Any photography experts out there?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
marcus":3lim11wy said:
The ones with a tighter aperture are a very small amount better than the ones with the aperture wide open,
Many small improvements add up ;-)
I have also been comparing identical shots with different ISO settings, and found that at anything more than ISO 200 the image quality becomes very poor.
I would have expected that you could get away with at least a stop or two more with increasing ISO, but good noise reduction in software becomes increasingly important.
I don't think the software is the problem — I am shooting RAWs and editing with Aperture which is advertised as a professional package.
Shooting RAW is good and important to get the best results.
Aperture is good, but you may get even better results with a different package.
Try downloading a trial version of Adobe Lightroom 5.2 (30 day free trial). Carefully used, you should see better noise reduction and better capture and output sharpening. Again many small improvements add up.
So my conclusion is that I am suffering from a combination of problems: a not brilliant lens, inadequate lighting for larger subjects, and a camera that can't compensate for the low lighting with higher ISO settings. So I guess the ideal solution would be a new camera, some proper studio flash, and a better lens! I guess the lens might be a place to start, as it would be the cheapest thing on the list...
Probably true, although your results are far from poor now.
If you'd like to see what Lightroom can do with your RAWs drop me a PM and we'll find a way to process some of your files with LR 5.2.
Buying better lighting kit and lenses will be a sound investment, but try cheaper alternatives first.
 
Be aware that on some cameras as you zoom in you use less of the pixel matrix so resolution dwindles. It is like this on my panasonic tz7. A by product of this is if you set the resolution at less than maximum it allows a greater zoom range.
 
woodfarmer":eyolleub said:
Be aware that on some cameras as you zoom in you use less of the pixel matrix so resolution dwindles. It is like this on my panasonic tz7. A by product of this is if you set the resolution at less than maximum it allows a greater zoom range.
Not the case on the Nikon D80, or any other proper DSLR.
 
Rhossydd":3e4a64hr said:
marcus":3e4a64hr said:
I have just had a look and the aperture was quite wide for that shot — f4.6.
The lens won't be performing at it's best at that aperture, plus you'll be loosing some depth of field too. I'd suggest aiming to use f8 as a minimum for this type of work.

The aperture (in the EXIF) of the Arts and Crafts Coffee Table is a reported f25 (!!) with a exposure of 1.3 seconds.

http://www.beautifulwood.co.uk/storage/ ... 0428932202

I assume this wasn't flash photography, but all the difficulties we're discussing are present, in both sharpness and colour "boldness"

So I'm yet to be convinced that the inadequacy of the flash power is a prime suspect.

Here's my attempt at post-editing on the JPEG.

Before:

Arts and Crafts Coffee Table.jpg


After (just edited the levels and a sharpen)

Arts and Crafts Coffee Table_2.jpg


BugBear
 

Attachments

  • Arts and Crafts Coffee Table_2.jpg
    Arts and Crafts Coffee Table_2.jpg
    89.7 KB
  • Arts and Crafts Coffee Table.jpg
    Arts and Crafts Coffee Table.jpg
    51.4 KB
woodfarmer":3oa2yigi said:
Be aware that on some cameras as you zoom in you use less of the pixel matrix so resolution dwindles. It is like this on my panasonic tz7. A by product of this is if you set the resolution at less than maximum it allows a greater zoom range.

Hmm. That sounds (a lot) like good ol' digital zoom, which would have exactly that effect.

