Braineack

iTrader: (62)

thanks. I'm still learning as I go too, I'd consider myself very low on the totem pole as a photographer.

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

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.

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).

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

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.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

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.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Pixel peeper.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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

iTrader: (1)

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

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

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Went back and redid the first glass on black:


Blue Champagne Flute 4 by The Braineack, on Flickr

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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.

ahaidet

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.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Use the bbcode.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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

ahaidet

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!

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

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/

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

brain, you shooting with prime lenses?

ahaidet

Thanks! I'm excited to try image stacking now.