What kind of containers are effective for ~20 year storage?

Question

Occasionally, I print large photos (20x30). What kind of container should I use if I want them to last approximately 20 years?

Note: Assume I am not concerned about fire.

Answer

Archival cardboard storage boxes ought to do the trick. They may be difficult to find in your size at a photo store (even B&H only has them up to 20x24-1/2"), but you should be able to get them at any large artists' materials shop (perhaps as a special order) or online through a museum supplier. If worse comes to worst, you can construct the boxes from thick (at least 4-ply) archival mounting board and metal box corners.

You'll also need archival low-abrasion separation sheets (like glassene, but acid-free) between the prints. A double layer of separators -- a slick sheet on the print surface, and a more absorbant, thicker paper between the slick sheet and the back of the next print -- would be better.

The cardboard and the thicker separation sheets will moderate humidity. The box will keep out the light. Using archival materials means you won't have to worry about acid damage from the container or any outgassing that may negatively affect the paper, coatings or pigments. That about covers the requirements -- and your prints should last significantly longer than twenty years under those conditions.

Both plastic and metal containers can be problematic. Some plastics are safe, but it's hard to find safe containers in the size you need, and next to impossible to build 'em if you can't buy 'em. Metals can corrode silently. They may be useful as outer containers for protection from physical damage, but you should still be using cardboard inner containers to prevent direct contact with the metal.

Check more discussion of this question.

How necessary is accurate masking while editing an image?

Question

I'm editing an image of a bronze statue of a horse and rider shot against the sky. The image is excessively blue of course and I want to mask out the statue so I can edit this spearately from the sky. It was shot in RAW on a Canon 450D.

As I'm creating the mask and I zoom in more, I notice I've left sky pixels behind. There also some purple fringing I'm noting at 100%, becoming quite clear at 200%. Understandably, I don't really want to zoom into something ridiculous to remove individual pixels.

How large a print would I have to make in order for the remaining blue pixels to be noticable? Bigger than A3 for example? Is there some way I can assess what the impact of those remaining pixels or the fringing will be, if there will be one at all?

Answer

If you want good results accurate making is essential. While you are unlikely to see the fringing itself on a print you can end up with the masked object looking like a cutout. This effect can be eliminated by going round the edge of the objects mask with a soft low opacity brush in order the feather the edges of the mask. This will eliminate the odd bright sky pixels that you see around the edge of your statue and should eliminate the fringing.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can timelapse sequences be shot without in-camera support?

Question

How can timelapse sequences be shot without having in-camera support for it?

Which third-party tools are recommended?

Answer

I have a Canon TC80N3, which works as a remote shutter, can do hundred of exposures at a timed interval (aka time lapse), a long delay before taking a shot, and very long exposures (ie, greater than 30 seconds that the camera can do).

They seem to be quite difficult to get new nowadays - but they do have them on eBay.

Check more discussion of this question.

Timelapse without in-camera support

Question

How can timelapse sequences be shot without having in-camera support for it? Which third party tools are recommended?

Answer

I have a Canon TC80N3, which works as a remote shutter, can do hundred of exposures at a timed interval (aka time lapse), a long delay before taking a shot, and very long exposures (ie, greater than 30 seconds that the camera can do).

They seem to be quite difficult to get new nowadays - but they do have them on eBay.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to apply settings used on one RAW to a set of RAW images in Canon Digital Photo Professional?

Question

I am using Canon Digital Photo Professional. Please don't give me solutions in photoshop or lightroom as I am not interested in buying this software now.

What I intend to do is to adjust the brightness saturation,etc. for one raw image, and the rest of the images to be adjusted with the same parameters. How can I do this

Answer

If you are processing the RAW files in Canon Digital Photo Professional you can save your changes as a recipe and then apply the recipe quickly to other files.

To do this, first import an image; make your changes and then save settings as a recipe in the edit menu. Then any subsequent image you import just select the recipe you saved and the changes you made in settings for the original image will be applied to the current image. To apply this to a batch of images just select them and from the edit menu select past recipe from file and all the changes in the recipe will be applied to all selected images.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to shoot sharp “landscapes” with a point and shoot camera?

Question

So, I have been told in a thread here previously that the minimum aperture (F8) on my point and shoot camera can cause diffraction and result in losing details of the subject if too many things are in focus. Fine.

Now, if I have to shoot a far away landscape scene and I choose an aperture of (F5), it won't result in a sharp picture, and I can't use F8! :(

See this:

Now is it possible that I use the aperture as low as possible and increase the shutter speed and thus get the same results as I would be getting from aperture F8 (with a low shutter speed)?

What can be the possible combinations?
I mean with F3, speed 1/500?
Of course one way is to go on trying each and every possible combination, but if I get some starting points, I think it'll make my life easier.

Answer

On your sample photo, fog or smoke in the air seems to be the reason why further landscape is not sharp. Nothing in your camera can help against that. Try coming back at another time to see if the air is more clear. Above a city with polluted air, this might never happen.

A wider aperture with faster shutter time will result in equivalent exposure, but depth of field will be smaller, because it is determined only by the large aperture. Opening up all the way is bad for sharpness because most lenses are getting sharper when aperture is smaller than maximum by a stop or two (unless you hit diffraction limit).

To get maximum depth of field, you should focus to something far away to ensure that you are covering hyperfocal distance. You might also still decide to use f/8, because you might prefer even overall sharpness to better sharpness at smaller range. In technical side of photography, compromises have to be made quite often.

Another thing you could try is sharpening in post processing (e.g. using Unsharp mask).

Check more discussion of this question.

How to create a sparkle in the eyes of a portrait shot?

Question

In this photograph I have been told, that the eyes are looking like "black pools", which I do realize now.

What should be an ideal placement of ONE artificial light source (lamp/flash), so that eyes have a sparkle in "portrait" shots?
If this depends on certain conditions please list down them too.

Answer

To get a "catchlight", which is the term for the reflection of a light in the eyes, you'll need to put a light somewhere that the eye reflects. (Sorry if that seems obvious.) Essentially, this means someplace that the eyes can see.

If your subject is facing the camera, the obvious place for a light is near the camera -- this will create a reflection near the center of the eye. A popular way to do this in portrait and fashion photography is with a ring light -- a light that wraps around the lens. This creates a circular catchlight that will wrap around the subject's pupils if they look directly into the lens. Another way to do this is with a catch card or bounce card, as Gapton points out, or with the on-camera flash. In this case, I think a bounce card will be too high, and be shadowed by your subject's eyelids.

Likewise, a light placed above and to the right of the camera will create a catchlight above and to the right of the center of the eye.

In your case, since your subject is looking down and to the left, you'll probably want to place a light at low camera left. You could also place the light near the camera, and get a catchlight to the right of the pupil. If you place it to the right of your camera, your subject's left (camera right) eye might catch it, but on the outside edge. Chances are, the nose would shadow the other eye, preventing a catchlight from appearing.

Adding a light to create a catchlight will affect the mood of your photograph -- for one, the catchlight "puts a sparkle in your eye", literally speaking, and will convey that emotion onto your subject. Second, the light that creates the catchlight will also light the rest of the face, and may take away the shadow that makes the photograph seem somber and pensive.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it worth investing in a used 35 mm Film camera?

Question

I've a Canon 60D and I'm mainly interested in shooting landscapes. I feel very interested in buying a used canon EOS film camera (since my EF lenses are compatible).
I would like to take pictures from my DSLR and then use the same meter reading on the SLR to take a picture. I'm planning on scanning the negatives myself to the maximum resolution and the assumption is that the picture from the film camera would be lot more colorful and sharper.

Would their be a noticeable difference by using a film camera? considering that my 60D comes with 18 Mega Pixels.

Sharpness and resolution matter to me only because I usually end up cropping my pictures.

Also I'm planning on using using films with ISO of 50 or 100.
The used camera I'm interested in cost around $200.

Answer

It certainly is not worth investing in a 35mm film camera for the perceived higher resolution, additional color, or sharpness.

To get results you will likely have to either invest in, or at least have access to a drum scanner that gives you the highest resolution possible right now. Otherwise you will likely be scanning on a flatbed that almost certainly does not produce resolution even near the Canon 60D.

Are you trying to print 24x30inch prints at 360dpi? Sure, grab a 35mm camera, a $20,000 drum scanner, and you may be able to achieve high resolution that would benefit images of this size. You also might not achieve that.

It sounds like the main issue is that you usually end up cropping your images. If this is the case, it sounds like you either need to frame up the subject better before you take the image, or invest in further reaching lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to use Lightroom and Photoshop Elements together?

Question

I know the catalog cannot be shared between these two programs, but what is a good way to have them coexist together? It seems like I would have to have a separate copy of my photos that each program would use. I use Lightroom, but looking at picking up Photoshop Elements and Premiere 10.

Answer

If you install both programs on the same computer, you can open the images in Photoshop Elements directly from within Lightroom. See instructions here or google "lightroom open in photoshop".

The advantage of this (compared to exporting the images, then opening in Phososhop) is that the *.PSD files are automatically accessible from Lightroom's catalog, and can (optionally) be stacked with the original RAW images, making your workflow a lot simpler to manage. You can also add metadata to the linked PSD files.

Check more discussion of this question.

What does “expanded ISO” mean?

Question

The ISO specification for the Canon EOS 7D reads as follows:

High ISO For handheld shooting in low light, the EOS 7D offers ISO speeds of up to 6400. Expandable to ISO 12800, for low light scenes where using flash is undesirable.

Why is it phrased this way? Is there something extra that is needed in order to "expand" ISO to 12800?

If not, then presumably the camera is capable of 12800 out of the box — so why not just list that as the max ISO speed?

Similarly, the Nikon D5100 uses Hi1 and Hi2 instead of numeric ISO settings above 6400. If these are "real" ISO settings, why not just call them ISO 6400 and ISO 12800?

What about cameras which have an expanded ISO range on the low side? For example, an expanded ISO setting may allow a choice of 50 rather than 100. Generally,the standard high ISO is very noisy, with the expanded ISO even more so. Are these lower ISOs less noisy than the "base"?

How do these expanded ISOs affect image quality on either side? Is it better to avoid them and do the equivalent processing with RAW files later, or is there an advantage to using these settings in-camera?

Answer

There are two reasons why an ISO is not made part of the 'normal' range:

1. It is considered a non-trivial drop in quality and you do not want users complaining about its performance. In other words, if the quality difference between ISO 12800 and 6400 is stronger than the one from 3200 to 6400. Note that there may be more changes than simply more noise, colors can be affected as well.

2. The camera meters and exposes for the said ISO, say 12800, but the results do not strictly comply with the ISO standard. When that happens, you will notice that the ISO is NOT stored in the EXIF of the image. This usually happens because of a drop in dynamic-range at the expanded setting.

Check more discussion of this question.

How long does undeveloped film last?

Question

I received a Mamiya ZE-2 from a family member who discovered it in a closet. Along with the camera were 3 rolls of film - 2 in white plastic holders and one inside the camera.

I have no idea what may be on the film, but they seem to have been used (not developed). Would it be worth it to go develop them, will they still have the photos on them?

The 2 rolls in casings are Fujifilm Superia 400.

Answer

This depends totally on the conditions it is kept. The date on the film tends to be a conservative figure and as long as it's been kept cool it tends to last a lot longer than this. If the film is years out of date you have to make a decision if you want to risk it because you may end up with nothing.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is toning, in black and white photography?

Question

I have been told that the "lips" in this photograph need "strong tones".
Now, what is toning and how to achieve that in black and white photography?

I used GIMP and all I did here was to select luminosity from Desaturate menu, and also I notice that this photograph is "Grey" not "Black"!

Answer

When you refer to the 'lips' needing 'stronger tones' this relates to an area of the image needing a greater tonal range within that area achieved by adding contrast. This is different to the term toning in black and white photography.

Toning is the name given to a process that adds an even colouration to a black and white photograph. Because the colour is even the image is still monochrome just not black and white any longer. Sepia toning is a popular example of this where a black and white print is given a warmer tone to soften the impact of the original black and white.

The photograph is grey because black and white photographs are not just black or white but all tones of grey in between, referred to as grey scale in digital imaging. Black and White is a misnomer in this sense but can be considered as referring to images that are made up of mixtures of black and white in various proportions in other words anything monochrome from black to white.

Here is a quick edit of your photograph showing what can be achieved by increasing contrast for the mid tones just on the lips: This was done with Photoshop but similar results can be obtained with GIMP. To achieve this I created two new layers that are copies of the image. On the bottom layer of the two I applied the contrast change to the whole layer. This is done with the image adjustment for shadows/highlights in the image->adjustments menu and increased the mid tone contrast by quite a lot. Then on the top layer I added a layer mask so that only the lips are visible from the contrast altered layer. I overdid the contrast slightly just to give you a good idea what can be achieved you would probably want to play around with the adjustment to get it just right.

Check more discussion of this question.

What advantages does 35mm film have over high-end digital?

Question

In this day and age, do 35mm film cameras have any advantages over high-end digital cameras?

EDIT: I was thinking more quality-wise but sure, other aspects are interesting, too.

Answer

I don't think we can talk about quality difference anymore. The definite difference, in my opinion, is the need of power of digital cameras. If you are going mountain climbing then a film camera might be more appropriate since mountains still lack power plugs.

Also, film cameras have a very low starting price. If you are a novice it is economically convenient to be able to have an SLR for almost nothing just to see if you like photography.

Other than that, there's the love some people have for manually developing film, but that's about it from my point of view.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to select lens for sports photography?

Question

I would like to get into sports photography, and would probably want a better telephoto lens so I can get better close up shots.

What other factors should I keep in mind as I make my choice? Does IS (or VR) matter? What is a good focal length?

I'll probably be shooting mostly little league baseball/softball, church softball leagues, and kids soccer.

Answer

Sports in general means stopping the action. Kids are slower than pro athletes, but you still need a good range in shutter speed.

With that in mind, IS/VR is no use because both technologies prevent camera shake at slower shutter speeds, and obviously slower shutter speeds does the exact opposite of stopping the action. However, IS/VR is nice for low-light, handheld use for other purposes, so if you plan on using your lenses for more than sports, you may wish to consider getting IS.

So, what do you need in a good sports photography lens? Lenses with wider apertures (aka faster lenses) give you more light to work with, allowing faster shutter speeds. In addition, the faster the lens, the better your camera's AF will perform. On most prosumer bodies, the AF points require at least F2.8 to achieve their best performance.

Focal length's will depend on how close you can get to your subject, as well as how much cropping you can get with your body. If money is no object, then a 300, 400, or 500mm prime will do you well, but they're really expensive, so a zoom around 300mm might be a good start, or even a good 70-200 with a TC in a pinch (though the latter option does reduce your working f-stop).

Check more discussion of this question.

What do you recommend for a high quality photo book service?

Question

I'm looking for a reliable photo book printing service that allows the option of uploading a high quality PDF or Indesign file, but also prints using high quality photo prints.

I've used Blurb, but their print quality, even on the higher quality paper, is on par with a high quality magazine print. While I'm not disappointed with the quality for the prices I've paid, I'm wanting to use a higher quality printer for my next project.

Has anyone found a service that does actual photo quality prints for their books, and still allows for completely custom books without using their custom software? The other requirement is that they allow for small print runs. I'm only wanting to have one or two books printed.

Answer

You bet... two labs that I've specifically used for making custom photo books are:

• Bay Photo
• White House Custom Color

They both have product lines that include a variety of different configurations (book size, # of pages, paper choice, cover options and materials, etc.), quantity of books ordered (1 or 2 is a common request), and will use 4-color or 6-color offset printing, so it will be much higher quality than Blurb, Cafepress, etc.

If you want the absolute best-of-the-best quality, and money is no object, the other option I can think of is to look into wedding album manufacturers such as:

• Asuka Book
• Leather Craftsman
• La Vie

They may be 'wedding album companies,' but there's nothing saying you're only 'allowed' to create wedding albums... But you'll want to be prepared for sticker shock. The costs are way higher than you'll pay through something like Blurb... On the other hand, the quality and customization are also top-notch, and the final product is going to have a 'look and feel' that Blurb simply will not be able to match. Additionally, these companies cater to businesses, not individuals, so you may have to jump through some additional hoops in order to use them.

Full Disclosure: I am a customer of all the companies mentioned above in my photography business, so I can personally attest to their top-notch quality... I don't get anything for mentioning them here, though, and there are other album manufacturers out there... These are just the ones I happen to be familiar with.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to keep flash from disrupting the scene?

Question

My friends and I have observed that the act of using a flash in informal settings (for example, pictures of a Christmas party or a busy toddler) tends to draw attention to the photographer and thus disrupt the scene we were trying to capture. Because of this, I tend to avoid the flash (external or on-camera) and just try to get the most light I can. But these are exactly the sort of poorly lit, dynamic situations that you'd want a flash for! How do I resolve this Heisenberg-ian paradox?