BugBear
 
I think you might be fretting over the details and missing the big picture here; looking at the photos you’ve posted, I don’t find myself wondering why they’re not quite sharp enough, or why the shadows are so heavy, I wonder what the little thing is floating alongside the door, and where the edge of the cabinet door has gone - and why it looks a bit like it's falling over:-

10834996056_9f26ce1e0f.jpg
10834928785_55fd7e0b87.jpg


I've taken the liberty of straightening it up a bit in the right-hand picture - nothing I can do with the flare on the edge of the door though. FWIW I took pictures for a living for 20-odd years before turning to the splintery side of things (was it…) over a decade ago, so by all means treat this as ‘just my opinion’ - just remember it’s an opinion honed from twenty years of playing that game for money…

So camera-wise what you have is perfectly good enough to take professional quality photographs for print or web use, assuming that they are all in good working order. The Nikon kit lenses (18-55 and 18-70) were amongst the best there were and the areas where they’re outperformed by ‘prime’ lenses or pro-level zooms aren’t generally found whilst photographing furniture. So it’s not the lens; no need to spend anything here unless you want to, just make sure that it's spotlessly clean, and if you have e.g. a UV filter on the lens 'for protection' take it off as it will almost certainly be doing more harm than good. Again FWIW, most of my work-related pictures are taken on my iPhone, or on a Nikon D40 when I need my super-wide lens.

Lighting’s a different matter. The reason working professionals spend a lot of money on lighting setups is to make their life easier; that’s because lighting large objects is hard, especially when they’re reflective. The ‘disappearing edge’ of the cabinet above is just a reflection off the flash head/brolly when the picture was taken. This is almost impossible to see with the naked eye and really hard to see even when you view an image on the screen of a camera. Sometimes, it’s even hard to pick up on in the final image - but once you’ve seen it, you can’t help but look at it, can you?

Whilst a hand flash in a brolly is a very portable step-up from flash-on-camera, there are still better ways of doing this. Does your setup need to be ultra-portable (e.g. do you chase around peoples homes taking pictures of the work you’ve done) or does it just need to be easy to break down for storage? If the latter, then a roll of e.g. tracing paper held between a pair of stands with a halogen work light (or two) behind it will give a far, far nicer light than any hand flash, and totally predictable as you can see what you’re doing. If it’s the former and you’re feeling spendy, then lower-end portable studio flash from e.g. Elinchrom, often pops up on eBay for not too much money; a couple of flash-heads with soft-boxes instead of brollies would give a more controllable light, and would look a bit more professional too, if you’re in someone’s house.

One way of softening the shadows is to bounce some of the light back into the shot with a large reflector - I used to use 8x4s of polystyrene in a studio, and clever folding ‘lastolite’ reflectors when out and about. Again, not massively expensive, and would generally pay for themselves quickly in terms of results and convenience - or you could make your own; one guy I worked with when I was first an assistant had a big 2x1 wooden frame that he stretched white felt over; it looked a bit heath-robinson but worked remarkably well! If you're photographing a cabinet from the side, then there's always going to be an inside side that isn't seen - taping pieces of matt silver card (or white, depending on how much infill you want) will also soften those shadows down.

Whatever your setup, the main thing is to really, really look at the subject before you start taking pictures. Thanks to image-editing software, RAW formats etc.. etc.. we can weave a little magic on our pictures ‘after the act’ - but getting it right in the first place is still the best way.

So make the most of the pixels you have be cropping tightly in the camera, and minimise both distortion of the subject and a potentially messy background by using the longer end of the zoom. If what you’re shooting is static, mount the camera on a tripod, switch off auto-focus, use a mid-range aperture - lenses are usually at their softest when used wide open, nor are they at their sharpest when fully stopped down - and generally favour a longer shutter-speed over higher ISO if using continuous light. If you’re using flash and the room is reasonably dark, then you can hold the shutter open (even budget digital SLRs have a ‘bulb’ setting) and manually pop the flash a couple of times - two flashes gives an extra stop of light, four flashes = two stops etc…

Anyway, hope some of that helps. And the cabinets look nice, btw ;)

Cheers, Pete
 
Pete, that was very helpful! I am busy kicking myself over here, because I have just taken off the cheap Jessops UV filter that has been on the lens since the day I bought it (to protect it as you say) and immediately the images are noticeably better. Without the filter the images are clearer, and the slightly 'muddy' look that was bothering me is less noticeable. #-o Good to know that I wasn't going completely mad, I was sure something wasn't quite right with the setup. Even better to have fixed it for free!

