|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 10889
Location: Our stock and food photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:21 pm
|  |
| elaineb wrote: | Thanks for all your help.
Still hoping for someone who would be able to tell me for the two photos posted, which of noise, artifacts, sharpening are affecting the photo. |
We need to see 100% crops to really see the noise, artifacts and other effects clearly. Here is an article that will explain how to do this.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/109/article1.html |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 7225
Location: www.xlr8photo.com
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:53 am
| |
As Dave said Elaine, we need to see 100% crops of a shadow area so that we can tell if you have noise. I can tell you that the images look a little soft to me.
Thisis probably due to you shooting the shetland collie at f2.8 and using the Creative program (biased towards depth of field). f2.8 does lend itself towards any depth of field, you need to be in the f8-11 range.
Your camera records EXIF data somewhat strange, I have never seen a shutter speed of 10/500 sec, if this is meant to be 1/50th of a sec, it is too slow to be handholding. If on the other hand it is 1/500th it would have been OK.
Anyway, it is blatently obvious that you need a ton more light to get into the f8 or f11 range where the lens will give you DOF and you will be able to shoot with a fast enough shutterspeed so as not to introduce movement I>E> in excess of 1/400th of a sec.
Right now it would mean you need at least 4 more stops of light, which unless you want to cook your subjects with hot lights means that you need strobes with power in the range of 200ws. |
|
maltaguy1
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Malta, EU
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:25 am
| |
Hi Karen,
I am a fellow Olympus user and use the Olympus E-3 as a main body, and an Oly E-510 as backup. If you are using the kit lenses, I would recommend you to save some money and gradually replace with faster lenses.
I always shoot in RAW format, then import the images using Olympus Master 2. I then carry out minor touch-ups in the Edit window in Olympus Master. Once I'm done I set the program to save the images in Tiff format.
Any major editing is then carried out in Photoshop, and I only save the image as a jpeg once I am 101% satisfied and ready to archive or upload the image in question.
It seems you are quite new to photography, and I would recommend you take some time reading on the subject. |
|
frankljr
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 109
Location: Spokane, WA, U.S.A.
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:28 am
| |
| elaineb wrote: | | digigandalf wrote: | Tiff is a file format, like jpeg, but unlike jpeg it is not a compressed format. In order to keep the file size smaller, jpeg compresses information, and every time you resave the file it compresses some more info, so that soon you have noticeable degradation (at least at 100% - do it enough times and it'll be seen even at smaller view sizes).
I don't know if Olympus Master has the Tiff format as an option or allows converting from Jpeg to Tiff. Poke around in the preferences or other menus to see. In Photoshop you can save a jpeg file as a tiff the first time you open it and then work on it from there.
But even in the Tiff file, drastic adjustments in levels or other areas can cause artifacts and noise. That's why getting the exposure right in the camera is important. A lot of people shoot RAW, since that format allows for more substantial adjustments without degradation, but even RAW has its limits. The best thing is to get the lighting and exposure as close to the desired result as you can when shooting. |
Gandalf,
Thanks for explaining. I have used Zamzar to convert file types. I looked and they convert to Tiff. What remains to be seen is if I can edit it in Tiff format within Olypus Master .
I didn't know that re-saving reduced quality. Is this only when doing edit-resave or dose this happen also when copying and pasting files into different folders ( I hope not! ) .
I don't have photoshop. Have to keep expenses down.
Elaine |
Hey Elaine (or is it Karen),
Copying and pasting into new Folders for organization and whatnot won't affect image quality, it's only when you save and resave in your photo editing program when you make editing changes that causes degradation. I know what you mean about having to keep expenses down, so check out Photoshop Elements. They are up to version 8 (Amazon $89.99). I have version 7 and to tell you the truth there wasn't much different between v7 and v6 which means you can probably get a good deal on either version 6 or 7. Hundreds less than full-blown Photoshop with a lot of great features.
I also shoot with Olympus stuff and Elements will allow you to edit Olympus RAW files, which has helped me on more than one occasion. White Balance, Sharpness, Exposure, Saturation, etc. can be adjusted without loss and can then be saved as TIFF's or JPG's in Elements after the final edits.
As for your questions about noise, artifacts, etc, the reviewers out there will probably need to see a full-size (100%) crop to check for those issues. I still have problems with these rejections, so I'm not one to judge, but I know that it's hard to check for noise, etc. unless you look at the image full size. Just a hint for getting the help you want.
God Bless,
Frank Jr. |
|
elaineb
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 42
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:23 pm
| |
| maltaguy1 wrote: | Hi Karen,
I am a fellow Olympus user and use the Olympus E-3 as a main body, and an Oly E-510 as backup. If you are using the kit lenses, I would recommend you to save some money and gradually replace with faster lenses.
I always shoot in RAW format, then import the images using Olympus Master 2. I then carry out minor touch-ups in the Edit window in Olympus Master. Once I'm done I set the program to save the images in Tiff format.
Any major editing is then carried out in Photoshop, and I only save the image as a jpeg once I am 101% satisfied and ready to archive or upload the image in question.
It seems you are quite new to photography, and I would recommend you take some time reading on the subject. |
Malta and Frank,
Thanks. So I understand... someone else I think said to do the editing while in the Tiff format and then save as Tiff or save as JPeg.
You two seem to be saying to edit in JPEg and save as Tiff?
Does it matter which way it goes?
After your advise I took my photo and used Zamzar to convert it to Tiff. Then I was able to save it in Olympus Master in Tiff format and edit it. I'd have to use Zamzar again to convert it back to Jpeg. FYI.
I have an Olympus SP350 , no extra leses and an older program than you. I got it before I got interested in doing photography ( while I'm off work for an extended time for a medical issue, I've got a new , life long hobby, I think )
God bless you back,
Elaine |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 10889
Location: Our stock and food photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:59 pm
| |
| elaineb wrote: | | maltaguy1 wrote: | Hi Karen,
I am a fellow Olympus user and use the Olympus E-3 as a main body, and an Oly E-510 as backup. If you are using the kit lenses, I would recommend you to save some money and gradually replace with faster lenses.
I always shoot in RAW format, then import the images using Olympus Master 2. I then carry out minor touch-ups in the Edit window in Olympus Master. Once I'm done I set the program to save the images in Tiff format.
Any major editing is then carried out in Photoshop, and I only save the image as a jpeg once I am 101% satisfied and ready to archive or upload the image in question.
It seems you are quite new to photography, and I would recommend you take some time reading on the subject. |
You two seem to be saying to edit in JPEg and save as Tiff?
Does it matter which way it goes?
God bless you back,
Elaine |
When I do my editing I take my image save it as a tiff then do the editing. I then save the tiff as my master which I will use if I ever edit it again and then also save it as a jpg which I submit. I don't submit tiffs because they are huge files and Shutterstock converts them to jpgs anyway. |
|
mauijon
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 2079
Location: Maui, Hawaii
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:32 pm
| |
Both have focus problems. Looks like camera movement. On your editing program, enlarge the image to 100% or actual--whatever it's called--and you can then see the individual hairs on the dog are blurry.
You wonder who would blow up an image that large (about 30-40 inches)? And SS sells even larger versions. The thing is, somebody might want it for a billboard, so shutterstock requires that sharpness, just for that one customer.
If your Olympus program won't do the job, you can get photoshop Elements under $100 on the internet--eg. eBay and Amazon.
Looks like it's your camera (SP350). You shot at f-2.8 at 8mm in creative mode, so it must be a point and shoot camera, which will make for noise and soft images. |
|
elaineb
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 42
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:00 pm
| |
| mauijon wrote: | Both have focus problems. Looks like camera movement. On your editing program, enlarge the image to 100% or actual--whatever it's called--and you can then see the individual hairs on the dog are blurry.
You wonder who would blow up an image that large (about 30-40 inches)? And SS sells even larger versions. The thing is, somebody might want it for a billboard, so shutterstock requires that sharpness, just for that one customer.