(Edit: When I said "off-camera", I really meant "not the built-in flash", I have a Canon Speedlite 430EX 2. Thank you for answers which cover both of the types!)

Answer

1. Bounce flash is much better, since it's less directly (and literally) in-your-face.
2. Off-camera bounce flash is even better. If you're using a wireless radio system, that's probably best of all, but I actually have pretty good results using my camera's built-in optical TTL wireless (I suppose since it's less powerful than a full flash burst), particularly when combined with:
3. Start shooting early and do it often; people will get used to it and start ignoring you.

Check more discussion of this question.

What can a photographer learn from art history?

Question

I normally wouldn't consider this a question of photography, except for the fact that several answers on this question made note that art history was something important to the education they received in art school.

What are important principles for a photographer taught through art history and what are resources (they need not be free or online) that I can learn them from (apart from art school - which will never happen for this working father)?

Answer

Having an art school background means that I've had to sit through any number (dozens, probably) of Art History classes... Some of the big 'principles' that come out of art history include:

• A strong sense of that which has come before. So many photographers approach photography in a vacuum... Having no idea (and often not caring) that art is built on the shoulders of who came before. Knowing something about Art History makes it possible to speak to whether a work is derivative (a capital insult in the art world), or homage (often a complement to both the person giving and getting the homage).
• Beginning photographers (especially ones who've only been photographers in the 'digital era') often rely on luck, volume (quantity of shots taken), and post-production corrections in order to get good photographs. An Art History education really trains the mind to be deliberate in all aspects of photography (lighting, subject, background, DoF, etc.) This is because spending a lot of time looking at the different ways others handle those same problems heightens awareness of them in the work you're doing, and having a library of techniques to draw on to emulate will often strengthen the work.
• Reoccurring patterns and motifs are illuminated. To watch how (for example) art's portrayal of the devil over the course of 500 years has evolved can inform my own work. Maybe a less extreme example... It is possible to see something like 'short lighting' being invented by observing painters draw inspiration from one another over the course of centuries.
• All of the above which leads to the 'big' principles of art history... A strong history of R&D in the art world- Rip off and Duplicate. Art evolves as the result of artists building liberally on other artists work over time, and there's no reason that Photography shouldn't draw from that well too.

In terms of resources:

• Crash on the floor in the Art section at a local 'big box' book store and leaf through all the big glossy books (and maybe you thought computer related books were expensive... I only manage to find $100+ books in the art section! I never buy, just look).
• The library can also great for looking at art. They also are less likely to frown at you if you spend hours looking but don't buy anything. :-)
• Paradoxically I often find the internet to be a hindrance to actually studying pieces of art... But that just may be me. I tend to find that most of time the pictures on the internet are too small to really get much out of... On the other hand, its never been easier to read the written histories of great (and more obscure) artists, which can really add depth to the works as you view them.
• Finally, there's absolutely nothing like actually viewing paintings (or photographs, for that matter) 'in person.' Visit a museum. Visit a gallery. Visit lots of 'em. If you're lucky enough to live somewhere that gets traveling exhibits that come to town, go see them, or go on vacation somewhere that has a reputation for great art.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I get high resolution photo from video?

Question

Waiting for the exact moment to snap a picture can be very difficult especially when working with children or animals. I've read somewhere (can't find source) that every freeze frame from an HD video is essentially a high-resolution photo (is this even true?).

What are the challenges, pros, and cons of selecting the best frame from a video as a way of taking still photos where timing is crucial?

Answer

The big pro to this is, as you say, the ability to take many pictures in a short period of time, allowing you to pick the best frame.

However, there are several cons to this approach:

• Lower resolution. Even "Full High Def", 1080p, is only 2 megapixel (1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600). This would give you an acceptable print size of 6.4x3.6 inches, at 300 DPI. This might be fine for you, but if you want a larger print, you'll start noticing pixellation.
• Often, less control of settings like shutter speed, ISO, and aperture. Video also can generally deal with a bit more motion blur than still photos, and the camera may allow the shutter speed to drag longer than you might want.
• Video compression artifacts. Aside from key frames, most frames in a compressed video are rendered by modifying a prior frame. This results in artifacts that may not be noticeable in a video, but will degrade the quality of your photo. This depends a lot on the codec and the bitrate of the video.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do cheap macro ring flashes perform?

Question

When I last checked years ago, the price of a typical Ring flash unit was approximately $500. Nowadays there are still ring flashes for approx. $500 like Pentax AF160FC, Pentax AF-140C, Canon MR-14EX, Sigma EM-140 DG ...

On the other hand, there are "noname" LED ring flashes for approx. $50. The price is very tempting maybe a bit too cheap. What's the main difference? Are they really that bad?

Answer

Not having owned a cheap-o ring flash, I can only guess what the tradeoffs might be:

• Cheaper build quality
• Inconsistent Light Output
• No "Bang-bang-bang" shooting
• Little/no camera interfacing (ie no support for Canon's E-TTL)
• Weaker light output

Now, for $50, if you can swing it, it seems like it might be worth it to first try using a ring-flash and get the hang of it, before moving onto a more expensive solution.

You may also want to look at Strobist. He/They periodically do comparisons on so called "ebay-gear" and give honest, objective feedback taking into consideration price/performance capabilities.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does shooting at lower RAW resolution using crop sensor camera mimics qualities of full frame cameras?

Question

I'm not talking about changes to the focal length.

I've read many post that say in full frame camera the pixel density is lower compared to crop sensor camera's and so it captures more light and has thus has better ISO performance and greater dynamic range. So if I change by crop sensor camera to shoot at a lower resolution, will that equate to a better pixel density and mimic the performance of a full frame (or medium format) or will it always shoot at maximum resolution and the reduce the size?

--EDIT: 1--
I've a Canon 60D and I've 3 options for RAW image sizes (RAW, M-RAW amd S-RAW). If RAW is just a dump from the Camera sensors, How can their be 3 different sizes? Does the camera also scale down RAW images as well?

Answer

Given that you have a Canon, the lower RAW modes, mRAW and sRAW, DO INDEED UTILIZE ALL of the available sensor pixels to produce a richer result without the need for bayer interpolation. The actual output format, while it is still contained within a .cr2 Canon RAW image file, is encoded in a Y'CbCr format, similar to many video pulldown formats. It stores luminance information for each FULL pixel (2x2 quad of 1 red, 1 blue, and 2 green pixels), and each chrominance channel is derived from half pixel data (1x2 pair of 1 red+1 green or 1 blue+1 green).

I am not exactly certain what the specific low-level hardware read and encoding differences between mRAW and sRAW are, however generally speaking the smaller the output format, the more sensor pixel input information you can use for each output pixel. The small amount of interpolation present in m/sRAW is moot, as both formats interpolate far less than native RAW. It should also be noted that neither mRAW nor sRAW are actual "RAW" formats in the normal sense...sensor data IS processed and converted into something else before it is saved to a .cr2 file.

For more details about YUV derived formats and Canon sRAW, see my answer here: Why isn't the xvYCC color space seeing uptake for still photography?

From "Understanding What is stored in a Canon RAW .CR2 file":

The sRaw format (for "small RAW") was introduced with the 1D Mark III in 2007. It is a smaller version of the RAW picture.

For the 1D Mark III, then the 1Ds Mark III and the 40D (all with the Digic III), the sRaw size is exactly 1/4 (one fourth) of the RAW size. We can thus suppose than each group of 4 "sensor pixels" is summarized into 1 "pixel" for the sRaw.

With the 50D and the 5D Mark II (with the Digic IV chip), the 1/4th size RAW is still there (sRaw2), and a half size RAW is also appearing : sRaw1. With the 7D, the half size raw is called mraw (same encoding as sraw1), 1/4th raw is called sraw (like the sraw2).

the sRaw lossless Jpeg is always encoded with 3 colors component (nb_comp) and 15 bits.

Jpeg code of Dcraw was first modified (8.79) to handle sRaw because of the h=2 value of the first component (grey background in the table). Normal RAW have always h=1. Starting with the 50D, we have v=2 instead of v=1 (orange in the table). Dcraw 8.89 is the first version to handle this and the sraw1 from 50d and 5D Mark II.

"h" is the horizontal sampling factor and "v" the vertical sampling factor. It specifies how many horizontal/vertical data unit are encoded in each MCU (minimum coded unit). See T-81, page 36.

