Photography discussion

[Sam]

Sam,
What do you mean better lens? Better than my German lens on my old 35?

I started a new thread because the conversation was drifting to photography on Ray's engraved Centofante thread. Sorry about that, Ray...it was my fault.

Glenn: Lens technology continues to improve every year. Today's lenses have improved coatings which reduce glare and increase color and contrast, and today's pro lenses use low dispersion glass in certain elements which cause the primary colors to intersect correctly on the film plane (or sensor). This reduces or eliminates 'color fringing' and increases sharpness by a lot.

Aside from the glass itself, pro lenses are often moisture resistant, have incredibly accurate (and FAST) autofocus systems, and built-in image stablization which allows hand-holding at absurdly low shutter speeds.

The really exciting thing for me is improved camera sensors. What used to be considered useless film speeds (ASA/ISO 400 and above) can now produces spectacular images thanks to the new sensors. Canon just announced a new one today that's supposed to shoot quality images to ISO 3200 with an ISO 6400 option. I've shot a ton at ISO 1600 that are extremely sharp and crisp.

 

[Glenn]

Mr. Cannon will have your check in the mail!
Sam, I'm starting a rumor that will out date your fancy new cameras. Here goes.
This new Glenn camera will fit in your eye and see every thing your eye sees, but 1000 times more sensitive. It will take pictures at the rate of your thought process. Ha now who's system is obsolete?
Here have a puff of this stuff.

 

[Gargoyle]

I started a new thread because the conversation was drifting to photography on Ray's engraved Centofante thread. Sorry about that, Ray...it was my fault.

And here I thought it was my fault starting that thread on the drift off-topic.

Yes, in the past two years digital has moved to the point where affordable consumer digital cameras can rival the quality of 35mm. Added to that the increased options, control and versatility, and film is going away. Almost all the pro photographers I know went digital three years ago. There are always some advantages to film, just as there are some advantages to 33-1/3 rpm records over digital format, but for almost all uses those are far outweighted by the advantages to digital.

As to Sams discussion of lenses, I assume that is for the digital SLR's; many point-and-shoot cameras do have good lenses, but not on the same level.

I'm shopping for a new digital camera- I want something very compact (not the SLR) so I can carry it all the time, sensitive enough to zoom in and shoot details high on the wall inside a dark old Italian church, but also able to get correct color on marble under all lighting conditions and get super closeups. And, the technology has gotten really close to that being possible. I can actually get 9 out of 10 items from my wish list. (the ultra small conflicts with long zoom at 1600 asa without noise). Even my old 35 mm Canon F1 wouldn't do all of that.

 

[Ray Cover]

Sam, I tell you what I would find useful.

It would be a big help to me and I am sure to others for somene to lay out a simple and direct explination of what formats we should use for what.

By simple I mean without all the scientific jargon of the whys and hows. What we need is a "do this and get better results" for web, for print, for email etc. We don't need all the blood and guts and gore of the complicated scientific reasons why. When I start reading through all that stuff it starts sounding like a science geek version of the Jerry Springer show and my brain ties in knots.

Ray

 

[Gargoyle]

Ray,
There are only a few formats you need to pay attention to.

RAW- higher end digital cameras are able to save pix in RAW format. That is a very large file size and contains all the info possible.

TIF- a high quality format, pictures can be manipulated and saved many times without losing any quality or detail. A good basic format for working on the picture. Large file sizes, not all programs can view it, so not suitable for exchanging pix via e-mail or web

JPG- the standard for web images. File sizes are very small, and they can be viewed universally on any computer, cell phone, whatever. But the file is small because when the file is saved it is compressed in a manner which discards "extraneous" info; therefore each time you save a file you lose more detail and info. So it is just for the final end use image which you post on the web or e-mail.

Others of lesser use include GIF (very small files, but maximum color depth is 256 shades/colors, so there is a lot of "dithering"... just good for things like web page graphics); PNG (it was an attempt to develop a universal web format which overcame some of the shortcomings of JPG, but it didn't really take off) and BMP (a very simple, inefficient format; the windows "native" format, but not that important any more). PSD- a native photoshop format related to TIF; if you work strictly in photoshop it is very useful, since it preserves layers; you can separate a pix into layers and work on them separately. (CPT is a similar proprietary formula for Corel PhotoPaint).