If your Olympus program won't do the job, you can get photoshop Elements under $100 on the internet--eg. eBay and Amazon.
Looks like it's your camera (SP350). You shot at f-2.8 at 8mm in creative mode, so it must be a point and shoot camera, which will make for noise and soft images. |
John,
Does that mean that I was 2.8 feet away from the subject? What is creative mode? Yes it is point and shoot and was in automatic mode.
How are you getting this detailed information from the photo that I posted?
Thanks for your input,
Elaine |
|
pharm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6137
Location: Contemplating
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:50 pm
| |
| elaineb wrote: |
John,
Does that mean that I was 2.8 feet away from the subject? What is creative mode? Yes it is point and shoot and was in automatic mode.
How are you getting this detailed information from the photo that I posted?
Thanks for your input,
Elaine |
No, it means your f-stop (aperture) was 2.8. All the info is in the EXIF data of the photo. This is information that is stored with every photo taken with a digital camera.
I agree with the suggestion about buying Photoshop Elements. You can read the EXIF data from there (although there are other programs that can read it, too).
You should also get a book called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. You need to have a clear understanding of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture and their relation to each other as well as why you would change any of the three to achieve a chosen effect.
Google is also a great place to start. Anything you don't understand, search for it with Google. A basic photography course (possibly at a local college) would help you tremendously.
Yes, you need a better camera but by understanding the basics, you can still do some pretty amazing things with yours. |
|
elaineb
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 42
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:36 pm
| |
| pharm wrote: | | elaineb wrote: |
John,
Does that mean that I was 2.8 feet away from the subject? What is creative mode? Yes it is point and shoot and was in automatic mode.
How are you getting this detailed information from the photo that I posted?
Thanks for your input,
Elaine |
No, it means your f-stop (aperture) was 2.8. All the info is in the EXIF data of the photo. This is information that is stored with every photo taken with a digital camera.
I agree with the suggestion about buying Photoshop Elements. You can read the EXIF data from there (although there are other programs that can read it, too).
You should also get a book called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. You need to have a clear understanding of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture and their relation to each other as well as why you would change any of the three to achieve a chosen effect.
Google is also a great place to start. Anything you don't understand, search for it with Google. A basic photography course (possibly at a local college) would help you tremendously.
Yes, you need a better camera but by understanding the basics, you can still do some pretty amazing things with yours. |
Thanks Jeff, talking with you guys helps to direct my reading. I have read what I thought to be a fair bit already, but often get different suggetions from different sites. I try things out and that's when I really find out whether I've got it or not. I'll definitley get Photoshop Elements . Put it on my birthday wish list already !Elaine |
|
elaineb
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 42
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:50 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | As Dave said Elaine, we need to see 100% crops of a shadow area so that we can tell if you have noise. I can tell you that the images look a little soft to me.
Thisis probably due to you shooting the shetland collie at f2.8 and using the Creative program (biased towards depth of field). f2.8 does lend itself towards any depth of field, you need to be in the f8-11 range.
Your camera records EXIF data somewhat strange, I have never seen a shutter speed of 10/500 sec, if this is meant to be 1/50th of a sec, it is too slow to be handholding. If on the other hand it is 1/500th it would have been OK.
Anyway, it is blatently obvious that you need a ton more light to get into the f8 or f11 range where the lens will give you DOF and you will be able to shoot with a fast enough shutterspeed so as not to introduce movement I>E> in excess of 1/400th of a sec.
Right now it would mean you need at least 4 more stops of light, which unless you want to cook your subjects with hot lights means that you need strobes with power in the range of 200ws. |
Jeff,
I did some reading about the depth of field, but would you tell me please, when you say I need to be in the F8 to F10 range, does that mean I should + the value on my camera up to that? I see that the factory setting is at f2.8 , the same as what you said.
Does that help the camera to better utilize what it has to work with?
Also, does and ISO increase and a f increase at the same time cause any conflicting problems?
Do either of these type of changes make the shutter speed slower ?
I find I the harded thing is to understand the interplay between all of these changes.
