Photography Critique and Criticism
 

I thought perhaps this would be a fun thread to have, since I think we have quite a few people who dabble in photography. Just a general place to share recent photos, and offer productive criticism to help each other improve. Or perhaps I thought wrong and this thread will crash and burn and end up on page 20 within a week. :dunno:

And perhaps this sort of thread would be better suited for the Media sub? Just figured it would get more traffic in General.

Since I've been without a DSLR for a little while now, I've had to relieve my itch with old school film. I think shooting digital has allowed me to mostly ignore my composition, and just spray and pray to some extent. It's easy to do when you can review and retake the image as many times as needed. Film forces you to take a little more time and put a little more thought into an image before clicking the release. It also allows me to not worry so much about image quality, and focus much more on composition. I shot these on an ugly, rainy, dark day on the lake, with nothing really interesting to shoot. I forced myself to try and come up with anything mildly interesting to look at, with limited success I feel.

Pentax K1000, SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/2 on Fuji ISO800.

Rip me a new one.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387739761

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387739761

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387739761

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387739761

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387739761

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387739761

Watch the horizon line on the first, should be corrected in post.

the next three do nothing for me, just gray and boring.

#4 is pretty interesting.

#5 could be cool if something better was in the lens, the foil is also a bit distracting.


I love the look of that film/lens, would love to see some portraits with it.

Here's my latest, not your typical xmas lights:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387744549
light streaks 058-3 by The Braineack, on Flickr

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387744549
light streaks 065-4 by The Braineack, on Flickr



https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387744549
light streaks 053-2 by The Braineack, on Flickr

That's cool. Changing focal length mid exposure? I never thought of doing that. Was that lens wide open? Wish the bokeh balls were a little more round. Otherwise, awesome shots. I like the 2nd one the best.

First one, I thought the vertical posts were more critical than horizon. Either, or.

The others, meh. It was a roll of 800 that I wanted to use up, and I was in the process of adjusting the focus on my lens after having it fully stripped down for mold cleaning. Still not completely right, as I can't get it to stop down to f/2, only to f/2.8, and it won't quite go to infinity. I need to hurry up and get a M42 to K mount adapter so I can use my awesome Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4, arguably one of the best 50mm lenses ever made. Super sharp, excellent color and contrast, and nice bokeh. All metal, and even after over 40 years it's still nice and smooth, no rattle or looseness.

It was f/8 to try to reduce ambient and not let the tree light up. I want to try again at f/2.8 and use iso 50 and try it again.

but was changing focal length AND focus.

Agree about the first three (or four) that you need an actual subject in the shot. Is there something you're taking a picture of or just some water? what makes it worth photographing? can you zoom in or crop to that?

for example, here is a fair composition but with terrible equipment and difficult lighting. there is a subject (or subjects) to interest you and draw you in.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387749313

it could use some cropping and it's grainy as F, but it gives you good feels about the new span of the SF bay bridge and the moon, right?

Here's my dock shot.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387749640

I would destroy a nice camera, so I have to settle for whatever the iphone5s can do out of the box. Its always on me, quick enough to grab it and take a pic or video of almost anything (unless I'm driving, because then its in the mount and Pandora is on) and if I destroy it I can replace it relatively easy.

There were no subject aside from the occasional sea gull or a buoy. It was also a dull, grey day. Solid cloud cover and rain, so really shitty contrast and colors. I only posted those since they are the most recent shots I've taken, which was yesterday. Mostly there just because I felt I needed to post something since I started the thread.

I'm guessing you don't have any ND filters or a CP? I think it would be better at 2.8 for sure. Though, I'm not sure how the streaks would look at such a shallow dof. They may be too blurry to look like beams as they do in the originals. Or you could just expose to the right and adjust the exposure in post.

Fair enough. And you've basically listed off a few more reasons why the photos don't work...

Landscape phot is hard because so many things have to be right. And while you have full control over the camera, you have limited control over the shooting location and lighting. Even less control over the crap in the shot.

One of the best single pieces of advice I've seen for getting a shot of something like that is to put yourself where most people don't. Everyone gets the easy shots from the trail and scenic overlook.... you can probably google the location and get that shot.

Just today I was at the Campbell farmer's market and saw a shot of Vernazza in Italy. It was almost exactly the same view I had taken a picture of. That's because it's from the trail that descends into the town from above and it's a striking shot. But just to prove my point:

first "vernazza" google image:
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387771936

my photo (slightly different location but you get the idea)
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387771936

I was actually switching between fishing pole and camera. I shot all of those within 10' of one another. Very lazy and a poor excuse for photography I must say.


That is a good thing to do, and typically what I practice. When it comes to landscape it is REALLY hard to do anything original, that doesn't look like every other picture ever taken. You either have to go where no man has gone before, or catch something happening at just the right time (animals, wind blowing objects, clouds in an awesome pattern, water whirlpools, ect.). This is why I can't wait to get a camera in caves more often. Those locations already look so alien to the vast majority of people. Then you can find very unique looking locations and get creative angles and lighting. It's like working on a blank canvas, since you bring ALL of your own light to the image. The only bad thing is most caves are colorless, so you have to think creatively to add color to the image. Something like a waterproof flashlight with a color gel submerged in a pool of water, and then have a subject wearing a brightly colored cave suit. Little pockets of color in an otherwise grey/brown world.

Not yet, all new lenses. I have a 55mm CPL, but that does me no good on 82mm glass. Should have one on Wednesday ;)

I did fool around at 2.8 last night, makes the bokeh balls a bit too large and they didn't turn out as well, and like I feared, it was allowing too much ambient in the shot and the tree was being rendered.

Remember, I was adjusting the focus while zooming in/out as well, so the beams will end up as tight streaks regardless.

Notice in #1 and #2, they are fairly tight streaks? Well I first held the shot wide open, then quickly spun the focus right THEN the zoom. In #3, I turned the focus ring and zoom at the same time, so it's a move transition.

YUP. :brain:

:)


I absolutely stink at landscape photography, for one, my area doesn't lend itself to great landscapes (coupled with the lazy factor).

This is probably my best landscape shot and it's nothing to write home about:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387804711

ND squares are the way to go. Hold it in front of the lens, and it fits every lens in your arsenal.

I was talking more much harder it would be to zoom and focus with such a shallow dof and keep it consistently in focus so your beam wouldn't do from thick and blurry to thin and sharp. I bet an ND would make the balls look smaller by removing some of the softer light around the edges.

Most of my photography is pretty lazy. I tend to rush my shots. I've been trying to break myself of that lately and really take my time more than I used to. I can't wait to get another camera and get back to work. Film just isn't my thing.

What I've been fooling around most with is flash photography, which add an entirely extra level of difficulty.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387805430
Pookie Under Tree by The Braineack, on Flickr

In this shot I put the flash in front of Pookie, firing directly towards the two gift bags in front of him. If you look at the reflection in his eyes you can see it. There's also another off camera flash firing at the front of the tree to light it up a bit, but I brought the exposure of that back down in post because it distracted a bit.

I really want to shoot more studio style portraits, but I have no one to really shoot and I don't quite have the equipment for it. I've been practice lighting on myself and it's really no fun and harder to learn doing it this way. Every now and again I can practice on a cat. I set this shot up in anticipation to take some family portraits on Wednesday:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387805430
xmas cats 051-1 by The Braineack, on Flickr

Here I used a high ISO and slow shutter (1/40) to exposure the xmas lights. I used a wide open aperture to then bring them into bokeh balls. Then I used the flash to expose the subject. I'm going to try to replicate this shot on Wednesday with humans and two flashes for key/fill on them.

gotcha, I've been looking at them more and more lately, but it's hard to find a quality set that isn't like $200, I'd rather spend that on something else. (I'm saving up for a 70-200 2.8 VC) The cheaper stuff tends to be plastic or low quality that ruins the IQ. The cheaper stuff on amazon isn't even in grayscale and adds a weird green hue to people's shots who use them.

Yeah, a good 4x4 ND is an investment, but as long as you take care of it, it's a lifetime investment. I'm thinking I'm going to give this one a shot. For $50, why not. Baller status ND and grads can come later.

