A thread to post any questions/discoveries during your photography ventures.
So continuing with the discusion in the open photo thread.
The EXIF data my camera pumps out for exposure time is always the same as shutter speed. I figue they have to be the same as shutter speed is the time that the film or ccd is exposed for. I don't know about emcee's theory, seems a little too complex but perhaps :snrug:
RD - the natural and natural+ are the two sRGB settings that my camera has, according to the manual, natural is a faithful representation while natural+ increases contrast and acutance. i think I'll shoot natural and increase contrast and acutance in PS if the need be.
So with the adobe profile it'll will give me more accurate colors when printing from Adobe products?
please excuse my digital printing n00bn3ss!!!!eleventeen
Note: as I was saying in the other thread, this will be the new home for the technical discussion of photography techniques, camera specs, digital or tradional photography including filters, printing, RAW processing, or whatever else you might want to discuss or have questions about relating to the technical aspects of photography.
Well, Ari has broken the thread of this discussion. :P But I will try to pick it up.
Re EXIP data, exposure time and shutter speed, here is my EXIF data from three different sources, FWIW:
Windows Explorer:
Photoshop CS2 Bridge:
Elements Organizer:
(Note - I think this is a different photo from the first two. Sorry. Lost track of which photo I was grabbing)
You'll note that, where exposure time and shutter speed are both given, they are always the same, at least for my Canon G5. You'll note that Adobe Bridge doesn't even bother to report shutter speed.
The 'time' the exposure was taken is shown in the DATE, or DATE TIME field, not the exposure time field.
I think for most practical purposes, exposure and shutter speed are the same thing, as reinforced by Bridge's only bothering to report the exposure.
As to my theory being too complex ... I dunno. It seems like there must be some difference between the two, at least sometimes, or there wouldn't be to different EXIF data fields.
Ok, so that is as clear as mud.
As long as we have this thread here, I was hoping maybe soem of you folk who are more in tune with camera work might be able to give a list of resources, not unlike what we have in the design forum for deign resources...
As far as digital camera technical reviews & forums, I swear bywww.dpreview.com ... for more SLR technical stuff like aperture/shutter speed guides & the like, I haven't found any good references online yet - anyone got any they'd care to share? lens lists & descriptions? How-to guides for peripheral equipment? Lighting tips & tricks? Filters & their usage?
my 1970's SLR how-to books, while useful, are frightfully out of date.
Ok I've got a few links some are far more useful than others and some are simply submission pages or links to photography forums but if you follow the rabbit trails long enough you should hit something useful.
Fred Miranda Forums - A reasonably large photography forum with some good work. It can be kinda cliquey there but good things to be had.
Morgue File - Not what it sounds like. 10 lessons, mostly basic, on camera use.
New Egg - A $54 (US) 1 GB compact flash card.
Jumbo Giant - For when you want BIG prints of your pics.
Stock Photography Pricing - How to price your work when selling it as stock photography.
MPIX - Offers a little bit more than your normal online photo printer.
Print Room - A place to sell your photos online.
Photo Friday - A weekly photo assignment site.
Photography an Introduction - Exactly as it sounds, 17 lessons.
Masterfile - Another place to sell your photos, rights managed this time.
Ewa Marine - THE place to check out when you need to make your camera water resistant or waterproof.
More lessons - Link goes to a lesson on DOF (DEPTH-OF-FIELD) but there are other links to more lessons. More advanced than previous lesson links.
Originally posted by arigato _ **Ok, so _that is as clear as mud. **
I mean to say that, in the real world, there is a miniscule difference between the shutter speed and the exposure time, owing the the finite amount of time required for the shutter mechanism to fully operate.
But, for most practical purposes, this difference is easy to ignore and most cameras do, in fact, ignore it, recording the same number for both.
EXIF data has a hole for both numbers because a camera could record the actual, physical exposure time, but no camera I've ever worked with does measure/record that time, and just places the same number (eg 1/60th sec) in both holes. Pro forma like.
//edit: 'course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
There is usually some good info (and lots of shite) found at: http://www.photo.net (the forums can be a wealth, if you know how to search, and don't mind putting on your hip-waders)
I also participate at the large format forums - but that is pretty specialized to 4x5 and larger view cameras and their particular issues. http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/ (can be lots of processing, and the occasional philosophical discussion tho - and some good scanning tips for big film).
Good stuff, keep 'em coming!
:thumbsup:
Technical question:
I'm noticing that my raw shots look a lot more vibrant when I get them into CS2, but saving as jpg I'm losing about 10-15% saturation and the shot lightens up maybe 5%. Any idea why?
