to travel in a linear fashion usualy accross the lens at a great distance, with a relativly constant speed.
People tend to move in both linear and a radial fashion with lots of acceleration, and are usualy closer to the lens.


Basketball in doors is always going to be high ISO, and wide open. usualy ISO 1600 or 3200 in order to get shutter speeds of around 1/400th. If you can get higher then even better.
Also get in close to the action, need to see more player and less action, and shoot from the ends of the court not the sides. You need to be able to see the players faces and expresions as the game comes towards you.

Thanks for that moppie - The gym isn't really that big and the ref wouldn't let me stand at the ends of the court.

[weka2000]

Great start. But where is the action? Basketball. involves fast passing, jumping, shooting. The action is always near the goal.
Sports is hard work, understand the game and the goal.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx

I did a search on basket ball images. Just to get ideas on how others have shot the game.

[Nzshrimper]

OK Nathan - get down - don't shot down at the players shot from waist level - up your shutter speed freeze the action - stop the blur. ball and faces are key to any good ball sport shot. the first shot says nothing - and the oof player adds nothing to the shot. (its not a keeper)

the other two shots as said need to be lower and a faster shutter. (don't be afraid to use flash) but don't forget to use high speed (580ex has it).

here is an example of what i mean...

ball, face, action and a lower angle..

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u185/nzshrimper/sport/ramsbball.jpg

[scotttnz]

GKPE Mini: Parnell at Night - Tonight 7:30pm

Tony and I are going to shoot up Parnell tonight. All are welcome to join us. Can anyone think of a good meeting point in Parnell?

I promise to bring my tripod mount this time ;)

[CliveyBoy]

[quote=Nzshrimper;3559211]the other two shots as said need to be lower and a faster shutter. (don't be afraid to use flash) but don't forget to use high speed (580ex has it). here is an example of what i mean...ball, face, action and a lower angle../quote]
That is a pic that makes the viewer want to examine it. Thanks for keeping the Exif in - no flash I see. Is the light reflected from the floor?

[Nzshrimper]

That is a pic that makes the viewer want to examine it. Thanks for keeping the Exif in - no flash I see. Is the light reflected from the floor?

cheers - nope no flash - westpac centre in chch has good lighting. yes light does reflect of the floor, its very shiny and give the yellow glow to everything.

a slight adjustment of the white balance to remove that.

[naqs]

OK Nathan - get down - don't shot down at the players shot from waist level - up your shutter speed freeze the action - stop the blur. ball and faces are key to any good ball sport shot. the first shot says nothing - and the oof player adds nothing to the shot. (its not a keeper)

the other two shots as said need to be lower and a faster shutter. (don't be afraid to use flash) but don't forget to use high speed (580ex has it).

here is an example of what i mean...

ball, face, action and a lower angle..



Man I like this thread - all this constructive critisim and ways to get better

but like I said at the begining the ref did say no flash permitted

BTW: thanks for the tips chris

[joeseph]

I took some photos yesterday, but they were mainly rubbish.
190216

[akiwi]

I took some photos yesterday, but they were mainly rubbish.
190216

LOL:
For a mundane subject, that is well captured. Good use of DOF and Rule of thirds. It's nice, but for me missing some POP. Might make a good stock image.

[joeseph]

LOL:
For a mundane subject, that is well captured. Good use of DOF and Rule of thirds. It's nice, but for me missing some POP. Might make a good stock image.

any better/worse in landscape?

190254

[somethingsimple]

any better/worse in landscape?

190254

hmm hard to say cos you changed 2 paramaters: colour AND orientation
its different (lol) sorry i cant be more descriptive
i think i like the colour one best, has more life to it and i think the vertical is better...

[weka2000]

In the B&W it needs more contrast

[somethingsimple]

ok heres my best 3 from last night:
first - shot using 70-300mm kit lens, 2min exp, iso 400
had to compress it a lot to get it under 100k

[somethingsimple]

second: 10-20mm lens, f22, iso 400, 4min exp

[somethingsimple]

third: 10-20mm lens, handheld, iso 400, f11 (sepia toned)

[weka2000]

Well SS IMHO nothing does it for me
#1 detail lost in the glass. I didnt even bother attempting to shoot that 1
#2 Whats the photo about. To much clutter
#3 Colours out and I find it distracting with the 2 arch ways, unbalanced

I will post mine later.

PS I think we need to go back again to the Vasity again heaps off photo ops

[manipula]

Different verdict for you SS.

1)I've always found churches generally dull, and stained glass windows make me feel like I'm 95. Ergo, I don't like it but that is because I'm bringing my own bag of prejudice to the table.

2) Tony's talking balls. :p That's a lovely shot, not the most conventional of things to include in a shot like that but I love they sky and the colours. I'd consider that in a frame on my wall.

3)All a bit meh. It's just a snap of some archways to me sorry.

