Photography Critique and Criticism - Page 3 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-25-2014, 04:50 PM   #41
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahaidet View Post
Love this shot! Just as I think I am getting decent at this whole photography thing I see a shot like this.
thanks. I'm still learning as I go too, I'd consider myself very low on the totem pole as a photographer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy View Post
Not sure which I like more. What is that hard edge? Velvet board edge? Is that poster board or a wall as the backdrop? I like it.
just a wood vertical cabinet.

backdrop is a wall.

light is behind cabinet pointed up at wall; that's how I got the gradient. (it's a blue wall).



the first shot was a black velvet BG:










Others didn't like the horizon line (I still do), here's the same flute using another glass upside down to hold it up off the surface and have an infinity horizon:


Champagne Flute 2 by The Braineack, on Flickr

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahaidet View Post
I have a flash, but didn't have it on the camera and wanted to try and capture the moment with him playing. I feared I would miss it if I took the time to run and get the flash, install it, turn it on and set it up...
I have a tough time shooting at low apertures still. I prefer a bounced flash inside for these type of shots:


Max with Grandpa by The Braineack, on Flickr

this was f/4.0 at 1/60 bouncing off the ceiling.

Quote:
I wonder is my ISO too high? my depth of field too shallow? Is it the crop sensor versus a full frame?

I am pretty pleased with my results I just wish they were a touch sharper.
Don't even worry about ISO until you are going past 3200-6400.

Shooting at 1.8 will always be soft and the DOF at short ranges will always be hella narrow. Try shooting at f/2.0-4 and allowing auto-ISO to go wherever. I also still prefer a higher shutter speed, even with my VR lenses I don't like the results going below 1/60 on a 50mm.

This is a girl I follow: Flickr: paige_w's Photostream

she loves to shoot with her 50mm at low apertures and goes really high with her ISOs and doesn't like to use flash. I can't replicate what she does, I just don't have the knack for it yet.


Last time I shot indoors without a flash resulted in very few keepers, but I was happy with a few of them:


Newborn Max in B&W by The Braineack, on Flickr

I was shooting in manual mode on my old D3100 (1/6, f/1.8, 1100iso). I wish I used auto-iso, a smaller aperture for extra DOF, and a slightly higher shutter (i had a lot of blurry shots).
Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-glassware-041-1.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-12137674975_20926a46a7_c.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-11565457755_078e5110ba_c.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-glassware-031-1.jpg  

Last edited by Braineack; 01-25-2014 at 05:06 PM.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 05:27 PM   #42
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

I prefer the horizon line as well. Breaks up the image a bit and adds some contrast.

I don't know about going with that high of an ISO with anything other than a full frame, or MAYBE something in the range of a D7100 or 70D you could get away with 3200. I try not to go over 2000 or maybe 2500 ISO to retain as much color detail and textural detail as possible. The grain/noise might be under control at 3200, but you are losing a **** ton of image data on these slightly older enthusiast/entry level DSLR sensors. I guess I would feel okay using 3200 in a pinch, but I wouldn't make it a habit of shooting there often. I guess it's personal preference, and what you feel comfortable with.

That girl you linked is amazing. I hope I can one day make images consistently that good.

PS, I hate to say it, but that indoor shot above reminds me of a Ken Rockwell image.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 05:34 PM   #43
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Not everyone has a huge window with direct light... Bounce flash makes a huge light source. It's just a snap shot.

Iso depends on camera, but most modern dslrs can go that high. Rather lose info than have no shot at all.. covert to b&w and it just looks like 3200 film.

Find the limit you're happy with and cap that as the max.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 06:12 PM   #44
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
Not everyone has a huge window with direct light... Bounce flash makes a huge light source. It's just a snap shot.

Iso depends on camera, but most modern dslrs can go that high. Rather lose info than have no shot at all.. covert to b&w and it just looks like 3200 film.

Find the limit you're happy with and cap that as the max.
Well, that was my point. It's an option, but not one I would use unless I just had to get the shot. Otherwise, I'm never above 2000 or so or my camera. A D600 like yours probably has equal performance at ISO3200, if not 4000.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 06:28 PM   #45
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

6400iso with a D5100:


Intense Stare by The Braineack, on Flickr


and 5600 on a D5100:


Lazy Belle by The Braineack, on Flickr



D5100 125 vs 2000 ISO zoomed in.


125 v 2000 ISO by The Braineack, on Flickr



That noise is nothing; just don't print a poster. Resized for the web and it's hard to even see it,you have to click through and view at the original size to really notice how the info is ruined.
Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-10464975333_85329c62bc_c.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-10464798645_20a0e23874_c.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-10464930876_2ed4133b3d_o.jpg  
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 07:39 PM   #46
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

Again, just personal preference. To me, even that shot at 2000 bothers me because of the loss of fur detail. Those hairs that catch the light on the side of the face in the 125 image are pretty much completely lost even by 2000. Shooting at 3200 they would be virtually invisible. You also can't see nearly as much detail in the fur at 2000 compared to 125. Not a big deal as you said when it's a resized image for web posting, but it is still something that sticks in my mind, knowing the detail isn't really there. Then you have the colors starting to look a bit less on a smooth gradient. And those high ISO shots do look good. Completely usable. But they are also on the right side of the histogram where noise is far less an issue. Were it a darker subject in lower light, those shots would look far less appealing (to me anyway, some might not care either way).

