Getting the most out of your WCF photos

[Canucks]

Jan 20, 2009 21:14:14 GMT -8 Mike C said:

I use currently a Canon PowerShot S3 IS. I'm also looking for an upgrade, and I was looking at the Sony Alpha series... seeing everyone here has a Nikon, I kind of want to be different How do you like that Sony MV LeConte?

My S3 takes awesome photos for a point-and-shoot. It bears a 12x optical zoom for those far-away photos of ferries, and 6 megapixels so the photos come out decent. It also hosts a full-manual mode, which I love... dearly... and I highly recommend her, the SX10 or the S5 for the aspiring photographer who isn't quite ready for the full-on DSLR.
a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonS3IS/Images/allroundview.jpg

I'll vouch for the Canon S series too. I have an S5 and find it is great given the features such as manual mode, and its video capabilities. Also, you can hack your SD card do that most point and shoot canons will be able to take RAW pictures and have live histograms, live battery status etc. Once I get enough money I hope to buy an XSi so if anyone has one tell me how it is because I've heard mixed reviews about it.

[WettCoast]

I have two Pentax DSLR's. The one that gets used the most is a K10D with 10 MP image size. This is used mostly with a Tamron 18 - 250 mm zoom (= to 28 - 375 mm in 35 mm camera format).

Before going to Costa Rica I purchased another camera. Well actually I got it as an X-mas gift for my wife. The idea was to have something light and not bulky for travelling.

The camera is another Pentax, this time a point & shoot Optio W60. It is very light, fits in a shirt pocket, is water proof, has a half decent zoom range (5x1), and at its widest setting is equivalent to 28 mm in 35 mm camera format (which is good). It has a pretty decent 'Movie mode'. Its advertised maximum resolution is 10 MP.

I am, however, not all that happy with the quality of the photos that it takes. They are grainy and I would argue that a 10 MP image needs to be reduced to about 5 MP to give you a sharp image. The film plane (CCD) must be pretty small as the actual zoom range is 5 to 25 mm. (Meaning 5 mm on this camera is equal to 18 mm on my DSLR's, and 28 mm on my old film SLR's. The CCD must b 1/4 of the size of the one in my DSLR's.) I think that the camera is also blessed with a barely adequate lens. This camera is just 'okay' for point & shoot type of stuff. I would NOT recommend it for serious work such as taking photos of the AMHS fleet.

In hindsight, as far as Costa Rica went, I should have taken the big camera. I am sure that I would be much happier with the pictures that I brought home.

JT

PS - Pentax is now owned by the Hoya company of China. The camera is a 'Pentax-Hoya'. Perhaps the old Pentax quality is history, or hopefully, good quality will prevail in the higher end models.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Bryan K made a very valid point in the forum header thread about how you think about framing your photos. It left me thinking about the rule of thirds and how important it can be in good composition. In the case of good composition for a header or signature would typically limit the subject to the bottom(or centre or top) third of a full picture. Just some thoughts to help you create the photo you were aiming to create.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

To add another dimension to this thread, I will ask the following: for those of us who are using DSLR cameras, has anyone had to do a serious cleaning of the sensor?

I recently noticed some floaters in some of my photos, and, thinking they were on the lens, did a though cleaning of all my lenses. This didn't remove the problem. It turns out the floater was actually on the image sensor inside the camera; a small particle that wouldn't budge during the cleaning cycle. Fortunately, I was able to dislodge it with a rocket blower, but it lead me to investigate cleaning methods for the sensor.

To my understanding, physically cleaning the sensor isn't difficult, just delicate. Having spent 3 years in a cleanroom, I can relate to the requirements to clean the sensor...you must use a "clean" or "particulate-free" lens cleaning paper, lab or cleanroom grade isopropyl alcohol or methanol (ethanol leaves a film for some reason which I know through experience), a light touch, and one pass cleaning (meaning you use your cleaning surface once and once only). There are a number of products out there which you can use, however, only some are accepted for use by camera manufacturers, and you need to investigate whether or not your warranty will be voided.