3.2.1 sRaw and sRaw2 format

h=2 means that the decompressed data will contain 2 values for the first component, 1 for column n and 1 for column n+1. With the 2 other components, decompressed sraw and sraw2 (which all have h=2 & v=1), always have 4 elementary values

[ y1 y2 x z ] [ y1 y2 x z ] [ y1 y2 x z ] ...
(y1 and y2 for first component)

Every "pixel" in sRAW and mRAW images contain four components...a split Y' component (y1 and y2), as well as an x (Chrominance Blue) and z (Chrominance Red). All four components (from a 1/2 image perspective, sRAW1/mRAW) have a column height of 2 (h) and a width of 1 (v). This indicates that the Luminance value (Y') is comprised of a FULL 2x2 pixel quad...or two 2x1 pixel columns stored in y1 and y2.

The references below do not seem to specifically state this, so I am speculating a bit here, however with the sRAW2 (1/4 raw) I believe Luminance information would be derived from a 4x4 pixel block where h=4 and v=2. Encoding chrominance would get more complex at a 1/4 size image, as the bayer color filter array on the sensor is not arranged in neat red and blue columns. I am unsure whether alternating 2x1 height columns are processed for each Cr and Cb component, or if some other form of interpolation is performed. One thing is certain...the interpolation of source data is always larger than the output data, and no overlapping (as in normal bayer interpolation) occurs as far as I can tell.

Finally, sRAW1/mRAW and sRAW/sRAW2 are compressed using a lossless compression algorithm. This is a critical distinction between these formats and JPEG, which also uses a ycc type encoding. JPEG performs lossy compression, making it impossible to restore pixels back to their exact original representation. Canon's s/mRAW formats are indeed able to be restored back to original full precision 15-bit image data.

References:

• Understanding What is stored in a Canon RAW .CR2 file, How and Why
  • For pulldown details, see text just before section 3.2.1
• DIGITAL COMPRESSION AND CODING OF CONTINUOUS-TONE STILL IMAGES – REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Check more discussion of this question.

How do Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 and EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro lenses compare?

Question

I've read over a few of the macro posts on this site, and I'm very new to digital photography, so I have a few questions, and some may be overlapping. I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3, and I want to buy a macro lens. I want a 1:1 ratio, and so apparently my cheapest option for such lens is $574? Or actually there's this one for $449. My question is what's the difference between these 2? Is it only the 100mm and 60 mm difference? And what does that really mean? Does that mean that with the 100mm I can be farther away and take the macro shot?

This is a pretty big purchase, so I want to make sure if there's anything I should know about macro lenses before purchasing one. Honestly I dont know much about what aperture or ISO or about different lenses, I just like taking nice pictures, and I do plan on learning all the advanced stuff, but I really want to take macro shots.

Answer

It looks like the big difference between those two lenses is mainly the focal length. (Although the 100mm is a EF lens instead of an EF-S lens, which means if you ever went full frame, it would still work.) Yes, longer length gives you more working distance to the subject. For flower and stationary subjects, it may not matter. But if you're planning on doing insects or other skittish things, longer working distance is almost always better. You'll also get a bit different perspective between the two lenses, which may or may not be what you want.

There's also third party brands like the Sigma 105mm and the Tamron 90mm that are also options.

In terms of exposure stuff, here's a good place to start.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to carry film through airports?

Question

I had a business trip with some free time in the evening, so I took my photo gear with me, but on the last moment, decided to leave my film camera at home because I did not want to ruin the film with X-ray scans in airports. I wasn't going to stay long enough to buy, shoot and develop a film during my stay, which seems to be the best way of avoiding X-ray scans.

I want to be better prepared next time, so what would the best practice to travel with undeveloped film?

Answer

• The scanners for checked baggage are a lot more powerful, so take it through in your carry-on.
• If you've only got slower films (ISO 100 or so), there's not really a concern.
• If you have faster films, ask to have them hand-inspected. With anything ISO 400 and below you should be fine but you can have issues if they go through the scanner too many times or decide to blast your bag with more juice because all your big metal cameras look suspicious.
• If you're going to have them hand-inspected, put all your film in a zip-loc bag, and put that on an outside pocket or something so you can yank it out easily (i.e., like your 3oz bottles of liquid).
• Keep your camera(s) un-loaded in case the agent wants to open them. I've never had that happen, but you never know these days...

Check more discussion of this question.

How to take sharp photos while using maximum optical zoom?

Question

When I shoot with high zoom (above 3X on my point-and-shoot camera), the sharpness of the picture seems to come down. Is it a feature of all cameras or is it due to higher sensitivity to camera shakes during captures in higher optical zoom regions?

Some of the photos in the higher zoom range are pretty good, usually the ones of scenery — so I I feel it can not be a camera problem.

I have a point and shoot camera with 6X optical zoom. Does the same thing happen with other types of cameras with high-zoom telephoto lenses?

Are there any other things to be taken care of when we shoot with higher optical zooms?

Answer

There's two things at issue here.

The first is zoom range, which is the longest focal length a zoom lens has divided by the shortest. That is, a lens which goes between 25mm equivalent focal length and 150mm is a "6x" zoom lens. This terminology is usually reserved for point and shoot cameras; for SLR lenses, one usually gives the actual focal lengths instead. High-zoom-range lenses require more design compromise, and it's likely that that compromise results in relatively weak performance at the extreme ends of the range. So that could be part of it.

Second is the issue of camera movement. Higher focal lengths — "more telephoto", or as you say, in the higher part of the zoom range — show a smaller portion of the scene magnified to the same size, and that means that small movements in the camera translate into larger movements in your photo. This means the effect of camera shake is much more pronounced the more you zoom in.

You can easily demonstrate this to yourself by simply looking at the live-view screen (or viewfinder) as you turn the camera slightly — at short focal lengths you can see a small change, and zoomed-in you can see that the whole scene changes with just a little turn. This same effect magnifies very small movements as well, increasing blur.

There's a particular compromise that most point and shoot cameras and superzoom lenses have which makes camera shake more of an issue when zoomed in. Specifically (as @Itai points out), these lenses usually provide a more-limited aperture at higher zoom. This means less light, which means either boosting the signal (higher ISO), resulting in more noise, or else longer shutter speeds — making it more important to reduce camera movement.

There's not much to be done about the first except to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment, and to avoid using the higher focal lengths in situations where the weaknesses are most obvious — like in low-light.

For the second, simply keeping your camera more still will help significantly. You can get better results with improved technique and awareness of your motion as you press the shutter, but a tripod or other support will be even better. You'll also want to make sure that image stabilization is enabled in your camera if available — and make sure it has a chance to activate by half-pressing the shutter and waiting a second before firing.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to photograph smoke?

Question

I have been trying to get images of smoke against a black background has anyone got any advice on the best way to do this and a good lens choice and lighting set up for the job.

Answer

Taking the pictures

• use a joss stick, plenty of smoke and lasts a while. when the room gets smoky, open the widows to get rid of the smoke, this will increase contrast in your pictures
• i used a telephoto, it minimises the size of the backdrop needed.
• make sure the backdrop is black
• use a flash maera left or right, and use a snoot to ensure the flash doesnt fall on the lens / backdrop. i used 2 cereal boxes to block the light
• use a desktop lamp to light the smoke for autofocus
• recommended camera settings to start - iso 100/200, 1/250s shutter speed, f8.
• dont use a tripod, the patterns in the smoke will move and a tripod will hinder you
• alternatively, you can use a tripod, have the camera on manula focus and crop the pictures later.

Post Processing

• use levels to make the background completely black.
• use the healing brush tool t remove any stubborn non-black areas in the background
• use a black brush to trim any unwanted areas of smoke
• load a channel as selction (try all of them to see what's best)
• create new layer from selection, fill white

then you can paint colours or use a colour grad-filter.

Links that i found useful:-

• http://sensitivelight.com/photographingsmoke/
• http://vimeo.com/4698985

ps i'm no expert, but the above seems to get decent pics:-

Check more discussion of this question.

Simple app for viewing JPG and then deleting JPG+RAW files simultaneously?

Question

Does anyone know of a simple photo viewer that will let you quickly flip through a bunch of photos, and delete the ones you don't want, that will also (optionally) delete an associated RAW and/or sidecar file?

I'm thinking of an app that had a buttons for Delete JPG, Delete RAW, Delete Both, or that would mark them for deletion to perform before exiting the app, or something similar to that.

Edit: Windows Vista (soon to be Windows 7), camera is Nikon D90 (so .NEF raw files). I have not instaleld the bundled Nikon software yet. I've just been using the Windows photo import which just copies them onto the hard drive. If I preview using Windows Photo Gallery, deleting the file only deletes the JPG, so I have to go back and delete the raw files manually afterwards.

