fishnpinball
Cave Dweller
So much to learn, so little time
Member since March 2017
Posts: 1,491
|
Post by fishnpinball on Nov 2, 2017 9:40:14 GMT -5
Superb stones
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 9:54:20 GMT -5
Stunning rocks! If I could learn myself how to take such pictures I would post them every day. I'm more the level of a PHD camera operator - Press Here Dummy. I usually have to take 20 to 30 pictures to get one worth posting. So I don't bother. It frustrates me. Need to take the time to learn. Keep threatening to do so, never find the time. Camera slacker. Take you a couple of tumbles or specimens to a camera shop and let him show you some settings. Or local/neighbor photographer.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 10:02:40 GMT -5
yes you guys are saying the same thing. Mirrors. How about the ISO 800 setting, am I not loosing quality ? Would ISO 200 and slower shutter for same aperture be better ? Is ISO 800 @ 1/60 about the same as ISO 200 @ 1/15 for a given aperture ? Aren't they directly proportional ? Remember rich ASA 100 film verses grainy ASA 400 film ? I do run short on file size in JPEG on heavy magnification crops. Appears I can get more cropping magnification using RAW for my 6M dinosaur. Sorry, got busy with work. You are correct, though, if you double the ISO, you can double your shutter speed. At the same aperture, ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/60 will be the same exposure as ISO 200 and 1/120. Double the ISO and you the sensor will be twice as sensitive to light. ISO 400 and 1/250 is same as ISO 800 and 1/500. I'm sure you get it.
Your D70 isn't as good as the newer cameras at keeping noise down at higher ISOs, but still pretty good. In pics of rocks on a computer screen, you will hardly notice the difference at probably ISO 640 and maybe higher. More important to keep that shutter speed up if you aren't going to use a tripod. The photos you posted above are good, whatever you did.
Yes, photos above good, but have done better. They were shot ISO 800. Thanks Randy. Get the ISO/shutter speed relationship. Same as film. Easy for me. Forgot I set the D70 to ISO 800 a while back and knew the faster allowable shutter speeds were not normal. Could have sworn I lost photo quality since. Will lower the ISO. Get ya on the newer cameras being high ISO friendly. DO NOT CHANGE SETTINGS AND FORGET.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 10:25:12 GMT -5
I shoot a lot of picture using raw, tripod, low iso and long exposure. with a 5.6 f stop . Light are overhead fluorescent match camera white balance to the light source. I don't do any color changing but do use the sharpen functions. when I get what i want i convert them to JPG and if I remember, delete the original raw to save space. this photo was shoot in raw and then converted to jpg. the raw was 19.4MB and the jpg is 5.3 MB. was some cropping done also. Your photos are great the way you shot them, they only thing I don't like is the reflections. I have admired you photos for a long time woodman. And you exquisite pet wood. Always have great lighting. Yes, (damn) reflections are my fault for not setting up good light. That is, if I am capable. Light is everything. Curved polished subjects can add to that problem in a jiffy, may play on an excuse there. Low ISO, long exposure, camera on tripod, matched camera WB to source. These were basics taught to me for closer shots. My first 15 years of photography was a 1957 Rolleicord as a kid 15 to 30 yrs old. WB was not so much in the equation(sun), but the low ASA(film), long exposure and tripod was the way. So your RAW file was about 4 times JPEG file. Get that and the delete of the Raw file. Good that you have dialed in color and do not have to tweak. Don't you compose in real time on you laptop ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 10:28:02 GMT -5
PHD!!! Awesome
Reflections show the polish....
Nice thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2017 10:39:11 GMT -5
jamespWhat is that orange peal texture surface you shot on? I love it!
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 11:11:02 GMT -5
Picture quality comparison at different ISO. Shot in JPEG. Look for grain in darker areas.
100
400
640
800
1000
1250
ISO 100 shot in JPEG with strobe flash and tripod.
ISO 100 shot in RAW, converted to JPEG. Strobe flash.
Conclusion? I don't know, I guess the obvious. If you have good light and a tripod, shoot low ISO, longer exposure and narrow aperture for most depth of field. If the camera is fooled by your light source and you get funky color, RAW will help. If you want to mess with the exposure, color and more, and you don't mind the extra processing step, shoot in RAW, but delete the RAW data afterwards, like woodman said. Those files are huge, especially if you have a high megapixel count on your camera. I like to shoot in JPEG most of the time and avoid the extra processing, if possible, but that's just me. If I know I am going to make prints, especially enlargements, I will use RAW, but the computer screen, where most photos are shared these days, has limitations and JPEG quality is good enough for me in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by woodman on Nov 2, 2017 11:14:22 GMT -5
I shoot a lot of picture using raw, tripod, low iso and long exposure. with a 5.6 f stop . Light are overhead fluorescent match camera white balance to the light source. I don't do any color changing but do use the sharpen functions. when I get what i want i convert them to JPG and if I remember, delete the original raw to save space. this photo was shoot in raw and then converted to jpg. the raw was 19.4MB and the jpg is 5.3 MB. was some cropping done also. Your photos are great the way you shot them, they only thing I don't like is the reflections. I have admired you photos for a long time woodman. And you exquisite pet wood. Always have great lighting. Yes, (damn) reflections are my fault for not setting up good light. That is, if I am capable. Light is everything. Curved polished subjects can add to that problem in a jiffy, may play on an excuse there. Low ISO, long exposure, camera on tripod, matched camera WB to source. These were basics taught to me for closer shots. My first 15 years of photography was a 1957 Rolleicord as a kid 15 to 30 yrs old. WB was not so much in the equation(sun), but the low ASA(film), long exposure and tripod was the way. So your RAW file was about 4 times JPEG file. Get that and the delete of the Raw file. Good that you have dialed in color and do not have to tweak. Don't you compose in real time on you laptop ? I have the camera on a tripod in a different room than my computer, turn it on and get it aimed right and then use the computer to control the shot. makes real long exposures possible without touching camera. I don't really know what I am doing but it keeps the mind active trying to learn. right now I am trying to set up a web page showing my photos. new learning curve. good hobby on cold wet Oregon winters!
