Photography and Cameras

[Renato1]

So you agree? The photo stands on its own merit? I subscribed to National Geographic and they don’t allow any manipulation at all. The course does provide a diploma for professional photographers who produce for clients etc so they need to know how to manipulate.

Most photos published in National Geographic and any other such magazine are usually of the High Dynamic Range (HDR) and High Contrast type - they never show any image that my non HDR, non-High Contrast eyes see in real life. The photos are all in fact manipulated, as it doesn't matter whether the HDR and High Contrast processing is done on the RAW image using the camera's internal settings, or done on the RAW image in Lightroom or Photoshop or the specific camera's RAW program afterwards.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Pushka]

Most photos published in National Geographic and any other such magazine are usually of the High Dynamic Range (HDR) and High Contrast type - they never show any image that my non HDR, non-High Contrast eyes see in real life. The photos are all in fact manipulated, as it doesn't matter whether the HDR and High Contrast processing is done on the RAW image using the camera's internal settings, or done on the RAW image in Lightroom or Photoshop or the specific camera's RAW program afterwards.
Regards,
Renato

My understanding is that RAW images are not processed by the camera but all the metadata is ‘left’ on the file. So untouched and never destroyed/changed.

 

[UP4014]

Renato, all published photos not just the National Geo ones, right down to New Idea. So anyone wanting that needs to also factor in the purchase of software for the home PC, make sure you have plenty of space for all those RAW files as well.

 

[Renato1]

My understanding is that RAW images are not processed by the camera but all the metadata is ‘left’ on the file. So untouched and never destroyed/changed.

That's right - but the JPEG that you get out of your camera has been processed from the RAW file. So, assuming you have a camera that keeps the RAW file, then one can get the final JPEG image from any of the following,
a. ...... in-camera processing of the RAW image using the camera settings, or
b. ...... for high end cameras, the manufacturer's RAW processing software which exactly duplicates the camera's software on your computer (e.g you can see what the Jpeg would have looked like at Standard setting, Vivid setting, different white balance settings, high quality JPEG, lower quality JPEG etc), or
c........ third party RAW programs like Lightroom and dozens of others.

If you have a camera without RAW, then it just processes the RAW image according to your settings, and discards it leaving the final JPEG which can be further manipulated on Photoshop and dozens of others.

Whether nature photographers process the RAW image to get the final Jpeg image either in-camera or on a computer, the image is always manipulated unless it exactly matches what your eye (or the majority of human eyes) see.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Pushka]

Yes I understand all that Renato but I don’t refer to the resultant jpg file created by the camera as a RAW file. RAW is always - RAW.

Size wise - 23 versus 6 (set on fine) and camera is set to create RAW and jpg. RAW looks much darker than jpg for exactly the same shot. Thinking of subscribing to Lightroom although maybe I can use the works subscription to Adobe to tag in.

 

[Danger]

What are you wanting to use the lens for? Wildlife? plants? landscapes? Have no experience with that one, but others might.
Daughter bought a Tamron (cheaper than the Canon). Pretty sure it was this one: (the Tamron site is really slow so this is Teds)
Tamron SP 150-600mm f5-6.3 (Gen 1)
She is talking about getting another lens at some stage but is loathe to part with her hard earned cash.

I'm looking at it as an everyday lens, walking out and about. I also have a Sigma 10-20mm that is my second lens for landscapes and photos with depth.

The best price I can find for Australian stock is $489 which is too high.

I know you're trying to get it all in one lens, but I think two lens would give you superior results. Those extremes push the boundaries.

I use canon gear and only have 3 zooms and a bag of fixed, when I travel I pick out the most suitable three for my trip and one on the camera.

I'd suggest if you can only get one lens get the canon (I think and will check tonight) 24 to 125 zoom. Then get the 70 to 200 and you have everything covered.

My hope is this Canon lens with the existing Sigma will cover me off. The Sigma lens is quite heavy so I'm conscious of weight.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Yes I understand all that Renato but I don’t refer to the resultant jpg file created by the camera as a RAW file. RAW is always - RAW.

Size wise - 23 versus 6 (set on fine) and camera is set to create RAW and jpg. RAW looks much darker than jpg for exactly the same shot. Thinking of subscribing to Lightroom although maybe I can use the works subscription to Adobe to tag in.

IMHO RAW is overrated but the whole point of RAW is that it’s not used directly since it captures a much wider spectrum and range of light levels so you “have to” edit it to achieve a decent image. Life’s too short to spend hours editing RAW images. Get one of the Adobe tools and waste your nights and weekends away. HDR on the other hand is invaluable.

 

[Daver6]

IMHO RAW is overrated but the whole point of RAW is that it’s not used directly since it captures a much wider spectrum and range of light levels so you “have to” edit it to achieve a decent image. Life’s too short to spend hours editing RAW images. Get one of the Adobe tools and waste your nights and weekends away. HDR on the other hand is invaluable.

I'm in your camp. I hate (read suck) at editing and get no enjoyment from it. Some people love this side of photography.

 

[Pushka]

IMHO RAW is overrated but the whole point of RAW is that it’s not used directly since it captures a much wider spectrum and range of light levels so you “have to” edit it to achieve a decent image. Life’s too short to spend hours editing RAW images. Get one of the Adobe tools and waste your nights and weekends away. HDR on the other hand is invaluable.