Also, I'm using sRGB to take the shots. Would switching to adobeRGB be advisable? I knwo there was a post about this in the old photo thread, but I can't find it.
How are you saving them as jpegs? save for web or just save as?
I use save as and usually use the highest quality (12) and don't notice that much quality loss.
I'm not using the new fangled CS2 though.
The color setting question is on one of the last two pages of the old photo thread. I think the AdobeRGB progfile is mostly for outputting to print.
also does CS2 have the latest RAW drivers for the RAW format your camera is using?
Ah, Ok. :blush:
I thought it was further back, which explains why I'm stupid.
I tried both, and suspect it maybe colour profile differences between the two modules, but I haven't found any documentation. I'll try the Pentax's raw editor to compare, but I thought it might be a simple oversight on my part.
Photoshop, when working in it, always seems more saturated to me... I don't know if it calls up a different monitor profile, or what...
definitely inconsistent with the rest of my system.
It tends to be ok for print output, but I usually do one last bump of saturation/and my shadows for web output. (I've actually got an action recorded to do just that...)
Ari, Are you bringing the into PSCS2 first, then saving? Where, exactly, are you converting to JPG.
yes, into pscs2 via the raw converter, save as tiff, then resize & save for web as jpg.
//edit: just tried exporting as jpg directly form the raw converter, seems to preserve colours much better, thanks
Color management is the queen bitch.
_Originally posted by Stmoo _ **I'm never really certain where to crop my images (composition is something that I always struggle with).
I'd be grateful if you could give me some pointers on the images above? **
Well, when in doubt, one can always fall back on the rule of thirds which states that if you divide an image up thusly:
And place your strong vertical or horizontal lines (eg, the horizon) on the at about 1/3 of the way in and, better yet, place your main object of interest at one of the 4 intersections, the image will tend to look pretty good.
Of course, this is a rule of thumb. It sometimes gives pretty crappy compositions, and you can make striking compositions by ignoring it. But, still.
Some quickie crops suggested by this rule might be:
Original: 
Crops:
Original:
Crops:
original:
Crop:
I have a tendency to overcrop my photos, so take the above with a grain of salt.
It also depends, of course, on how much photo rez you have to work with in the first place but, if you crop things for a while and get the hang of it, you'll start composing shots that way in the first place and it will become less of an issue, overall.
:2cents:
//edit
I rather fancy this one:
//edit
good breakdown of the rule of thirds MC.
Photo.net has a decent little breakdown of composition.
They're using nature/animal pictures, but the ideas are the same regardless.
Nice work, boys. :thumbsup:
For those who don't realize, this is the same rule of thirds used for graphic composition & layout as well - more info in the design forum tutorials thread for those who are interested.
here's a nice explanation of sRGB vs. Adobe RGB
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
:grumpy:
an interesting point came up in the thread comparing prosumer DSLRs, and Icebus complained about the lenses.
Now, I got the Pentax *ist, and it came with a Pentax Zoom Super Wide Angle SMCP-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Autofocus Lens.
Seeing as I don't know much about lenses, any thoughts on what I should be looking to pick up? I'd like to stay with autofocus, but would definitely like a longer lens for a start.
I thought you got the 70-300mm with your *ist?
It's fairly standard fare for camera companies to cheapen out on startup lenses (the glass is usually quality but they don't seem to put as much effort into the optics), my 35-70 that came with my minolta is the same, fairly slow for a wider lens.
I'm pretty sure any lens yo buy for that camera is going to have to be AF.
this is very nice telephoto for your camera and fairly fast for a longer lens.
Here's a list of lenses for your camera
I couldn't remember so I googled, and yes, it's true, I googled wrong. :aghasp:
the 18-55 does seem to give me some pretty decent range, so I'm not griping - but I have no idea what I should get next. I was thinking I'd pick up a 50 ...
yea I envy your 18, the widest I have is 35 (which is about a 50 with the conversion). A wider lens is next on the purchase list, I'll probably pick one up in Japan.
It's aways good to have a nice prime 50 and while you slowly build up your collection a prime 25 and 85 will fit nicely.
these two look nice and not too expensive:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details?reqID=3018&subsection=Digital_35mm_standard
i'd second the 50. if you get a prime you can get a fast lens pretty cheap too. i seem to always find myself in fairly low light conditions so i use my f1.8/50mm alot.
they say 50mm is pretty close to the range your eye's see too.