Cavision Solid Neutral Density 0.9 (8x) Glass Filter FTG4X4ND09

Going for the Tamron 70-200 2.8? I assume so since you said VC. That lens is supposed to have awesome optics, especially considering it is less than half the cost of the Nikon/Canon equal. I can't wait to get my new DSLR so I can start buying my first real professional glass, albeit budget professional glass (Tamron, Sigma). Up till now I've only shot with lower end lenses and a few decent primes. Never had fast zooms. What I have in my mind is 8-16 Sigma, 17-70 f/2.8-4 Sigma, and 70-200 2.8 OS Sigma. Sigma has slightly worse optical quality than Tamron, but I've never been a Tamron fan. Their lenses to me always look and feel slightly cheaper than Sigma.

Still boring and not all that good, but I wasn't doing anything so I thought I'd fix it, as it's the only picture worth keeping from that trip. Fixed the horizon line and tweaked a few other minor things.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387903618

Correct. To match the optics of the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC I already have.

I had the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4; good budget all-around lens. The Tamron stuff feels built very well to me. The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC I have is a tank in comparison. I have yet to try the new ART line of sigma. I can't stand the direction the sigma stuff zooms in/out with.

I honestly dont care what they look like so long as they perform...like the Tonika stuff looks like utter shit, but apparently they are pretty good lenses.

gotta love primes. here's a snapshot:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1387904823
Happy Julia by The Braineack, on Flickr

Nice and sharp ^

I also hear Tamron has inferior AF motors. Slow and prone to hunting. They may have fixed that issue recently.

I wish Tamron and Sigma would stop discontinuing their non VC/OS lenses. Since I will have a Pentax, it will have in body image stabilization, so I can buy the cheaper non stabilized lenses. But now the only place I can find most of them is the used market.

I'm still sort of on the fence about Tamron. The main reason I am considering Sigma over Tamron is the perfect lineup with the 8-16, 17-70, and 70-200. Tamron doesn't make a wide zoom that I really like, and I feel weird mixing and matching 3rd party brands for my main glass.

*edit, the non VC is the one with the shit motor. And they don't make the VC version for Pentax, so fail there.

Also, why won't or can't camera makers give a feature to disable use of lens AF motor and force screw drive? If I had the choice, I'd use screw drive 90% of the time. Fast, reliable and accurate, just a little noisy.

Jesus, another edit. Apparently the non VC Tamron 70-200 does operate off of screw drive on the Pentax variant... hmm. A big plus for the Tamron there. Maybe I will end up with Tamron glass after all.

Nikon motors are there for convenience in their non-pro bodies that have the feature.

I have no focusing issues with the Tamron. I've noticed it being slightly slow, but I'm shooting at home in the dark dungeon I call a home right now. The VC and focus is nearly silent where my Nikon and Sigma lenses are both loud when VR/IS engages and the motors rattle inside and the focus on the sigma was loud.

Yeah Tamron doesn't put VC on their Pentax lenses and I think the price is reduced as well.

The Tamron I got rates VERY high at DxOmark coupled with the D600, it's actually the #1 rated zoom coupled on the d800. beating out the Nikon 24-70.

Damn you Tamron. They make the 70-200 for Pentax, but not the 24-70. What kind of sense does that make!? I'm kind of liking the Tamron 70-200 now, but I am out of luck for the 24-70. Back to the Sigma boat.

An old one I found that I thought was kind of interesting.



https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1388529373

So I'm tinkering, trying to get an HDR look from a single exposure, just without that overcooked, fake look. I got quite a few bracketed shots today, but I honestly like these highly adjusted single exposures more. I think it looks alright... I don't think it be like it is, but it do.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390088553

You dont need multiple exposures to get a lot of range in a photograph. The whole idea of HDR was to create images with the feel of those created by the old masters shooting super long exposures.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390091501

Well, I'm no Ansel Adams. I actually think that image of his has been edited. Looks like someone got crazy with the contrast slider. The one I've seen, the shadows aren't so dark.

Heavily edited in the darkroom. Ansel Adams was very skilled when it came to burning and dodging.
In this way he could create an image that had full range but was also contrasty, unlike most of the so-called "HDR" photography that is flat as shit.