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 11:44:07 GMT -5
PHD!!! Awesome Reflections show the polish.... Nice thread Well, if you wanted to shoot a dozen tumbles in one frame the RAW may help if you could simply make 12 copies in photo shop software and electronically crop each tumble. 12 photos, one shot. RAW may provide enough info for each crop. Raw gave the old 6m camera a big boost in cropping ability.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 12:02:01 GMT -5
Garage RockerCould be focus, are my eyes seeing grain/distortion on spiders butt end ? If photo was larger I could see better lol. This is a Mac 14" screen. ISO 800
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 12:09:55 GMT -5
I have admired you photos for a long time woodman. And you exquisite pet wood. Always have great lighting. Yes, (damn) reflections are my fault for not setting up good light. That is, if I am capable. Light is everything. Curved polished subjects can add to that problem in a jiffy, may play on an excuse there. Low ISO, long exposure, camera on tripod, matched camera WB to source. These were basics taught to me for closer shots. My first 15 years of photography was a 1957 Rolleicord as a kid 15 to 30 yrs old. WB was not so much in the equation(sun), but the low ASA(film), long exposure and tripod was the way. So your RAW file was about 4 times JPEG file. Get that and the delete of the Raw file. Good that you have dialed in color and do not have to tweak. Don't you compose in real time on you laptop ? I have the camera on a tripod in a different room than my computer, turn it on and get it aimed right and then use the computer to control the shot. makes real long exposures possible without touching camera. I don't really know what I am doing but it keeps the mind active trying to learn. right now I am trying to set up a web page showing my photos. new learning curve. good hobby on cold wet Oregon winters! Remote shudder control. About mandatory or else a shaker. I get the use of using the large screen for composing. That really has to help. Wife used Wix on a few basic web sites. She was green, did nice job. Once past learning curve all was easier. Yes, she spent winter 2015 behind computer.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 12:18:59 GMT -5
jamespWhat is that orange peal texture surface you shot on? I love it! That is a rust pitted 46 " X 50 " piece of 9 gauge steel with nice folded edges found in junk yard. I welded pipe table legs welded to it. Wire brushed and coated with acrylic. Serves as my computer desk. Would age the rust pits at 10 to 15 years in Georgia climate. Wish I had 200 more like it. Should order #2 grade 9 gauge and brake 100 of them and sit out in sun.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 12:26:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 12:37:55 GMT -5
Garage Rocker Could be focus, are my eyes seeing grain/distortion on spiders butt end ? If photo was larger I could see better lol. This is a Mac 14" screen. ISO 800 More a function of shallow depth of field and cropping within the image than anything. Here's another at ISO 800, without the crop factor.
|
|
|
Post by MrP on Nov 2, 2017 12:41:52 GMT -5
I just learned this yesterday, that is why I still remember it.
When you take a picture with the RAW setting the data for each and every pixel is stored. In JPEG if pixels surrounding each other have the same basic data they are stored as 1 single pixel. What that means is that in RAW you can edit and change each and every pixel but in JPEG you don't have every pixel therefore you can't do as fine of editing. I think I am good with JPEG.......................MrP
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 12:46:33 GMT -5
Garage Rocker Could be focus, are my eyes seeing grain/distortion on spiders butt end ? If photo was larger I could see better lol. This is a Mac 14" screen. ISO 800 More a function of shallow depth of field and cropping within the image than anything. Here's another at ISO 800, without the crop factor.
I may not see it Randy. Trying. May be my screen. Focus verses grain may be confusing the issue. or welder's eyes. frustrated, and thanks for the examples. I can say that my photos don't have this vivid look. Especially at lower section of photo. I know this is a vivid shot. Your tumble photos are incredible. I clearly see how good photos of tumbles can be when viewing your shots. I would find this subject to be a real challenge. Dark and white, shiny, and depth of field needed. Tricky to avoid shadows.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 12:58:21 GMT -5
I just learned this yesterday, that is why I still remember it.
When you take a picture with the RAW setting the data for each and every pixel is stored. In JPEG if pixels surrounding each other have the same basic data they are stored as 1 single pixel. What that means is that in RAW you can edit and change each and every pixel but in JPEG you don't have every pixel therefore you can't do as fine of editing. I think I am good with JPEG.......................MrP It seemed like the basic software handled the RAW image without causing any added complexity Michael. It seemed like I was photo editing a JPEG, but had more of a vivid image at crop or higher magnification. The memory thing....sigh, guess it will continue till CRS sets in.
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 13:09:11 GMT -5
jamesp, that's kind of what I'm getting at. You can't tell much difference between the examples I've shown, I don't think, unless you get out the magnifying glass and do some pixel peeping. Good news! You're eyes may not be that bad.
Thanks, I love photographing those intricate details in the rocks. I think a consistent light source helps. That and trial and error until I like it.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,170
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 14:10:31 GMT -5
jamesp, that's kind of what I'm getting at. You can't tell much difference between the examples I've shown, I don't think, unless you get out the magnifying glass and do some pixel peeping. Good news! You're eyes may not be that bad.
Thanks, I love photographing those intricate details in the rocks. I think a consistent light source helps. That and trial and error until I like it. Intricate details on close ups. That is what I what I want to strive to improve. Tumbled rocks are about as good a subject as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by MrMike on Nov 2, 2017 18:27:57 GMT -5
|
|