Answer

Geeqie can do this -- turn on the "Enable Image Grouping" option, and files with the same base name will be grouped. (It doesn't do anything magic to link files by actual contents that I'm aware of, though.)

You should be able to install it with yum install geeqie or apt-get install geeqie on Fedora or Ubuntu. I'm not aware of pre-built packages for Mac or Windows, but in theory it should be possible.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there any difference between the Sony A65 and A55 other than megapixels?

Question

When I look at dpreview's side-by-side camera comparison page, there is no difference between two cameras except pixel count (24MP vs. 16MP).

If that's the only difference then $200 isn't worth it for just more pixels, because I don't need them. Is there anything else?

Answer

I can a spot a few differences; 24 fps video vs 30, more WB settings, different battery (longer lasting), heavier and bigger but thinner body (probably easier to hold), extra connectivity options, ±5 EV (at 1/3 EV steps) as oppose to ±2 EV (at 1/3 EV steps), AE bracketing option.

The Sony SLT A77 seems like a better alternative though.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I group photos in Lightroom into events as iPhoto does?

Question

Now that I import a lot of photos, I want to know if it's possible during import to define an event or something, like the iPhoto way.

Answer

You could simulate the same effect as iPhoto with some clever keywording on import, and a date search/filter. Lightroom supports some very rich filtering capabilities that combine the EXIF and ITPC metadata, as well as any keywords you may have added to your photos. You can easily add keywords to all photos imported at time of import (on the right-hand side, look for and expand the keywords section). When importing events, just add a keyword called 'event', and any additional keywords that describe the entire set of photos you are importing (such as an event type, but not the event name...there are better places to put more specific details like that). By defaylt, your import will show up in the Previous Import section in the library, but the next import will override that, and you'll have to search to find that set of photos again. Before doing any additional imports, work through your collection and add more metadata. Specifically, title, caption and location.

Once imported, go to the library, and near the top of the photo grid is a bar labeled "Library Filter". Click "Metadata", and and an expanded view will display. It should have a set of default filters, such as Date, Camera, Lens, and Label. You can add additional columns, and you'll want to add Keyword for sure. You can select one or more items from each column by holding the CONTROL (or on Mac, probably the OPTION) key, and clicking each item you wish to filter by. In keywords, select the 'event' tag, and possibly any tags that specify the type of event (i.e. "Air Show"). Select the date(s) that the event took place on. Your library should filter a second or two after you start selecting.

If you wish to filter beyond just the level of date and keywords, you can make use of the previous metadata additions. You can click the "Text" link in the Library Filter bar to add a text search (in addition to the metadata search). You can search by title, caption, or any metadata (like location) to further filter your results.

Ad-hoc searches are useful for quickly finding arbitrary results. If you wish to create a specific, long-term grouping of your events, you can use smart collections. Smart collections are essentially saved searches, and they are just as capable as the search described above (more capable in some cases.) Just create a smart collection with the same search criteria, and you can find your event in a single click.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does my Canon 60D sometimes lengthen exposure when using the flash?

Question

In low light conditions, my first shot will often be handheld with no flash. If there's not enough light however, the shutter speed can be too slow and I'm not steady enough for a crisp image - so I'll pop up the flash.

However, I've found that the camera often decreases the shutter speed (i.e. a longer exposure) even though the flash is firing! I mainly find it when shooting in Aperture Priority mode (with ISO on auto).

Why is this? Surely the additional light from the flash would mean a shorter exposure would suffice?

Answer

There are two reasons why a camera might choose to use a slower speed with flash than without:

• it tries to fit exposure into sync speed (1/250s on Canon 60D).
• and/or it chose lower auto ISO thanks to flash usage

Usually, flash is only used to illuminate subject. Your camera still tries to make sure the background will be correctly exposed too.

Check more discussion of this question.

What's a good strategy for choosing which photos to keep?

Question

Since moving from a 6 megapixel DSLR to a 12.5 megapixel micro-four-thirds, the much bigger file sizes (especially shooting RAW) mean that I can't be so open about keeping everything I shoot.

I only have a 640GB primary drive for all my video and stills, and a 640GB backup drive - and they are getting fuller every day.

But going through photos and deleting bad ones can be a tedious process. I've slowly been going through old photos and pressing delete if they are obviously out of focus or have too much motion blur. But it still leaves a lot of photos that just seem uninspiring, or where I have a lot of photos that are very similar, taking up space. I'm too worried to delete them since they're actually usable, and I may find a use in future.

• What is a good process for choosing what to delete and what to keep?

• At what stage of the process do think it's best to do it?

Answer

I don't know if this is a great system, but here's what I do:

1. After the shoot/session is done I immediately sort through every frame I took looking for the 'keepers.' I do it this way because for me it is easier to choose to keep the great shots than it is to delete the borderline shots... That may just be me. :-)
2. Next I sort through every frame I didn't put in the 'keepers' pile and look for anything that is bad enough to just trash immediately- usually there are a few out-of-focus or technically flawed photos that I didn't delete 'on-the-fly' which get taken out back behind the barn and put out of my misery.
3. I then look through the 'Keepers' and see if there are any 'holes' in the shoot that I will need to fill with the shots that weren't good enough to make my 'keepers' pile, but weren't bad enough to trash... Call it my 'marginal' pile if you will. If there are holes to be filled I then pick the 'best of the worst' to fill in those holes.
4. I post-process all the 'Keepers.' If it's a personal session I post 'em, if it's a professional session I work with the client further from there to close the contract. For client contracts this is it. I keep both the 'keepers' and the 'marginal' shots forever and get ingested into my backup solution (which is an entirely different process).
5. After some time has passed (I usually do this every month for any personal work that happened 3 months prior in order to allow myself a bit of perspective) I re-examine the 'marginal' pile to see if time has changed my initial impressions of those photographs... Usually there are a few in the 'marginal' pile that I like enough to keep. The rest are shown no mercy and get to go to the round file from there.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I work with ice and a glass bottle for a product shoot?

Question

I have a bottle of vodka that I want to have the effect of being frozen with shards of ice on it.

If I lived in Alaska where I could leave it outside and drip water over the top every hour or so, that would be ideal. But I don't. I'm trying to figure out a way to use my freezer for this effect, and my question is how best to do this.

I need to keep the water on the bottle, so it will freeze to it. I've thought about a ziplock bag, which I'd peel off after it's frozen... then perhaps chisel away the ice so it doesn't look like it was in a bag (sharp edges, etc.).

Or, to do it so it looks like an ice cube with the bottle in the middle. For that, I was thinking to fill a baking dish and freeze it in that, and then heat the back side to release it from the baking dish. Has anyone done something like this and does anyone have advice or tips?

I'm thinking of everything in my mind and want to try the least amounts of times for fear of impacting the frosted look on the bottle.

Answer

I don't know how the kids are doing it these days, but in my day we used acrylic resin (available by the bucket in larger craft shops) for "ice" and clear Krylon (misted with water from a plant mister when necessary) for "frost".

Unlike food maquettes (such as using coloured Crisco and icing sugar for "ice cream") you aren't breaking any truth in advertising laws, and the "ice" will survive the lighting and staging process. Real ice poses a lot of problems. There is a relatively narrow range of temperatures in which it looks right (too cold and it lacks gloss, too warm and it melts too quickly), it takes textured fingerprints (or gloveprints) that you're forever having to torch out (while carefully trying to avoid soot deposits -- which can never be removed completely, and therefore mean starting over again).

In the end, the fake stuff usually looks more believable than the real.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can Lightroom and Photoshop Elements share catalog info?

Question

I like Photoshop Elements 10 cataloguing abilities to find people and objects in photos. I own Lightroom but managing a 30k plus catalog is hard and would appreciate the consumer friendly version in PSE.

Is it possible to link them? How?

Answer

I tried this with Adobe Photoshop Elements 10(Elements). I created a simple catalog in Elements then tried to open it in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4.1(Lightroom). I was unable to see the option to "Upgrade Photoshop Elements Catalog" as is suggested by Adobes help file here. I did not see that option under the File menu as it suggested.

I actually found a thread on the Adobe forums where people describe how sometimes the option shows up and sometimes it doesn't. No one appeared to have a solution to the issue, and I don't at this time either.

So next I compared the two folders of catalogs, and obviously they are completely different from that standpoint.

Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 Catalog Folder:

Adobe Lightroom 3.4.1 Catalog Folder:

Furthermore your main goal is really to share the catalog both ways not just as an upgrade option from Elements to Lightroom. This is not possible at this time. First of all Elements is a destructive editor(with the exception of image rotation). When you make a change to the contrast for example, you have to either write over the existing file or create a new one. You do not just save the changes to the XMP metadata, sidecar file, or catalog such as in Lightroom.