I chose to buy a sensor cleaning kit that carries a separate guarantee concerning sensor damage due to use of their product, but I'm leery of using it unless absolutely necessary until my camera is out of warranty. I am curious to know if anyone else has had to go to the extremes of actually cleaning the sensor. I can see the maritime environment being a little harder on DSLRs, especially if you are swapping lenses frequently. Salt has a way of getting to places you would never think of!

[Scott (Former Account)]

I have taken over 23,700 photos with my Nikon D50, and through countless lens changes and times where the camera was exposed to the elements, I have yet to have any foreign matter on my sensor that became noticeable on my photos. I use a rocket blower occasionally on it when I'm doing a more detailed cleaning of the camera, and have had no issues thus far. A large rocket blower will remove most particles that could find their way onto the sensor.

I think the key to preventing the sensor getting dirty is to do lens changes with the camera facing down to the floor, preferably in an indoor environment.

[Canucks]

I don't know if anyone else's camera has this feature but mine has a dust delete data program on the camera. You basically take a picture of a piece of paper and the camera will recognize any dust spots and automatically delete them from further photos.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Apr 14, 2009 12:35:38 GMT -8 Scott (Former Account) said:

I have taken over 23,700 photos with my Nikon D50, and through countless lens changes and times where the camera was exposed to the elements, I have yet to have any foreign matter on my sensor that became noticeable on my photos. I use a rocket blower occasionally on it when I'm doing a more detailed cleaning of the camera, and have had no issues thus far. A large rocket blower will remove most particles that could find their way onto the sensor.

I think the key to preventing the sensor getting dirty is to do lens changes with the camera facing down to the floor, preferably in an indoor environment.

I always follow that procedure, and that was why I thought the dust had to be on the lens itself. It could be that Nikon's seal is better than that of Sony. The mirror should be locked down during lens changes unless you have the camera in cleaning mode. If you shoot a white screen with the camera out of focus across several lenses, you should see if you have any offending material. I first noticed the dust in mine against the clouds.

I'm probably in the range of 5 to 6 thousand photos now with mine; I'm very much quality over quantity, and will often take 5 or 6 shots of a subject only to delete most of them as my experiment didn't quite work in some of them. ;D

Apr 14, 2009 13:35:27 GMT -8 Canucks said:

I don't know if anyone else's camera has this feature but mine has a dust delete data program on the camera. You basically take a picture of a piece of paper and the camera will recognize any dust spots and automatically delete them from further photos.

Only problem with that is the fact the software essentially ignores the particular pixels affected and interpolates a replacement pixel from the surrounding pixels thus effectively lowering your resolution in that area of the sensor. Most digital cameras have a similar feature for eliminating hot/dead pixels which occurs automatically. My suggestion is to avoid the software solution if you can get into the camera to physically remove the offending dust.

[Mill Bay]

Forget about car curses... this is the curse: the worst fate that can befall a ferry fan.

I bought two Kingston 8GB HC SD cards, that I bought before we went on the first QPR trip. Somehow yhey just decided to quit working while I was trying to read them through a USB card reader.

I'm getting a message across the LCD that says 'memory card error: card locked' error. But, the cards are NOT actually locked, because when they are, I can unlock them and I can still access the data on the cards through the camera.

In this case, the camera has no functionality at all to read them, nor the tabs to unlock them. A USB reader will detect the presence of the reader itself but merely claims that the device is empty. I have looked everywhere to try and get a way to make these cards readable, somehow.

Currently, the death toll stands at one 8GB card containing photos and video from the QPR trip, and that one I was lucky enough to get the photos off of it before it fried (not literally I hope ) except for one video which for some reason lost all its data after I had moved it and it viewed it several times on another computer.

The second casualty, is the other 8GB card which has all my QofVan decommissioning photos on it, none of which I had downloaded except for about 20 or so which are on Photobucket and were posted to the forum.

Needless to say... I am annoyed. Annoyed enough to throw my camera against a brick wall (it's just a little Canon that I wanna upgrade anyway). Annoyed enough to grind the SD cards under my boot heel (once I--hopefully--get my picks off of them), and then follow that up with a hammer against a concrete sidewalk.

Ps: If Kingston is a bad brand, feel free to say 'I could have told you that', now.

[Ferryman]

Hey, I said I made sure my video camera encapsulated some of my curse, which infected your camera when you decided to carry the two together.

Honestly though, I know what that's like because I have the same issue with one of my memory cards. Needless to say, I always avoid using it now. But I was somehwhat luckier though, because the photos that were lost were most likely not quite as special as QPR photos.

[Mill Bay]

May 1, 2009 13:31:48 GMT -8 Ferryman said:

Hey, I said I made sure my video camera encapsulated some of my curse, which infected your camera when you decided to carry the two together.

Honestly though, I know what that's like because I have the same issue with one of my memory cards. Needless to say, I always avoid using it now. But I was somehwhat luckier though, because the photos that were lost were most likely not quite as special as QPR photos.

Wiseacre... the QPR photos I managed to get before the curse set in. It's the Queen of Vancouver decommissioning ones I want back.

Now you know why USB devices have the option to safely remove hardware. (A curse on USB devices). And I don't believe any discovery channel shows that try to convince me previous civilizations were primitive compared to us. It's the other way around I think... some of their technology still survives a thousand years later. Most of ours can't last a few days to a few months. I think that is pretty primitive.

[WettCoast]

Mr. Mill Bay, a suggestion for you that may be useless, or just possibly worthwhile...

You say the card is a Secure Digital - High Capacity Card (SD-HC). Is the card reader capable of reading such cards? Just because it will work with ordinary SD (non high capacity) cards does not mean it works with the newer SD-HC version. Card Readers more than about 2 years old won't read SD-HC cards.

BTW, SD cards with capacities of 2 GB or less are non - HC; those of 4 & 8 GB are HC types.

If the card still appears to work okay while in the camera you should be able to download pics from the camera to your computer using the connecting USB cable that came with the camera.

My apologies if you have already been there & done that.

[Mill Bay]

May 1, 2009 15:42:41 GMT -8 WettCoast said:

Mr. Mill Bay, a suggestion for you that may be useless, or just possibly worthwhile...

You say the card is a Secure Digital - High Capacity Card (SD-HC). Is the card reader capable of reading such cards? Just because it will work with ordinary SD (non high capacity) cards does not mean it works with the newer SD-HC version. Card Readers more than about 2 years old won't read SD-HC cards.

BTW, SD cards with capacities of 2 GB or less are non - HC; those of 4 & 8 GB are HC types.

If the card still appears to work okay while in the camera you should be able to download pics from the camera to your computer using the connecting USB cable that came with the camera.

My apologies if you have already been there & done that.

Yeah... been there... the card reader was specifically for reading multiple types of cards including SCHC. They are both SDHC 8GB cards, though I wouldn't call them secure anymore .

The problem is that they won't read anywhere... especially not in the camera which is the one device that should read them. I've researched around and everyone else who has gotten the same error could at least still read the cards off the camera itself. Perhaps if i tried a different camera, but right now, i don't have access to another one that uses SD cards.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

May 1, 2009 17:05:27 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

May 1, 2009 15:42:41 GMT -8 WettCoast said:

Mr. Mill Bay, a suggestion for you that may be useless, or just possibly worthwhile...

You say the card is a Secure Digital - High Capacity Card (SD-HC). Is the card reader capable of reading such cards? Just because it will work with ordinary SD (non high capacity) cards does not mean it works with the newer SD-HC version. Card Readers more than about 2 years old won't read SD-HC cards.

BTW, SD cards with capacities of 2 GB or less are non - HC; those of 4 & 8 GB are HC types.

If the card still appears to work okay while in the camera you should be able to download pics from the camera to your computer using the connecting USB cable that came with the camera.

My apologies if you have already been there & done that.

Yeah... been there... the card reader was specifically for reading multiple types of cards including SCHC. They are both SDHC 8GB cards, though I wouldn't call them secure anymore .

The problem is that they won't read anywhere... especially not in the camera which is the one device that should read them. I've researched around and everyone else who has gotten the same error could at least still read the cards off the camera itself. Perhaps if i tried a different camera, but right now, i don't have access to another one that uses SD cards.

Yeah, using another camera may be the ticket...something you might want to try is wandering into an electronics store and explaining to the tech desk what your dilemma is. They may have seen this before, and have a work around, or may have a demo camera you can try to view the cards on.