Thanks,
Elaine |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 10889
Location: Our stock and food photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:02 pm
| |
| elaineb wrote: | | jeffbanke wrote: | As Dave said Elaine, we need to see 100% crops of a shadow area so that we can tell if you have noise. I can tell you that the images look a little soft to me.
Thisis probably due to you shooting the shetland collie at f2.8 and using the Creative program (biased towards depth of field). f2.8 does lend itself towards any depth of field, you need to be in the f8-11 range.
Your camera records EXIF data somewhat strange, I have never seen a shutter speed of 10/500 sec, if this is meant to be 1/50th of a sec, it is too slow to be handholding. If on the other hand it is 1/500th it would have been OK.
Anyway, it is blatently obvious that you need a ton more light to get into the f8 or f11 range where the lens will give you DOF and you will be able to shoot with a fast enough shutterspeed so as not to introduce movement I>E> in excess of 1/400th of a sec.
Right now it would mean you need at least 4 more stops of light, which unless you want to cook your subjects with hot lights means that you need strobes with power in the range of 200ws. |
Jeff,
I did some reading about the depth of field, but would you tell me please, when you say I need to be in the F8 to F10 range, does that mean I should + the value on my camera up to that? I see that the factory setting is at f2.8 , the same as what you said.
Does that help the camera to better utilize what it has to work with?
Also, does and ISO increase and a f increase at the same time cause any conflicting problems?
Do either of these type of changes make the shutter speed slower ?
I find I the harded thing is to understand the interplay between all of these changes.
Thanks,
Elaine |
Elaine - The aperture (f stop) on your camera is nothing more than how big the opening in the lens is. The smaller the f stop the larger the opening in the lens is and therefore more light can enter. As the f stop number gets larger the opening in the lens gets smaller letting less light in.
There is no factory default for an f stop. The number that you see on the lens is simply the lowest f stop that lens has. The smaller the number the more light can enter and that is called a faster lens.
Now, the f stop (aperture) works together with the shutter speed of the camera. The more light that enters the lens the faster your shutter speed can be. The less light that enters the slower your shutter speed will be. These work together to give the image the proper exposure.
What I suggest you do is google terms (or look in your camera's manual) for terms such as aperture priority (when you set the aperture that you want and the camera will set the proper shutter speed for that circumstance) and shutter priority (where you set the shutter speed and the camera sets the aperture). The faster the shutter speed the more you can stop action and movement of what you are photographing.
One other thing to consider is that the smaller f stop # (such as 2.8)you use the less depth of field you will have in your image. This is the area in front of and behind the focus point that will be in focus. A shallow depth of field means more of that area is out of focus. The higher the # (such as f 11) the more of that area will be in focus.
The depth of field is also determined by things such as the type of lens (a macro has a much shallower depth of field than a prime 50 mm lens), the distance from the camera to the object and so on.
When it comes to the ISO the higher the number is the less light you need to properly expose the image. In low light situations you increase the ISO and when light is not a problem you decrease it. It is best for stock work to shoot at the lowest possible ISO because as the ISO increases the more likely it is that noise (sort of like grain in film) will appear.
I suggest taking a good basic photography class. Many colleges have them as do some camera shops. There are also good books available in book stores and tons of information is available on line by Googling the terms you need to learn about. |
|
elaineb
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 42
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:47 pm
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: | | elaineb wrote: | | jeffbanke wrote: | As Dave said Elaine, we need to see 100% crops of a shadow area so that we can tell if you have noise. I can tell you that the images look a little soft to me.
Thisis probably due to you shooting the shetland collie at f2.8 and using the Creative program (biased towards depth of field). f2.8 does lend itself towards any depth of field, you need to be in the f8-11 range.
Your camera records EXIF data somewhat strange, I have never seen a shutter speed of 10/500 sec, if this is meant to be 1/50th of a sec, it is too slow to be handholding. If on the other hand it is 1/500th it would have been OK.
Anyway, it is blatently obvious that you need a ton more light to get into the f8 or f11 range where the lens will give you DOF and you will be able to shoot with a fast enough shutterspeed so as not to introduce movement I>E> in excess of 1/400th of a sec.
Right now it would mean you need at least 4 more stops of light, which unless you want to cook your subjects with hot lights means that you need strobes with power in the range of 200ws. |
Jeff,
I did some reading about the depth of field, but would you tell me please, when you say I need to be in the F8 to F10 range, does that mean I should + the value on my camera up to that? I see that the factory setting is at f2.8 , the same as what you said.
Does that help the camera to better utilize what it has to work with?
Also, does and ISO increase and a f increase at the same time cause any conflicting problems?
Do either of these type of changes make the shutter speed slower ?
I find I the harded thing is to understand the interplay between all of these changes.
Thanks,
Elaine |
Elaine - The aperture (f stop) on your camera is nothing more than how big the opening in the lens is. The smaller the f stop the larger the opening in the lens is and therefore more light can enter. As the f stop number gets larger the opening in the lens gets smaller letting less light in.
There is no factory default for an f stop. The number that you see on the lens is simply the lowest f stop that lens has. The smaller the number the more light can enter and that is called a faster lens.
Now, the f stop (aperture) works together with the shutter speed of the camera. The more light that enters the lens the faster your shutter speed can be. The less light that enters the slower your shutter speed will be. These work together to give the image the proper exposure.
What I suggest you do is google terms (or look in your camera's manual) for terms such as aperture priority (when you set the aperture that you want and the camera will set the proper shutter speed for that circumstance) and shutter priority (where you set the shutter speed and the camera sets the aperture). The faster the shutter speed the more you can stop action and movement of what you are photographing.
One other thing to consider is that the smaller f stop # (such as 2.8)you use the less depth of field you will have in your image. This is the area in front of and behind the focus point that will be in focus. A shallow depth of field means more of that area is out of focus. The higher the # (such as f 11) the more of that area will be in focus.
The depth of field is also determined by things such as the type of lens (a macro has a much shallower depth of field than a prime 50 mm lens), the distance from the camera to the object and so on.
When it comes to the ISO the higher the number is the less light you need to properly expose the image. In low light situations you increase the ISO and when light is not a problem you decrease it. It is best for stock work to shoot at the lowest possible ISO because as the ISO increases the more likely it is that noise (sort of like grain in film) will appear.
I suggest taking a good basic photography class. Many colleges have them as do some camera shops. There are also good books available in book stores and tons of information is available on line by Googling the terms you need to learn about. |
Thanks Jeff. Last night, I read about twenty of the websites posted in the other forum for learning about photograpy. It takes a while to sink in though.
I see , so the more available light, the more one can set the camera to a higher depth of field?
My camera has ISO ranging from 50 - 400. For shooting indoors using window lighting , what would be the maximum you would suggest to try without getting noise?
There is also a feature on the camera called "noise reduction". Is there any downside to using that in combination with a higher ISO?
Thanks,
Elaine |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 7225
Location: www.xlr8photo.com
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:06 pm
| |
I see , so the more available light, the more one can set the camera to a higher depth of field?
Yes, DOF is directly related to how much available light there is by virtue of the fact that with more light one can reduce the size of the aperture (increasing the F-stop number, from f5.6 to f 11 for example)
My camera has ISO ranging from 50 - 400. For shooting indoors using window lighting , what would be the maximum you would suggest to try without getting noise?
ISo 50 is the best choice for your camera, ISO 400 is only good on the best of cameras, so stick with 50!
There is also a feature on the camera called "noise reduction". Is there any downside to using that in combination with a higher ISO?
Noise reduction, may make the images softer, depends on the camera, and the setting!
email me at j.banke@ comcast.net, I will send you somethign that might help with all this!
Jeff |
|
vikaszabo
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 69
Location: California, USA
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:17 am
| |
elaineb, one good advise for you: get a book about Photoshop (you can borrow it in the library), read it and you will have way better photos, believe me. You need to learn many things before selling photos. The basic things. Because if the competition. If you try to get into this business, you must know at least the basic things. |
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Submitters
|