[weka2000]

Ok my 3 I have a few others but lets see C&C first :lol:

Had this 3some thing going on last night :)

[weka2000]

St Andrews I think

[manipula]

Top one's lovely Tony, and it's not because of the three thing either I don't think. It's the lighting, such well exposed 'things' appearing out of the dark. It's balanced and has tension.

Other two are just snaps for me I'm afraid, the last one particularly.

[somethingsimple]

number one - not a bad photo but not out of the ordinary
number 2 - intresting, makes me go back for another look. nice abstract concept
number 3 - standout picture, good lighting and exposure, 7.5/10

[wendyc]

SS nice, LOVE the second one, IMHO the sky, window at an angle in dark building and lights are lovely. Distraction from the machine/grader thingy but hey, it was in the way. Lovely.

Tony i like all of yours, I now Dave thinks theyre snappy but I see where you were coming from here and why you took those.
Cool

[somethingsimple]

took this yesterday afternoon:
handheld in deep shade, 500mm, f5.6, ISO 400, 1/200 sec (bottom cropped off only)

[weka2000]

Ok question for the other 3 that went out lastnight.

What did you set your white balance to??

[weka2000]

took this yesterday afternoon:
handheld in deep shade, 500mm, f5.6, ISO 400, 1/200 sec (bottom cropped off only)


SS try stopping bigma down to F8. This will sharpen the photo up a bit

[somethingsimple]

Ok question for the other 3 that went out lastnight.

What did you set your white balance to??

tungsten - but made almost no difference so i manually altered it in lightroom using temperature and tint sliders

SS try stopping bigma down to F8. This will sharpen the photo up a bit

no could do - was very dark under the cliff, anything less than 5.6 would have given me a black photo - remember it was handheld. i already amped the exposure in pp quite a lot
bird is actually pretty sharp on original, doesnt represent tho with small size and compressed file

[scotttnz]

Ok question for the other 3 that went out lastnight.

What did you set your white balance to??

When I shoot RAW (Which is pretty much all the time!) I leave it on auto, and choose the white balance I want in the RAW converter.

[weka2000]

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/cambridge-gallery.htm

Here is the link I was talking about last night. Also look at his tutorial page

[klippe]

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/cambridge-gallery.htm

Here is the link I was talking about last night. Also look at his tutorial page

I think I might have raised this white balance issue with NZShrimper a while back (and provided a similar link - at least to a tutorial on white balance on the same site as Tony's link).

White balance is totally moot when you are shooting in raw. I still have people telling me that I am talking bollocks when I say that, but it is the honest truth. Don't waste time and effort setting white balance out in the field if you are shooting RAW.

White balance is of no consequence to a raw image - you should set it afterward for best results. What you see in your LCD screen after taking a photo is the RAW image with your settings 'applied' to the RAW file.

Don't know about you guys but I prefer to set the white balance on a decent sized screen under colour conditions that I trust.

I can't understand why white balance gets discussed so much amongst people shooting RAW. It seems to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the RAW format is. The ONLY things that affect a RAW image at the time of shooting are ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture - everything else is 'applied' to the image by the camera afterwards.

White Balance: Save yourself the hassle and just do it in post.

Cliff
P.S. Flame away if you must - but I am right.

[klippe]

By the way, I'm only having the above rant cause I am going to go spare if I have another person ask me what white balance settings I use when I shoot RAW.

Arrrggghhhh the agony of it all!

Cliff

[lil_miss]

I agree klippe... I have mine set to Auto and I worry about and fix it later..

[Nzshrimper]

or leave it in auto - take a photo of a grey card or expodisk. this will give you the correct white balance to play with.

Or stop being lazy and set it up and take the picture properly. like you did in the old days with film cameras.

[klippe]

or leave it in auto - take a photo of a grey card or expodisk. this will give you the correct white balance to play with.

Or stop being lazy and set it up and take the picture properly. like you did in the old days with film cameras.

Sure, if you're shooting in JPEG.

Myself, I wouldn't call it lazy, I'd call it efficient. :)

Cliff

[scotttnz]

Nothing worth posting from my lot last night.

[weka2000]

Nothing worth posting from my lot last night.
What went wrong?

[scotttnz]

What went wrong?

What went right? Didn't even get to save the planet when I got home :(

[tag141]

As we're being serious in this thread and it's more for image C&C etc, thought I'd do my bit. There were about four or five Tuis in the gums over the weekend.

http://tph1.orcon.net.nz/tui.jpg

http://tph1.orcon.net.nz/tui1.jpg

Web compression is a killer.

[weka2000]

Tag what were the settings for those shots. I keep having to remind my self of the 18% grey. If its black the camera will try to make it lighter and if its white it will try to make darker.
The Tui is lost in the foliage.