For example, when I make an edit in Elements such as red eye correction, the software automatically creates and saves a new JPG file.

A potential workaround would be to make the changes, or tags that it sounds like you want in Elements. Then select File>Write Keyword Tag and Properties Info to Photo. Then just import the new files into Lightroom. So you could tag peoples faces using the face and landmark detection tool of Elements, Elements would save these tags to the original files, and you could then use those tags in Lightroom. If you are going to do this, just be careful of the edits you make because of the destructive nature of Elements.

I think the workaround is what you are looking for. While not giving you full control both ways, it will allow you to do the tagging that Elements features and still work with the power of Lightroom.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do colors always come out bland when shooting in RAW format?

Question

I shoot all my pictures in RAW format and every time during post processing I need to tinker with the saturation because the color comes out bland. I do realize that changing camera saturation level has no effect if shooting in RAW but am I doing something wrong? Do colors always come out bland if shooting RAW?

Does this mean that having a polarizing filter to enhance the blue sky has no effect on RAW?

Answer

This is an observation made by many when they start to shoot in RAW after being used to JPEG. You have to understand that what you see with a RAW image is exactly what came off the sensor when you took the picture. Digital cameras provide all kinds of on board post processing such as noise reduction, sharpening, saturation and contrast settings which are applied to the raw data prior to creating a JPEG image file. With RAW files, none of this is applied so the image you see on the computer is very often flatter and softer than the JPEG would have been or what you saw on the camera itself. This is another reason for the confusion, most cameras apply the post processing to the image that is shown on the cameras LCD which also leads to disappointment when first seeing a RAW file on your computer. RAW is provided as a format because it captures every piece of data coming from the sensor in order for you to apply your own post processing on your computer in order to get the best final result. This means that to get the contrasty sometimes over saturated results often seen with JPEG output, especially from entry level DSLRs, requires you replicate the in camera image processing settings on your computer in the RAW processing software. This is the beauty of RAW, it allows the most post processing possibilities but does require almost every image to have some work put into it.

Filters in front of the camera will effect the RAW output because they change the light falling on the sensor so a polarizing filter will change the output.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does focal length affect diffraction, in addition to aperture?

Question

The reason I ask is that f/18 on a 24mm lens = 1.5mm, and f/18 on a 180mm lens = 10mm. I thought diffraction is due to the small physical size of the aperture, rather than the f-ratio, yet I only ever see mention of the f-ratio in discussions of diffraction.

(The lens and camera in my case are an APS-C Nikon D300s and a Sigma 105mm f/2.8, which goes to f64.)

Answer

Excellent question. It boils down to the nature of F-number, which is focalLength/physicalAperture, and the fact that longer focal lengths magnify more. Keep in mind that light projected through an aperture still has to travel from the aperture to the sensor. The greater the distance from aperture to sensor, the greater the magnification...including magnification of the airy disc. The difference between a 180mm lens and a 24mm lens is about 7.5x. To get the same amount of diffraction from a 180mm lens as you would from 24mm lens at f/18, the 180mm lens would need a physical aperture of about 11.25mm in diameter. Given that 180/18 = 10mm, the amount of diffraction present at the sensor is actually a little bit more than with the 24mm lens.

Regarding the Sigma 105/2.8 lens you mention. I believe that is a macro lens. When it comes to macro photography, things change a little bit. You tend to focus extremely close to your subjects with macro photography, so close that depth of field is incredibly small...sometimes millimeters thick. In such situations, it is often more desirable to deal with some diffraction softening as a trade-off for increasing depth of field. In other words, you trade perfect sharpness at the focal plane for additional sharpness beyond the focal plane. Apertures of f/32 or even f/64 are sometimes necessary to even get a shot at all when involving extension tubes.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to get a miniature effect on pictures?

Question

I was browsing Behance and came upon these pictures: http://www.behance.net/gallery/The-Little-Things/402879

I was wondering how he got this miniature style effect? I'm guessing a Gaussian Blur on a strip of the picture in Photoshop...but couldn't get right.

If you know how to make it, please give a stepped explanation. Thanks.

Answer

Basically you want to simulate the shallow depth of field you would get when photographing small objects. This can be done either with lens with tilt function (i.e. special purpose lens called either a tilt-shift or perspective control lens) or by selectively blurring an image in post.

It's not hard to do, but there is something you need to ensure in the original capture, and that is a high vantage point. This is a must, not only are most miniatures shot from above, but you need a steadily progressing depth from top to bottom. This is especially true when using a tilt-shift lens as your only option is a gradually increasing blur, it's possible to fake shallow depth of field from a ground level image but you would have to do an awful lot of very difficult masking if the furthest part of your scene is in the centre of the image, and the result wont look as good anyway.

Here's a walkthrough of one of these I produced for the University of York magazine. Here's the original image (actually part of a panorama) shot from the back of a tower crane!

Next I played with the saturation and colours to make it look a bit like a model (if you look at model railways the trees are always an unnatural shade of green!)

The next few steps are not strictly necessary but I wanted to push the illusion of this being a model as far as I could! I photoshopped in in some dirt, hairs etc. and a few plastic model railway figures (again most of this was inspired by studying images of model railways on flickr):

When doing this sort of thing it's important to add a shadow, even if very diffuse (the whole scene was shot on a cloudy day, so there were no strong shadows) to help ground the figures:

Here's the final prep'ed image (I decided the dead fly was too much!)

Now to do the actual blurring, now we want to simulate the model going out of focus, which means blurring with an increasing radius from top to bottom. The best way to achieve this is with the photoshop lens blur filter. This takes a "depth map" image, which is a greyscale image where the brightness indicates the radius of the blur at that point.

A simple gradient from top to bottom would do, but it gave the effect that the bottom of the building was more blurred than the top, which wouldn't happen in real life as they would both be at the same depth, to attempt to fix this I modified the depth map slightly:

Here's the final image. The effect isn't quite perfect, the trees in the foreground don't look quite right (a lot more fiddling with the depth map would have been required), but it was enough to fool a lot of people.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does the Nikon D7000 video overheat like the D90?

Question

I currently have a D90 and I'm shooting more and more video so I was considering going to the D7000.

My question is, does the D7000 overheat after 5 consecutive 5min shooting and automatically shut down or is this something of the past?

Thanks for any help.

Answer

Nikon D7000 does continuously 20 minutes video. It has also full time autofocus. Here at the end end of video you may see the quality and how does fulltime autofocus work.

Check more discussion of this question.

What should a photography beginner focus on?

Question

I have no experience whatsoever with photography, but it's a subject that has interested me for quite some time. As a beginner, what should I be focusing on? What camera should I get? Any other general advice?

Answer

You should focus on taking pictures!

Don't worry too much about the gear. If you're really interested in this as a hobby, I suggest budgeting a significant chunk right off (See this slightly-tongue-in-cheek article) and buying some decent mid-range gear.

I don't mean you need to buy a ton of stuff without knowing what you need, but if you jump in at higher than the entry-level, you'll have more flexibility, room to grow, and not be as distracted by lusting after better gear (you'll know that what you have is good enough even though there's always something better). Most crucially, you'll have a camera designed for direct access to the essential controls, rather than one designed to produce snapshots without any thought. (See Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost? for more on this.)

You almost certainly want a camera with interchangeable lenses, but it's not a necessity. You could go for a high-end point and shoot like the Canon G12, or something like the lovely Fujifilm X100, which has a large sensor and a built-in lens tailored to go with it. Interchangeable lenses offer a lot more flexibility, but unlimited flexibility isn't necessarily all good.

A dSLR with a prime lens or two is a good choice too, or one of the newer mirrorless options (like Micro 4/3rds) with one of the tiny "pancake" lenses. Some people will suggest a basic zoom lens; some will recommend the prime-lens route, as I am doing — this is basically a choice of personal style. (While prime lenses offer some image quality advantages and usually wider max apertures, this can also be seen as a place where less flexibility helps learning by providing structure.)

So anyway, get something, and start taking a lot of pictures. Malcolm Gladwell puts forth the idea that to be great at anything, you need to put in about 10,000 hours of working at it. So, the most important thing is to not obsess about how to start and to just do it.

Take a lot of pictures, and then review each one with a critical eye. What are your favorites? What worked, what didn't? Narrow down your favorites from each batch, and make prints from those — there's really no substitute for the physical artifact. Look at other photographs you like. What makes them work? How do yours compare?

By repeating this process of taking pictures and narrowing them down, you'll become good.

Check more discussion of this question.

What should a beginner focus on?