I'm in your camp. I hate (read suck) at editing and get no enjoyment from it. Some people love this side of photography.

Yeah, I think that's me
Having seen the difference in some PS edited photos I'm thinking I might like to explore digital opportunities further and enrol in the Digital Studies 1 course next year. The camera takes both RAW and JPG of the same shot so it isnt as though I have to do anything with any of the RAW images if I dont want to yet still have the jpg. That works for me

 

[TheRealTMA]

Yeah, I think that's me
Having seen the difference in some PS edited photos I'm thinking I might like to explore digital opportunities further and enrol in the Digital Studies 1 course next year. The camera takes both RAW and JPG of the same shot so it isnt as though I have to do anything with any of the RAW images if I dont want to yet still have the jpg. That works for me

But! But when you are learning photography you “need” to experience these things and try them out to establish your level of competence and more importantly your interest. It’s “fun” to spend half an hour editing a RAW image, but at the end of the day better to open a nice bottle of red and look at the JPGs your camera has produced. Not absolutely as good as possible but IMHO good enough for us amateurs.

But HDR is interesting. I take lots of these (camera does it automatically) with normal and HDR image stored. In Europe or inside churches it’s very useful where the dynamic range is too large for a normal image. Sometimes the normal image is better and more atmospheric, and sometimes the HDR is better. I remember one particular great image using HDR where a woman was walking a maze on a church floor (Chartres) and the HDR gave this wonderful multi-image like a ghost image of the person walking, Was very pleased with it!

 

[Pushka]

But! But when you are learning photography you “need” to experience these things and try them out to establish your level of competence and more importantly your interest. It’s “fun” to spend half an hour editing a RAW image, but at the end of the day better to open a nice bottle of red and look at the JPGs your camera has produced. Not absolutely as good as possible but IMHO good enough for us amateurs.

But HDR is interesting. I take lots of these (camera does it automatically) with normal and HDR image stored. In Europe or inside churches it’s very useful where the dynamic range is too large for a normal image. Sometimes the normal image is better and more atmospheric, and sometimes the HDR is better. I remember one particular great image using HDR where a woman was walking a maze on a church floor (Chartres) and the HDR gave this wonderful multi-image like a ghost image of the person walking, Was very pleased with it!

And it’s all about enjoyment of the final product and recognising that different things appeal to people.

There are a few ‘rules’ that enhance photos. We are drawn to contrast, light, colour and patterns of light and dark, emotional connection and patterns.
It’s interesting looking at the histograms.

 

[Pushka]

This weeks homework is about - Bracketing - “ that's when you take multiple pictures that are slightly brighter and slightly darker than a normal shot, isn't it? Bracketing involves taking a sequence of pictures of the same scene at a range of exposure settings. There are two reasons you might want to do this; as a safety net to ensure you get at least one well-exposed picture of the scene (as camera exposure meters don't always get it right first time), or to give you a range of exposures that you can blend together later in software.”

The chapel in the resort here in Nusa Dua provided a great opportunity.
This is the capture at ‘perfect’ lighting.


Then faster shutter speed (same ISO/aperture) at increasing levels






End result = underexposure.
Then going from zero and slowing the shutter speed





= overexposure. You can also bracket by changing the aperture and keeping the shutter speed stable but that changes the depth of field. Plan on trying that tomorrow.

I really need to use the horizon line better

 

[love_the_life]

......
I really need to use the horizon line better

Is it me or is the horizon on a lean? Perhaps I should ask how much imbibing? (Of course I meant water as it's hot there)

 

[Pushka]

Is it me or is the horizon on a lean? Perhaps I should as how much imbibing? (Of course I meant water as it's hot there)

It’s me. That’s why I mentioned I need to use the horizon thingy. Only water so far.

 

[love_the_life]

It’s me. That’s why I mentioned I need to use the horizon thingy. Only water so far.

You should say you are aiming for creative photographs which challenge the viewer and so you purposefully make the lines off centre. Works for me

 

[Pushka]

I like taking photos of water. Using Lightroom to improve the exposure I’m liking this one and as I need to present 10 photos at the end of the course this might be one of them. I only processed the jpg.

 

[Pushka]

And took another set for Bracketing.

Correct.



Slightly under etc








Then overexposed.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I like taking photos of water. Using Lightroom to improve the exposure I’m liking this one and as I need to present 10 photos at the end of the course this might be one of them. I only processed the jpg.
109719

Try another at 1/10th for comparison. And remember rule of thirds.

 

[TheRealTMA]

And took another set for Bracketing.

Correct.

Actually, technically, it’s not the “correct” exposure. It’s just the “metered” exposure. The “correct” exposure is subjective and probably more like the slightly under above.

 

[Pushka]

Actually, technically, it’s not the “correct” exposure. It’s just the “metered” exposure. The “correct” exposure is subjective and probably more like the slightly under above.

Yep. It’s all about capturing a moment and that might not mean 0 exposure. Hence bracketing. Camera does it automatically I’ve seen if enabled then creates a composite I guess.

Tried to replicate and can’t. 1/10th - ?

I’m fiddling around with settings - not always a good move. Is there a setting in the camera where the focus is not on a close object but the background is crystal clear? I’m trying to blur background but the opposite seems to happen.