[tag141]

Tag what were the settings for those shots.
No 1 - F8, 1/250 ISO 250,
No 2 - F8, 1/250 ISO 250.

Both quite heavily cropped pictures.

Anyone ordered from B&H is the US? Want to order something but they want a fax of the credit card. Is this right or am I reading it all wrong?

[somethingsimple]

What went right? Didn't even get to save the planet when I got home :(

stink - were you home too late?
i still have to repair my tripod - not looking forward 2it

[weka2000]

No 1 - F8, 1/250 ISO 250,
No 2 - F8, 1/250 ISO 250.

Both quite heavily cropped pictures.

Anyone ordered from B&H is the US? Want to order something but they want a fax of the credit card. Is this right or am I reading it all wrong?

I just send them a photo of CC.

[somethingsimple]

As we're being serious in this thread and it's more for image C&C etc, thought I'd do my bit. There were about four or five Tuis in the gums over the weekend.

Web compression is a killer.

im finding these images washed out and soft - leaves should be greener (i know they are silver-dollar gum) and lighter than the bird, who should be blacker and glossier
midday lighting? at a guess

[tag141]

midday lighting? at a guess

4pm but it was still harsh. Soft probably because they are severly cropped and at 1/250 bigma handheld isn't the sharpest trying to follow these blighters.

Might play with shadows etc.

[CliveyBoy]

By the way, I'm only having the above rant cause I am going to go spare if I have another person ask me what white balance settings I use when I shoot RAW.
Well, you are principally right but not completely.

Save Raw only.
Canon firmware creates a jpeg and stores it with the raw image - always. Setting the camera to Raw plus jpeg saves a raw+jpeg file, plus a jpeg file. Redundant except for sports photogs who have to upload to the editor pronto.

What do I see on the LCD?
You see the jpeg which is stored with the Raw. You Never see the raw image. Ever. Unless you are a scientist dealing with such things. The human mind could learn to discern an image, like one of those colour-blindness test charts. We see on the LCD only an interpretation of the captured image, based on all the jpeg settings we have applied. Setting white balance provides us with an indication of what we will get if we applied similar settings during raw processing. It can be helpful to evaluate the shot in terms of expected values. Even the histogram is jpeg-based.

There is more to white balance that just degrees kelvin.
The tint values can be quite surprising, and are often ingnored by humans and software. I am talking about the Blue/Amber and Green /Magenta shifts.

It is often difficult to correct the combined effect of these factors in Photoshop. It is simpler to use a white-balance reference shot and let the firmware identify the corrections needed.

Breeze Browser handles these twin-axis corrections correctly, but most software handles no or one axis. If the shot is for use by a computer artist it doesn't really matter, but if it is for a photographer, it does.

[weka2000]

There is more to white balance that just degrees kelvin.
The tint values can be quite surprising, and are often ingnored by humans and software. I am talking about the Blue/Amber and Green /Magenta shifts.
.

Im listening

[naqs]

Ok - I've got the school sports exchange coming up next tuesday and would like some tips on shooting the following sports

1. Rugby
2. Hockey
3. Volley Ball
4. Basketball (already done the basketball bit but if you have anything to add please do)
5. Netball
6. Touch (similar to rugby, I know)

Thanks

[weka2000]

Ok - I've got the school sports exchange coming up next tuesday and would like some tips on shooting the following sports

1. Rugby
2. Hockey
3. Volley Ball
4. Basketball (already done the basketball bit but if you have anything to add please do)
5. Netball
6. Touch (similar to rugby, I know)

Thanks
Do a search now on the net for how others have captured these sports.

[klippe]

What do I see on the LCD?
You see the jpeg which is stored with the Raw. You Never see the raw image. Ever. Unless you are a scientist dealing with such things. The human mind could learn to discern an image, like one of those colour-blindness test charts. We see on the LCD only an interpretation of the captured image, based on all the jpeg settings we have applied. Setting white balance provides us with an indication of what we will get if we applied similar settings during raw processing. It can be helpful to evaluate the shot in terms of expected values. Even the histogram is jpeg-based.

There is more to white balance that just degrees kelvin.

The tint values can be quite surprising, and are often ingnored by humans and software. I am talking about the Blue/Amber and Green /Magenta shifts.


Great info CliveyBoy. I love technical stuff!

I must confess that I can't see how what you've said changes what I've said in any way.

My argument is that if you have access to white balance controls (be they standard kelvin and/or tint adjustments) - you can still (and many say should) set those in post.

Whether or not you prefer to set white balance while you are out shooting - even just to ease your mind that you're heading down the right path - is still moot if you are going to adjust it in a RAW processor afterward. Sure it might save you a few seconds of slider adjustments here or there, but on the whole I'd wager that if the image is one that is considered a 'wow' image, that you'll spend quite a bit of time adjusting anyway.

