Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 67 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 63 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

A short lesson in photography

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:35 pm

Agh someone had to do it eventually. I stare at it everyday and I am not satisfied. And no I am not questioning his ability as a photographer. I think there was just more that could have been done to it.
  • 0

Attachments
IMG_1434 (1).JPG
Old
IMG_1434.JPG
New
Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:28 pm

rcman50166 wrote:But I would be hesitant to do that to my camera.

Unless you run a dodgy script, you shouldn't be able to damage the hardware with CHDK.

Personally, I don't have a memory card for my camera that doesn't have CHDK on it.

Mostly, I just use it the advantages of RAW (because CHDK allows you to save the RAW files) and shutter speed control when needed.

~~~~~

Also, I personally think you've ruined that photo. Your version is horrendously over-saturated, noisy, and shows jpeg artefacts.

It may not have been perfect in the first place, but it was certainly better than many (and what you've done to it).
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:41 pm

A second look does seem to show a little bit of saturation. But I didn't touch the saturation. I increased the curve, turned down the yellow and increased the vibrance. As for the noise, it is inevitable when working with a jpeg image. Had it been my way the photo would be iso 80 and raw.
  • 0

Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:03 pm

Vibrance still affects saturation.
The thing is, some areas should be low saturation. Not everything out there is a garish shade or a sharp colour contrast.

As for the noise, it is inevitable when working with a jpeg image.

Not entirely. In your case, it's exacerbated by your choice of adjustments. It is noticeable if you're looking for it on the original, but in your edit, it stands out like a sore thumb.

Even if you have to make edits that cause the artefacts, Photoshop has an option to help remove them (although I try to avoid needing to use it).

~~~~~

I still think you've made adjustments which have dramatically worsened the result. The colour in the first one looks real. The colour in the latter looks like the only shades available were taken from a pack of kid's crayons.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:17 pm

Well I was going for a certain look. I suppose it didn't turn out the way I wanted to. I was looking for more this vibrance.
  • 0

Attachments
IMG_5272(3).jpg
Very bright. Like from, say, a crayon box?
Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:49 pm

Hey guys. I thought I'd share a little trick I figured out. Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I'd share it here.

A short lesson in photography first. As is the purpose of the thread.

Flash

Intro
Flash is your friend. If you don't have enough light to see every nook and cranny of your subject, chances are your camera won't either. So naturally, if you have common sense, would to be to create more light, if its outside then you obviously can't turn the sun up. So you would turn to your flash. BUT, reader beware, the built in flash usually does a terrible job.

Symptoms of Bad Flash
There are a few things to look for to determine if the photo has a bad flash.

"Flash Burn", as it is known, can show up in a photo as a part of a photo washed out with a white glare. You obviously wont see the detail in that part of the image.

Sharp Flash is when the source of light is so direct that there are little to no shadows. When there are shadows they contrast greatly and make the photo an eyesore. a sharp flash will also only illuminate what it is directly pointed at. This leaves the surrounding edges of the photo under exposed or the central part of the photo will be overexposed.

Redeye is a problem all of us have encountered whether it be you or a demonic looking friend of relative (ie :twisted: ) It has to do with light bouncing off the back of your eyes. The reflection appears red and evil.

Remedies

A diffuser is an opaque material that goes in front of a flash to disperse the light more evenly on a shot. They are usually white to get the best white balance effects but colored diffusers exist for specialized cases. They will greatly reduce flash burn and sharp flash.

A bounce light is another practical solution. This isn't recommended for the average joe trying to take a photo. Flashes can get very expensive very fast and a lot of point and shoots do not even have the proper shoe mount on top. However a bounce light will greatly reduce flash burn and sharp flash. The way it works is by bouncing light off a ceiling to diffuse light and illuminate the subject from the top. So this method obviously won't work outside or places with high ceilings. But most can point forward like a regular flash.

Multiflash and preflash can reduce redeye. How it works is before the photo is taken, the flash will flicker to reduce the chances of blinking in the photograph and dilate the pupils to reduce reflecting light from the eyes. If your camera cannot do this, simply take more than one photo. Eyes should adjust by the time the thrid shot comes around. (if your not using continuous drive :roll: )
  • 0

Attachments
Bounce.JPG
This is a bounce shot, notice the different light angle, well ignore the room light. It is a very well balanced photo
Diffuser.JPG
This is a shot using a diffuser. It is still kind of sharp, but the light isn't centralized in the center of the photo.
On-Board.JPG
This is a standard on board flash. Notice the sharpness and the flash burn.
No Flash.JPG
This is the control photo, No flash here, but if definitely needs light.
IMG_5852.JPG
Here are the problems in this example.
softbox.jpg
Here is the flash I used. It is a Vivitar 285HV auto-professional flash. The light diffuser you see lit up is home made and made of plain printing paper and tape
IMG_5790.JPG
Here is a home made diffuser. $0.00
Last edited by rcman50166 on Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:51 pm

This is a bounce shot, notice the different light angle, well ignore the room light. It is a very well balanced photo


well ignore the room mate :P ;)
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:53 pm

Yes, that as well :roll:
  • 0

Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: psycix » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:29 am

Nice guide. But remember people: don't use flash if you don't have to.
Proper lighting usually looks better then a flash photo.

When taking pictures I usually turn on all the lights in my room.
  • 0

Till the day I'm dieing, I'll keep them spuddies flying, 'cause I can!

Spudfiles steam group, join!
User avatar
psycix
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:12 am
Location: The Netherlands
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: rcman50166 » Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 am

Yes I should have mentioned that earlier. I must have forgotten. Oh well.

If anyone has questions about how to make a photo look better, you may ask here. If I don't know, I can ask a few professionals I know.

Also I can edit photos if you send them to me. Feel free. rcman50166@yahoo.com
  • 0

Image
User avatar
rcman50166
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bethel, CT
Reputation: 0

Previous

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'