Again, usable, but if you can shoot at a lower ISO, of course do so. Or in a case like that, add more lights to compensate. If it's not a studio or posed shot and there is no control over lighting, then you can start bumping up the ISO.

Nit picky things. I just like being unreasonable.

I love that cat by the way. Always looks so nice in pictures.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 07:45 PM   #47
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Pixel peeper.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2014, 08:05 PM   #48
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

It stems from an inferiority complex...

I'm trying to break myself of it honestly. It's easy to get caught up in it, when in reality it doesn't matter in 95% of cases. It's so simple to zoom in to a full size image and get worked up over the slightest bit of motion blur or any other tiny flaw that in reality won't be noticed. I need to also try to break my habit of making images too large. I typically make images to share on the web 1600 pixels wide, when really something like 1000 or 1200 is plenty large enough. That would also aid in my pixel peeping addiction, since less detail would be rendered.

I still stand by my previous statement about higher ISO images though. More important than grain/noise is the color gradation and detail, which is ultimately lost in the higher ISO's. In some cases, it's not apparent, however in others it is. For instance the colors of your cats eyes in the 125 to 2000 comparison. Even at a relatively low 2000, by today's standards, all of that pretty blue/green and gold color is lost, and it becomes a washed out grayish color. Same for the pink skin around the eyes. In the ISO 2000 image it just sort of washes together with the fur. Details like that are something I appreciate in an image. Not having it to me takes away a little something. Not much, but enough for me to care.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2014, 02:32 AM   #49
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

Had to try those dice again. This time with more proper lighting, and a bit more care to get things set up better. Also, random sake bottle top.



Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-uwemk0k.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-wsreyos.jpg  
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2014, 10:13 AM   #50
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Sake bottle turned out pretty cool.

what f/stop are you using on the die? I'd be at like f/16-22 for that, maybe even try focus stacking.


I save all my stuff at 1920 since that's what my monitor is, and all my good pics go on flickr which has a great resizing engine.


I totally get what you're saying about ISO, I just don't care, rather get the shot.

800 ISO on my D3100 was getting sketchy:


Squirrel eating walnut by The Braineack, on Flickr
Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-10007811896_0394afdd02_c.jpg  

Last edited by Braineack; 01-26-2014 at 01:26 PM.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2014, 01:26 PM   #51
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Went back and redid the first glass on black:


Blue Champagne Flute 4 by The Braineack, on Flickr
Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-12155501863_4dfb6e644e_c.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-12155501863_0f274e8bb9_c.jpg  

Last edited by Braineack; 01-26-2014 at 03:22 PM.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2014, 03:33 PM   #52
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

I think I shot that one at f/11. I was going for a slightly blurred background. I was also using a shallow dof to sort of hide how nasty and scratched up the acrylic box was. It was catching all kinds of light that I had to post out of the image.

I'm amazed at how far digital imaging sensors have come just since I got into it maybe 10 years ago. I remember how HORRIBLE my D50 was at "high ISO" which was anything above 400. It had a 200, 400, 800, 1600 range, and 800 and 1600 were like today's Hi modes. 800 was maybe usable in a really really tight pinch, but 1600 was completely useless.

That glass turned out much better. The harder edge lighting really pulls the glass away from the background. Nicely done.

I've been watching a bunch of Youtube tutorials and guides to better post processing techniques, and just in the last few days have learned all sorts of new techniques that I never knew. I've gone back and reprocessed some older images and was able to make them look so much better. Mostly, a ton of neat mask tricks, and how to use a lot of the menu options that I never fully understood. CS6 is quite feature packed.

Flickr link fail... how do you link yours like that?

Imgur destroys images in resize. This is an example of an image that needed to be rescued. It was exposed poorly out of the camera, and shot in jpeg. My old technique, or lack of was apparent. I was able to at least make it presentable with my new learned techniques. Still not a great shot, but a good comparison of old vs new. New on the right.


Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-qatjntf.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-12158570726_91e8b48e9f_b.jpg  

Last edited by NA6C-Guy; 01-26-2014 at 09:35 PM.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2014, 08:09 PM   #53
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 76
Total Cats: 13
Default

I'll try some experiments and see how high of an ISO I can tolerate. I don't usually shoot above 1600. I will also try and shoot more in the F2-4 range see how that goes.

That woman shoots some amazing shots! Thanks for the link.