The other thing to be aware if is that there are two primary types of graphics programs. Photoshop, Corel Photopaint, Paintshop Pro, are raster (bitmap) programs, paint programs. They treat a graphic as a bitmap- a grid of pixels (dots) which can be "painted"- blurred, tinted, stretched, repainted, etc. The other class of programs are vector (drawing) programs like Illustrator and CorelDraw. They treat a graphic as a mathematical line drawing.

So, in a paint program a line is a row of dots. In a drawing program it is the connection between two end points; sort of like a rubber band stretched between two pins. Therefore in a drawing program, you can pull the line, thicken it, bend it. In a paint program you can paint over it, or push the paint around the canvas. A drawing program is better for lettering layouts, designing scrollwork, and the like; a paint program is better for photo manipulation.

One more thing- a vector (drawing program) graphic can be scaled up or down infinitely without losing anything. A bitmap (paint program) graphic is a grid of dots, if you scale it down, you lose dots and info. (if a graphic is 1024 x 768 pixels, that is 786,432 dots; scale it down to 640 x 480 and it becomes just 307,200 dots). (there is more than that, color depth and such, but this is the rough idea).

See, life is simple.

 

[Ray Cover]

Thank you,

That is is the kind of stuff I needed to know. I am a photoshop user (I am planning to get illustrator for my birthday this summer) so from what you say I would be better off saving everything as a PNG on my computer and only convert it to a jpeg for the purpose of using it on the web or emailing it to a friend.

And in nice plain English too.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[fegarex]

I'm going to put a sales pitch in here now...
Sam Welch did an EXCELLENT seminar on photography at Reno this year. He talks about many areas including lighting and formats and tweaking photos. For those that didn't see the seminar the DVD will probably be available in June sometime. Keep an eye on the FEGA web site or if you are a member you'll get a special price flyer in an upcoming newsletter.

 

[Gargoyle]

so from what you say I would be better off saving everything as a PNG on my computer

Use PSP, not PNG. PSP is the native photoshop format; PNG is a web format, one which is great in theory, but never reached the necessary critical mass to replace JPG.

 

[Tom Curran]

Good stuff, Gargoyl.
I have been learning slowly how to take better pictures.
I bought a Nikon D50 this year, and it took me a while to learn how to get results as good as my little point and shoot Canon A70. The info you posted is very helpful.

I currently have the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. I would like to be able to get closer macro shots than what I currently able to do(presently no closer than 6"). Any suggestions?

 

[SamW]

There are (or at least used to be) close-up lens attachments in the form of a screw-in filter that come in sets of 3. The ones I bought for my old film SLR several years ago cost about $25 or $30. I have been using a couple of them on my digital Cannon G2 and can fill the "frame" with a 35mm slide and make really nice 8x10 prints from them. They allow some very nice and close shots. Haven't looked for them lately but would hope they are still available. I shall want some to fit the next digital I buy sometime this year.

For file formats, my G2 has RAW (about 2.8megs) format and I take and save photos in this format then they are converted in the computer to tiff (about 20 megs print ready)files which I manipulate as needed. If needed for email or to put on cds for anyone to use, I convert to jpeg and size down for email but leave large for cds. I do quality prints from the tiff files. S

 

[Gargoyle]

SamW reminded me of one thing- if you are sending a photo to a magazine for publication, typically they want high resolution (300) dpi TIF images. For display on a computer screen (web pages, etc) no point going higher than 72 dpi. The resample function in photoshop/photopaint can be used to change the resolution (dpi). Usage of this will depend on how your camera saves the photo; most point-n-click cameras save images at 72 dpi (dots per inch).

 

[Sam]

Thanks Walter. That's an excellent explanation of the various image formats. I might add that Photoshop native format is PSD, not PSP. I think PSP files are PaintShop Pro if I'm not mistaken. As you said, working with PSD files allows non-destructive image editing using adjustment layers, etc, and your original remains unaltered and can be changed at any time.

From the PSD file you save to JPG either by 1.) Save As and choosing JPG, or 2.) Save For The Web which launches a special optimizer which allows you to adjust quality settings for your JPG image. I normally use a quality setting of 50 for web images. You can drag the adjustment slider and see the results in real time next to an un-optimized image for comparison.

For images that I print I print directly from the PSD file.

 

[Mike Cirelli]

Wow if this forum keeps going like it is it could rule the world. Well maybe not the world but at least the world of artisans
Mike

 

[Sam]

For those who want to get up to speed quickly with Adobe Photoshop, check out Russell Brown's site. He's a Photoshop guru, and I believe he works for Adobe. He's kind of silly and corny, but the free video tutorials on his site are some of the best you will find.