Question

I have no experience whatsoever with photography, but it's a subject that has interested me for quite some time. As a beginner, what should I be focusing on? What camera should I get? Any other general advice?

Answer

You should focus on taking pictures!

Don't worry too much about the gear. If you're really interested in this as a hobby, I suggest budgeting a significant chunk right off (See this slightly-tongue-in-cheek article) and buying some decent mid-range gear.

I don't mean you need to buy a ton of stuff without knowing what you need, but if you jump in at higher than the entry-level, you'll have more flexibility, room to grow, and not be as distracted by lusting after better gear (you'll know that what you have is good enough even though there's always something better). Most crucially, you'll have a camera designed for direct access to the essential controls, rather than one designed to produce snapshots without any thought. (See Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost? for more on this.)

You almost certainly want a camera with interchangeable lenses, but it's not a necessity. You could go for a high-end point and shoot like the Canon G12, or something like the lovely Fujifilm X100, which has a large sensor and a built-in lens tailored to go with it. Interchangeable lenses offer a lot more flexibility, but unlimited flexibility isn't necessarily all good.

A dSLR with a prime lens or two is a good choice too, or one of the newer mirrorless options (like Micro 4/3rds) with one of the tiny "pancake" lenses. Some people will suggest a basic zoom lens; some will recommend the prime-lens route, as I am doing — this is basically a choice of personal style. (While prime lenses offer some image quality advantages and usually wider max apertures, this can also be seen as a place where less flexibility helps learning by providing structure.)

So anyway, get something, and start taking a lot of pictures. Malcolm Gladwell puts forth the idea that to be great at anything, you need to put in about 10,000 hours of working at it. So, the most important thing is to not obsess about how to start and to just do it.

Take a lot of pictures, and then review each one with a critical eye. What are your favorites? What worked, what didn't? Narrow down your favorites from each batch, and make prints from those — there's really no substitute for the physical artifact. Look at other photographs you like. What makes them work? How do yours compare?

By repeating this process of taking pictures and narrowing them down, you'll become good.

Check more discussion of this question.

What software can show my most frequently used focal length?

Question

Many people recommend a focal length of 35mm, 50mm, and sometimes even 85mm and upwards for those interested in purchasing a prime lens. I, however, would like to figure out what focal length(s) I use most often, and then purchase a prime with that approximate focal length.

Is there a piece of software that will analyze thousands of photos and then tell me how many times I used a certain focal length?

Answer

Someone referred me once to Exposure Plot. This is a free Windows utility which is very simple. It shows you graphs of different parameters, one of them being focal-length.

If you already use image management application like Lightroom or Bibble Pro, then you can also usually see that data in the filter interface.

For Lightroom for example, you need to activate the filter bar (/), select Metadata and change one of the columns to show Focal-Length. You'll get to see all the focal-lengths used and the number of photos taken at each focal-length. What's neat is that you can combine things like rating and focal-length, to find out which focal-length is used in your best images.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to micro-adjust distance for focusing in macro photography?

Question

I'd like to take macro photos, but I have a problem with the focus.

I put the object on a (light) table, I put my camera on my tripod and take a few shots. Since the depth of field is very small usually I realize that I have to change the distance between the object and my camera. Changing this distance is quite difficult if I have to put my camera 0.5mm closer. Is the a way to easily (and continuously) change this distance? Is there a tripod accessory for this?

I use a reverse ring and a prime lens, but the question probably applies for other types of macro photography.

Answer

In this sort of situation, the normal approach is to use a focusing rail which allows fine and controlled adjustments to be made. There are several available on the market, with some under £50, but it would be possible to make one yourself, if you have the right tools.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to avoid glare in macro photography?

Question

I am attempting to take pictures of antique pocket watches, when I use my flash, even with a diffuser or farther away, I get glare from the curved elements within the watch. Are there any sites with tips and tricks to try to avoid this?

Answer

For macro of reflecting things you need a as big as possible lightsource.
Best would be a macro tent, but you can improvise with a few pieces of paper and light sources. Just cut one piece of paper in half, form a ring from the two pieces, put them on some other papers and put light sources outside the paper:

If the stuff is really reflective, put another piece of paper on top and leave just a small opening to take the photo through:

(My own pictures, taken from my own blog entry about macro tents)

[Update] Strobist just posted a nice explanation for a small macro tent, too.

Check more discussion of this question.

Software for determining most frequently used focal length

Question

Many people recommend a focal length of 35mm, 50mm, and sometimes even 85mm and upwards for those interested in purchasing a prime lens. I, however, would like to figure out what focal length(s) I use most often, and then purchase a prime with that approximate focal length.

Is there a piece of software that will analyze thousands of photos and then tell me how many times I used a certain focal length?

Thanks in advance.

Answer

Someone referred me once to Exposure Plot. This is a free Windows utility which is very simple. It shows you graphs of different parameters, one of them being focal-length.

If you already use image management application like Lightroom or Bibble Pro, then you can also usually see that data in the filter interface.

For Lightroom for example, you need to activate the filter bar (/), select Metadata and change one of the columns to show Focal-Length. You'll get to see all the focal-lengths used and the number of photos taken at each focal-length. What's neat is that you can combine things like rating and focal-length, to find out which focal-length is used in your best images.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why don't these external flashes fire when the camera shoots in Live View mode?

Question

I had the opportunity to use some professional flashes yesterday and I found out that they didn't fire when I was trying to shoot with the camera in Live View mode.

The flashes were two Elinchrom FX400, one wirelessly synchronized with the camera and the other was activated automatically when the first one fired (With a photocell or something).

Using the camera normally fired both flashes at the same time with no issues, but live view mode deactivated both. Why the LV mode is incompatible? Am I missing something?

By the way, I tried this with two cameras, a Canon 1000D and a 550D.

Answer

Looks like when using a non-Canon flash you can't fire the flash while in live view says the manual:

• If you use flash, the [Disable] operation will take effect even if you had set it to [Mode 1] or [Mode 2].
• When using a non-Canon flash unit, set it to [Disable]. (The flash will not fire if [Mode 1] or [Mode 2] is set.)

from http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/gear/lights/Triggering-Flashes-While-Using-LiveView.html

Check more discussion of this question.

Will the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D be a good fit with the D60, even though it doesn't autofocus?

Question

I've been using a Nikon D60 for over a year now, and thinking about upgrading the stock lens.

I am thinking about this lens: Nikon Telephoto AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF Autofocus Lens

But on the page it says "AF not supported by D40 and D60 cameras". As I am still pretty new to photography, I am not sure if this would be a good combination (body + lens).

Answer

Manual focusing a f/1.4 lens on a DX body is a pain because:

• the viewfinder magnification is quite small
• if you open past f/2.8, the viewfinder does not capture the extra light (see the question Why is the depth-of-field preview in the optical viewfinder of my Canon 500D inaccurate?)

Therefore, unless you replace you focusing screen by a new one specifically dedicated to manual focus, it will be very hard to get good focus at full aperture, especially in low light. And if the full aperture is not usable, then there is no point in buying the f/1.4 when the f/1.8 is good and so much cheaper.

I would recommend you buy 85/1.4 AF-S instead. If you really want the AF-D, then buy a camera that can autofocus it, or replace your focusing screen (not sure it is possible on the D60).

BTW, both 85/1.4 are awesome for portraits with softly blurred backgrounds.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is my RAW import not displaying properly?

Question

I normally take my shots in RAW and normally work happily with them in Gimp on Linux. I have recently moved to a new shiny Windows laptop with Photoshop.

I have imported some shoots using Lightroom 3 but I am not seeing a faithful representation of the image either in LR nor in PS proper.

An example of the problems I am seeing can be seen in this image:

I have installed the latest Canon codecs for my camera (crc_1_8_0_68).

If I view the image on my camera's LCD screen I can zoom in and whilst there is a little noise this is nowhere near as bad as that seen in the above image.

What should I check to further diagnose this problem?

Answer

The image you see on the LCD is not the Raw image: it is a JPEG preview of it. Therefore it has had noise reduction, sharpening, and colour adjustments applied to it by the camera, just like a JPEG would if you had the camera set to record the shots as JPEGs.

Only when you import the photos to your PC will you see the actual Raw file without any (or at least low level) noise reduction etc. applied. It is up to you to apply these settings in LR or ACR.

I suspect that the RAW editor in GIMP was automatically applying noise reduction settings you'd previously used, hence you weren't used to seeing it on your old system.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to focus manually on the eyes, for a self portrait without a remote?

Question

Any out of box idea to manually focus on the eyes, for a self portrait? I do have a tripod and the camera has a timer too.