On a completely different note, I came across a RAW file editor with some significant potential... www.rawtherapee.com/

[Northern Exploration]

May 3, 2009 5:03:34 GMT -8 D'Elete BC in NJ said:

May 1, 2009 17:05:27 GMT -8 Mill Bay said:

Yeah... been there... the card reader was specifically for reading multiple types of cards including SCHC. They are both SDHC 8GB cards, though I wouldn't call them secure anymore .

The problem is that they won't read anywhere... especially not in the camera which is the one device that should read them. I've researched around and everyone else who has gotten the same error could at least still read the cards off the camera itself. Perhaps if i tried a different camera, but right now, i don't have access to another one that uses SD cards.

Yeah, using another camera may be the ticket...something you might want to try is wandering into an electronics store and explaining to the tech desk what your dilemma is. They may have seen this before, and have a work around, or may have a demo camera you can try to view the cards on.

On a completely different note, I came across a RAW file editor with some significant potential... www.rawtherapee.com/

Two summers ago I lost everything on a Sony chip. It had been used all of twice. I went to 3 different locations and all came up that the chip was damaged. Unfortunately it was almost 200 pics of a charity hike of the Bruce Trail. So there is a whole chunk of pictures missing including ones of the very rare Massassauga Rattler Snake. SONY replaced the chip immediately but that didn't help with the missing pics. So the only suggestion I have is to never leave pics on a chip or memory stick. Always back up immediately to two different media.

And since my last laptop had its mother board catch a flight to Mars, back up, back up and back up again. I had religiously backed up my business files but never had done things like pics because it took "too long". Now I burn the pics to DVD's just to be safe.

[Mill Bay]

May 3, 2009 6:13:55 GMT -8 Northern Exploration said:

May 3, 2009 5:03:34 GMT -8 D'Elete BC in NJ said:

Yeah, using another camera may be the ticket...something you might want to try is wandering into an electronics store and explaining to the tech desk what your dilemma is. They may have seen this before, and have a work around, or may have a demo camera you can try to view the cards on.

On a completely different note, I came across a RAW file editor with some significant potential... www.rawtherapee.com/

And since my last laptop had its mother board catch a flight to Mars, back up, back up and back up again. I had religiously backed up my business files but never had done things like pics because it took "too long". Now I burn the pics to DVD's just to be safe.

That isn't really the reason I haldn't backed them up... I was literally on my way to do that but thought, 'Oh I can stop by flickr on the way and upload a few right off the card.'

[Low Light Mike]

Does anyone here use Picasa's Web-Albums to host their photos?

I'm just wondering if that's a good alternative to my current habit of using Tinypic.com ?


I don't use Picasa to edit my photos, but I am interested in using it's Web-Albums to host my photos; if that's possible.

[WettCoast]

Our main correspondent at FSG uses Picassa. Here is his site. It looks just fine to me and compares reasonably well with Flickr, photobucket, etc.

[lmtengs]

Sept 6, 2010 17:55:19 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Sept 6, 2010 17:34:58 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

How many feet did it snow over there in Nanaimo, flug? It looks like it's pretty heavy. We only got rain over on the mainland.

ha, funny guy. I inadvertently had my camera on blizzard-setting.

- same thing with 'Cumberland pictures that I posted last week.

I just figured out the problem now: I had the ISO on "1600" instead of on "ISO AUTO".

d'oh! Blizzard now over, clear viewing ahead. ;D

Too low an aperture does the same thing to darker colours, in case anybody out there wants to know

[Low Light Mike]

A comparison of results, re different photographer & different equipment:
--------------------

SOBC in morning light, with the cloud curtain near Mt. Baker. Scott & I were together taking this photo from the Coastal Inspiration, yesterday morning.


My results using my point & shoot:

-----------------
Scott's result, using his equipment:



Scott explained to me that low-light shots are difficult with a point&shoot, and then he showed me his special low-light lens. The difference in the result is obvious.
- my photo above was my clearest of a series of 10 shots. Most of my other ones had a blurry ferry.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

I figured this was actually a better place for this discussion that cropped up on the Hyak thread.

May 31, 2011 6:46:16 GMT -8 WettCoast said:

HDR = High Dynamic Range...

Most higher end digital SLR cameras can do this in-camera. Otherwise it can be done using photos from any camera using HDR software on your computer.

Essentially, an HDR photo is a composite of several photos shot at different exposures. One exposure is shot one, maybe two, f-stops low, another is shot 'normally', while a third is shot one or two f-stops high.

HDR photos can be shot from more than three photos. The view of the Hyak above is apparently made up from 6 photos. As stated, some digital SLR's can do this process completely automatically. Generally, a tripod is required.

To further Jim's explanation, typically details lost either in shadows or in overexposed areas in a photo can be added back into the image using HDR processing. Some people use it subtly to create an image with a contrast range more like that of your eye (which has a greater ability to detect contrast than a camera can usually emulate), while others push their photos to the extreme to give their photos a contrasty, otherworldly feel.

www.flickr.com/groups/hdr_photos/
www.flickr.com/groups/878638@N24/

[Low Light Mike]

I upgraded my home computer last week, and my new machine has Windows-7; my old one had XP.

One of the new things I've found is "Windows Live Photo Gallery." What I like about it is the photo correction tools, especially the auto straightener.

I've been using the auto straightener for my photo work during the past few days, and it makes a big difference.


For the rest of my photo editing and posting routine, I'm still using what I did before:
- Microsoft Office Picture Manager to do my crops & resizes. (Yes, I actually resize my photo before uploading, so that it's sized just right for whatever internet-site I'm uploading it to). I usually crop my photos to do things like centering things, rule-of-thirds, etc. I sometimes get that stuff correct when I'm actually taking the photo, but not often. ;D
- Google Picasa to do some fine tuning, and then it uploads from there to my Google web-albums, which are my photo-hosts.

The above "work" is what I really enjoy doing. As I'm doing the cropping, resizing, adjusting, etc, I'm thinking of the text that I'll be adding in my photo posts on the forum.
- it's a fun process.

[lmtengs]

Be careful using the auto-straightener, Mike. It actually has to move the pixels in your photos to different spots, and that can lower the quality of the photo significantly, sometimes even enough to make it look blurry.
So, use sparingly.

[Low Light Mike]

Sept 29, 2011 14:27:43 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

Be careful using the auto-straightener, Mike. It actually has to move the pixels in your photos to different spots, and that can lower the quality of the photo significantly, sometimes even enough to make it look blurry.
So, use sparingly.

But the trade-off is a straight photo. I find that any quality lost in the process should be worth the quality gained with a straight photo, for those obvious slanted photos.

I usually use the manual straightener in Microsoft Office's Picture Manager, but only moves 1-degree at a time, and sometimes my required adjustment has a 1/2 degree required, and so I can't fix the problem (or I just end up slanting it the other way).
- so I've been happy so far with Windows Live's auto straightener. No blurry problems yet.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Sept 30, 2011 7:43:12 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

Sept 29, 2011 14:27:43 GMT -8 @lmtengs said:

Be careful using the auto-straightener, Mike. It actually has to move the pixels in your photos to different spots, and that can lower the quality of the photo significantly, sometimes even enough to make it look blurry.
So, use sparingly.

But the trade-off is a straight photo. I find that any quality lost in the process should be worth the quality gained with a straight photo, for those obvious slanted photos.

I usually use the manual straightener in Microsoft Office's Picture Manager, but only moves 1-degree at a time, and sometimes my required adjustment has a 1/2 degree required, and so I can't fix the problem (or I just end up slanting it the other way).
- so I've been happy so far with Windows Live's auto straightener. No blurry problems yet.

Mike,

I agree, but what I like to do is make the improvements to the photo 'crooked', then straighten right before cropping. I find less artifacting occurs this way.

[Low Light Mike]

I'm wondering if I'm the only person on the forum who cuts his photos down to desired size BEFORE he uploads to the hosting website.

I've always done it that way, because I can control my photo size and because I've always used oddball hosts (TinyPic before, and Google web-albums now).

But with the impending switch in forum-width, my old photos will remain small, while I'm expecting that other members will simply flick a switch and their old photos will be upsized.

sigh.... I'm still happy with how I do my photo work, but I'm missing that easy-resize flexibility.

Anyone else?