PDA

View Full Version : For photographers...


Ben
21st February 2008, 03:30 PM
A nice new podcast: This Week in Photography. (http://twipphoto.com/)

Warning, equipment reviews on this podcast can seriously damage your bank account... I shall not admit to my first TWIP-based purchase... until it arrives tomorrow and I can start playing with it :)

Side note, any photographers out there who have used both Aperture and Lightroom? Any thoughts on which is best?

omeyas
21st February 2008, 04:52 PM
Nope, sorry, I'm a Capture One 4 and Photoshop CS2 man. :) Haven't bothered with CS3 yet. Ask the question here (http://www.ephotozine.com/),(Click on forum at the top) you'll get some informed feedback, I know zilch about either programme but a lot there seem to use them.

Ben
21st February 2008, 05:04 PM
Thanks Frank! Another forum to add to many more! I often use the dpreview.com forum too, which is usually my first stop for camera reveiws.

Edith
21st February 2008, 05:06 PM
Warning, equipment reviews on this podcast can seriously damage your bank account...

For now I'll stick with my new Canon Photoshot S70! :D

I don't use any fancy gadgets yet, only Microsoft Photo Editor. But taking my first macro pictures has been a real delight. I still need to practice a lot but with this camera, but I have already captured the first flowers of spring:


http://flickr.com/photos/63619153@N00/

omeyas
21st February 2008, 06:15 PM
For now I'll stick with my new Canon Photoshot S70! :D



Just looking at maybe ordering the Canon Powershot G9 as a pocket size backup. Seems to tick all the compact boxes. I use a Canon 5D, and a pile of expensive lenses, and whilst I'm delighted with the camera, there are times when a compact comes in handy. They have their limitations as regards shutter lag, noise etc, but generally the G9 is about as good as it gets for compacts. It's not the cheapest compact at around Ģ300, but you get what you pay for!:D

PS. What have you bought, Ben? What boy's toys?

Ben
21st February 2008, 06:49 PM
Well, in light of your above post I'm prepared to admit that it's ... a G9 :)

As you said, seems to tick all the boxes. I have a base level Canon DSLR, the EOS 300D, which takes amazing photos and is very fast in terms of operation, and an IXUS 750 point and shoot, which is incredibly pocketable and also takes great shots.

But there are times when I travel and the EOS is too big for my carry-on suitcase, but the IXUS just doesn't seem serious enough to inspire me to take serious photos while I'm away. Hence the G9.

Should arrive tomorrow. I know the tiny shutter lag might annoy me compared to the DSLR (it used to on a G5 I had, though the G9 should be much faster than that), but I'm prepared to live with that for all the other great features people (http://twipphoto.com/index.php/archives/79) are raving (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml) on about (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page20.asp).

omeyas
21st February 2008, 09:17 PM
Well, in light of your above post I'm prepared to admit that it's ... a G9 :)

As you said, seems to tick all the boxes. I have a base level Canon DSLR, the EOS 300D, which takes amazing photos and is very fast in terms of operation, and an IXUS 750 point and shoot, which is incredibly pocketable and also takes great shots.

But there are times when I travel and the EOS is too big for my carry-on suitcase, but the IXUS just doesn't seem serious enough to inspire me to take serious photos while I'm away. Hence the G9.

Should arrive tomorrow. I know the tiny shutter lag might annoy me compared to the DSLR (it used to on a G5 I had, though the G9 should be much faster than that), but I'm prepared to live with that for all the other great features people (http://twipphoto.com/index.php/archives/79) are raving (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml) on about (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/page20.asp).

I was looking at the Amazon site and there are a lot of happy punters (http://tinyurl.com/2m28m3)there that have bought it.
Out of curiosity Ben, how much is it in Spain? Works out about Ģ295 here.
As I said, I use the 5D, and carry 5 lenses, the biggest being the Canon 100-400, which is an excellent lens, but built like a drainpipe, and about the same weight!!!:) Gets a bit heavy on the back after yomping around the cliff paths here for 4/5 hours!:( I'm not getting any younger!

Anjelo
21st February 2008, 09:25 PM
Ben,
Estoy feliz en discubriendo que hay gentes aqui que se interesa en fotografia. A mi me gusta tambien fotografia. Esta correcto tambien, ese podcast esta muy peligroso hehehe!

I used Lightroom and Aperture but i keep going back to just using Adobe CS3 Bridge. It's simpler for me, less buttons to fiddle with and less complicated and in that way I can focus on the photographs themselves instead of all the tweaking etc... When I was using lightroom and aperture, I found myself shooting less better but editing/tweaking more...

I shoot raw and do batch adjustments... Edit, Copy, Paste settings and voila... Im done.

I also just switched from zooms to shooting with primes... again less fiddling with equipment and more thinking/pre-visualizing...

:)

p.s.

The Canon G9 is sooo tempting! Es una camera tan compacto pero tiene RAW!

Ben
21st February 2008, 09:47 PM
Hi Anjelo. I like primes too. On my EOS 350D (said 300 above, but it's the 350) I currently only use a 24mm lens (about 35mm equiv on the DSLR).

I'm still unconvinced by RAW - I tried earlier this year, but all the images looked just as good at the high quality jpeg setting and used up much less hard drive space. Please, convince me why I must shoot RAW (when I hardly ever, almost never) make prints...

Frank - as usual it's about 20% more in Spain.

ValenciaSon
21st February 2008, 09:50 PM
What is RAW? Is that a new codec for imaging?

Anjelo
21st February 2008, 10:08 PM
RAW is basically the unprocessed data directly from the camera sensor.
Basically, no in-camera processing has been done yet like making the file smaller etc... Which means you don't lose anything... Images are crisper, less noise and better overall range (although for smaller prints some may not notice the difference)

Some cameras have this feature but it sure takes so much hard disk space :(

If you shot underexposed, you can brighten it up without bringing in noise and If you shot overexposed you can get "most" the details back :)

Anjelo
21st February 2008, 10:14 PM
Ben, I'll try to convince you hehehe
I'll try to set an example where Raw is great...

You have 500 images from your trip. Images are a bit too blue and a bit underexposed/overexposed and less saturation.

Fix one image. Correct the color balance. Adjust exposure (captures greater range) and brightness, increase saturation and make a set for print and web.

Copy the settings. Then paste the adjustments on all 500 of them! Set output size and Done!

If you shot jpg, you will have to apply the changes on all 500 of them one at a time, open them one at a time....If you batch them you lose a bit of quality everytime you open and resave a jpg. And if you shot a great moment but i was under or overexposed... you can save the image bec. the RAW file holds more exposure data in it :)

Just like keeping the negatives instead of prints.

:)

ValenciaSon
21st February 2008, 10:34 PM
Ben, I'll try to convince you hehehe
I'll try to set an example where Raw is great...

You have 500 images from your trip. Images are a bit too blue and a bit underexposed/overexposed and less saturation.

Fix one image. Correct the color balance. Adjust exposure (captures greater range) and brightness, increase saturation and make a set for print and web.

Copy the settings. Then paste the adjustments on all 500 of them! Set output size and Done!

If you shot jpg, you will have to apply the changes on all 500 of them one at a time, open them one at a time....If you batch them you lose a bit of quality everytime you open and resave a jpg. And if you shot a great moment but i was under or overexposed... you can save the image bec. the RAW file holds more exposure data in it :)

Just like keeping the negatives instead of prints.

:)

So is RAW a state of image data before it otherwise undergoes the typical compression schemes?

omeyas
22nd February 2008, 12:15 AM
So is RAW a state of image data before it otherwise undergoes the typical compression schemes?

Roughly speaking, itīs your digital negative. Normally overrides all in camera settings.
Ben, I love these people that claim to get it perfect "in camera" every time :) but for those of us that arenīt perfect, shooting in RAW, and with a programme like Capture One, allows you to recover shots that are either under or over exposed, and/or to change the WB to whatever you want. For a photo with very dark and very bright areas for example, itīs easy to make two exposures, one for shadows, one for highlights, and blend the two together. Thus getting a result for an otherwise duff shot.:confused:
You'll be asking about High Dynamic Range, HDR,;D shots next!

Anjelo
22nd February 2008, 01:12 AM
!Very well said! (ŋLos he dicho bien?)

Ben
22nd February 2008, 09:36 AM
Ben, I'll try to convince you hehehe
I'll try to set an example where Raw is great...

Thanks Anjelo for the great example. I think the problem is that I am slightly lazy, so until the situation arises where I loose a great shot because I didn't shoot raw, I'll stick to jpeg and save hard drive space...


Ben, I love these people that claim to get it perfect "in camera" every time I think for me it's not a case of perfect, but more 'good enough' in camera to not have to worry later about too much post processing.


You'll be asking about High Dynamic Range, HDR,;D shots next!Ahhh, no, I already played with that ;) - (not overly successfully, but it's a start!) http://www.notesfromspain.com/forums/images/icons/icon2.gif

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/40/121975918_e9d8927b03_o.jpg

eldeano
22nd February 2008, 09:46 AM
This is all fascinating for a numpty like me. I think all this stuff should be in it's own section of the forum - Geek's Corner? :rolleyes:

omeyas
22nd February 2008, 10:07 AM
Ahhh, no, I already played with that ;) - (not overly successfully, but it's a start!) http://www.notesfromspain.com/forums/images/icons/icon2.gif



You're right, it's a good start! I'm not a huge fan of HDR, but it has it's uses. Some look like someone has gone mad with the saturate button!:) I think someone summed it up best, the best HDR shots, are those that you don't realise they are HDR. I have done some of the inside of a church, and the process lends itself well to that. Do you use Photomatix? Those that know their way around this programme, especially tone mapping, seem to get some good results. Not me, I hasten to add, I haven't spent much time at all with it, perhaps that's why my success rate with it is not very good.:(

Ben
22nd February 2008, 10:20 AM
I think it was photomatrix, but it was a long time ago. I just wanted to play around with it but found it a bit like cheating in a funny way.

Ben
22nd February 2008, 10:26 AM
This is all fascinating for a numpty like me. I think all this stuff should be in it's own section of the forum - Geek's Corner? :rolleyes:Done! And this thread is the first in it!

timg
26th February 2008, 03:22 PM
Good explanation of RAW here (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm)

saiguanas
20th March 2008, 07:33 AM
I don't use it either. I tried it but the difference wasn't enough to justify the work. The tutorial from Canon recommends jpeg for fun shots and RAW for shots you're more serious about and, even then, not all the time.

Lesson 7
http://www.usa.canon.com/content/rebelxt_tutorial/rebelxtlessons.htm

omeyas
20th March 2008, 09:56 AM
I don't use it either. I tried it but the difference wasn't enough to justify the work. The tutorial from Canon recommends jpeg for fun shots and RAW for shots you're more serious about and, even then, not all the time.

I guess I must be serious about all my shots then, I would not dream of using anything but RAW. :) You can easily convert from RAW to jpeg, but not the other way around. As for the work involved, potentially there can be the difference between saving a shot, or scrapping it. Well worth all the work.