Camera: Canon Powershot SX210 IS

Answer

This is a bit tedious to set up, but it should work:

1. Put the camera on a tripod.
2. Place a stool or chair or a broom or really almost anything where you will want to be in the photo.
3. Focus the camera on that object.
4. After you have focused, switch the camera to manual focus so that it won't change where it's focused.
5. Set the camera to use a self-timer. You'll probably want at least 10 seconds.
6. If you're comfortable with manual exposure settings, use the smallest aperture (larger f-numbers like f/5.6 or f/8) that you can get away with. This will put more in focus which will give you a greater margin of error. (It also helps that your compact camera will have a larger depth of field compared to, say, a DSLR). Using a flash will let you use a smaller aperture also.
7. Remove the object that you focused on, but mark on the floor where it was. The idea is that you've focused the camera at a certain distance, and you're going to place yourself there.
8. Trip the shutter release.
9. Quickly get in position, standing on the mark.
10. Smile!

Check more discussion of this question.

How to take self portraits without a remote?

Question

How can I take a self-portrait without using a remote?

My camera is a Canon Powershot SX210 IS. I do not have a remote, but I do have a tripod.

Answer

A timer. Your camera should have a timer. In fact your camera should have what it calls a 'FaceSelf-Timer' I believe.

In general, with a timer - you set you camera to take a picture after a predetermined set of time (like 2 or 10 seconds). You press the button, hop in front of the camera, and it takes the picture after the number of seconds.

A'FaceSelf-Timer', a Canon feature, takes a picture a number of seconds (2 I believe) after it detects your face. So you the camera in that mode, press the button, hop in front of the camera, it takes your picture two seconds after it detects your face.

Some general self portrait tips can be found here and here.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why am I getting overexposed shots in P mode with a D7000?

Question

When using my D7000 I often have the feeling that it overexposes by 1/3 or even more, on the P programme - it also depends on the lens. Is it just me? Or am I doing something wrong?

EDIT: Exposure seems to be taken from the whole frame (which is what I expect).

Example (from Bruges)

Answer

1/3 of a stop over or under exposure isn't really very much. It corresponds to a shutter speed of 1/125 instead of 1/100. When I process raw files I routinely have to correct by more than a stop. Auto metering just isn't that accurate as it doesn't know the colour of objects in your scene, or the intended 'look' of the image.

My suggestion would be to shoot in Av mode, chose your aperture based on DOF requirements and level of light and dial in a little exposure compensation if it's consistently overexposing. Disclaimer I'm not a Nikon shooter but I assume the d7000 supports EC.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the best settings for black and white film portrait photography?

Question

trying to do some "daily shots" thing, and I was wondering what's the best setting for black and white portraits in areas that are well-lit and sometimes not (fastfoods, restaurants, malls)

I want to mostly do candid shots and I have with me a standard 35-80 zoom lens in a Canon EOS 50 film camera, the subjects often are friends and family so I can get as close as I need to (yep, I need to get so close sometimes because my lens, in a way, sucks).

I'm trying to get a grasp of this aperture-DOF relationship, so shots that I usually do are focused subject with out of focus backgrounds, something like this:

most recommend a small aperture (at around f/22 or f/19) but I often mess up my shutter speeds to the point that I usually get a lot of blown-up highlights. That often happens when I use the light meter for exposure in Manual Mode.

Answer

There are no "correct" settings. The settings you need will depend entirely on the lighting on the day, the subject you're photographing and what kind of photograph you are trying to produce. Therefore this answer can't be responded to with anything more concrete than general advice.

It sounds like what you need is to expand on your base knowledge of photography and exposure. I would recommend that you buy a copy of Bryan Peterson's excellent "Understanding Exposure" which excellently explains the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and ISO and caters for both film and digital photographers.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297634656&sr=8-1

I shoot my Canon AT-1 with ISO400 all the time, you don't need heavy filters to achieve well exposed photos - you need to understand how to read your camera's built in light meter and how best to configure the settings to achieve the desired result.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I achieve well focussed and sharp images at long focal lengths?

Question

Well I guess this is a question every newbie asks. I have a Canon 550D with the 18-135mm kit lens. I was out on a small trip in a nearby town to take some good snaps with my DSLR. I know the lens might not be the best but still when I took my pictures back home and looked at them in the big monitor i have at home I found most of my shots were not well focussed.

Especially, when I take pictures of far away buildings in the high zoom range (100mm and above). Is there anything I can take care of to keep everything in focus and have them sharp?

Answer

It sounds like you might have just had an aperture setting that was too wide, or you have too much camera shake. Either one will cause some degree of softness.

Aperture and Focus
The size of the aperture (the hole in the "middle" of the lens created by the diaphragm) controls more than just the amount of light that can pass through the lens...it also controls the depth of field. The depth of field, or DOF, determines how much depth within your scene, from the point of exact focus, both towards the camera and away from the camera, that is "in focus". A wider aperture (smaller f/#, such as f/2.8 or f/3.5) produces a smaller (or thinner) DOF. A narrower aperture (larger f/#, such as f/8 or f/22) produces a larger DOF. Generally speaking, if you want more of your scene to be "in focus", you need to use a narrower aperture.

Now, beyond the simple basics of DOF and aperture, there are more concerns to be taken into account. Depth of field is a function of aperture, focal length, and subject distance. The closer the subject you are focusing on, the thinner your DOF, while the farther the subject, the deeper your DOF, for a given aperture. A longer focal length will also increase the depth of field for any given aperture, however they also tend to magnify the effect of defocus blurring (along with magnifying everything else), so from a focus standpoint, longer focal lengths won't help much.

Camera Shake and Softness
Another problem that can cause image softness, particularly at longer focal lengths, is camera shake. If you are taking photographs hand-held with a long focal length, without the benefit of IS/VR (image stabilization/vibration reduction) technology, then camera shake can be a real problem. Even on a tripod or monopod, small movements or shakes can still be a problem that softens images. The longer the focal length, the more magnified the scene you are photographing. That magnification affects everything, including the effects of camera movement.

If you are shooting with a longer focal length lens (i.e. 85-100mm and up) under low enough light that your shutter speed is at or lower than the focal length of the lens, even small movements translate into image softening or even outright blurring. A 300mm or longer lens, hand-held, is pretty much unusable without either hands as steady as God's, or the benefit of some kind of image stabilization technology. You can do a few things to solve the problem of camera shake at longer focal lengths. Obviously, one would be to get a lens with image stabilization. Usually, IS is rated in "stops of hand-holdability", and can range from one stops worth to as many as four stops worth. Each stop worth of additional hand-holdability affects how low of a shutter speed you can use below the "reciprocal rule" speed. (The reciprocal rule simply states that a shutter speed of 1/focalLength is as low as you can go without the effects of camera shake affecting sharpness.) If you have a 100mm lens and no IS, you would be limited to shooting at 1/100s shutter speed or higher to get sharp hand-held pictures. A 100mm lens with 4-stop IS, on the other hand, would allow you to get sharp hand-held pictures at about 1/12s shutter speed.

Beyond buying a new lens, there are a couple other things you can do. For one, get a tripod and a cable release, and set up and frame your shots on the tripod, and trigger the shutter with the cable release (or wireless trigger.) That will ensure hands-off operation, keeping the camera as stable as possible. Additionally, you can increase another factor of exposure. If you have the option, a wider aperture will allow more light down the lens, supporting a faster shutter speed. If opening the aperture is not an option, you can also increase the ISO setting of the camera. If you are shooting at ISO 100 with that 100mm lens, but your shutter speed needs to be 1/50s, using ISO 200 should let you get that 1/100s shutter speed. Using ISO 400 will let you use a 1/200s shutter speed, giving you some wiggle room to tweak aperture or cover a small amount of camera shake without affecting sharpness.

Soft Lens
There is one additional possibility that may not be something you can fix without replacing the lens: a soft lens. Before assuming your lens is soft, try other options to see if you can correct sharpness...such as using a tripod or shooting with a tighter aperture. A small percentage of the time, some lenses come improperly calibrated, and that can cause a consistent softness that cannot be corrected by any photographer action. A poorly calibrated lens can probably be fixed by sending it into the manufacturer or taking it to a local camera shop. There are also lenses that are simply not as sharp as others, usually at wider apertures, where uncorrected optical aberrations infringe upon an otherwise sharp picture. Sometimes this is simply a facet lens design...it may be intentional (i.e. purposely uncorrected spherical aberration in a fast portrait lens), or it may be due to the cheaper components of a cheap lens.

Check more discussion of this question.