Three Great Tips

[Slack]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> "DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:d8hoa0$ode$1@Fuego.d-
>
>>And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
>>have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
>>forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
>>*are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
>>the shot.
>>
>
> 10D and 20D do this too (not sure about the XT). This is a good advice.
>
> Musty.
>
>
http/www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page9.asp
--
Slack

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <fdudnaw75NBBHjHfRVn-1A@giganews.com>,
Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:
>Musty wrote:
>
>> "DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>> news:d8hoa0$ode$1@Fuego.d-
>>
>>>And the Nikon cameras (at least the D70, which is what I use)
>>>have a display mode in which blown highlights are blinking back and
>>>forth between white and black, to make them easy to spot. If there
>>>*are* any blown highlights, that is the mode which is shown to you after
>>>the shot.
>>>
>>
>> 10D and 20D do this too (not sure about the XT). This is a good advice.
>>
>> Musty.
>>
>>
>http/www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page9.asp

O.K. So there is a "sorta" display of blown highlights. It is
only reduced in size to make room for the histogram and the detailed
exposure information at the same time.

Sometimes, I may want to zoom into the display to see whether I
really feel that the blown highlights are enough of a problem to worry
about. Sometimes they aren't.

I don't see an option for zooming into the image while
displaying the blown highlight information, but it is certainly enough
information to tell when you have *badly* blown highlights.

Thanks,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http/www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
> photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
> you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
>
> Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
> D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
>
> And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
>
> Avery

>


1 - Don't take your DSLR to Swinger's orgies - it'll probably get rolled on
or dropped.

2 - When photographing your neighbour's naked wife at the bathroom window,
try not to use flash as it will draw attention to you.

3 - When photographing courting couples enjoying sexual intercourse in
public parks, always wear good Reebok's and have a well prepared escape
route.

That takes care of the basics....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42ab1ac4$0$17055$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
"Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

>I agree, it's better to increase the ISO and introduce a little noise rather
>than ruin the shot completely through motion blur or focus due to small DoF.

True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
+2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
less-pronounced noise.

It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
exposure levels.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <4s2dncG_OaAMtjbfRVn-rw@comcast.com>,
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>1. Practice. Take a safari with your camera in your backyard before you
>take that trip to Africa.

I saw a video with Galen Rowell, where he said something like, "if you
can't take interesting pictures in your own back yard, you won't take
any in Africa, either".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d8i2re$rq2$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:

> I don't see an option for zooming into the image while
>displaying the blown highlight information, but it is certainly enough
>information to tell when you have *badly* blown highlights.

Also, it would be better if they showed you the RAW data, if the camera
is set to RAW. The histogram and clipped highlights are about the JPEG
settings, not about the RAW data at all, which is all that matters when
shooting RAW.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <2LHqe.39627$j51.13016@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>
>"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:OPGdnXfmw4isojbfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
>>
>> Being a rank amateur myself, I only have one:
>>
>> Call your CC company and ask (no, demand) for a large line increase.
>> --
>
>No need - once you CC company sees how much you are spending, they will
>continually keep increasing you limit in the hope that you will spend enough
>such that you cannot pay off the full balance and will perhaps one day pay a
>dime of interest. If you do however owe money on a credit card and are
>taking up photography, then there is no hope.

In the US, the minimum payment required by law is 2% of the balance, so
if you interest rate is 24%, paying the minimum does nothing but pay
interest; if the interest rate is below 24%, paying the minimum reduces
the principal and balance some. If the interest rate is above 24%,
paying only the minimum increases your balance, even if you don't buy
anything else.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

>"Avery" <avery@ramblingsnail.net> wrote in message
>news:1118506018.022369.198240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
>> photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
>> you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
>>
>> Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the
>> D70 but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
>>
>> And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
>>
>> Avery
>>
>
>. Expose for the highlights,
>. Fill the frame
>. And most importantly have fun!


Good suggestions Craig.

I would say:

1. Expose for the highlights
2. Use a tripod, monopod or other camera support whenever possible
3. Buy the best wide angle lens(es) you can afford

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
> noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
> +2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
> same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
> image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
> less-pronounced noise.
>
> It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
> the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
> and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
> exposure levels.


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying John, but that makes
absolutely no sense to me at all!! LOL

If you crank up the ISO sensitivity you are amplifying the output from the
sensor to a greater degree, which will also amplify the noise [inherently
present in the sensors*] to a greater degree. It's about signal to noise
ratio: the signal which in our case is light needs to be as high as
possible, and the amplification as low as possible (thus less amplification
of the noise), to gain the highest signal to noise ratio.
Am I missing something..?

