The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone use the pen tool much in Photoshop? I've recently gotten somewhat ahead of the learning curve on it and once that's done it's pretty neat, although labor-intensive. But the results are worth it. This is an "afterthought" shot I took while at the roundhouse, of a light fixture on the train station.

I did the cutout of the fixture in about 45 minutes, more practice will cut that a lot. There are some places where the rust on the bottom of the fixture is almost the exact same color as the brick so using a color-based or contrast-based selection tool would be difficult at best. Plus, since the pen tool is based on lines, not pixels, so you get a much cleaner cut when the path is turned into a selection.

Anyway the image with the brick wall included has the path imbedded if anyone wants to play with it. I don't know if other software will read that or not. According to this article almost every image editing program has some variant of it:


There is also a 'magic wand' which selects a group of similar color pixels - use it holding down the shift key (I think) and you can select an object more quickly. It may need some cleanup around the edges, but is quicker. You can then use inverse selection to select everything but the object, then cut the background out.
 
Are there any particular settings that are best for a decent HDR result?



For my first shot I am just attempting a shot of a small barn in the late afternoon. I am getting jagged edges on the straight edges after I combine the photos in the HDR software.



I realize I am clueless.........................


Are you selecting the box which makes the program automatically align the photographs after loading the images?
 
Are you selecting the box which makes the program automatically align the photographs after loading the images?

I did not because I used a tripod (or in this case set it on the deck railing and use a remote switch). After I select the three images the image that comes up looks fine. All the options on the right are very pixalated. I will play some more today...................
 
I did not because I used a tripod (or in this case set it on the deck railing and use a remote switch). After I select the three images the image that comes up looks fine. All the options on the right are very pixalated. I will play some more today...................


The options on the right are low res. I think using very mild modifications give more realistic results. Glad you're having fun ...
 
The Photographers' Corner

Just a note, Jack - as best as I can determine, HDR is rendering software, such as one renders a 3D object. For a more realistic effect, with more work, you can combine those images in PhotoShop or GIMP (free) by making each exposure it's own layer - one on top of the other - and combing the best features of both by making layers translucent, or using numerous other tools. More effort, more realism (fewer artifacts from over manipulation), IMO. I think it depends on the effect you want the image to have on the viewer. I happen to like some of the effects created by tone mapping, in HDR, though I'm still learning myself.
 
Last edited:
The Photographers' Corner

ImageUploadedByEarly Retirement Forum1398525102.164576.jpg

A single image rendered in HDR with some minor healing in the clouds for contrast.
 
took these today

140426_M%26M%20PHOTO-11-Edit-X3.jpg


140426_M%26M%20PHOTO-2-X3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks to Walt, I've been re-reading the Strobist blog/website and going through his lighting 101 course. I sold my Hensel Porty system a few years ago, but his site reassured me of a couple of things -

1) with a very modest expenditure, I can use a single flash (as opposed to a studio strobe) on a light-stand with a shoot-through umbrella, if I ever want to get back into using flash for portraits again, and

2) if I ever do want to buy a studio strobe, I don't need to spend a lot of money on one of the more "pro" brands. I went this way before, buying a Hensel Porty system and while it was really great, boy, did I drop a lot of cash for it! David aka The Strobist speaks highly of Paul C Buff's Einstein lights and I'm thinking I could a lot with one of these lights and a few modifiers.

This all got me to thinking about the fun days when I was playing around with studio lighting for the first time. I didn't really know what I was doing, and never learned how to light properly, but did discover that I really loved the quality of light I could get from a medium softbox fitted with grids. The grids gave the soft light a beautifully smooth transition from light into deep shadow. It also meant that with just the one strobe, if I positioned it correctly, I could control the amount that fell on the background, and create a nice gradient. Here's a bassist I shot in my front room -

original.jpg


IIRC, the softbox and grids were replaced with a simple reflector on the strobe for a harder light with this next shot. I also applied a bit of extra post-processing in Photoshop which I wouldn't do again today. This particular process was known as enhanced local contrast. I am now not keen on too much post-processing, but at the time was still easily blindsided by "neat effects".

original.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Photographers' Corner

Portrait lighting isn't all that difficult, and working with a pair of inexpensive flashes off camera is fine. Use gauze as a diffuser. It's a simple matter of deciding where to put the key light to compliment the subject's face.


http://digital-photography-school.com/6-portrait-lighting-patterns-every-photographer-should-know/

Each lighting type complements a particular face structure. Shooting from the same angle, but different light locations changed the makeup of the bassist's face in your two photos. His face looks fuller in the top image.