And that reminds me, I need to buy something to calibrate my monitor. I have the suspicion that it is probably way off. So who knows what my images actually look like.

here's my last, got bored last night, just doing lighting exercises:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390603048
Blue Champagne Flute by The Braineack, on Flickr

Looks good. Lighting glass properly is really tough. I think a little more edge lighting would have been nice. Is that texture on the glass, or is that liquid splashing inside? I was actually doing the same thing last night, playing around with light and stock photography, but nothing came out worth sharing. I was quite disappointed in my attempt.

I watching this a few nights ago and it got me wanting to try something like you did. I'm lacking in proper lighting though, and other materials for doing such shots. As cheap as materials are, I may go pick some up and play around.

I need to try it again with white cards on the sides. but i was happy with this.

I have finally gotten around to processing some pictures I've taken over the last 5 years. Here's one of the ones I took back in college. What do you guys think?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390619715
Environment1 by skidude108, on Flickr

Not bad at all. I do feel it's missing something, but can't quite pin it down. Maybe something on the right side of the tracks to balance things a bit. I also think the tracks would look better centered and the vanishing point center frame as well, though that is usually a no no in most cases. Overall, good picture though. How did a house end up abandoned next to the rails like that?

In my quest to be more like the Brain, I attempted something similar to his champagne glass. Just basic product photography. All I had was a flashlight and some tracing paper to soften the light, my computer desk and a $3 box of gaming dice. Not bad considering. Self criticism, I wish the light wasn't reflecting off the face of the 4 sided die so much, its a bit distracting.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390638325

yeah. photographing things with reflections is hard.

in the setup above for mine: the glass was on the black velvet BG, and the flash behind it pointing back and up close against the wall. So the flash was bouncing up to the ceiling and back around the glass/bg.


second attempt, went for a different lighting setup:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390669781
Blue Champagne Flute 2 by The Braineack, on Flickr

I found a cleaner glass, much better result:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390672876
Champagne Flute by The Braineack, on Flickr


I thought the cracked glass finish of the other would be more interesting, but I like how elegant this one turned out.

Love this shot! Just as I think I am getting decent at this whole photography thing I see a shot like this.

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.

Brain in particular has some really sharp clean photos. Do you have any tips for these:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390678201
Canon T3i, Canon 50mm 1.8 at 1/100 sec f2.2 ISO1600, no flash

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390678201
Same Camera and lens, at 1/80th at f1.8 ISO800, no flash

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 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.

You might get better results shooting at an aperture more like 2.8 vs 1.8 or 2.2. Typically those nifty fifties are pretty soft under f/2.8 or f/3.2. Might also look better with a little bounce flash off the window wall, since the light looks a little dull to me, and a slightly higher shutter speed to freeze motion a little more. Not sure how much he was moving around, but 1/80 and 1/100 is at about the bottom of the range you would want to capture a moving child and freeze the motion. ISO is probably fine, but lower is always better. With a flash, you could drop the ISO a stop and capture more detail and better color. Also looks like focus might be slightly off, probably because of the shallow dof.

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).

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390683172

the first shot was a black velvet BG:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390683889








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:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390683172
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:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390683648
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:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2855/9...6477d1f0_c.jpg
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).

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 shit 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. :giggle:

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.

6400iso with a D5100:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390688930
Intense Stare by The Braineack, on Flickr


and 5600 on a D5100:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390688930
Lazy Belle by The Braineack, on Flickr



D5100 125 vs 2000 ISO zoomed in.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390688930
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.

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. :loser:

I love that cat by the way. Always looks so nice in pictures.

Pixel peeper.

It stems from an inferiority complex... :giggle:

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.

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.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390717920

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390717920

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:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390757169
Squirrel eating walnut by The Braineack, on Flickr

Went back and redid the first glass on black:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390764140
Blue Champagne Flute 4 by The Braineack, on Flickr

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.


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390786541

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.

Use the bbcode.

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.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390786728

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

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1390882036

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.


Attachment 239390

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

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/

brain, you shooting with prime lenses?

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