Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote: But still, for landscape or macro photography (which seems to be my main interest), I still find sharpness and correct exposure very important. Sharpness of what? Like you, I'm into macro photography, which I usually refer to as flower porn. I often find it difficult to decide which part of the flower should be in focus (I usually shoot wide open). -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
on 2014-01-01 15:11 Aahz Maruch wrote Sharpness of what?Like you, I'm into macro photography, which I usually refer to as flower porn. I often find it difficult to decide which part of the flower should be in focus (I usually shoot wide open). that is one of the big challenges of plant macros - where to put the focus — and i do often experiment with different choices, thinking it will be easier to choose my favorite on a big screen than in the view finder but for me wide open (which is f/2.8 on the lens i use) rarely feels right; i usually want an image that has some perspective, and the different parts of a plant are rarely in the same plane; i usually shoot f/8 or higher, and even that can be frustrating; i have tried a bit of focus stacking, but to do best at that i think i'd need a focus-rail, and plants that sit still; i'm starting to think the answer may be to use flash f/22 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 7:20 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2014-01-01 15:11 Aahz Maruch wrote Sharpness of what?Like you, I'm into macro photography, which I usually refer to as flower porn. I often find it difficult to decide which part of the flower should be in focus (I usually shoot wide open). that is one of the big challenges of plant macros - where to put the focus — and i do often experiment with different choices, thinking it will be easier to choose my favorite on a big screen than in the view finder but for me wide open (which is f/2.8 on the lens i use) rarely feels right; i usually want an image that has some perspective, and the different parts of a plant are rarely in the same plane; i usually shoot f/8 or higher, and even that can be frustrating; i have tried a bit of focus stacking, but to do best at that i think i'd need a focus-rail, and plants that sit still; i'm starting to think the answer may be to use flash f/22 Yup! Many of my most satisfactory flower/plant shots are still-lifes of cuttings shot on a tabletop with softboxes and other modifiers -- ie lots of light. I have a Panavise that I use to hold the victim at the right angle, and construction paper to use as a backdrop or seamless. Out in the garden, I long ago gave up trying to shoot flowers wide-open, especially deep ones like daylilies. Those require F8 or smaller, and sometimes flash fill too. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
There's an article about image quality on wikipedia which contains some references that might be useful, including one about information theoretic approaches to image quality assessment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_quality. There's also a link to a commercial site which offers products for measuring quality factors: http://www.imatest.com. http://www.imatest.com/docs/iqfactors/ B On 30 Dec 2013, at 18:04, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:56, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Consider the following pictures, for example, which all show a Frenchman riding a bicycle, but which are very different technically. Which one is the best? Why? This is a trick question... :D B) http://metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/286639?rpp=20pg=1rndkey=20131214ao=onft=*where=Francewho=Henri+Cartier-Bressonpos=7#fullscreen Because the answer is most likely (B), made by HCB. :) (I know the fable about Flickr group that dismissed this photo as unsharp.) It is a trick question, but the answer is not B. The answer is 'it depends on what the picture is for'. However indeed it proves a point: for some photos correctness doesn't matter, it's all in the moment or look-and-feel. (Even I have a few failures that I find better when compared with their correct equivalents.) But still, for landscape or macro photography (which seems to be my main interest), I still find sharpness and correct exposure very important. Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
For those curios about what I'm speaking about --- although I have the feeling that I'm alone in this boat :) --- I'll highlight bellow some outputs of my prototype. All the outputs are available at the link below, one folder per RAW image, and for each resulting image one JPEG (several hundred KiB) and the uncompressed `PPM` / `PGM` (multiple MiB's in size). (All the images linked in this email are JPEG's, although they contain in the name `ppm` or `pgm`.) (Please don't judge these images aesthetically because they are mostly experiments.) :) http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/ For exposure assessment one could look at the following image. White is overexposure (the value in any of the channels is larger than 99% of the maximum possible value), and black underexposure (less than 1%). The other 12 gray shades are obtained by combining 4 levels for each channel. http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/dsc_2401/exposure-z.pgm.jpg The original can be seen at: http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/dsc_2401/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg The same over- and under-exposure is also overlaid on a color sketch of the image, at the following link: http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/dsc_2401/blinkers-rgb.ppm.jpg The main information I get out of this --- except the obvious over-exposure in the sun and its reflection --- is that the tree branches and the other side of the river are under-exposed, thus I won't be able to get out any color for those parts. (Obviously the scene latitude is larger than the exposure latitude of this camera, Nikon D3100.) Another example is the following: http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6196/exposure-z.pgm.jpg The original being: http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6196/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg Although it is obvious from the original that the light-bulb is completely over-exposed (and a small part of the bow), it's harder to notice with the naked eye that almost all specular highlights are overexposed. Interesting to see in this image is also the sharpest parts of the image: http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6196/sharpness-rgb.ppm.jpg Thus switching to the sharpness evaluation, see bellow two small variations of the same scene in which I've played with manual focus (trying to guess the hyper-focal value on my lens, because I wanted to include the forground in focus also). http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6226/sharpness-rgb.ppm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6229/sharpness-rgb.ppm.jpg Looking at the two originals (linked below), even at 100% it's harder to decide which is sharper. However on closer inspection of the previous two helper images I could conclude that 6226 has better focus of the foreground, while 6229 has better focus of the distant shore. http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6226/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6229/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg For other three tough decisions see the following siblings bracketed in a hurry at 0.7 EV: http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5653/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5654/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5655/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg Their exposure (seems the meter was dead-on): http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5653/exposure-z.pgm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5654/exposure-z.pgm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5655/exposure-z.pgm.jpg Their sharpness (seems the second one is less fuzzy, however not by much): http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5653/sharpness-rgb.ppm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5654/sharpness-rgb.ppm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp5655/sharpness-rgb.ppm.jpg As you can see I'm not searching for a magical decision device, just something to help me assess the alternatives, pointing me to the parts of the picture that need my attention (especially in the case of focusing errors or camera shake.) Hope I was able to exemplify what I was after. :) Happy new year! Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
I'm joining the discussion late (I'm very busy these days). Lots of good points were made before, and I also think that you are way over thinking this and maybe you don't have the right tools. As I understand you are using Linux, take a look at http://www.darktable.org/ or http://rawtherapee.com/ and ... I really don't like Gimp but can't suggest anything better. Don't stress that much over sharpness, your eyes are the best tools to pick a sharp image. Look at 100% magnification. If you want the absolute best sharpness achievable after processing, get a copy of Real World Image Sharpening by Bruce Faser. Gimp also has unsharp mask and smart sharpening, probably not exactly the same as Photoshop, but the idea behind the tools are the same. With such a scene you have to decide if you are exposing for the highlights or the shadows, or try HDR. Usually since this is a sunset I'd expose for the sky and leave the rest as a silhouette like this: http://500px.com/photo/43233840 Happy new year! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
on 2013-12-30 17:59 Bruce Walker wrote By the way, the lowly JPEG that we raw image users most often throw away actually has an unintended useful purpose. If you have taken a few essentially identical images of a scene, grab the JPEGs and compare their image file sizes. The one with the largest size will be from the sharpest image in most cases. The sharper the image the more fine detail it contains and therefore the less compressible it is. this measure has value if you understand its limits; a simple counterexample is a subject in front of a foliage background - if your AF misses the subject and focuses on the foliage, the JPEG will have lots of _undesired_ fine detail and thus it will be less compressible -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