Maybe others would disagree, but if they did I'd say that if you are that time pressured, then shoot JPEG and don't post process at all. Such as the aforementioned sports shooters. (I still do that at certain events myself)

My point was that as the files do not save any of the 'extranious' info directly onto the RAW file itself, therefore I feel it is more sensible from a production point of view to set all the appropriate settings in post - in a more controlled and accurate environment.

The point you raise with regards to certain software not processing 'multi axis' (colour tints CMYK/multi-channel (sort of) shift etc) is a software issue isn't it? Surely setting white balance while shooting to get around that is just dealing with a symptom and not the problem? Those settings (either way) are still not saved within the RAW file itself - so therefore I still think post processing is the better option. You should still have access to those controls if you are using reasonable software to process. Heck, even the ZoomBrowser EX that comes with Canon cameras has that shift control.

Chances are, any RAW image you are going to use to showcase your work will have had some form of adjustment done to it, so why not do that in post where you have greater control - you're probably going to post process anyway right?

I'd say all of us shooting RAW here would post process colour temp/tint for most of our 'poster' shots. So why devote time on the shoot to attempting to get it right out there where it's a little hit-and-miss.

The reason I say it's 'moot' is that why bother setting it out in the field if you know you are going to adjust it in post anyway - isn't that double handling of sorts?

Clarification: My opinion is that it's moot.

And I think it's a logical opinion to have. Why adjust out there when I'm very very likely to adjust in post? For me it's an unecessary worry to have out there when I should really be concentrating on 'moments' and framing etc (visual interest etc - you know, actually taking 'good' photos as opposed to crap)

I can appreciate that others set white balance to give themselves a closer approximate of how the adjusted shot may look. But this is what I was getting at earlier with the LCD showing a representation of the RAW file with settings applied (which you've pointed out (and I didn't) is actually JPEG preview of sorts).

If anyone is interested. I think there's a tutorial on that 'Cambridge in Colour' site that goes into the multi-dimensional colour shift stuff.

Thanks for the debate Cliveboy! Awesome. :)

Cliff

[weka2000]

If anyone is interested. I think there's a tutorial on that 'Cambridge in Colour' site that goes into the multi-dimensional colour shift stuff.

Cliff

They went over my head. Mind you so did F Stops when I first started out.

[klippe]

They went over my head. Mind you so did F Stops when I first started out.

You can ignore half my crap if you like. I love the technical side of all this.

I have books devoted to 'gamma' even.....

I think that means I am a nerd.

Cliff

[tag141]

Hoare frosts...we have one here. It's a small area of the drive that's not getting any sun and the temps aren't getting up to make it thaw. So it's a frost on frost on a frost etc. Got in close as I could...

http://tph1.orcon.net.nz/hoare.jpg

[joeseph]

Hoare frosts...we have one here. It's a small area of the drive that's not getting any sun and the temps aren't getting up to make it thaw. So it's a frost on frost on a frost etc. Got in close as I could...

awesome - don't see many of those up here...

[sorry for the doublepost about to occur]
I'm doing a sensor cleaning session for Iain on Sunday afternoon - if anyone in our neck of the wood's interested in being shown how I clean my sensor I can cope with more folks along at the same time - PM me.

[CliveyBoy]

Im listening
On my 30D there is a menu item WB Shift/BKT. Set that and a graph appears showing the two colour-shift axes. You can move the centre dor around any of the 4 quadrants to correct for a tinting. I use the "clit" control. :cool:

I have played with it manually without success, but it did help me to understand what the camera can do automatically.

When I am concerned (such as shooting hanging quilts at a show with their mixed lighting) I use a calibrated grey card to take a reference shot, and then apply that white balance. The LCD then shows the benefit of that correction when I take the quilt. The numbers that represent the colour shifts can be quite unexpected, and can be used in ZoomBrowser, BreezeBrowser, etc during the raw conversion. Those matrons can be quite fierce if the quilt's colours are not spot on!

In other circumstances, I use the Expodisc. It is not necessary to use the reference shot to set the camera's custom balance, but the feedback is better.

[CliveyBoy]

My argument is that if you have access to white balance controls (be they standard kelvin and/or tint adjustments) - you can still (and many say should) set those in post.

I agree with you, and that is my commonplace practice. But I do go further, and find Tony's question quite reasonable.

What values to use? A reference shot provides an excellent starting point.

A Custom WB need not be set from the reference - the values can simply guide PP.

But the LCD always uses a white balance and tint correction, and the histogram reflects that. Why not use something near what you will be using?

The pixel values are not modified by the settings, but the values are stored in the Exif data in the file. Processing software often starts with those "as shot" values.

I find it difficult to get the balance correct by eye - I need help. (I know that there is no "correct" wb or exposure etc but enough for one post!)

If I set out from Tauranga to Auckland and let the car do its own thing, I might finally get there in a year or so. It's good to have an accurate mapped direction at the start.