Combined with a medium aperture this has more or less solved the sharpness issue I think. I was tending to use either a very wide aperture to deal with low light, or a very tight one with a long exposure, believing that the smaller the aperture, the sharper the image!). Experiments confirm what you and Rossydd said — about f10 seems sharpest. The middle range is the one that I have hardly ever used.

Your comments on lighting more or less confirm my own experience — lighting large shiny things is really difficult! Your tip about the halogen work lights and tracing paper is excellent and I will give that a go as I have all the necessary gear already. In the long term my partner also needs to take pictures for her business, so maybe I can persuade her to go halves on some studio flash.....

Re. the tilting effect on the cabinet edges, this is something I've learned since that picture was taken and I'm now more careful about getting uprights parallel when I compose the shot.

BTW, for some reason (on my browser at least) the forum is displaying the images I have posted at a size greater than their actual resolution, so they look worse than they are. If you click on the image as it appears inline it shows it on a separate page with the correct resolution.

BB, thanks for your input, what I'm really looking for is to get the sharpness without having to put it in afterwards, as to me more than a tiny bit of post-sharpening always looks artificial.... But I think that taking off that filter and using a mid-aperture is in fact the solution!
 
marcus":1y5wycsn said:
... I think that taking off that filter and using a mid-aperture is in fact the solution!
Glad it helped - and don't worry, you're not the first person to have made that mistake ;)

As an aside, I took a quick look on eBay earlier and have been genuinely amazed by some of the lighting kits you can now get e.g. this one - admittedly, no-brand goods from a dealer I've never heard of, so you don't know how well they'd hold up to long-term carting about, but a 3-head kit with stands, softboxes and brollies for £150 is pretty astonishing.

Won't tell you what I paid for my Elinchrom gear - or what I sold it for, either!

Cheers, Pete
 
marcus":1aupqqrv said:
what I'm really looking for is to get the sharpness without having to put it in afterwards, as to me more than a tiny bit of post-sharpening always looks artificial.
Whilst getting the initial capture as optically sharp as possible is crucial, it would be wrong not to use any sharpening at all in post production.
Sharpening needs to be done twice; Once when the original RAW data is de-mosaiced to compensate for the inherent softening of the sensor's Bayer matrix, then again at output to sharpen for the actual output resolution.
Too little sharpening can be nearly as bad for overall image quality as too much.
Again this is a strength of Lightroom, but do some research into what options are available in Aperture.
 
petermillard":1btn5iw1 said:
switch off auto-focus,

Shockingly, on some cameras, auto focus is more accurate than even the most careful manual focus.

This is especially true on compact cameras, where the (slow) auto focus simply maximises
contrast on the actual sensor.

When I'm doing something "tricky" with my Canon A630, I set the focus
zone to be central, and (if needed) do the auto-focus; focus-lock; reframe sequence
if the subject is off centre.

BugBear
 
bugbear":347rrxy3 said:
woodfarmer":347rrxy3 said:
Be aware that on some cameras as you zoom in you use less of the pixel matrix so resolution dwindles. It is like this on my panasonic tz7. A by product of this is if you set the resolution at less than maximum it allows a greater zoom range.

Hmm. That sounds (a lot) like good ol' digital zoom, which would have exactly that effect.

BugBear

No. I have disabled the digital zoom and just use optical. However for ease of use sending photos by email I tend to only use about 5 megapixels instead of the full10 Meg. because this only uses the centre part of the matrix it allows optical zoom up to 17x instead of the usual 12x. Digital zoom give poor quality images.
 
Rhossydd":3pgikuxe said:
woodfarmer":3pgikuxe said:
Be aware that on some cameras as you zoom in you use less of the pixel matrix so resolution dwindles. It is like this on my panasonic tz7. A by product of this is if you set the resolution at less than maximum it allows a greater zoom range.
Not the case on the Nikon D80, or any other proper DSLR.