on 2013-12-31 7:21 Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote Looking at the two originals (linked below), even at 100% it's harder to decide which is sharper. However on closer inspection of the previous two helper images I could conclude that 6226 has better focus of the foreground, while 6229 has better focus of the distant shore. http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6226/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/6d20367506baa6fb/_igp6229/preview-rgb.ppm.jpg maybe this isn't a great example — while i agree it's hard to tell visually which has better focus on the rocks (and thus one could ask if it really matters), i can easily see the difference in focus on the trees; thus, given your intent, 6229 is the obvious choice For other three tough decisions see the following siblings bracketed in a hurry at 0.7 EV: [...] Their exposure (seems the meter was dead-on): [...] this is also pretty obvious visually, and i'd expect a histogram to make it more obvious; what i can't tell is how much exposure latitude you have in your sources — it may be that any of the three could be adequately corrected (what camera are you using?) Their sharpness (seems the second one is less fuzzy, however not by much): [...] i can see this visually, and normalizing the exposures would probably make it easier to see; i'm not convinced of the usefulness of your focus tool, especially since you said your stock tools already have some sort of in focus highlight one could also ask — how often do you print large? how often do you crop small bits of an image? these are the cases where top sharpness matters; otherwise no one but you will see the difference; and i second Attila's recommendation to study how to sharpen for your intended output — mastery of sharpening can make a bigger difference in the final result than the tiny differences you have trouble seeing at 100% -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On 31/12/2013 11:05 AM, steve harley wrote: this measure has value if you understand its limits; a simple counterexample is a subject in front of a foliage background - if your AF misses the subject and focuses on the foliage, the JPEG will have lots of _undesired_ fine detail and thus it will be less compressible So one could use it for determining degree of back focus... bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
Hello all! Before describing the problem, please let me stress that I know very well that the quality of a photograph lies more in its aesthetic properties than in its technical ones. However in this thread I don't discuss about photographs, but images, i.e. the raw data (pixel values) that are totally decoupled with what they represent. (Thus I hope I won't start a flame-war regarding aesthetics vs. technical qualities.) (If you want to skip the context and go directly to the problem, just go to the section titled `The questions`.) == The context == So the problem, I always capture images --- note how I didn't say photographs :) --- in RAW format. And, while working in fully manual mode, very often I obtain multiple images of the same scene, where the main variable is the exposure time. Also while in low light, either interior or at night, I strive to use a low ISO like 200-400 thus with an exposure time of about 1/10 of a second, and although the SR is enabled, I always use continuous drive (in low mode) to take about three exposures, in the hope that one of them is sharper. The problem? During the editing process, after I select which scenes are the ones I like the best, I end up with a lot of images of the same scene (with almost identical composition). And thus my problem is which of the two or three images is the most suitable one, in terms of technical properties, to be used as input for processing (thus obtaining in the end my photograph). == The questions == Thus my questions are the following: (A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image? (B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the assessment of these technical qualities? == My answers == For (A), the technical qualities, I've identified the following: * Is the subject properly focused? I.e. since I use auto-focus, sometimes with slim subjects it might happen that the camera focuses on the background. * Is the image sharp enough? I.e. not blurry due to shake, miss-focus (back or front), subject movement, etc. * Is the exposure correct / optimal? I.e. especially since I use ETTR (expose-to-the-right): * did I overexposed something, and if so which channels, which parts of the picture, where are the next shadows relative to the highlights, etc.; * do I have underexposed areas, and like above how much, etc. Did I miss other technical properties? I've purposely dismissed the following: * noise -- which by its nature is a property of the sensor and constant in effect for a given ISO value; * depth-of-field -- which manifests itself as a lack of sharpness for the objects outside the DOF; (although it would be nice to be able to estimate how far a given pixel is outside the DOF;) * flare -- they are easily discerned in the image; * bokeh, vignetting, distortion, acutance, etc. -- which are invariable properties of the lens (for a given aperture and focal length); (and bokeh is a highly subjective quality;) * chromatic aberrations -- like above, although would be nice to highlight them; Unfortunately for (B), how to asses these qualities, I have a few theories (see the next section titled `The science-fiction`) and less ready-to-use solutions... First the solutions. Currently I'm using Geeqie (an Linux-based image manager) to find the scenes I like, and for each scene which are the obvious failed images, i.e. those with clear over- or under-exposure or blur, and I end up with a few candidates. However even if I zoom 100% I don't see the raw image, but the embedded JPEG, which was already processed by the camera, thus I can't correctly assess the sharpness nor the exact exposure optimality (due to white balance). Thus I then switch to RawTherapee --- which I've configured so that by default it doesn't apply any settings at all, just neutral or disabled values --- to look at the raw channels histogram, the exact image without added sharpening, and the focus mask. However I can't use the blinkers (i.e. underexposure / overexposure masks) to see which parts of the image are burned, because they work after white balance. The focus mask shows me which points are in focus, but give no quantitative feedback of the sharpness. Moreover switching from one image to another takes for ever. I know there are a few applications like Rawshack, which give me a numerical analysis of the raw data, thus helping me assess the optimality of the exposure. However there is no visual feedback, and no solution for the other qualities like focus or sharpness. Did I miss some other tool? == The science-fiction == However, because by trade I'm a developer, I've started pondering about a do-it-yourself solution. My theories --- which I've started to put into practice with a small prototype --- revolve around: * For assessing exposure it is clear: I take the raw image,
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Dec 30, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all! Before describing the problem, please let me stress that I know very well that the quality of a photograph lies more in its aesthetic properties than in its technical ones. However in this thread I don't discuss about photographs, but images, i.e. the raw data (pixel values) that are totally decoupled with what they represent. (Thus I hope I won't start a flame-war regarding aesthetics vs. technical qualities.) (If you want to skip the context and go directly to the problem, just go to the section titled `The questions`.) == The context == So the problem, I always capture images --- note how I didn't say photographs :) --- in RAW format. And, while working in fully manual mode, very often I obtain multiple images of the same scene, where the main variable is the exposure time. Also while in low light, either interior or at night, I strive to use a low ISO like 200-400 thus with an exposure time of about 1/10 of a second, and although the SR is enabled, I always use continuous drive (in low mode) to take about three exposures, in the hope that one of them is sharper. The problem? During the editing process, after I select which scenes are the ones I like the best, I end up with a lot of images of the same scene (with almost identical composition). And thus my problem is which of the two or three images is the most suitable one, in terms of technical properties, to be used as input for processing (thus obtaining in the end my photograph). == The questions == Thus my questions are the following: (A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image? (B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the assessment of these technical qualities? == My answers == For (A), the technical qualities, I've identified the following: * Is the subject properly focused? I.e. since I use auto-focus, sometimes with slim subjects it might happen that the camera focuses on the background. * Is the image sharp enough? I.e. not blurry due to shake, miss-focus (back or front), subject movement, etc. * Is the exposure correct / optimal? I.e. especially since I use ETTR (expose-to-the-right): * did I overexposed something, and if so which channels, which parts of the picture, where are the next shadows relative to the highlights, etc.; * do I have underexposed areas, and like above how much, etc. Did I miss other technical properties? I've purposely dismissed the following: * noise -- which by its nature is a property of the sensor and constant in effect for a given ISO value; * depth-of-field -- which manifests itself as a lack of sharpness for the objects outside the DOF; (although it would be nice to be able to estimate how far a given pixel is outside the DOF;) * flare -- they are easily discerned in the image; * bokeh, vignetting, distortion, acutance, etc. -- which are invariable properties of the lens (for a given aperture and focal length); (and bokeh is a highly subjective quality;) * chromatic aberrations -- like above, although would be nice to highlight them; Unfortunately for (B), how to asses these qualities, I have a few theories (see the next section titled `The science-fiction`) and less ready-to-use solutions... First the solutions. Currently I'm using Geeqie (an Linux-based image manager) to find the scenes I like, and for each scene which are the obvious failed images, i.e. those with clear over- or under-exposure or blur, and I end up with a few candidates. However even if I zoom 100% I don't see the raw image, but the embedded JPEG, which was already processed by the camera, thus I can't correctly assess the sharpness nor the exact exposure optimality (due to white balance). Thus I then switch to RawTherapee --- which I've configured so that by default it doesn't apply any settings at all, just neutral or disabled values --- to look at the raw channels histogram, the exact image without added sharpening, and the focus mask. However I can't use the blinkers (i.e. underexposure / overexposure masks) to see which parts of the image are burned, because they work after white balance. The focus mask shows me which points are in focus, but give no quantitative feedback of the sharpness. Moreover switching from one image to another takes for ever. I know there are a few applications like Rawshack, which give me a numerical analysis of the raw data, thus helping me assess the optimality of the exposure. However there is no visual feedback, and no solution for the other qualities like focus or sharpness. Did I miss some other tool? == The science-fiction == However, because by trade I'm a developer, I've started pondering about a do-it-yourself solution.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:13 , Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: == The questions == Thus my questions are the following: (A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image? (B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the assessment of these technical qualities? In my opinion, you are way over-thinking it. The best image is the one you prefer. That's it. My specific answers to your specific questions are: (A) nothing (B) none Seriously. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