The LCD display -is- a jpeg. When mine is extracted from the raw file, I get values like Total: 9988KB, Embedded Jpeg 904KB, 1728 x 1152 pixels (LCD resolution).

Enough already. A lot of opinion, some fact, and we agree essentially. You like to visually judge these matters; I like a starting point because I struggle with getting the colour I want.

[klippe]

Thanks Cliveyboy.

Can you please PM me about the couriering of the photographer's Vest?

I did place a post in the other thread but things moved fast enough that you might have missed it.

Cliff

[kelstar]

Hoare frosts...we have one here. It's a small area of the drive that's not getting any sun and the temps aren't getting up to make it thaw. So it's a frost on frost on a frost etc. Got in close as I could...

Wow - that looks very cold.

[CliveyBoy]

Thanks Cliveyboy.

Can you please PM me about the couriering of the photographer's Vest?

I did place a post in the other thread but things moved fast enough that you might have missed it.

Cliff
Yes, I did miss it - sorry, and PMs were off. I have sent a PM.

[somethingsimple]

2 beach photos - c&c please

[wendyc]

Sorry SS but they dont do it for me. I know you are capable of much better. I dont like the angle of the first and the second has no focus.

NO, it has a focus but its in the wrong place and perhaps if you zoomed in on it a bit from a lower angle??

[lil_miss]

I'm drawn to the blown out area in the first one....
Second one might suit B&W?

[Nzshrimper]

Sorry SS cant find anything positive about them.

pic 1 - no focal point - blown sky - flat colour - just very boring.
pic 2 - as above but water rather than sky. the reflection would have been good if we could get a feeling of a drama with the sky.

[weka2000]

Wekas tip. Before you press the shutter close 1 eye and look at the scene. Thats what the camera sees. Remember we have 2 eyes which create a 3 dimention look, a lens has 1 therefore 2 dimentional look

[somethingsimple]

thanks for the cc guys - i still like them lol but i see what you mean

part of the reason i like some of my photos that dont catch other ppls eye is probably due to the fact that they might represent something to me or remind me of something personal

the first one was taken from a high jetty, fyi (wasnt able to get a different viewpoint without climbing down the rocks)

[somethingsimple]

how about this one?

[Moppie]

Same problem as the last 2.

Wheres the focal point of the photo?
All I see is an OOF big drop on the leaf competing with the infocus small drops on the edge.

[tag141]

Wheres the focal point of the photo?
All I see is an OOF big drop on the leaf competing with the infocus small drops on the edge.

Agreed. I would like to see the whole leaf in focus or at least that big drop.

[theflyingkiwi]

Agreed. I would like to see the whole leaf in focus or at least that big drop.

I was thinking the same thing.

[somethingsimple]

bummer...
yeah i was TRYING to get the big drop in focus, (was standing far away at 500mm) and i missed it, and i was hoping it wouldnt show!

guess NOT
LOL

[Moppie]

bummer...
yeah i was TRYING to get the big drop in focus, (was standing far away at 500mm) and i missed it, and i was hoping it wouldnt show!

guess NOT
LOL


You did look at the picture before you posted it I trust? :rolleyes:

We all know your a better photographer than that SS :)

[somethingsimple]

You did look at the picture before you posted it I trust? :rolleyes:

We all know your a better photographer than that SS :)

yeah *sigh* i did know
i was telling myself it wasnt as conspicuous as it is
i didnt point it out when i posted cos i wanted to see what ppl said

[theflyingkiwi]

a nice droplets and stuff out when I got up today :)

thought I would clean the dust of the camera and see what I could come up with.

[weka2000]

You got good focus on the Web. I like it.

[somethingsimple]

spiderweb nicely arranged,the other well composed with the dof effect etc but that doesnt save it im afraid, no point of interest

[klippe]

I'm the opposite of SS, I really like the second shot.

("I really like" - which if you think about it makes critiquing kind of pointless really - as it's only an opinion - but this is the 'serious photography thread' I suppose)

Cliff

[weka2000]

spiderweb nicely arranged,the other well composed with the dof effect etc but that doesnt save it im afraid, no point of interest
The spider web IS the point of intrest.

[somethingsimple]

The spider web IS the point of intrest.

um tony - i said the OTHER PHOTO was nicely composed but... etc

please try to stay on-task LOL :rolleyes:

[weka2000]

um tony - i said the OTHER PHOTO was nicely composed but... etc

please try to stay on-task LOL :rolleyes:

Woops...Hey I had a ruff day :lol:

[theflyingkiwi]

spiderweb nicely arranged,the other well composed with the dof effect etc but that doesnt save it im afraid, no point of interest

the point of interest is the part of the photo in focus. or are u really just saying the point of interest is boring?

I'm the opposite of SS, I really like the second shot.