That may be so, I used to carry a bag with Nikon camera, different lenses etc. then one day I realised I was missing out a lot on the spontaneity and was in effect recording my life instead of living it. So all that lot now rests in a cupboard and my little pocket 12-17x zoom camera/video recorder is always available. I take more pictures now and am not inconvenienced at all with a bag full of camera gear.
 
woodfarmer":1xhzt7gj said:
bugbear":1xhzt7gj said:
woodfarmer":1xhzt7gj said:
Be aware that on some cameras as you zoom in you use less of the pixel matrix so resolution dwindles. It is like this on my panasonic tz7. A by product of this is if you set the resolution at less than maximum it allows a greater zoom range.

Hmm. That sounds (a lot) like good ol' digital zoom, which would have exactly that effect.

BugBear

No. I have disabled the digital zoom and just use optical. However for ease of use sending photos by email I tend to only use about 5 megapixels instead of the full10 Meg. because this only uses the centre part of the matrix it allows optical zoom up to 17x instead of the usual 12x. Digital zoom give poor quality images.

I'm afraid that's merely what Panasonic want you to believe. All they're doing is a digital crop of the max-res pixels.

This guy did a wonderfully geeky investigation of it.

http://www.ianperegian.com/My_FZ35_38_W ... _FZ50.html (test 2)

BugBear
 
Well, after some more experiments it looks like the problem has been solved. I think the difficulty was caused more or less equally by three things:


  • 1) The poor quality UV filter. I have thrown this away.
    2) Camera aperture set too wide or too tight
    3) A poor quality tripod. The tripod I was using was very cheap and plastic. Because of the camera's difficulty with higher ISO settings and the relatively low light levels I have to work with I have needed to do quite long exposures; I think the tripod was moving a tiny bit. I have bitten the bullet and bought a better tripod, and the difference in sharpness was very noticeable and worthwhile straightaway.

Addressing those three things together have made all the difference.

Here is an example of a photo of the same cabinet taken indoors in natural light, aperture f9, 3sec exposure. This is more or less as it came off the camera, with just a touch of sharpening in Aperture:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/X-hmKJqQj6y68UYCy7QAuNMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

That is much more the sort of natural sharpness and clarity I was hoping for when I bought the camera. :)

I have also invested in an HDR plugin for Aperture, which I hope will sometimes save me having to mess about with flash. Here's the HDR version of the same image:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Idxe9UK7LE7Od0QusD4Db9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink

So thanks everyone for your input, problem solved, and it hasn't cost much at all. Less than the price of a new lens anyway. Just as well, as I have quite a few pictures to take soon. :)
 
Great news! Two things

1) the links don't work :cry: :cry:

2) Re: the tripod; are you using a cable release or timed release, or just pressing the shutter directly?

BugBear
 
marcus":2lnncof6 said:
This is more or less as it came off the camera, with just a touch of sharpening in Aperture:
I think for the web you could get away with a touch more sharpening than that.
Try several versions with a little more on each, decide when you can see the sharpening, then back it off one step.
I have also invested in an HDR plugin for Aperture, which I hope will sometimes save me having to mess about with flash. Here's the HDR version of the same image:
Be careful, HDR effects can ruin perfectly good pictures.

Links work fine BTW
 
Thanks, Rhossydd. I have been playing with the HDR a bit, and you are right, I can see there is a lot of scope for over-enthusiasm with it :) I will have a go with different levels of sharpening as you suggest.

BB, I have changed the links to a different variety, hopefully they will work for you now... I am using an remote shutter release.
 
That looks much happier. And totally agree with Rhossydd re. HDR - I've seen very, very few pictures where it's been used effectively and kept the image looking natural.

Cheers, Pete
 
Certainly look a lot better. The HDR image is interesting as it has allowed you to brighten up the cat whereas in the non-HDR image you can barely see it.
 
Back
Top