Unfortunately you can't separate the technical and aesthetic properties. For example, you ask * Is the subject properly focused? * Is the image sharp enough? * Is the exposure correct / optimal? I.e. especially since I use ETTR (expose-to-the-right): * did I overexposed something, * do I have underexposed areas, and like above how much, etc And I ask in return what does properly focused mean? It depends on what you intend for the picture, so it cannot have a single once-and-for-all answer - you have to make a subjective, aesthetic judgement. Sharp enough for what? What is correct exposure? These questions have no meaning on their own, divorced from the subject matter of the photograph, and the intentions of the photographer. The technical properties are there to serve you, they have no independent meaning. In taking the picture your intention is to communicate something as effectively as you can for your purposes to your intended audience. So choosing between similar pictures with different technical properties is not something that can be done independently of your personal judgement and priorities. So in answer to question A, you have to decide for yourself. In one of your examples, you said sharpness, presumably meaning least camera shake, but it may be different in other circumstances. And to answer question B: your brain, your eyes and your discernment. Some of the most aesthetically successful pictures are so because of, not despite, their technical 'faults', and there are few pictures more boring than those that are technically 'perfect', but soulless. B On 30 Dec 2013, at 16:13, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all! Before describing the problem, please let me stress that I know very well that the quality of a photograph lies more in its aesthetic properties than in its technical ones. However in this thread I don't discuss about photographs, but images, i.e. the raw data (pixel values) that are totally decoupled with what they represent. (Thus I hope I won't start a flame-war regarding aesthetics vs. technical qualities.) (If you want to skip the context and go directly to the problem, just go to the section titled `The questions`.) == The context == So the problem, I always capture images --- note how I didn't say photographs :) --- in RAW format. And, while working in fully manual mode, very often I obtain multiple images of the same scene, where the main variable is the exposure time. Also while in low light, either interior or at night, I strive to use a low ISO like 200-400 thus with an exposure time of about 1/10 of a second, and although the SR is enabled, I always use continuous drive (in low mode) to take about three exposures, in the hope that one of them is sharper. The problem? During the editing process, after I select which scenes are the ones I like the best, I end up with a lot of images of the same scene (with almost identical composition). And thus my problem is which of the two or three images is the most suitable one, in terms of technical properties, to be used as input for processing (thus obtaining in the end my photograph). == The questions == Thus my questions are the following: (A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image? (B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the assessment of these technical qualities? == My answers == For (A), the technical qualities, I've identified the following: * Is the subject properly focused? I.e. since I use auto-focus, sometimes with slim subjects it might happen that the camera focuses on the background. * Is the image sharp enough? I.e. not blurry due to shake, miss-focus (back or front), subject movement, etc. * Is the exposure correct / optimal? I.e. especially since I use ETTR (expose-to-the-right): * did I overexposed something, and if so which channels, which parts of the picture, where are the next shadows relative to the highlights, etc.; * do I have underexposed areas, and like above how much, etc. Did I miss other technical properties? I've purposely dismissed the following: * noise -- which by its nature is a property of the sensor and constant in effect for a given ISO value; * depth-of-field -- which manifests itself as a lack of sharpness for the objects outside the DOF; (although it would be nice to be able to estimate how far a given pixel is outside the DOF;) * flare -- they are easily discerned in the image; * bokeh, vignetting, distortion, acutance, etc. -- which are invariable properties of the lens (for a given aperture and focal length); (and bokeh is a highly subjective quality;) * chromatic aberrations -- like above, although would be nice to highlight them; Unfortunately for (B), how to asses
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Unfortunately you can't separate the technical and aesthetic properties. For example, you ask [...] And I ask in return what does properly focused mean? It depends on what you intend for the picture, so it cannot have a single once-and-for-all answer - you have to make a subjective, aesthetic judgement. [...] Unfortunately there was a misunderstanding / miscommunication in my purpose. Thus I'll want to make some clarifications (which maybe I didn't properly make in the context section): I very well understand that all technical decisions must match the subject at hand. That's why I've stated that for the same scene (by which I mean subject) I have multiple, almost identical, exposures, which vary slightly especially in exposure (at most 1 stop), auto-focus error, or possibly blur due to improper hand-held camera. Thus I don't want to find a mathematical answer to which technical setting is the best for a particular subject, but to the answer to the question from a set of almost identical images which is the 'optimal' in terms of technical qualities. Sharp enough for what? I'll give a small example: with my old PS Fuji S5600, without any image stabilization, at night I had to resort to 1/4 seconds exposure (the sensor is quite small, 1/2.3 inch, thus the sake is less than in APS-C). After a few time I've observed that if I shot in a burst of three pictures, one of them (usually the middle or last one) were less fuzzy than the other. Thus sharp enough in this context means the one in which lines (or edges) are contrasty enough to obtain something useful after sharping. What is correct exposure? In this case it is more simple. Given that I've already chosen what to prioritize in exposures (highlights, shadows, or mid-tones), which of the few exposures best represents my choice. These questions have no meaning on their own, divorced from the subject matter of the photograph, and the intentions of the photographer. As seen I'm not trying find an auto-magic AI (artificial-intelligence) that can discern aesthetically what settings to use, but instead given a set of options which ones are the cleanest. Thanks all for replying, Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Consider the following pictures, for example, which all show a Frenchman riding a bicycle, but which are very different technically. Which one is the best? Why? This is a trick question... :D B) http://metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/286639?rpp=20pg=1rndkey=20131214ao=onft=*where=Francewho=Henri+Cartier-Bressonpos=7#fullscreen Because the answer is most likely (B), made by HCB. :) (I know the fable about Flickr group that dismissed this photo as unsharp.) However indeed it proves a point: for some photos correctness doesn't matter, it's all in the moment or look-and-feel. (Even I have a few failures that I find better when compared with their correct equivalents.) But still, for landscape or macro photography (which seems to be my main interest), I still find sharpness and correct exposure very important. Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:50, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Unfortunately you can't separate the technical and aesthetic properties. For example, you ask [...] And I ask in return what does properly focused mean? It depends on what you intend for the picture, so it cannot have a single once-and-for-all answer - you have to make a subjective, aesthetic judgement. [...] Unfortunately there was a misunderstanding / miscommunication in my purpose. Thus I'll want to make some clarifications (which maybe I didn't properly make in the context section): I very well understand that all technical decisions must match the subject at hand. That's why I've stated that for the same scene (by which I mean subject) I have multiple, almost identical, exposures, which vary slightly especially in exposure (at most 1 stop), auto-focus error, or possibly blur due to improper hand-held camera. Thus I don't want to find a mathematical answer to which technical setting is the best for a particular subject, but to the answer to the question from a set of almost identical images which is the 'optimal' in terms of technical qualities. Yes, but you've just asked the same thing in a different way, so you will get the same answers. Only you can decide what is optimal, based on your intentions in taking the picture. There is no general set of rules. Sharp enough for what? I'll give a small example: with my old PS Fuji S5600, without any image stabilization, at night I had to resort to 1/4 seconds exposure (the sensor is quite small, 1/2.3 inch, thus the sake is less than in APS-C). After a few time I've observed that if I shot in a burst of three pictures, one of them (usually the middle or last one) were less fuzzy than the other. Thus sharp enough in this context means the one in which lines (or edges) are contrasty enough to obtain something useful after sharping. In this context. But when the context changes the decision criteria will also change. You have to look at it and decide which you like best. And that decision may change, depending on your purposes each time you look at it. What is correct exposure? In this case it is more simple. Given that I've already chosen what to prioritize in exposures (highlights, shadows, or mid-tones), which of the few exposures best represents my choice. You have to decide for yourself. How would a piece of software know that, unless you told it? And if you know what to tell it, then you've made the choice, and you don't need the software. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Does it sounds crazy? :) It's a bit over the edge. In my opinion, a trained eye can probably do a better job of image evaluation than can any software. Indeed a trained eye (and brain) would be able to make a more informed decision than a simple-minded algorithm. However even the eye must use some tools in its assessment. For example a person uses eye-glasses to aid sight, and this is exactly what I'm trying to find: a special pair of eye-glasses that highlight which parts of the image are in focus, etc. I don't necessarily want a solution that spits out a number and says photo (A) is 10% better than photo (B). I'm just looking for a solution that prepares photo (A) and (B) to ease my evaluation. Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On 30 Dec 2013, at 17:56, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Consider the following pictures, for example, which all show a Frenchman riding a bicycle, but which are very different technically. Which one is the best? Why? This is a trick question... :D B) http://metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/286639?rpp=20pg=1rndkey=20131214ao=onft=*where=Francewho=Henri+Cartier-Bressonpos=7#fullscreen Because the answer is most likely (B), made by HCB. :) (I know the fable about Flickr group that dismissed this photo as unsharp.) It is a trick question, but the answer is not B. The answer is 'it depends on what the picture is for'. However indeed it proves a point: for some photos correctness doesn't matter, it's all in the moment or look-and-feel. (Even I have a few failures that I find better when compared with their correct equivalents.) But still, for landscape or macro photography (which seems to be my main interest), I still find sharpness and correct exposure very important. Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
Stop taking so many pictures of the same scene. Use some higher speed ISO settings. We have no knowledge of the image processors you're using. You've 'painted yourself into a corner' and won't enjoy photography until you free yourself of all your restrictions. Try things, it's free! Regards, Bob S. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: Unfortunately you can't separate the technical and aesthetic properties. For example, you ask [...] And I ask in return what does properly focused mean? It depends on what you intend for the picture, so it cannot have a single once-and-for-all answer - you have to make a subjective, aesthetic judgement. [...] Unfortunately there was a misunderstanding / miscommunication in my purpose. Thus I'll want to make some clarifications (which maybe I didn't properly make in the context section): I very well understand that all technical decisions must match the subject at hand. That's why I've stated that for the same scene (by which I mean subject) I have multiple, almost identical, exposures, which vary slightly especially in exposure (at most 1 stop), auto-focus error, or possibly blur due to improper hand-held camera. Thus I don't want to find a mathematical answer to which technical setting is the best for a particular subject, but to the answer to the question from a set of almost identical images which is the 'optimal' in terms of technical qualities. Sharp enough for what? I'll give a small example: with my old PS Fuji S5600, without any image stabilization, at night I had to resort to 1/4 seconds exposure (the sensor is quite small, 1/2.3 inch, thus the sake is less than in APS-C). After a few time I've observed that if I shot in a burst of three pictures, one of them (usually the middle or last one) were less fuzzy than the other. Thus sharp enough in this context means the one in which lines (or edges) are contrasty enough to obtain something useful after sharping. What is correct exposure? In this case it is more simple. Given that I've already chosen what to prioritize in exposures (highlights, shadows, or mid-tones), which of the few exposures best represents my choice. These questions have no meaning on their own, divorced from the subject matter of the photograph, and the intentions of the photographer. As seen I'm not trying find an auto-magic AI (artificial-intelligence) that can discern aesthetically what settings to use, but instead given a set of options which ones are the cleanest. Thanks all for replying, Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On 30/12/2013 12:03 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Does it sounds crazy? :) It's a bit over the edge. In my opinion, a trained eye can probably do a better job of image evaluation than can any software. Indeed a trained eye (and brain) would be able to make a more informed decision than a simple-minded algorithm. However even the eye must use some tools in its assessment. For example a person uses eye-glasses to aid sight, and this is exactly what I'm trying to find: a special pair of eye-glasses that highlight which parts of the image are in focus, etc. You would do better to read some books on composition than to try to make what you are wanting into a numbers game. The tool that the eye uses to determine if an image is good or otherwise sits a couple of inches behind it. Educate your brain to have good judgement. One of the things I have noted over the past decade is that the very geeky avocation of photography has attracted geeks from other interest groups, especially computer geeks. The new photographer who has cut his teeth on computers is used to success via formulaic approach. I want this as an end result, and to get there I plug in this line of code, It's all very cut and dried because computers are very cut and dried. Photography is not cut and dried. The technical elements of photography are distressingly easy to master. For the most part, putting the camera on programmed exposure mode, setting the AF to random search and letting the camera make the technical decisions will end up with a technically acceptable photograph that will stand up to scrutiny as well as any image that the photographer has taken multiple spot readings for, had angst ridden moments over what shutter speed to use, and fretted over the aperture chosen. As technical a craft as photography is, the successful photographer masters the mechanical parts to the point of not having to think about them any more, and then concentrates on the aesthetic, in much the same way that the person learning to drive masters using the controls on the vehicle to the point that driving is more or less automatic, allowing the person to enjoy the drive. You have yet to separate the aesthetic from the technical, and you think that you can wrap aesthetics up into a formulaic approach that will allow you to make judgement calls regarding your images, but until you have the ability to judge the final image for what it is, separate from the technical elements that make it what it is, you are going to find this to be a disappointing avocation. I don't necessarily want a solution that spits out a number and says photo (A) is 10% better than photo (B). I'm just looking for a solution that prepares photo (A) and (B) to ease my evaluation. There is no formula. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The best you can do is go through your work, first removing the obvious junk first. The out of focus, the very badly exposed, the ones that won't make a good print for purely technical reasons. After that, you can start culling based purely on aesthetics, culling out the ones that fail for non technical reasons, and this is where training in the arts comes in. A good strategy for teaching yourself composition (after doing some reading) is to take the images from a shoot, take out the good ones and don't look at them again. They have done their job, they have shown you that there is hope. Study the failures, ask yourself why the image failed. By doing this, you determine what doesn't work. Eliminate what doesn't work from what you are doing, and eventually, you will find that more of what you are doing works. Keep putting the images that work into a folder, either real or digital for a year. After a year, open that folder, arrange the images by date and watch how your photography has progressed. This will make you a better photographer. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Dec 30, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Does it sounds crazy? :) It's a bit over the edge. In my opinion, a trained eye can probably do a better job of image evaluation than can any software. Indeed a trained eye (and brain) would be able to make a more informed decision than a simple-minded algorithm. However even the eye must use some tools in its assessment. For example a person uses eye-glasses to aid sight, and this is exactly what I'm trying to find: a special pair of eye-glasses that highlight which parts of the image are in focus, etc. I don't necessarily want a solution that spits out a number and says photo (A) is 10% better than photo (B). I'm just looking for a solution that prepares photo (A) and (B) to ease my evaluation. Work harder at training your eye. That will do much more to ease your evaluation. And don't shoot so many frames of a single image. When shooting RAW you don't have to be dead on with exposure as long as you don't clip the whites or blacks excessively. In regard to focus, if an image appears to be in focus at 100% rendering, it's in focus. Paul Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: The best you can do is go through your work, first removing the obvious junk first. The out of focus, the very badly exposed, the ones that won't make a good print for purely technical reasons. After that, you can start culling based purely on aesthetics, culling out the ones that fail for non technical reasons, and this is where training in the arts comes in. A good strategy for teaching yourself composition (after doing some reading) is to take the images from a shoot, take out the good ones and don't look at them again. They have done their job, they have shown you that there is hope. Study the failures, ask yourself why the image failed. By doing this, you determine what doesn't work. Eliminate what doesn't work from what you are doing, and eventually, you will find that more of what you are doing works. Keep putting the images that work into a folder, either real or digital for a year. After a year, open that folder, arrange the images by date and watch how your photography has progressed. I have to admit that out of all the replies so far, the section quoted above is the most useful. I guess it provides a brief and adapted description of your edit workflow. In general it matches how I would approach this, and what I want to accomplish in the long term. (I've yet to reach the one year milestone.) :) You have yet to separate the aesthetic from the technical, and you think that you can wrap aesthetics up into a formulaic approach that will allow you to make judgement calls regarding your images, but until you have the ability to judge the final image for what it is, separate from the technical elements that make it what it is, you are going to find this to be a disappointing avocation. I agree with your statement, and as said in previous replies to other posters, I do try to edit my images first based on what I think is aesthetically pleasing to me, and then on the technical qualities when alternatives are available. I was just debating the approach for the second part. (Beyond this point in my reply, I go off-topic, especially since I know that some of the mailing list members love to argue, myself included. Thus one can easily skip the rest.) :) One of the things I have noted over the past decade is that the very geeky avocation of photography has attracted geeks from other interest groups, especially computer geeks. At least, by the above observation, we are all geeks in one way or another, thus we all have crazy ideas from time-to-time. :) The new photographer who has cut his teeth on computers is used to success via formulaic approach. On the contrary, a good computer geek (or as we call them hackers in the good sense), is far from formulaic approaches. It involves a lot more creativity that what people usually think. (Indeed perhaps a lot of the industry has morphed into software assembly factories, but there are some original codes are works of art in their own right.) I want this as an end result, and to get there I plug in this line of code, If this were true we would have by now programmed programs to program our programs. (And SkyNet would be up-and-running.) :D You would do better to read some books on composition than to try to make what you are wanting into a numbers game. But to get back to photography and formulaic approaches. Like all crafts, even photography has its own so-called magic-formulas that are preached in most materials, especially when it comes to composition. But in the end I understand that the author has to address both the beginner and the advanced; plus he can't describe into words the creative process without sounding too formulaic. (Don't take the above as me dismissing those materials.) As technical a craft as photography is, the successful photographer masters the mechanical parts to the point of not having to think about them any more, and then concentrates on the aesthetic, in much the same way that the person learning to drive masters using the controls on the vehicle to the point that driving is more or less automatic, allowing the person to enjoy the drive. To keep the analogy with driving, I guess that the equivalent of artists in the automobile world are the Formula 1 drivers (or similar). However I bet that they master their controls well beyond driving more or less automatic, up-to taking highly informed decisions almost subconsciously. Thus I guess that at least some of the artists in the photography world have done similarly, i.e. mastered the technical details beyond automatic. (As a small case-study, looking at what books are published by Ansel Adams --- according to http://www.anseladamsbooks.com/ --- three are technical, the rest are albums, none(?) are about technique. Although I most concede two things: (1) I clearly see that the albums are technique manuals
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On 30/12/2013 1:56 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: The best you can do is go through your work, first removing the obvious junk first. The out of focus, the very badly exposed, the ones that won't make a good print for purely technical reasons. After that, you can start culling based purely on aesthetics, culling out the ones that fail for non technical reasons, and this is where training in the arts comes in. A good strategy for teaching yourself composition (after doing some reading) is to take the images from a shoot, take out the good ones and don't look at them again. They have done their job, they have shown you that there is hope. Study the failures, ask yourself why the image failed. By doing this, you determine what doesn't work. Eliminate what doesn't work from what you are doing, and eventually, you will find that more of what you are doing works. Keep putting the images that work into a folder, either real or digital for a year. After a year, open that folder, arrange the images by date and watch how your photography has progressed. I have to admit that out of all the replies so far, the section quoted above is the most useful. I guess it provides a brief and adapted description of your edit workflow. In general it matches how I would approach this, and what I want to accomplish in the long term. (I've yet to reach the one year milestone.) :) You have yet to separate the aesthetic from the technical, and you think that you can wrap aesthetics up into a formulaic approach that will allow you to make judgement calls regarding your images, but until you have the ability to judge the final image for what it is, separate from the technical elements that make it what it is, you are going to find this to be a disappointing avocation. I agree with your statement, and as said in previous replies to other posters, I do try to edit my images first based on what I think is aesthetically pleasing to me, and then on the technical qualities when alternatives are available. I was just debating the approach for the second part. (Beyond this point in my reply, I go off-topic, especially since I know that some of the mailing list members love to argue, myself included. Thus one can easily skip the rest.) :) One of the things I have noted over the past decade is that the very geeky avocation of photography has attracted geeks from other interest groups, especially computer geeks. At least, by the above observation, we are all geeks in one way or another, thus we all have crazy ideas from time-to-time. :) The new photographer who has cut his teeth on computers is used to success via formulaic approach. On the contrary, a good computer geek (or as we call them hackers in the good sense), is far from formulaic approaches. It involves a lot more creativity that what people usually think. (Indeed perhaps a lot of the industry has morphed into software assembly factories, but there are some original codes are works of art in their own right.) I want this as an end result, and to get there I plug in this line of code, If this were true we would have by now programmed programs to program our programs. (And SkyNet would be up-and-running.) :D You would do better to read some books on composition than to try to make what you are wanting into a numbers game. But to get back to photography and formulaic approaches. Like all crafts, even photography has its own so-called magic-formulas that are preached in most materials, especially when it comes to composition. But in the end I understand that the author has to address both the beginner and the advanced; plus he can't describe into words the creative process without sounding too formulaic. (Don't take the above as me dismissing those materials.) As technical a craft as photography is, the successful photographer masters the mechanical parts to the point of not having to think about them any more, and then concentrates on the aesthetic, in much the same way that the person learning to drive masters using the controls on the vehicle to the point that driving is more or less automatic, allowing the person to enjoy the drive. To keep the analogy with driving, I guess that the equivalent of artists in the automobile world are the Formula 1 drivers (or similar). However I bet that they master their controls well beyond driving more or less automatic, up-to taking highly informed decisions almost subconsciously. Thus I guess that at least some of the artists in the photography world have done similarly, i.e. mastered the technical details beyond automatic. No, they are just very good technicians who have truly mastered their craft. The artists are the soccer moms who can maneuver a sport utility vehicle with half a dozen screaming kids in the back over icy roads and get home safely. (As a small
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
Quoting Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com: On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:13 , Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: == The questions == Thus my questions are the following: (A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image? (B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the assessment of these technical qualities? In my opinion, you are way over-thinking it. The best image is the one you prefer. That's it. My specific answers to your specific questions are: (A) nothing (B) none I agree with Charles. If I had to go through the thought processes you describe, I'd stop taking photos. Seems to take away the fun involved. To each his/her own... -- Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: To keep the analogy with driving, I guess that the equivalent of artists in the automobile world are the Formula 1 drivers (or similar). However I bet that they master their controls well beyond driving more or less automatic, up-to taking highly informed decisions almost subconsciously. Thus I guess that at least some of the artists in the photography world have done similarly, i.e. mastered the technical details beyond automatic. No, they are just very good technicians who have truly mastered their craft. The artists are the soccer moms who can maneuver a sport utility vehicle with half a dozen screaming kids in the back over icy roads and get home safely. Hoping that you were not kidding with the above :), I must say this is the best definition I've read for artists, i.e. very good technicians who have truly mastered their craft. (The soccer moms I would call them heroes.) :) Look at pictures, lots of pictures, especially those of other photographers. Ask yourself why they made the compositional decisions that they made. And this is one of the reasons I like PDML: there is a good balance between photographs (PESO, GESO, etc.) and technical debates. BTW, welcome to the PDML. Thanks! Although I haven't contributed much (only a few posts so far), I've been stealthily enjoying its membership since this April. Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
on 2013-12-30 9:13 Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote The problem? During the editing process, after I select which scenes are the ones I like the best, I end up with a lot of images of the same scene (with almost identical composition). And thus my problem is which of the two or three images is the most suitable one, in terms of technical properties, to be used as input for processing (thus obtaining in the end my photograph). i know this problem, and even as a geek who loves to imagine tools for creative workflows, the best solution i have found is to take fewer photos, to reserve the shotgun approach for photos i think are once-in-a-lifetime; in addition to reducing my workload, this has made the taking of photos less materialistic however it is a practice, not an absolute; i still wind up with too many photos; for them, i am training myself that if i can't easily tell the difference, it may not be worth distinguishing — just pick one! few of my photos are so special that the tiny differences matter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