NA6 every time I learn a new technique or tool in post I end up going back and messing with my older photos and fixing a few that I couldn't quiet get right before.
ahaidet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2014, 08:42 PM   #54
Boost Czar

iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Use the bbcode.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2014, 09:33 PM   #55
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahaidet View Post
I'll try some experiments and see how high of an ISO I can tolerate. I don't usually shoot above 1600. I will also try and shoot more in the F2-4 range see how that goes.

That woman shoots some amazing shots! Thanks for the link.


NA6 every time I learn a new technique or tool in post I end up going back and messing with my older photos and fixing a few that I couldn't quiet get right before.
I would imagine you can easily shoot 2000-2500 before noticing any real grain or loss of color/detail. Good idea though, shoot several shots at an array of ISO and see what you personally can live with. That's what I did.

I fail at bbcode apparently.

Playing around more in post, and wow, what a difference 3 years experience makes. Took this at a Barber track day back in 2010, when I went to see Bryan's (GeneSplicer) car/paint. I couldn't figure out at the time how to pull back the contrast and color that was blown out without changing the shadows as well. Also, I used to only shoot jpeg, because I really didn't understand how big of a difference there was between jpeg and raw when post processing. High pass on a mask is your friend.

Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-j58wgdt.jpg   Photography Critique and Criticism-12163537795_4e60d119ca_h.jpg  
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 12:07 AM   #56
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

Learned something else that will feed my pixel peeping addiction. I sort of knew of image stacking, but always thought it was more for replacing long exposures. I didn't really know of the noise reduction effects of it. This will be very helpful to me when I get back into the caves and actually start taking some pictures. Being as there is zero light in a cave, except for what you bring (which is typically just head lamps and maybe a high power flashlight or two) capturing images without professional lighting is tough. I can use this to allow me the use of the really high ISO settings without worry of random signal noise. You even gain back considerable detail, surprisingly. Stacking in conjunction with Long Exp NR in camera, I can hopefully capture enough light to really see details down there. This has been a problem I have been worrying over for a while now, how to get enough light down there. Still bring a speedlight or two, but this will allow the use of a lower flash power and get a more even fill of a large chamber from constant lights.

Not bad at all for an underexposed, low light ISO 12800 shot. That's easily 5 or 6 stops of improvement, and you are getting most of the detail back. That is 5 jpegs stacked. More = Better



And here is a 7 stack ISO 25600 image compared to a single ISO 3200 image. Color and contrast loss and a bit of detail loss, but still not bad at all for such an extreme. Looks maybe comparable to ISO 4000 on my camera, maybe 5000, but better than 6400.




I guess this is no longer strictly a c&c thread... sorry. I just like discovering new things and sharing them for those who might not know. Though I'm guessing I'm probably one of the last fools to know of this technique
Attached Thumbnails
Photography Critique and Criticism-jupkjj5.jpg  

Last edited by NA6C-Guy; 01-28-2014 at 12:27 AM.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 12:19 AM   #57
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 76
Total Cats: 13
Default

That was big revelation for me as well was editing a RAW photo versus a JPG. So much more you can do to the RAW to save it.

Looks like I need to read up(watch Youtube videos) on image stacking and High pass filters on masks.

Impressive results on both!
ahaidet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 12:46 AM   #58
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
NA6C-Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 8,038
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahaidet View Post
That was big revelation for me as well was editing a RAW photo versus a JPG. So much more you can do to the RAW to save it.

Looks like I need to read up(watch Youtube videos) on image stacking and High pass filters on masks.

Impressive results on both!
Here is a good stacking tutorial that applies to astrophotography, though it applies everywhere else too. You basically open each image as a layer, auto-align them, make all a single smart object, then Layer>Smart Object>Stack Mode>Median. Not too difficult. A bit tougher if you start out with all raw files, since you have to process them each first, or batch them.



Also, this. You can see in this article that you can also use this as a means to do away with moving objects in an image (people, cars, ect.). So if you were shooting a busy street corner, you could shoot 10 frames and stack them, and photoshop will likely remove anything or anyone that was moving from frame to frame, leaving you with an empty street, or wherever you might be. Cool use.

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/29/a-lo...dian-blending/

Last edited by NA6C-Guy; 01-28-2014 at 05:44 AM.
NA6C-Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 12:51 AM   #59
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 4,654
Total Cats: 209
Default

brain, you shooting with prime lenses?
Full_Tilt_Boogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 09:36 AM   #60
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 76
Total Cats: 13
Default

Thanks! I'm excited to try image stacking now.
ahaidet is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just a few shots of mine. 56K beware! civiclydumped Media 41 07-13-2010 09:28 AM
DSLR Time. Trying to decide between 3. y8s Insert BS here 24 10-05-2009 01:43 PM
jalopnik.com curly Insert BS here 3 04-25-2009 03:16 AM
Killer 993 naarleven Insert BS here 20 01-10-2009 10:30 PM
FS: 2003 Canon EOS Digital Rebel 300D dSLR elesjuan Miata parts for sale/trade 3 02-02-2008 09:22 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 AM.