There are also Photoshop tutorials on YouTube.com
Mac users: TubeSock allows you to save YouTube videos to your computer! It works great and will even output for iPod video. It also saves them directly into iTunes if you wish. There may be a Windows application that also does this.

 

[ron p. nott]

here is a photo i just took with my nikon 8700 which i bought 2 years ago ,, i know it is out of date , but i still havent learned how to use it . i do like the camera but it has a lot of features that i still havent learned how to use .. ron p.

 

[Sam]

Ron: The Coolpix 8700 is an excellent camera. As I've said many times, correct lighting is more important than the camera. Your photo's not bad, but if you could reflect a white surface onto that bolser it would light up beautifully. You are very close! / ~Sam

 

[Mike Cirelli]

Sam are there any sites Russel brown's for Corel draw?
Mike

 

[Andrew Biggs]

Hi everyone

I use a light tent setup that I made for very little money. On the knife network forum there is a photography section as well. Sharp by Coop (Jim Cooper) shows you how to go about this.

Here is the link http://www.knifenetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26222

Sam Welch in his excellent seminar at Reno this year shows you how with the aid of inexpensive butchers paper you can photograph your work on your work vice. He also shows you a store brought portable light tent and gives you all sorts of useful information. I can hardly wait till the DVD comes out.

For photographing small objects like jewellery you can cut a hole in a Tupperware bowl and place it over the object and shoot the photo through the hole. Rio Grande sell these if you really want to buy one

The one common thing that all these methods have is light diffusion. Spreading the light evenly over the surface. With awkward shaped objects like a gun action, the use of carefully placed white cardboard can bounce light into dark areas. It also means that reflection doesn’t become a problem.

Some of the better (not necessarily expensive) cameras have a light balance feature on them that can compensate for artificial light like halogen and fluorescent. These light sources can add a yellow or blue and green tinge to your photos. The light balance neutralises this. If you haven’t got a light balance feature on your camera then using the light tents you can take the photo outside in natural light.

The essential thing is a tripod for your camera.

The finished photo can then be enhanced in PhotoShop (or another computer programme) by playing with levels, hue, and saturation. Cropping it, cutting it out and placing it on another background etc. The big trick is to start with a decent photo in the first place. If the initial photo is complete rubbish (fuzzy, out of focus, reflecting too much background, glare spots, etc) then no amount of computer enhancing will make it any better.

FEGA also have a 2006 seminar tape done by the author Tom Turpin where he discusses the topic of publishing your work and what's needed for the photographic side of things. Here's the link http://www.fega.com/prodserv/VideosSC.asp?dvdparam=DVD&categoryparam=video

The biggest thing that you need more than anything else, is to take the time to take the photo properly. You can spend hours, days, weeks to engrave an object and when it's finished it's gone. All that you have left is the photo to show other customers or friends. So why not take an extra half hour to do it properly. If you are posting it on the internet you still want to present all of that time and effort in the best possible way.

Hope this helps

Cheers
Andrew

 

[Sam]

Andrew: Jim Cooper's setup works quite well. The sample photos are evenly illuminated and perfect as far as I'm concerned.

I think the first thing a person needs to understand is that they are taking a photograph of a mirror. The knife bolster, gun action, or piece of jewelry is the mirror, and it needs to reflect a white surface. This white surface can be a cloudy sky or the inside of a light box such as Jim's. If the object reflects the surroundings in the room (walls, furniture, etc) it will produce dark areas. That's pretty much it.

One of my students uses a white plastic bucket with holes cut in the side and top for his camera. Similar to Jim's setup, he places lights around the outside of the bucket. The object iniside the bucket can only reflect the white surfaces surrounding it.

There are many inexpensive and portable options for light boxes. Winston Churchill uses a collapsible white nylon light tent which costs around $100US. There are similar ones available for less money, so there are plenty of very inexpensive options, including Jim's homemade setup.

With a little time and effort everyone can take GREAT photos of their engraving. I think it's the last step in producing professional quality work, and in today's digital world, it's a must.

 

[Gargoyle]

Sam are there any sites Russel brown's for Corel draw?

Not a site, but a book. I highly recommend Steve Bain's book, Coreldraw 12: The Official Guide. He is a very thorough teacher.

(disclaimer: I was tech editor for a number of his books, including the ones on Coreldraw 9 and Illustrator7; so I read every word and tested every step, and he took the reader clearly through all the possibilities of these programs; after having used Corel since v. 1, my knowledge of it doubled in working on the book for v. 9).