on 2013-12-30 11:02 Bob W wrote Yes, but you've just asked the same thing in a different way, so you will get the same answers. Only you can decide what is optimal, based on your intentions in taking the picture. There is no general set of rules. my suggestion to take fewer photos aside, i think Ciprian's goal is not a robot that applies rules, so much as a tool that helps a photographer visualize certain characteristics so that a judgment can be made; i would expect such a tool to be fairly flexible and in the same basic category as other tools many of us already use to review our images the goal is noble, but it is actually very hard to achieve excellence in such tool-building; i'm not sure Ciprian's parameters will result in a useful tool, but i'm somewhat intrigued by the ideas; the concepts might be more useful as a basis for editing images, than for selecting them; a quick web search shows that there may already be some plug-ins that attempt a zone system mask -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On 30/12/2013 2:57 PM, Brian Walters wrote: Quoting Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com: On Dec 30, 2013, at 10:13 , Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: == The questions == Thus my questions are the following: (A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image? (B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the assessment of these technical qualities? In my opinion, you are way over-thinking it. The best image is the one you prefer. That's it. My specific answers to your specific questions are: (A) nothing (B) none I agree with Charles. If I had to go through the thought processes you describe, I'd stop taking photos. Seems to take away the fun involved. To each his/her own... What Ciprian is doing is pretty much the approach I took to teach myself the Zone System and the Picker Method of base lining the exposure time of a print. However useful it is for teaching oneself the technical end of photography, I didn't find it of much use after I had learned how to make an exposure that would work. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
Having read your questions and after digesting most of this thread, I'll take a stab at addressing your technical merit meter question. The photography world has settled on a couple of image analysis tools as being the most useful: the histogram and clipping indicators. All the software tools worth their salt offer these built-in (eg Lightroom). The histogram will tell you if your exposure takes advantage of the available dynamic range and the clipping indicators will tell you if your histogram runs off the top or bottom appreciably. Some tools, eg Lightroom, will show you graphically _where_ in the image you are clipping. These tools will not, of course, tell you if any of this is a problem for your image. You might intentionally drive two thirds of the image into black clipping because it's a chiaroscuro portrait; or the image pixels may all be crowded near the high end of the range because it's a high key image of a white cat in a snow storm. It's up to you to interpret the histogram appropriately. But these tools are tried and proven as very useful for photographers and so there's no need to reinvent these wheels. By the way, the lowly JPEG that we raw image users most often throw away actually has an unintended useful purpose. If you have taken a few essentially identical images of a scene, grab the JPEGs and compare their image file sizes. The one with the largest size will be from the sharpest image in most cases. The sharper the image the more fine detail it contains and therefore the less compressible it is. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all! Before describing the problem, please let me stress that I know very well that the quality of a photograph lies more in its aesthetic properties than in its technical ones. However in this thread I don't discuss about photographs, but images, i.e. the raw data (pixel values) that are totally decoupled with what they represent. (Thus I hope I won't start a flame-war regarding aesthetics vs. technical qualities.) (If you want to skip the context and go directly to the problem, just go to the section titled `The questions`.) == The context == So the problem, I always capture images --- note how I didn't say photographs :) --- in RAW format. And, while working in fully manual mode, very often I obtain multiple images of the same scene, where the main variable is the exposure time. Also while in low light, either interior or at night, I strive to use a low ISO like 200-400 thus with an exposure time of about 1/10 of a second, and although the SR is enabled, I always use continuous drive (in low mode) to take about three exposures, in the hope that one of them is sharper. The problem? During the editing process, after I select which scenes are the ones I like the best, I end up with a lot of images of the same scene (with almost identical composition). And thus my problem is which of the two or three images is the most suitable one, in terms of technical properties, to be used as input for processing (thus obtaining in the end my photograph). == The questions == Thus my questions are the following: (A) Which are the technical qualities I should look for in the image? (B) What software tools exist out there that would help in the assessment of these technical qualities? == My answers == For (A), the technical qualities, I've identified the following: * Is the subject properly focused? I.e. since I use auto-focus, sometimes with slim subjects it might happen that the camera focuses on the background. * Is the image sharp enough? I.e. not blurry due to shake, miss-focus (back or front), subject movement, etc. * Is the exposure correct / optimal? I.e. especially since I use ETTR (expose-to-the-right): * did I overexposed something, and if so which channels, which parts of the picture, where are the next shadows relative to the highlights, etc.; * do I have underexposed areas, and like above how much, etc. Did I miss other technical properties? I've purposely dismissed the following: * noise -- which by its nature is a property of the sensor and constant in effect for a given ISO value; * depth-of-field -- which manifests itself as a lack of sharpness for the objects outside the DOF; (although it would be nice to be able to estimate how far a given pixel is outside the DOF;) * flare -- they are easily discerned in the image; * bokeh, vignetting, distortion, acutance, etc. -- which are invariable properties of the lens (for a given aperture and focal length); (and bokeh is a highly subjective quality;) * chromatic aberrations -- like above, although would be nice to highlight them; Unfortunately for (B), how to asses these qualities, I have a few theories (see the next section titled `The science-fiction`) and
Re: Regarding the assessment of raw image technical qualities (i.e. correct exposure, focus, sharpness, etc.)
On 30/12/2013 6:59 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: By the way, the lowly JPEG that we raw image users most often throw away actually has an unintended useful purpose. If you have taken a few essentially identical images of a scene, grab the JPEGs and compare their image file sizes. The one with the largest size will be from the sharpest image in most cases. The sharper the image the more fine detail it contains and therefore the less compressible it is. Sometimes little pearls of wisdom fall from the sky. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: correct exposure
And for the fact that you treated grade school teachers unkindly. And for the state of your toenails, most days. And for Frankencameras and all they will let loose upon the world. Cotty the Sinner. Let us all pray. grin. Cotty wrote: Don't apologise! I should be apologising for my demented sense of humour.
Re: correct exposure
On 20/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Cotty the Sinner. The name of my next album. How did you know! Never mind, Redemption is my middle name. 666, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
The first wedding photography book I read dealt with exposure. The photog pre-focused his lenses to about 6 feet and set ISO to 1 stop over while packing his gear. Me, I'd rather shoot toilet bowel product shots than weddings. Grin. -Lon Ann Sanfedele wrote: The trouble with the every wedding photog I know does this argument is that everyone's wedding pictures end up looking everyone else's. (From what I've seen of Tom V's, however, his are clearly above the cut.) Fortunately, I've only shot weddings when the people involved wanted to avoid the stilted plastic look that so many posed wedding photos have and who want the photographer to be inconspicuous for most of the day. I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... what sort of shallow clients do you guys have? The most important thing is to capture the loving expressions on the bride and groom and the joy of the event reflected in those who have come to the event. That being said, I'll lend my full support to one stop over for neg film most of the time :) I'm a bit scrappy this morning annsan
Re: correct exposure
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Sorry Cotty, I meant to say his still using a medium format camera...he thinks 35mm are toys. Granted his viewing screen is bigger than my neg, so I kept my big mouth wisely shut... Don't apologise! I should be apologising for my demented sense of humour. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure
never let it be said I dont think your funny - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:54 AM Subject: Re: correct exposure On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Sorry Cotty, I meant to say his still using a medium format camera...he thinks 35mm are toys. Granted his viewing screen is bigger than my neg, so I kept my big mouth wisely shut... Don't apologise! I should be apologising for my demented sense of humour. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure
When I first worked in a studio 27 years ago my boss was doing just what is claimed isn't done! And he had been doing so for several years if the condition of his gear was any guide. When my parents married over 55 years ago the SOP was to visit the photographer's high street studio between service and reception, for the wedding party set-ups. Studio lighting has been associated with weddings for a very long time. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- --
RE: correct exposure
Real professional wedding photographers do lots of metering with and use studio strobes. For all but the receptions shots we meter just about everything. During the reception we check flash exposures periodically. We also probably charge 10x what you do. You get what you pay for. BR From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks.
