The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

[seraphim]

Nice wildlife shots.

 

[TOOLMAN]

Today's walk in the woods
Nikon - D7000, Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, hand held, ISO 400

 

[Ronstar]

Today's Civil War Reenactment

 

[Lisa99]

Question for the experts. I've started writing a blog that needs photos of rooms in our house before and after DIY renovations.

The problem I'm trying to solve is the lighting in the house is almost non existent in that most rooms have a single light fixture in the ceiling that doesn't enable me to shoot pictures that reflect what the room looks like (wall colors, etc).

Without spending a ton of money how would you suggest I better light the room for low resolution, web only pictures?

 

[Walt34]

It would help if we knew a bit more about what camera/lens you're using. DSLR or point 'n shoot? You'll probably want a tripod, no need to spend a lot - $100 should be fine for what you want to do. But know that you'll get what you pay for. There is good reason the high-end tripods are north of $1,000. They'll hold the camera rock-steady. This will allow you to use longer shutter speeds for a room that is not well lighted.

The light in the ceiling is not what you want to use. You can get a couple of utility lights on stands from any hardware store, or better, get a couple of flashes that can be remotely fired and light stands for those. Lights designed for photography will have better color than utility lights.

For color accuracy you'll want something to set a custom color balance in the camera to match the light in the room. I use either an Expodisc or a Colorchecker depending on circumstances.

You'll need image editing software. I've never used it but many speak highly of the free GIMP software or Photoshop Elements would serve your needs. There are plenty of books on Elements to help you learn it. And there is a learning curve.

You'll need to color calibrate your monitor. The ColorMunki Smile should meet your needs. There is a very good series of articles on color management at Cambridge in Colour.

Consider buying or borrowing from the library a few basic photography books. You'll need to understand at least the basics of color management and lighting.

 

[frayne]

How many here use a full frame DSLR camera and do you think it is worth the additional cost ?

 

[explanade]

Certainly tripods would help shoot rooms with low light. Should be fine for static pictures that you would only post on the web.

You can even try boosting the ISO though ideally, with a tripod, you would use the lowest ISO and take longer exposures.

I've seen shows on HGTV where they hire pro photographers to take pictures of expensive properties. I didn't see them use studio lighting or flash either.

 

[HFWR]

Cheap tripods suck! Don't ask me how I know this... But for objects that aren't moving, set-up the camera, then use the timer to activate the shutter, and thus eliminate any movement caused by your handling of the camera.

 

[Major Tom]

Without spending a ton of money how would you suggest I better light the room for low resolution, web only pictures?

If you don't want to spend a lot of money, then I agree with the suggestions to get a tripod and try some longer exposures with the light you have. Although your electric lighting is a different color temperature from the natural light coming in from the windows, sometimes this can be used to make the shot look attractive i.e. pools of warmer localized light can look quite attractive. You may also be able to use lighter objects, such as sheets, to bounce some extra light into more shadowy areas.

So to summarize, I'd get a tripod, and then experiment a lot.

 

[Major Tom]

How many here use a full frame DSLR camera and do you think it is worth the additional cost ?

A few years ago, full-frame bodies had lower noise than crop bodies when shooting at high ISO in low light situations. They may still still have the advantage (I don't follow these things very closely) but the high ISO performance of current crop sensors is so much better than it was a few years ago that this is no longer a concern, IMO.

The other 2 reasons to use a full-frame camera are the narrower depth of field for a given focal length (if you want that) and overall better image quality which, from what I gather, you may only notice if you are printing your images as opposed to viewing them on the internet.

I am very open to being corrected on these opinions but if I may paint with very broad brush, I think that you'll know when you're ready for a full-frame body if you ever have specific needs that a full-frame will fill. The crop sensors these days are very good.

I have an 8 year-old DSLR body, which is only worth about $100 now, and I still haven't grown to the point where I am taking full advantage of all that it can do. After spending thousands of dollars on gear, I had to begrudgingly admit to myself that the problem was me, and not my gear

 

[sailor]

overall better image quality which, from what I gather, you may only notice if you are printing your images as opposed to viewing them on the internet.

I see this repeated over many "photographer" websites/blogs etc, but in my observation, that's not how younger generation deals with pictures.
Prints are for old people. Almost nobody I know prints pictures.
And people looking at them on the screen can really appreciate better quality, when they can zoom in and get more details.

On the original topic - yes to better low light performance of full sensor camera.
About 1.5 stops according to DxOMark: Camera Sensor Ratings - DxOMark

 

[Lisa99]

It would help if we knew a bit more about what camera/lens you're using. DSLR or point 'n shoot?

Thanks Walt and everyone who pitched in, lots to think about.

I was using my iPhone but have a point and shoot that I can learn to use. We also have a tripod that we use with the video camera so I'll see if my camera can be adapted to that.

I'll go by the hardware store and get some lights... great idea.

And I use Photoshop today so can use it to brighten the photos. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[Walt34]

After spending thousands of dollars on gear, I had to begrudgingly admit to myself that the problem was me, and not my gear

Which is why I decided to stay with the cropped sensor Nikon D7000 and the DX lenses I have for it. I got the tech stuff, it's the subtleties of composition, color, and lighting that are hard for me. Well, that, and it's a hobby. I don't have to earn a living with it. So one then gets into diminishing returns for more expensive gear.

 

[photoguy]

How many here use a full frame DSLR camera and do you think it is worth the additional cost ?

I do use a full-frame camera but I'd say it's not worth it unless (1) you print bigger than 16x24, (2) you need ultra-wide lenses, and (3) your technique in terms of "sharpness" is perfect.

 

[explanade]

Technique as in what, mirror lockup and shooting on tripod?

 

[photoguy]

Yes to the tripod.

But you can also get the full resolution out of the sensor if you've got a fast enough shutter speed / good handholding technique / image stabilization. But higher pixel densities means this is getting harder to do.

Also if you're using flash, you won't need a tripod either.

 

[Walt34]

Technique as in what, mirror lockup and shooting on tripod?

That, to get the sharpness up to the capability of the camera/lens, but also the ability to blend multiple exposures in software to show the full dynamic range of the image.

The human vision system can see about 15-17 stops of dynamic range. From what I've read the best DSLRs see six or maybe seven stops. The trick then is to control lighting to keep it within that range to keep it looking realistic.

 

[TOOLMAN]

Which is why I decided to stay with the cropped sensor Nikon D7000 and the DX lenses I have for it. I got the tech stuff, it's the subtleties of composition, color, and lighting that are hard for me. Well, that, and it's a hobby. I don't have to earn a living with it. So one then gets into diminishing returns for more expensive gear.

It's also a hobby for me. The D7000 is better than me at this point. I was wondering how many shot I have taken, and today I learned something new. The total shutter actuation on your camera is embedded in the image as EXIF data. Seems that I have taken 12k shot in two years. One way to see this info http://regex.info/exif.cgi The mean time between failure if the D7000 is 150,000 so at my pace it will be obsolete before it's worn out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format

 

[explanade]

Well I was mostly asking about photoguy's comment about technique for sharpness.

But yeah it's true about dynamic range. Some people really push HDR. I've played around with it but most of my shots are handheld. Even when I take the tripod out and shoot some bracketed shots, I haven't gone back and made HDRs. Or played around with blended exposures.

I think I'd try the in-camera HDRs. Won't be as good but if I don't have to carry tripod all the time, it's better than nothing, though I'm not a fan of keeping only the JPG rather than the RAWs.

 

[explanade]

It's also a hobby for me. The D7000 is better than me at this point. I was wondering how many shot I have taken, and today I learned something new. The total shutter actuation on your camera is embedded in the image as EXIF data. Seems that I have taken 12k shot in two years. One way to see this info http://regex.info/exif.cgi The mean time between failure if the D7000 is 150,000 so at my pace it will be obsolete before it's worn out. Exchangeable image file format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a D7000 and I'm probably around the same point.

Was tempted by the D600 but held off.

I think the Sony A7 and Nikon D5300 announcements last week are intriguing. Both have Wifi built in now and the Nikon has GPS.

It sounds like the apps. that you connect to will allow remote trigger but the potential for really opening things up to software is there, if the camera makers provide an API to control the cameras through apps.

Look at the smart phone apps and how they automate various aspects of the camera. Now if the big manufacturers allowed that to happen to their cameras, it could add a new dimension.

Also as Wifi becomes more common, maybe we don't have to plug the cards into the computers to import, just transfer them when you come back home wirelessly.

 

[sailor]

The human vision system can see about 15-17 stops of dynamic range. From what I've read the best DSLRs see six or maybe seven stops. The trick then is to control lighting to keep it within that range to keep it looking realistic.

Are you sure?
Even my modest camera like D5200 has about 13 EV stops of dynamic range.
If human eye can only see 15 stops I wonder, if the best sensors are making HDR tricks obsolete.

 

[sailor]

Also as Wifi becomes more common, maybe we don't have to plug the cards into the computers to import, just transfer them when you come back home wirelessly.

That that can be already done independently of camera.
For last few months I've been moderately happy with this Eye-Fi card: Pro X2 | Eye-Fi (there are cheaper versions, but I wanted RAW transfer).

 

[Walt34]

Are you sure?

No, I'm not sure. Photography is turning out to be one of those fields like computer forensics - the more I learn about it the more I realize how ignorant I really am.

 

[explanade]

I know of Eye-Fi. I think if Wifi becomes pervasive, the computer makers and/or Adobe and Apple will make their software import photos wirelessly rather than through the card slot.

I only say that because I just got an iMac and it's annoying that they put the card slot in the back because it's too thin on sides to put in a card slot.

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's one I really like since I think it screams Venice: