Photography 101

Hey Ned, That map is about 5 minutes from where I work. It's not THAT dark there really. I don't have a clue about this digital photo stuff which is why I don't post much of my turning work. I just have a point-n-shoot,but it supposedly has some other features that I need to explore.

Great info so far folks. I learned a lot reading this. Thanks !
 
Hey Ned, That map is about 5 minutes from where I work. It's not THAT dark there really. I don't have a clue about this digital photo stuff which is why I don't post much of my turning work. I just have a point-n-shoot,but it supposedly has some other features that I need to explore.

Great info so far folks. I learned a lot reading this. Thanks !

Don,
darn, I thought I was pretty stealthy, someone figured out my parking place... It was a nice spot, not a lot of traffic with decent shade so I could see the screen in the car.

As for digital shots, just let the camera maximize the settings for you, for sharing on here, we're not talking fine art by any means. I for one would rather see a point and shoot image than no image at all any day.
 
Stu, as per your question about what ISO does to your digital images in a good dSLR, I spent a lot of time after I baught mine reading up on this, and then experimenting, tweaking speed, aperature and ISO etc. while keeping other things equal to see what effects what. Bottom line as far as the ISO is concerned, is it depends at least somewhat on how good the electronics in your camera are. The better dSLRs will let you bump that ISO up to 1600 and even 3200 is some (like my Nikon D40X) without a WHOLE lot of deterioration. What the higher ISO does is introduce what is called "noise" in the picture. Noise starts as small specs, a pixel or two here and there, almost unseen when noise is low, and eventually, worse case, can be seen as white specs in darker areas of your pic. The entire pic when you blow it up, will appear slightly more pixelated at higher ISO's also. Noise is introduced because you are basically amplifying the signals taken into that sensor when you bump up ISO. In effect you're forcing the camera to process that light quicker and thus some electronic shortcuts are applied as you are forcing a lot more light through the filters quicker. A good analogy is when you turn the volume up too far on a speaker, and it eventually over modulates and starts sounding funky. In general, the larger the physical sensor size, the better the camera can handle noise, but there are many other factors, not the least of which is the electronics in that camera that tweaks that light coming in, putting it through electronic filters and masks etc to get the colors correct, and filter out that noise that wants to creep into every digital pic if it wasn't corrected for. This is yet another example of the fact that in some ways, you do get what ya pay for. Two cameras can have same number of megapixels, speed, all the main specs etc etc, but one will give you cleaner clearer shots under less than ideal conditions because it has much more sophisticated electronics processing that pic. For example, when it's getting dark and you can't slow the shutter speed down too far because subject is moving and pic will be blurred, or you can't open up the aperature too much to let more light in because then your depth of field will be too shallow and much will be out of focus, so you bump up the ISO as far as it will go. In those conditions, a good camera will still get you a good shot without introducing too much noise.
 
OK, I moved the tent back on the workbench a fair bit, I measured 7 ft to the bowl from the camera lens, and now I have the depth of field to get both the front and the back of the bowl in focus........

2_study09.jpg
The set up, Tent, 7 feet from the camera, two 5100K lights, and the rest of the lights dimmed in the Dungeon.

ISO 64 Fine Compression White Balance Sunny

2_study05.jpg
F8.0 -0.3 1/2.5

2_study04.jpg
F8.0 003 1/2

2_study03.jpg
F8.0 +0.3 1/1.6


ISO 64 Fine Compression White Balance Auto

2_study11.jpg
F8.0 +0.7 1/1.3

2_study12.jpg
F8.0 +0.3 1/1.6

2_study13.jpg
F8.0 0.0 1/2

decent_shot1.jpg decent_shot2.jpg
These two I cropped then resized, I know the lighting is not perfect, I see now that the front of the bowl is in shadow, I need to lower one of the lights to take care of that, but overall, I think with this set up, I can take some fairly decent pics of my work.

BTW, the bowl is one that I started and it has so many voids and cracks that I kind of gave up after slathering it with CA glue.

This has all been very instructive, thanks for the help guys! :thumb:

Cheers!
 
Your bowl is 6 ~ 8 inches across? When I was putting in Round Table Pizza restaurants in Japan, we had a lot of pics made of the pizza's and other food for menus and other promotional material. Never saw the photographer that far away from the "subject", and the pics came out completely in focus. :dunno:

I would experiment with various settings on just the macro, not the super, and see what you come up with...:thumb:
 
Your bowl is 6 ~ 8 inches across? When I was putting in Round Table Pizza restaurants in Japan, we had a lot of pics made of the pizza's and other food for menus and other promotional material. Never saw the photographer that far away from the "subject", and the pics came out completely in focus. :dunno:

Perfectly reasonable Greg. It is likely that the photog in this case was using a lens with a minimum aperture smaller than f8 which is what Stu has to work with. With f22 on a 50mm lens you can get depth of field from a few inches away to infinity. Stu doesn't have f22 as an option so he needs to find alternatives. Depth of field works kind of exponentially. If you are taking a pic of a 6" object from 6" away, the far edge is twice as distant as the near. If you take the same object from 6' away the far edge is 1/12" as far away. Lenses are complex machines and zoom lenses are even more so. Much of my knowledge of this stuff is based on 35mm film and the rules get a bit different for a much smaller sensor in a digital camera which is where experiment plays its part.

I also agree with you that the macro setting may be a useful. In the old days one of the cheap ways to get macro was to reverse the lense on the camera which indicates just how different really close up work can get. I have never used a macro function of a digital but it would be interesting to try it.
 
Well, like I said, I'll give it a go, and see how the Macro setting works.

Like I said, this has been fun and educational, and I hope that others can benefit from the discussion here. :thumb:

Cheers!
 
...Like I said, this has been fun and educational, and I hope that others can benefit from the discussion here...

Photography can be as simple as grabbing a point and shoot camera and pointing and shooting to your hearts desire (it's called diarrhea of the finger), since the pics are "free" once you buy the camera. It can also be challenging and can open up a whole new world if you want to get serious as some of us here have. Years ago I actually built my own darkroom in a basement and used to roll my own 35mm film (B&W) from a big roll you could buy, then spend a whole day running around composing shots and then the rest of the evening in the darkroom developing and tweaking... OK, "playing" with my days catch. Alas I no longer have that time luxury, but digital photography is still my second hobby right after my woodshop. If I had the time, I think I could get pretty good at it. If I had more time to sit in front of the computer with Photoshop, I could do some amazing things with those pics. I don't at this point, but I'm working on that. Here are a couple of WORD docs I put together last year when I upgraded to my dSLR. I'm far from a professional and thus there may be some errors, but maybe somebody can glean some info from them, so I'll post them.
 

Attachments

  • digital photography 101.doc
    45.5 KB · Views: 5
  • exposure 101 chart.doc
    31.5 KB · Views: 3
Top