Re: correct exposure
Sure, but you're not selling a baggie of exposed film like JCO does. BR From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] I use my studio strobes (alien Bees) for formals at all the weddings I shoot. I wouldn't want to use a little flash on a bracket for that kind of stuff. -- Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 1212 Today's Topics: RE: correct exposure [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: CF tripods[ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: correct exposure [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Old lenses and *ist D [ Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] pentax optio 550 [ Sean Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: pentax optio 550 [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Puzzled over lack of comments [ Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Has Pentax missed again? [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: correct exposure [ J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: correct exposure [ tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re[2]: correct exposure [ Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Has Pentax missed again? [ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Hand-holding 300/2.8 [ John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] SMCP FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 Power Zoom len [ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *istD image flaws?[ Bucky [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: correct exposure [ John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Gretag Macbeth colo(u)r checker [ John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *istD image flaws?[ Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] -- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:25:48 -0400 From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: correct exposure Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, with TTL, you are going to change the ISO, not the stop. But the problem will be the same if you dont change the ISO. A predominately white gown shot will tend to underexpose with TTL as it gets tricked by high reflectance.. BAD! JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure If you use TTL, and it works properly, the exposure will not change when you change the stop. Regards, Bob... Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women? -Martin Luther From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] That would only happen if you are using manual (fixed power) flash flash meter. If you use TTL or Non-TTl auto flash, the brides dress is not going to overexpose. Much more likely, it will underexpose due to reflectance being high. Thus opening up a stop gives some insurance against that problem. From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure What planet are you guys from?? Mars. Everybody knows that CN film has about 4 stops overexposure latitude and only about 1 under. Always overexpose to be safe. 1 stop over sounds perfect to me and that is what I did routinely for my weddings. Results were beautiful. You have to watch the overexposure thing with white dresses. If the global exposure for the scene is correct, the white dress will likely be pushing Zone VIII, which is 3 stops of overexposure latitude gone already. -- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:38:32 -0400 From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit the Mini is carryable. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: correct exposure
Hi Doug, What was the subject to background distance? About a metre What was the camera to background distance? About 2.5 metres Where were the lights set? She was seated. One large softbox to my right,about 2.5m away from her, one hair light about 2.5 metres above her and one with a snoot facing the background aligned with her head, pretty close to the background, about .75m What was the light to background distance? Was the camera stationary? On a tripod, he believes that you cannot take a good portrait from behind the camera, so he composes the shot, focuses, then he stands next to it with the cable release in his hand talking to her, gets her to smile by saying sex or money and shoots it. His very methodical about it, I think theres only 12-16 shots in his camera and all of them are keepers by the time he is done. Regards Feroze Doug
RE: correct exposure
Look, I am only going by MY experience ( which I will admit is somewhat limited, I only did weddings for a few years before retiring ). None of my clients ever wanted to dedicate enuff time to the formal group shots. They always seemed rushed and got upset when I usually asked for 2-3 shots of same pose to insure no blinking etc. Speed is/was of the essence for me. Time to set up /take flash meter readings on every shot was not possible and while strobes/umbrellas could improve the quality of light on the single/closeup shots, its not going to do that on group shots where the stobes are relatively small compared to the subject. I never ran out of flash power with my handheld Vivtar 285 which gives a a GN of 160 when using ISO200 and even then I had an additional stop of insurance. Even at 20 ft. I still had F8. There was no lack of power to necessite more powerful strobes for that reason. The only reason I would ever use them is to get the umbrellas/light quality for closeups. But there is no way I could or would attempt that then or now. Just not enuff time. Funny thing is after doing a few weddings, I bought two books on the subject back then and dont recall either one mentioning mandatory use of studio type strobes for doing weddings. I would have remembered that.BTW, the last few that I did came out so nice I had to turn down a lot of word of mouth refferals... JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure Dear JC, Get your brains out of neutral, every high end wedding photographer around here has a studio session, either by having the bride come his studio or on bringing his studio lights and backdrops to the location. Some of these guys travel with a whole truck load of stuff, including little blocks for the bride to raise her feet on or for the groom to stand on if his shorter than the bride. From my rather limited viewing of about 30 wedding albums, every one had studio shots in it. My stupid jerk teacher is 85 by the way, has been doing this for 60 years, and still focuses a MF camera manually. The other one has an M.Tech and his B.Sc in photography and has written his masters thesis on wedding photography . He is currently the head lecturer at the Rand Afrikaans University and sometimes judges competions for Fuji - but I guess that isn't enough for you is it? Think outside the box for a change, being pedantic will only limit you in the end. Feroze - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:00 AM Subject: RE: correct exposure I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- -- -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate photography is out of the question. I always used non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) and got nice results. To each his own I guess You stupid, bombastic jerk. Here is the original post that I was replying to. Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. As in STUDIO LIGHTS Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? William Robb
Re: correct exposure
High-end wedding photographers often do the formals with studio strobes, usually a pair of them with unbrellas quite often as outdoor fill. Yes, the candids are done with portable strobes in most cases, but that did not sound like what he original poster was asking about. J. C. O'Connell wrote: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate photography is out of the question. I always used non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) and got nice results. To each his own I guess You stupid, bombastic jerk. Here is the original post that I was replying to. Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. As in STUDIO LIGHTS Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
The trouble with the every wedding photog I know does this argument is that everyone's wedding pictures end up looking everyone else's. (From what I've seen of Tom V's, however, his are clearly above the cut.) Fortunately, I've only shot weddings when the people involved wanted to avoid the stilted plastic look that so many posed wedding photos have and who want the photographer to be inconspicuous for most of the day. I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... what sort of shallow clients do you guys have? The most important thing is to capture the loving expressions on the bride and groom and the joy of the event reflected in those who have come to the event. That being said, I'll lend my full support to one stop over for neg film most of the time :) I'm a bit scrappy this morning annsan
RE: correct exposure
JCO posted: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Don't some wedding photographers do bridal portraits (somtimes in the studio) ahead of time? Maybe that's what his teachers are up to with the studio lights component.
RE: correct exposure
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCO posted: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Don't some wedding photographers do bridal portraits (somtimes in the studio) ahead of time? Maybe that's what his teachers are up to with the studio lights component. Normally you have to use a big light or 2 for formals at the altar. JCO's vast experience notwithstanding, a 400 or 800 WS strobe and a 5 foot umbrella makes a *vast* improvement over anything you could do with a small ttl flash. For a while I just used a 500FTZ and told myself they didn't hire me for formals, but after a while I realized it just wasn't cutting it. Strobes are also used at the reception. Normally I like to bounce ttl off the ceiling, but if the ceiling is taller than about 30 feet, or has a weird color, I'll set up a strobe or 2 and direct them at the dance floor. These are not unusual practices. tv
Re: correct exposure
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: My stupid jerk teacher is 85 by the way, has been doing this for 60 years, and still focuses a MF camera manually. Hey, did you know that I can focus my manual focus lenses automatically? Sure, I pick up the lens, put my hand on it and I just automatically turn it with my fingers until it's nice and crisp in the viewfinder! Works every time. *~* Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: correct exposure
Previously written: Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a little ttl flash on camera. You really can, and many really do, use big strobes at weddings, myself included. Back when I was working weddings we would use 400ws Lumedynes. You can do a lot with 2 lights. I have heard of photographers using monolights and bringing a background. Better them then me although we used to do environmental portraits between the wedding and the reception. I suppose it would be no harder to set up a background and a couple of monolights in a spare room at the reception hall. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: correct exposure
On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 04:35 America/New_York, Anthony Farr wrote: Studio lighting has been associated with weddings for a very long time. When I shoot a wedding, I lug my Speedotrons along, wishing they weren't so heavy and bulky. :-) --jc
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
Hi Ann, I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... Average price for a white wedding dress starts at about ZAR15 000 (about U$D2500) for a christian/muslim wedding, a hindu wedding sarie can costs as little as that to about 3 times as much. An Indian wedding takes place over 3 days, during which she might change up to 7 times, some of those garments are sponsored by a family member. If she's a rich old bat and that particular garment dosn't show they wont pay for those shots...its not the most important thing but it does pay to ensure that the bride and her clothing gets a bit of special attention. Feroze
Re: correct exposure
I'm not degrading your technique or OP, but you have to admit that there is no technique that cannot stand a bit of improvement or approaching things from a different point of view. Your wedding clients need training and guidance, because in most cases this is there first time. It is up to you as the person who will record forever this one moment in time to make sure they get the best package possible. You need to remind her that she might never fit in that dress again, the food will be consumed before the night is over, there will be nothing left of the table decorations by the time the speeches commence (we shoot the table decorations, main table, hall etc at least 3 hours before anybodies arrived) the only thing she will have to remind her of that day is her wedding album. There's always enough time to do this. So many people dont have enough time to do it right the first time, but you will never get enough time to redo a wedding. I found that if you make your position clear at the time of booking as to how you shoot a wedding, and give them time to check other photographers styles before they confirm they will pretty much do it your way. Especially if you appear confident and have a decent portfolio to show them why you have these rules. You cannot shoot a wedding as a bystander, you have to be right there in the thick of things, directing it to a major extent I haven't found a pentax flash that gives the power or coverage of the metz MZ5. Its a brilliant flash, only thing is that it uses these rechargeable batteries and you have to have at least 2 on hand to last the night. It fits on a bracket and is more than sufficient for the group shots. Pity, I love my Pentax gear, but the flashes available is a real disappointment. Feroze - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: RE: correct exposure Look, I am only going by MY experience ( which I will admit is somewhat limited, I only did weddings for a few years before retiring ). None of my clients ever wanted to dedicate enuff time to the formal group shots. They always seemed rushed and got upset when I usually asked for 2-3 shots of same pose to insure no blinking etc. Speed is/was of the essence for me. Time to set up /take flash meter readings on every shot was not possible and while strobes/umbrellas could improve the quality of light on the single/closeup shots, its not going to do that on group shots where the stobes are relatively small compared to the subject. I never ran out of flash power with my handheld Vivtar 285 which gives a a GN of 160 when using ISO200 and even then I had an additional stop of insurance. Even at 20 ft. I still had F8. There was no lack of power to necessite more powerful strobes for that reason. The only reason I would ever use them is to get the umbrellas/light quality for closeups. But there is no way I could or would attempt that then or now. Just not enuff time. Funny thing is after doing a few weddings, I bought two books on the subject back then and dont recall either one mentioning mandatory use of studio type strobes for doing weddings. I would have remembered that.BTW, the last few that I did came out so nice I had to turn down a lot of word of mouth refferals... JCO -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- --
Re: correct exposure
Not too far ahead of time, I usually start at the brides house while she's getting dressed, they always late so I have enough time to set up a backdrop and a few lights. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:51 PM Subject: RE: correct exposure JCO posted: I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Don't some wedding photographers do bridal portraits (somtimes in the studio) ahead of time? Maybe that's what his teachers are up to with the studio lights component.
Re: correct exposure
Sorry Cotty, I meant to say his still using a medium format camera...he thinks 35mm are toys. Granted his viewing screen is bigger than my neg, so I kept my big mouth wisely shut... HTH :)) Feroze - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:29 PM Subject: Re: correct exposure On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: My stupid jerk teacher is 85 by the way, has been doing this for 60 years, and still focuses a MF camera manually. Hey, did you know that I can focus my manual focus lenses automatically? Sure, I pick up the lens, put my hand on it and I just automatically turn it with my fingers until it's nice and crisp in the viewfinder! Works every time. *~* Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.)
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele Subject: Re: correct exposure (how to shoot weddings, etc.) I have to disagree that the most important thing in the wedding is the wedding dress... Loving expressions are all very well and good, but if you don't get detail in the brides usually expensive (or worse, heirloom) dress, you never hear the end of it from the brides mother. William Robb I'm sure that is true, Bill... alas ann
correct exposure
Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze
Re: correct exposure
- Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan Subject: correct exposure Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? To make sure there is some detail in the grooms tuxedo, and to push the flesh tones a little higher up the exposure slope. Negative film works best when exposure is ample. William Robb
Re: correct exposure
I don't know. I usually set my meter to overexpose my print film that I use for a wedding. Underexposing is bad. Jim A. From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Angel Art Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:52:24 +0200 To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: correct exposure Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:11:29 -0400 Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze
Re: correct exposure
Thank You, Feroze - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:30 AM Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan Subject: correct exposure Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? To make sure there is some detail in the grooms tuxedo, and to push the flesh tones a little higher up the exposure slope. Negative film works best when exposure is ample. William Robb
Re: correct exposure
I've made very good friends with my lab owner, and since then my photos have come out much better. I meter expose for the shadows (for the highlights if I'm using trannies) and theres very little adjustments he has to do, sometimes he ups the density by a point or 2 and now and then a adds a bit of cyan. I've always shot according to the meter if not a low/high key shot so this is new to me. Am I doing this wrong? Feroze - Original Message - From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:00 AM Subject: Re: correct exposure I don't know. I usually set my meter to overexpose my print film that I use for a wedding. Underexposing is bad. Jim A. From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Angel Art Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:52:24 +0200 To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: correct exposure Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:11:29 -0400 Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze
Re: correct exposure
Because weddings have so much energy the over expose everything by one stop? If the light meter says f11 shoot at f11. BR From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so?
RE: correct exposure
I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: correct exposure - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate photography is out of the question. I always used non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) and got nice results. To each his own I guess You stupid, bombastic jerk. Here is the original post that I was replying to. Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. As in STUDIO LIGHTS Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? William Robb
RE: correct exposure
-Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a little ttl flash on camera. You really can, and many really do, use big strobes at weddings, myself included. tv
Re: correct exposure
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: correct exposure I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Geeze, you've just told every wedding photographer over the past 50 years that they don't know what they are doing. Every wedding that I did over a 3 decade career wanted formals. My street value went way up after I was able to provide real studio services rather than the flash on camera, posed in front of a bush type of pictures. Perhaps things are just different where you live. Up here, we still try to have some class. William Robb
Re: correct exposure
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 05:52 PM, Feroze Kistan wrote: Hi All, I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this so? Thanks, Feroze What was the subject to background distance? What was the camera to background distance? Where were the lights set? What was the light to background distance? Was the camera stationary? Doug
Re[2]: correct exposure
I use my studio strobes (alien Bees) for formals at all the weddings I shoot. I wouldn't want to use a little flash on a bracket for that kind of stuff. --- Bruce Tuesday, October 14, 2003, 10:00:17 PM, you wrote: JCOC I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. JCOC You cant really do studio strobes at weddings JCOC and receptions. His teachers must be the JCOC stupid jerks. JCOC JCOCJ.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com JCOC JCOC -Original Message- JCOC From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:04 AM JCOC To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC Subject: Re: correct exposure JCOC - Original Message - JCOC From: J. C. O'Connell JCOC Subject: RE: correct exposure I guess it's possible but VERY unlikely that many people would be working that way for a wedding/reception. In my experince, no matter how much I warn/persuede the bride/groom in advance, the wedding day is always hectic/fast paced and that type of slow deliberate photography is out of the question. I always used non-TTL autoflash, Fuji NPH, and one stop over (iso 200) and got nice results. To each his own I guess JCOC You stupid, bombastic jerk. JCOC Here is the original post that I was replying to. JCOC Hi All, JCOC I'm currently doing a course in wedding photography. One of the things that JCOC came up and which I forgot to ask was: we were told that the studio lights JCOC had been set for f/11 and that we should set our cameras to f/8, why is this JCOC so? JCOC Thanks, JCOC Feroze JCOC Get it? He's talking about stdio lights. JCOC As in STUDIO LIGHTS JCOC Did your mother have any children that developed intelligence? JCOC William Robb
Re: correct exposure
-Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a little ttl flash on camera. I'd suggest that a stupid jerk is one who believes, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, that his own way of doing things is the only way that anyone with any intelligence could possible consider.