*Telescope CCDs are cooled with liquid nitrogen to reduce the amount of
noise they generate.

Regards,
Craig.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <42aca0cd$0$41895$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
"Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

>> True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
>> noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
>> +2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
>> same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
>> image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
>> less-pronounced noise.

>> It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
>> the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
>> and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
>> exposure levels.

>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying John, but that makes
>absolutely no sense to me at all!! LOL

That's not surprising; common wisdom suggests that noise comes directly
from the ISO setting.

>If you crank up the ISO sensitivity you are amplifying the output from the
>sensor to a greater degree, which will also amplify the noise [inherently
>present in the sensors*] to a greater degree.

Yes, but you are also amplifying the signal the same amount, so the S/N
ratio is still the same, at the analog level.

>It's about signal to noise
>ratio: the signal which in our case is light needs to be as high as
>possible, and the amplification as low as possible (thus less amplification
>of the noise), to gain the highest signal to noise ratio.
>Am I missing something..?

Yes; the amplifier amplifies both the signal *and* the noise. The
amplification does not determine the ratio; the absolute exposure
(lighting of subject, f-stop, and shutter speed) does. The difference
is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
more.

>*Telescope CCDs are cooled with liquid nitrogen to reduce the amount of
>noise they generate.

Yes, the less noise in the sensor, the higher the S/N ratio, all other
things being equal.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Craig Marston wrote:

>>True, but also, using a higher ISO doesn't always mean introducing more
>>noise. If the contrast is low in a scene, and you shoot at ISO 1600 and
>>+2 EC, instead of ISO 400 with 0 EC, the exposure on the sensor is the
>>same, and the noise in the sensor is the same, but the the ISO 1600
>>image will be less posterized, and therefore, more editable, with
>>less-pronounced noise.
>>
>>It isn't the ISO setting that causes noise - it is the exposure level in
>>the sensor, and the intensity of the noise relative to it. High noise
>>and high ISO settings are both symptoms or results of low absolute
>>exposure levels.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying John, but that makes
> absolutely no sense to me at all!! LOL
>
> If you crank up the ISO sensitivity you are amplifying the output from the
> sensor to a greater degree, which will also amplify the noise [inherently
> present in the sensors*] to a greater degree. It's about signal to noise
> ratio: the signal which in our case is light needs to be as high as
> possible, and the amplification as low as possible (thus less amplification
> of the noise), to gain the highest signal to noise ratio.
> Am I missing something..?


It does work. I did a test to prove it to myself:
http/localhost/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/expose-right
The only caveat is that it'll blow out highlights so is only useful for
low contrast scenes. The simple rule then is to expose for the
highlights in all cases rather than final exposure, assuming you are
willing to adjust later.

It wouldn't seem too hard for camera makers to integrate this in the
exposure mode, even for jpeg shooting.


--
Paul Furman
http/www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:06:58 -0700, Avery wrote:

> If there were three tips you could share with the world of digital
> photography what would they be? Understanding your audience is whomever
> you believe them to be, what three bits of advice do you have to offer?
>
> Me? I have nothing to offer yet. I'm still using the presets of the D70
> but someday hope to upgrade my status to amateur. ;-)
>
> And THANKS for any advice you have to share!
>
> Avery

1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.

2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening, saturating,
etc).

3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.

--
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <d8i2re$rq2$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
> dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
>
>> I don't see an option for zooming into the image while
>>displaying the blown highlight information, but it is certainly enough
>>information to tell when you have *badly* blown highlights.
>
> Also, it would be better if they showed you the RAW data, if the camera
> is set to RAW. The histogram and clipped highlights are about the JPEG
> settings, not about the RAW data at all, which is all that matters when
> shooting RAW.

It seems than on 350D the histogram is for a calculated color. It won't
show if one color is clipped. This can get you badly if the scene
contains for example a lot of blue which has a low weight for the
calculated contrast. For such scenes I tend to take a slightly under
exposured picture too.

There is a color display, I can't see why they don't have lines for
individual colors available as well like a white weighed plus colored
lines for each channel. The same problem applies to quite a few DSLRs.
--
Harri

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<snip>
> 1 - Don't take your DSLR to Swinger's orgies - it'll probably get rolled
> on or dropped.
>
> 2 - When photographing your neighbour's naked wife at the bathroom window,
> try not to use flash as it will draw attention to you.
>
> 3 - When photographing courting couples enjoying sexual intercourse in
> public parks, always wear good Reebok's and have a well prepared escape
> route.
>
> That takes care of the basics....