I like the top portrait. The only distraction is the button for the guitar strap on the guitar - right at face level. Good use of the prop, and using the flash to light the background.

You have a good eye
 
Last edited:
I went to a baseball game yesterday and I thought it would be a great place to practice high speed photography. Unfortunately, my Canon SX50HS camera never was able to freeze the ball, even at 1/1600s with wide-open aperture and pumped up ISO setting...

14017891206_fe325979f2_c.jpg
 
That is a nice portrait, says a lot in one shot.

Another item in my camera bag is a "neutral tone window light diffuser" AKA the cheapest white shower curtain I could find at Walmart. It cost $2.93, with tax. I've actually used it a couple of times when direct sunlight was coming in the window. It helps a lot.

Went to a small car show in a parking lot today. Thinking a polarizing filter would help with the reflections on spotless cars in direct sunlight I put that on. The filter also intensifies the colors.

Now my knees hurt. I'm not supposed to be doing deep knee bends so for a couple of shots I just sat down on the asphalt.
 

Attachments

  • car_show-1.jpg
    car_show-1.jpg
    165.5 KB · Views: 10
  • car_show-2.jpg
    car_show-2.jpg
    165 KB · Views: 11
  • car_show-3.jpg
    car_show-3.jpg
    240 KB · Views: 10
  • car_show-5.jpg
    car_show-5.jpg
    197.9 KB · Views: 11
The Photographers' Corner

Got to messing around with my gear, cleaning lenses that haven't been cleaned in close to a decade, and I got to looking at the equipment. Forgot I had a 1.6 teleconverter. So my FX 70-210 lens on the DX camera gives me a max focal length of 336. Adding the teleconverter makes it 537.6mm. A handheld shot at dusk, through my back window, using 537.6 mm (640 at f4) ISO 1600 - just messing around:

ImageUploadedByEarly Retirement Forum1398640349.711001.jpg
 
Last edited:
I went to a baseball game yesterday and I thought it would be a great place to practice high speed photography. Unfortunately, my Canon SX50HS camera never was able to freeze the ball, even at 1/1600s with wide-open aperture and pumped up ISO setting...



14017891206_fe325979f2_c.jpg


Still a nice shot.
 
The Photographers' Corner

That is a nice portrait, says a lot in one shot.

Another item in my camera bag is a "neutral tone window light diffuser" AKA the cheapest white shower curtain I could find at Walmart. It cost $2.93, with tax. I've actually used it a couple of times when direct sunlight was coming in the window. It helps a lot.

Went to a small car show in a parking lot today. Thinking a polarizing filter would help with the reflections on spotless cars in direct sunlight I put that on. The filter also intensifies the colors.

Now my knees hurt. I'm not supposed to be doing deep knee bends so for a couple of shots I just sat down on the asphalt.


Oooooh - are we allowed to talk about cars here...?

Where are the models...?

I always used gauze because I figured it was sterile white, and wouldn't affect the color balance of the incoming light. And, you could add more layers for greater effect.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, my Canon SX50HS camera never was able to freeze the ball, even at 1/1600s with wide-open aperture and pumped up ISO setting...

That sounds odd. I'd sure expect 1600 sec. to freeze it. Was the ball traveling parallel to the focal plane, i.e., from from left to right instead of having a (forget the math term - tangent?) direction of travel with a component directly toward or away from you to reduce the relative motion?

Either way that ball must've been booking to be a blur at that shutter speed.
 
That sounds odd. I'd sure expect 1600 sec. to freeze it. Was the ball traveling parallel to the focal plane, i.e., from from left to right instead of having a (forget the math term - tangent?) direction of travel with a component directly toward or away from you to reduce the relative motion?

Either way that ball must've been booking to be a blur at that shutter speed.

Most of the time the ball was traveling pretty much parallel to the focal plan:
14061635513_1a4aa13d73_c.jpg
 
Ah. A ball leaving the hand of a pro pitcher is going what - 90 mph? - so yeah I guess you're going to need a strobe to freeze that. Unless you want to spend the big bucks for a camera with the super duper ISOs to freeze baseballs.

Unless I was a pro sports photographer (and that's why they do spend those bucks) I wouldn't worry about it. The image looks good to me!
 
Ah. A ball leaving the hand of a pro pitcher is going what - 90 mph? - so yeah I guess you're going to need a strobe to freeze that. Unless you want to spend the big bucks for a camera with the super duper ISOs to freeze baseballs.

Unless I was a pro sports photographer (and that's why they do spend those bucks) I wouldn't worry about it. The image looks good to me!

I am not going to worry about it. It was just a fun experiment!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom