Photography tips, tricks, etc..

[Kato]

Sometimes the simplest things make a big difference. This was shot on a black t-shirt...

 

 

Kershaw JYD 001 by Edward Durbin, on Flickr

 

 

This one was on black felt, bought at the local craft store...

 

Precious Moments 006 by Edward Durbin, on Flickr

[KnarlyCarl]

Sometimes the simplest things make a big difference. This was shot on a black t-shirt...

 

 

Whoah I had that exact same knife, never thought I would come across a pic of it at random here. That's their junkyard dog knife. Lost it who knows where.

Very cool stuff, sorry for the sidetrack

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Yup, I am at your disposal...

[KnarlyCarl]

Sterco asked an interesting question in the other thread that I'm curious about, and that is what to do with a condition like very shaky hands? Tripod your only answer? Breathing techniques? 

[Kato]

Ah, thanks for reminding me, forgot to answer that one. Plenty of methods to use, easy ones too. Obvious answers a re monopod, tripod, a camera or lens with image stabilization, etc..

 

Some easy tricks:

1.) Tie a piece of string, paracord, etc., to a 1/4"x20x1/2" bolt, put a fender washer on, then thread it into the tripod socket on the camera. Make the string long enough to stand on, then stand on the end and hold the camera to your eye so the string is taught, it'll give you a little bit more stability.

2.) Proper technique, brace your elbow(s) against your body. This trick works better with a DSLR because your hand will be on the lens. Using the lens/hand arm, brace your elbow against your body. This is actually proper technique for shooting, and will give you more stability. For a smaller camera, like a point-n-shoot, brace your non-shutter hand under your shutter hand, kind of like pistol shooting. You're going to brace your hands together. Let's say you're a right-handed shooter (for cameras), you're going to put your left hand around your right wrist and fan your fingers around the backside of your right hand. Then you're going to make sort of a triangle between your hands, elbows, and body. Always leaning into one shoulder more than the other, so your arms and camera are braced into your body and you can put your eye to the camera comfortably.

You don't want to have the camera out away from your body, mainly because every point of contact adds more shake...hands, wrists, lower arms, elbows, upper arms, shoulders, upper body, etc.. Every piece that is farther away from the base (which is your body) means that much more distance for vibration to travel, and less ability to control it. It may feel weird at first, and it may look silly, but proper bracing techniques will give you a more solid shot.

3.) Pillows, sandbags, tables, etc.. Put the camera on something, if you're shooting indoors use a table, the back of a chair, whatever. Something that will allow you to brace the camera or your hands against. Pillows work great because they absorb everything, you can cushion yourself really good into a pillow and see little to no shake. They actually make little sandbags for photography, that you can carry in the camera bag or even in your pocket. You toss them wherever you want and rest the camera on them.

If you're shooting outdoors, try a stump, fence, lean against a tree, etc..

4.) In the same regard as tables, chairs, etc., you can use a wall. Lean into a wall, brace your hand against the wall, or in the least brace your body against it.

5.) the crux of your elbow. For smaller cameras, cellphone cameras, etc., the hand that's holding the camera place your wrist into your opposite elbow, then raise your non-camera arm up. Make a triangle of sorts with your arm, and rest the camera in there. You'll see less vibration and shake if you use a part of your body that's closer to your base. Try it, hold the camera out at arms length, then hold it inside your elbow. It makes a pretty good difference.

[Kato]

I've used all kinds of techniques to get more stable. I'm notorious at car shows for doing the splits to get lower to the subject, and for stability. I'm also known for laying on the ground, whether it's pavement or mud, to get better stability. I don't like using tripods unless it's in the "studio" doing product shots or smoke/water/paint stuff. I rely on proper bracing techniques when in the wild, and if need be I'll lean on a tree or whatever is at hand.

 

I use stabilized lenses, and they help of course, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use proper bracing techniques too. My 70-200mm is not stabilized, but I can hold it rock-solid without a problem so I don't worry about shaky shots.

[Stercorarius]

Thanks for the tips man!

[Kato]

You're welcome of course.

[Kato]

Okay, so here's a quick vid to show some editing steps you can do. I'll explain what you're seeing happen under the video...

 

 

 

 

For every layer I duplicate, when I'm done I merge. I prefer not to work with multiple layers going, sometimes they end up goofing each other up. You can work with multiple layers but you have to keep track that you're duplicating the original (background) layer, and not the editing layers. Otherwise it'll be all wonky. Throughout the vid I toggle the layers so you can see the effects. And, the photo looks weird in the video because of artifacting, caused by the screen capture software. Anyhoo, long story short...

 

Duplicate the layer. Apply Clarity adjustment. Drop the opacity of the layer to suit your tastes. Here I went down to 50%. Merge.

 

Duplicate the layer, add fill light. Drop the opacity of the layer if needed. Merge

 

Duplicate the layer, then click the wrong button. Cancel it and click the right one. Add unsharpen mask. Drop the opacity to suit the needs. Merge

 

Duplicate, run Noiseware (noise reduction). Cleans up the background, and to retain detail where it's lost just use the eraser and erase over whatever spots you want to keep. I zoom in a bit show you can see what happens. Merge

 

I run a layer and use the dodge brush to show that you can brighten stuff more. Adjusting layer opacity can fine-tune that as well. I then copy the image and drop it over the original, then toggle so you can see the effects.

 

Duplicate, adjust saturation of blue and cyan to make background more blue. Drop opacity to suit the needs. Merge

 

Duplicate, adjust overall saturation, adjust opacity.

 

Hopefully you can follow the vid and see what I did. Of course there's fine-tuning to be done if need be, and it's always better to work on the original file and not a copy. Also, for your camera you can change the PPI to 72 and leave the pixel dimensions at 100% and you'll get prints that are 64"x48". If you retain the right numbers during editing, and save at around 7 you'll be able to print to that size with no problem.

[Hugh Jass]

Sick. Thanks for the tips, I definitely need to sharpen up my game. Also for that image and others like it, should I enable backlight setting or leave it to editing?

[Kato]

If your camera has illumination correction, backlight, etc., leave it off. You won't see much difference in most shots, and it's going to take longer for the camera to process photos, which means you'll see more lag time between photos. In-camera processing like that, and stuff like in-camera noise reduction, causes the camera to take more time on one photo, and if you shoot burst mode it'll take longer to get shots off

[Hugh Jass]

Okay, noted. My burst rate isn't fantastic to start and I have a small buffer so that helps I'm sure. My camera is more less a bridge camera so for all it's capability it falls flat on a lot of the higher end options and features found in most DSLR's, in exchange I can telephoto like nothing else on the market and it has good optics and stabilization (5 stop). That setting though I wasn't too sure of if it helped in that situation or not. I'll practice with this in mind from now on. 

[Kato]

Point-n-shoots and bridge cameras are notorious for shutter lag. Press the shutter button, wait a second for the picture to snap. Even with built-in burst mode, 3 to 5 shots in a row take a long time, longer if you have in-camera noise reduction or peripheral illumination turned on.

[comp56]

I notice a fast write speed with memory card helps a bit......especially when you start shooting repeatedly ....

[Hugh Jass]

I bought the fastest card on the market for that reason. My lag isn't bad, it's just not flagship DSLR fast. I don't feel like the camera is ever in my way of getting a shot. 

[Kato]

I have Class 4 133x cards that do well in my cameras, but I use 400x UDMA most of the time. The only time I fall back to the 133x's is when the two 400x's get filled up.

 

 

I would love to see some members ask some questions, I'd hate to see all of this useless knowledge I have go to waste. Ask me anything, ask me how I shoot certain subjects, ask me how I process certain photos, ask me how much bacon costs, I don't care. Just ask

[Hugh Jass]

Okay so I pulled some pictures I took last month of the full moon from my camera and started playing around with some editing. I'm just toying from free software for now (I have a chromebook so my options are limited, so Pixlr is all I can do). So I don't have a heavy in depth level of options without a windows machine. 

 

This is before and after edits, all hand held at max optical telephoto (2000mm 83x optical zoom) I'd like some critique if you don't mind. I feel like I enhanced the photo but not sure if I took it the right direction or not but I tried 2 different ways. The second image for more realistic and third for enhanced details and artistic value.

 

The first image is not cropped and straight from camera saved on my Google Drive. 

 

And a few more in different in camera settings that I applied light editing to as well. 

 

 

This one had a little digital zoom added as I tested the limits of my camera. Still fairly decent quality I think for what it is and being hand held at somewhere around 86x zoom or so. My kid's telescope is less powerful.  

 

[Kato]

They look good. Your best photos for the moon are going to be during it's smaller phases, you'll pick up way more details when the sun is cutting across the surface instead of shining directly at it. Your photos look really good though, all you'd need to do is adjust for overall brightness and color, and add a little sharpness to bring out some of the smaller details. You don't want to over-process either, adding false color will make it look weird. And, you can drop the saturation or change the photo to B&W and it'll still look good.

 

Hope you don't mind I played with the photo...

 

 

[Hugh Jass]

Nice. Looks like you touched up some darker areas with the burn tool? I had a different image from 2 months ago with a half moon where I was playing with that too. I was worried about maybe taking it too far and making it too unrealistic but you took it farther than I did so that gives me some confidence I was on the right path. 

[KnarlyCarl]

Wow! Stunning, once you had your way with it, I can really see it.

What would be a decent starter DSLR? If i have lenses for an old school SLR(Minolta), will they swap over to a new camera? 

[Kato]

You have to think about how the moon looks to your eye. When it's close to full it's bright, and it takes time for your eyes to adjust to it to see the detail. Photos should be similar, it should be bright, but you should see all of the detail. All I did was boost clarity a bit to bring out the subtle details, then work on the brightness and contrast. Simple edits, nothing special or outrageous.

 

Starter DSLR...asking and answering questions like that is hard, because it's different for everybody and there's a lot to choose from. If you prefer Canon, any of the "T" series are perfect. T5, T5i, etc. Even the older versions are great. The problem with giving gear suggestions is that it's more about the lenses than the bodies. You have to figure out what you want to shoot, and use the types of lenses that are designed to work with those subjects.

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, PROTOOLNUT said:

Well, everybody could use a good macro lens and most people don't need an 86x zoom lens either. Infact my point and shoot camera has 10X, and that has been more then enough.

 

Depends on your subject matter. My old Panasonic Lumix was 10x and I wouldn't go back for money. I'm a wildlife buff and I have a lot of shots that would be impossible with 10x even at 100% crop with higher quality due to more pixels from a lack of cropping. On a photography forum I periodically visit after buying this camera to learn more about it, there's people with 10k worth of rigging that picked up this camera and think it's awesome for it's capability, and often even leave their cumbersome gear at home and take this instead. Reviews like that are the reason I purchased, and now it's very difficult to buy because demand far exceeded production and Nikon can't keep up. 

 

I can fill my frame with a butterfly that's 30ft away. Maybe you don't like that. Beats me why. 

 

As for macro, my lense is fixed and goes from 24-2000mm, and will focus at 1cm from the lense. It's not a single sided deal like interchangeable lenses are. Not that they don't have their positives, the best photography in the world isn't coming out of bridge cameras for sure... but I don't wish to spend thousands of dollars to drag equipment around because I'm not a professional. On the other side, I can take many shots even the most expensive rigs can't. 

 

It's all give and take.  

[Kato]

There's no such thing as good or bad...well, technically there is but it's all in what you do with it. I get into arguments with my photo friends about things like raw-v-jpg and how jpg doesn't give you the ability that raw does. I say that most of the time you have control over lighting, setting, etc., so raw isn't necessary. Then people will argue Canon-v-Nikon, and my opinion is that neither one is better than the other, they both do the same thing.They might go about it differently, but you get the same results.

 

I shot for a couple of years with Fuji bridge cameras, and while they were lacking in some ways, they got the job done as far as I was concerned. I wanted a photo, I got a photo. Point-n-shoots and bridge cameras have come a long way, with regards to noise handling, shoot speed, color and clarity quality, they're a lot better than they used to be. And again, if you have control over your lighting, subject, etc., they'll give you fantastic photos.

 

Once I get it put together I'm gonna post some stuff on how to get results from minimal gear. You'll see that the bottom line is this: It's how you shoot, not what you shoot with.

[Kato]

Here's the beginning of a product-type shoot. I'm using bare minimum stuff, and what would be considered lower-quality gear. The stuff I'm using is my wife's point-n-shoot Casio Exilim EX-Z75, my iPhone 6 Plus, and a spoon. I'm starting out in the garage, on the workbench, where lighting is four 4' fluorescent fixtures on the ceiling, and one 4' drop light over the bench. It gives nice bright, even light on the workbench surface, so shadows can be controlled. Workbench surface is uniform in color, and clean, so there's no distraction from the subject and no worries about incorrect color tones in the overall photo. I will make a separate post showing how to edit these photos, for now it's just about setup and lighting.

 

 

 

 

First shot is with flash, no spoon...

 

 

 

Second shot, flash with spoon under it...

 

 

 

Another direct flash...

 

 

 

And with the spoon...

 

 

 

Obviously there's a fair amount of different with and without the spoon. Light is more even with the spoon, color tones are better. For a comparison, here are some shots taken with the iPhone, no flash, just ambient light...

 

 

 

 

It's not a problem letting the camera choose settings, but if you have the ability try changing things like ISO values, aperture (if you have that ability) exposure values, etc.. But, with decent light and some tricks (like the spoon) your photos will start out better, and you'll have an easier time editing them if need be. The iPhone photos, cellphone cameras these days are pretty good for some photography, and if done right the results are good enough for most people. However, for product shots you want to showcase the product, so the more you can do to help get decent results the better. The cellphone shots are good because that's how good the quality is of the cellphone camera and in-camera processing. Again though, lighting plays an important part, I have good light over the bench so the camera doesn't have to fight to compensate.

[Hugh Jass]

9 hours ago, PROTOOLNUT said:

I am not a professional either. Infact back in the film days with a 35mm, only half my shots turned out good. Either piss poor lighting or operators error. And then when I got my first digital camera back year 2000, I couldn't understand why my pictures were so crappy, turns out early original digital tech, what you expect? Then in 2013 I picked up my Canon, and that kind of brought me back into photography again, cause for the first time ever, I have been able to take pictures that are not half bad, with a few being absolutely incredible.

 

How much is a bridge camera vs a professional DSLR?

 

My Nikon P900 is widely regarded as the best available bridge and is on the higher end of the spectrum, but still cheap compared to full DSLR depending on how high end you go. I got mine on sale early on for about $550 but often around $600 is retail, wich is probably low to mid level DSLR comparable.