("I really like" - which if you think about it makes critiquing kind of pointless really - as it's only an opinion - but this is the 'serious photography thread' I suppose)

Cliff

umm yea, just out of interest what did you like about the 2nd one?

um tony - i said the OTHER PHOTO was nicely composed but... etc

please try to stay on-task LOL :rolleyes:

gee can't take you anywhere can we ???

[klippe]

umm yea, just out of interest what did you like about the 2nd one?

Colours and negative space.

[somethingsimple]

the point of interest is the part of the photo in focus. or are u really just saying the point of interest is boring?

well - the in focus leaf doesnt really have a specific 'reason' - each part of it draws the eye equally and once you look at it, theres nowhere else for the eye to go, its kinda 'flat' interest-wise

does that make sense?

[theflyingkiwi]

well - the in focus leaf doesnt really have a specific 'reason' - each part of it draws the eye equally and once you look at it, theres nowhere else for the eye to go, its kinda 'flat' interest-wise

does that make sense?

now was that so hard. yes it does make sense. I wasn't 100% sold on the 2nd one. But nothing wrong with giving it ago.

You know to expand something on what cliff just said, it's fine to say this is a serious thread, but it's only going to be serious if people say more than "I like it"

if you really wont a serious thread, comment on each photo regarding what you like and dislike about it. so to quote tony "So post your photos and except honest critique (thats nice dosnt count)" or this becomes another thread with just photos in it.

[klippe]

now was that so hard. yes it does make sense. I wasn't 100% sold on the 2nd one. But nothing wrong with giving it ago.

You know to expand something on what cliff just said, it's fine to say this is a serious thread, but it's only going to be serious if people say more than "I like it"

if you really wont a serious thread, comment on each photo regarding what you like and dislike about it. so to quote tony "So post your photos and except honest critique (thats nice dosnt count)" or this becomes another thread with just photos in it.

Ah hah, you have hit the paradox of critiquing on the head - which is what I was really highlighting anyway. Essentially, and almost by definition, you can ONLY critique technical things about a photo (like is it in focus etc - even that's a stretch depending on the photographer's 'vision' for the shot). Any other comment is essentially an opinion.

An example would be "I think that the photo would be better served if you moved the subject a little to the left". Other might disagree - so who's 'right'. Is there a right or wrong? This is why I always take critiquing with a truck load of salt.

So at the end of the day, if you move all the crap out of the way, what you're really left with is "does the person critiquing the shot like it?".

This is the same for critics all over. Look at movie reviews. Transformers was slammed by the critics. People liked the movie. Go figure.

Cliff

[klippe]

Oh yeah, I agree with keeping the comments a little more 'informed'. I should have when I posted my opinion of the shot too. Will do from now on. (although I am never comfortable with critiquing others work - so I probably won't partake too much in this thread anyway).

Cliff

[theflyingkiwi]

Ah hah, you have hit the paradox of critiquing on the head - which is what I was really highlighting anyway. Essentially, and almost by definition, you can ONLY critique technical things about a photo (like is it in focus etc - even that's a stretch depending on the photographer's 'vision' for the shot). Any other comment is essentially an opinion.

An example would be "I think that the photo would be better served if you moved the subject a little to the left". Other might disagree - so who's 'right'. Is there a right or wrong? This is why I always take critiquing with a truck load of salt.

So at the end of the day, if you move all the crap out of the way, what you're really left with is "does the person critiquing the shot like it?".

This is the same for critics all over. Look at movie reviews. Transformers was slammed by the critics. People liked the movie. Go figure.

Cliff

As a photographer I guess I am still trying to figure out what makes a good shot. it gives me the change to think about things differently. which to me anyway is a good thing as it might give me more ideas or not.

What I would like to see more off is about a photo that is posted and what people like or dislike about it.

for me the 2nd photo was all about the detail in the water etc. the space on the left was there to give the photo a sense of space or something. not to sure. only I like wide photos :) comes from watching and understand why some directors like widescreen as a format for films

[Nzshrimper]

ok went to take some ice hockey tonight. - they were shyte.. but on the way home i called by the Pier to see the new lights and captured these...

1. light and dark

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u185/nzshrimper/misc/lightanddark.jpg

2. Fire and Brimstone

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u185/nzshrimper/misc/lightanddark2.jpg

let me know what you think....

[Mark Vuleta]

Is that under New Brighton Pier??
I like the background colours, gives a subdued flouresent feel. Must have been reasonably slot shutter speed or otherwise he is swingging these mighty fast.
The second is presumably a combined long expsoure & zoom which gives it some good depth perception.
Good steady hand or tripod Chris?

The homeless in Christchurch need to to this to keep warm:lol:

[theflyingkiwi]

I like them both, for the first one I like how you have created a border around the top of the frame. the colours really help show the fire off :)

what did you do with the 2nd one to get the streaks?

[somethingsimple]

What I would like to see more off is about a photo that is posted and what people like or dislike about it.

for me the 2nd photo was all about the detail in the water etc. the space on the left was there to give the photo a sense of space or something. not to sure. only I like wide photos :) comes from watching and understand why some directors like widescreen as a format for films

maybe you could have gone wider then - rather than 16x10-ish, more like 2x1?

ok went to take some ice hockey tonight. - they were shyte.. but on the way home i called by the Pier to see the new lights and captured these...

1. light and dark
2. Fire and Brimstone
let me know what you think....

these rock - very unusual and cool, love the round patterns and the colours in the bg make them look like abstract pieces and offset the centered subject

[Nzshrimper]

17 - 85 mm set at 85mm hit the shutter then zoom back to 17 mm during the exposure.
give some cool effects.

tripod for this one and the release cable.

[Mark Vuleta]

17 - 85 mm set at 85mm hit the shutter then zoom back to 17 mm during the exposure.
give some cool effects.

tripod for this one and the release cable.
Cool, was there some sort of event on or the Harris boys out practicing their pyromania.

What was the issue with the Hockey, too dark or too fast. I've tried to watch it on TV & cant even see the puck:oops:

[Nzshrimper]

Harris boys had the fire yesterday.. - some moon thing that this girl runs on the Friday closest to the full moon. a few tribal drums and flames.

going back next time (dressed a bit warmer)

[Nzshrimper]

one more

blue flames

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u185/nzshrimper/misc/lightanddark3.jpg

[theflyingkiwi]

one more

blue flames

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u185/nzshrimper/lightanddark3.jpg

now that's cool

[naqs]

Here are a couple of shots I took today at the Howick College 1st XV game

My 70-200 is just not long enough for rugby :rolleyes:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/walkntheweb/IMG_6957.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/walkntheweb/IMG_6916.jpg

[Moppie]

My 70-200 is just not long enough for rugby :rolleyes:



Still they are not bad shots.
How much can you crop them before you lose the quality?

[Nzshrimper]

70 - 200 not long enough for rugby... rubbish.. you have to shot within its range. (that means patrolling the side line and touchline) a 300mm would be ideal but when the action gets to close its about much use a tits on a bull.

the 70 - 200 is perfect for rugby and at a day game throw on the 2x conver.

good shots too - maybe a little over exposed.

[weka2000]

The only issue with 300 prime is you have to be willing to run back as the players are comming at you. This can happen very quickly.
Like everything you learn where to be and to watch what is happening on the feild.

[Nzshrimper]

The only issue with 300 prime is you have to be willing to run back as the players are comming at you. This can happen very quickly.
Like everything you learn where to be and to watch what is happening on the feild.


yep

[weka2000]

I think this is where a 120-300 Sigma works really well. Even a 100-300 Sigma F4.

[Nzshrimper]

I think this is where a 120-300 Sigma works really well. Even a 100-300 Sigma F4.
again yep - the other guy i shoot with has one. he also has a 1dmk2 :rolleyes: the sport version with go faster stripes..

[weka2000]

The only down side to Sigmas is they are not weather sealed. Optically great.
Ive changed my focus points settings again so Im hoping this Wednesday I will have a game at school to try and see if I can get better results.

[naqs]

Still they are not bad shots.
How much can you crop them before you lose the quality?

not sure... haven't really done anything with them and those haven't been croped

[Nzshrimper]

one to get your opinion on.

remember thou edited on new uncalibrated screen, so colours/ brightness could be out.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u185/nzshrimper/landscapes/newbrightonpieratnight.jpg

[weka2000]

I like it Chris however I would clone out the signs in the second pole.

[theflyingkiwi]

looks good chris, just a couple of notes, do you apply any usm to the photo at all? and you could try applying a blue filter to the photo, this is going to bring out more detail in the pillers.

[Nzshrimper]

usm yes - blue filter nope ill give that a try.

i used noise reduction as the pillars looked to sharp compared to the washed sea. that removed a lot of the sharpness.

may add some back .

[theflyingkiwi]

usm yes - blue filter nope ill give that a try.

i used noise reduction as the pillars looked to sharp compared to the washed sea. that removed a lot of the sharpness.

may add some back .

your using ISO200 why use noise reduction on it?

[Nzshrimper]

original was a long shutter action and is a little grainy. used it to smooth out the pillars as they are rough as badgers.

[scotttnz]

That is a great shot Chris. I like it a lot. The only thing I don't like is your name in the bottom corner. It draws my eye away from a stunning picture. Of course some would see that as a good thing, but it distracts me from the image.

[Nzshrimper]

That is a great shot Chris. I like it a lot. The only thing I don't like is your name in the bottom corner. It draws my eye away from a stunning picture. Of course some would see that as a good thing, but it distracts me from the image.

thanks and yes your are right about the water mark. having had some images nicked in the past - most shots get the watermark treatment.