If nothing else, an interesting window on your sexual proclivities/psyche.


Explains a lot actually...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:37:43 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:

>1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.
>
>2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening, saturating,
>etc).
>
>3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.

That's a load of twaddle.

My three most important tips:

Shoot RAW,
Shoot RAW,
Shoot RAW.

--
Owamanga!
http/www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:37:43 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.
>>
>> 2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening,
>> saturating, etc).
>>
>> 3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.
>
> That's a load of twaddle.
>
> My three most important tips:
>
> Shoot RAW,
> Shoot RAW,
> Shoot RAW.

Smart. Very Smart.

1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact

2- It may take lots of practice, lots and lots of attempts-make that
lots and lots and LOTS

3- If you don't enjoy #2, the chance for #1 recedes geometrically
3b- #1 is not a religion-founding principle, but an _ideal_
3c- You can explain not-perfect works by alluding to the
carpet-weaver's practice of leaving a thread or two out of place, on
the assumption that only Bog is perfect

--
Frank ess
"In this universe there are things that just plain don't yield to
thinking-plain or fancy-Dude".
-J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:

>> Shoot RAW,
>> Shoot RAW,
>> Shoot RAW.

>Smart. Very Smart.

>1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact

You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you talking
about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead of coding it
in such a way that you have to already know what it is to decipher it?

Just in case you meant, "you can get a shot perfect in JPEG, so there is
no need to shoot RAW", that is a misleading idea, as there is a limit to
how you can process an image in-camera to form JPEGs; usually just a few
standard transfer curves which may be nothing like the curves your image
needs. RAW is not "mistake lattitude", per se; it is also the best
capture of your data possible with the camera, and you can shoot things
in RAW that you couldn't shoot at all in JPEG. RAW has a stop or more
dynamic range in the highlights on most cameras, and perhaps another
usable stop or more on the bottom due to a lack of JPEG compression.

You can use a low contrast setting to capture some of this in a JPEG,
but not all of it, and the compressed dynamic range is even worse than a
normal one for post-processing.

>2- It may take lots of practice, lots and lots of attempts-make that
>lots and lots and LOTS

>3- If you don't enjoy #2, the chance for #1 recedes geometrically
> 3b- #1 is not a religion-founding principle, but an _ideal_
> 3c- You can explain not-perfect works by alluding to the
>carpet-weaver's practice of leaving a thread or two out of place, on
>the assumption that only Bog is perfect

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:28:17 +0000, Owamanga wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:37:43 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>>1. Don't worry about how many pixels your camera doesn't have.
>>
>>2. Get the camera to do most of the processing (sharpening, saturating,
>>etc).
>>
>>3. Never listen to anything that Alan Browne or Steven Scharf say.
>
> That's a load of twaddle.
>
> My three most important tips:
>
> Shoot RAW,
> Shoot RAW,
> Shoot RAW.

Why? An amateur shooting RAW is a waste of time and will teach them
nothing about the joy of photography if they have to sit and fiddle with
every single image they shoot, just to get something to print.

No, I say RAW is for the obsessed who like to spend time in front of the
monitor.

--
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roxy d'Urban wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:28:17 +0000, Owamanga wrote:
>
>>My three most important tips:
>>
>>Shoot RAW,
>>Shoot RAW,
>>Shoot RAW.
>
>
> Why? An amateur shooting RAW is a waste of time and will teach them
> nothing about the joy of photography if they have to sit and fiddle with
> every single image they shoot, just to get something to print.
>
> No, I say RAW is for the obsessed who like to spend time in front of the
> monitor.

Owama is pulling some legs, he's a jpeg shooter if I recall correctly.


--
Paul Furman
http/www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:43:41 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
>"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>Owamanga wrote:
>
>>> Shoot RAW,
>>> Shoot RAW,
>>> Shoot RAW.
>
>>Smart. Very Smart.
>
>>1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact
>
>You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you talking
>about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead of coding it
>in such a way that you have to already know what it is to decipher it?

At the risk of putting words in Frank's mouth, I think there's two
completely different parts to his post. The first was a compliment for
Owamanga's three points; the second was an entirely unrelated three point
suggestion of his own, which can be summarised as: "it takes a lot of
practice to take the 'perfect' shot, but it can't be done; if a shot's not
perfect, claim you did it deliberately so as not to be conceited!".



Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.