[Sancho]

I think I might have raised this white balance issue with NZShrimper a while back (and provided a similar link - at least to a tutorial on white balance on the same site as Tony's link).

White balance is totally moot when you are shooting in raw. I still have people telling me that I am talking bollocks when I say that, but it is the honest truth. Don't waste time and effort setting white balance out in the field if you are shooting RAW.

White balance is of no consequence to a raw image - you should set it afterward for best results. What you see in your LCD screen after taking a photo is the RAW image with your settings 'applied' to the RAW file.

Don't know about you guys but I prefer to set the white balance on a decent sized screen under colour conditions that I trust.

I can't understand why white balance gets discussed so much amongst people shooting RAW. It seems to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the RAW format is. The ONLY things that affect a RAW image at the time of shooting are ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture - everything else is 'applied' to the image by the camera afterwards.

White Balance: Save yourself the hassle and just do it in post.

Cliff
P.S. Flame away if you must - but I am right.

Hahaha I totally agree, but because I am such a newbie at all this have always refrained from saying so in case I was missing something obvious. Feel much better about it all now :)

[lance v]

23rd of Feb Tisk Tisk

[theflyingkiwi]

23rd of Feb Tisk Tisk

yea but no one in the GPKE group is serious about photography ;)

[lance v]

haha yea fair point. especially sings half the people dont want to be photogs nemore!

[iKirst]

yea but no one in the GPKE group is serious about photography ;)
am too ;)

[theflyingkiwi]

am too ;)

funny girl :p

[weka2000]

Lets talk photography :lol:

[theflyingkiwi]

Lets talk photography :lol:

I'll quote myself

yea but no one in the GPKE group is serious about photography ;)

[Nzshrimper]

right what do want to talk about then tony...

[weka2000]

Im just about to post 2 photos 1 in HDR and the other blened exposures both done with Photomatrix 3.

ssue ive always had with blend exposures is he "painting" and unlessyou go big with smallbrush you get a semi ghosting effect.So want to see if Photomatrix offers a better way

[weka2000]

Ok 4 images different exposures. NO PP at all both done in photomatrix. I like the result from the blended exposures.

[dgcorner]

I gather the 2nd one is the blended one? I like the way it doesn't look over processed. What is photomatrix?

[dgcorner]

Now, I'd like to post a couple of pics which I posted a while back but didn't get any real critique... be harsh, be honest -- I want to learn...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/dgcorner/GKPE/IMG_0013-01.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/dgcorner/GKPE/IMG_0009-01.jpg

[weka2000]

I gather the 2nd one is the blended one? I like the way it doesn't look over processed. What is photomatrix?
http://www.hdrsoft.com/

Yes the second blended exposures. So far Im sold.

John Im wondering if a more of a look down view on #1 like #2.
I think these photos are in need of Image stacking to avoid the DOF or open up the F Stop more as its 2 narrow

[manipula]

What is photomatrix?

It's where big bad cameras feed the old broken cameras intravenously to the compacts...

Now, I'd like to post a couple of pics which I posted a while back but didn't get any real critique... be harsh, be honest -- I want to learn...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/dgcorner/GKPE/IMG_0013-01.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/dgcorner/GKPE/IMG_0009-01.jpg

You know I'm no nature/wildlife fan John, so regard my comments as fairly objective. Colour wise they obviously jump out a lot, one of the key things I always thought for flower photography. The depth of field level is, in my opinion, just about right. It does however seem as though the sharp parts of the flower (stamen - is that right?) have suffered from a small amount of camera shake. For me personally this spoils the images, as if you're gonna use DOF to attract the attention of the eye, what you end up looking at has to be razor sharp. Verdict: three and a half colourful flowers out of five.

[weka2000]

Dave I was wonder if thats why some people do image stack and retain the OFF background


Dave what did you think of the blended exposeure image?

[theflyingkiwi]

Now, I'd like to post a couple of pics which I posted a while back but didn't get any real critique... be harsh, be honest -- I want to learn...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/dgcorner/GKPE/IMG_0013-01.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/dgcorner/GKPE/IMG_0009-01.jpg

they are nice, but nothing great.

the first one, think about the background. the focus is ok on the tips of the flower, however how everything flows to what you want to viewer looks at isn't there.

as for the 2nd one, I don't like the shadow at the bottom of the image. it's distracting for the rest of the image.

generally I think there is to much space around the subject.

but that's me.

[manipula]

Dave I was wonder if thats why some people do image stack and retain the OFF background


Dave what did you think of the blended exposeure image?

IMO, and call me a luddite for this, but if you've got to faff about putting things back in that you didn't capture in the first place, you shot it wrong originally. Ergo, get better and do it again.

Not sure you want my opinion on the shots from the place you guys went to the other night.