Based on your description of the task, grasscat, I'm guessing that perhaps the images don't overlap one another... is that correct?  If so, that'd prevent this particular program from doing anything useful in this case.

 

BTW Rich, I don't think they actually have the be in order with this one; it figures out the correct order.

No, they don't overlap.  Maybe I can make them do so.  I'll try again.

 

EDIT...didn't work.

 

 

I don't bother with correcting keystoning unless it's pretty obvious. Surprisingly, it's not much of a problem with my point and shoot.

 

I'm a big fan of warming and cooling filters to help set the mood of some of my photos. For example: These were taken the same day in the same city.

 

 

 

Maybe this should be a sticky? I think a lot of people would want quick access to this thread for tips on photography without searching and searching. Thanks, David, for finding it.

Wow, we had a Photoshop 7 reference at the beginning of this thread and my last post from 2006 referenced the CS2 RAW file editor...how quaint.  I went to a two-day CS4 training thingy two weeks ago, nothing too big to report.  Certainly nothing as big as adjustment layers (which fundamentally changed how people work in Photoshop) or the quick selection tool, although they're really trying to push Lightroom 2.  It has a "tourist remover" action that's pretty useful and the work environment scrolls like google maps now but that's about it.  Adobe is introducing a video editing program to compete with Final Cut and there were some important updates to Illustrator but people should be able to get by with CS3 for awhile longer, until its RAW file editor doesn't support your new camera, which means pretty much every new camera that comes out from here on out.   

 

Also, there is apparently some kind of new copy protection on all the CS4 stuff that is going to make getting free copies a lot tougher, or at least they say it will.  Right now I've never heard of anyone paying for Photoshop. 

 

 

It might make sense to move this thread to the General Photography forum and make it a sticky there. Feedback, anyone?

That sounds like a good idea.

Sounds good to me. If anyone has questions about how to manipulate their photos, they could easily get help.

Well, since there are a few people on this board familiar with HDR, I have a question. How do you set up your SLR to take multiple exposure shots? I have a canon XTi. And then what program do you use to finish the photos? I LOVE HDR and I have been reading but I really can't grasp it.

HDR can be great or it can be disastrous, there is a thin line.  Basically, use it only when lighting conditions warrant it. 

 

I can only speak for Canon, but there is a setting "AEB (automatic exposure bracketing)" that sets the camera to take 3 pictures for every picture you take; three different exposures for every picture you take.  The exposures end up being one underexposed, one overexposed, and one average shot.  This is under the main menu on most of their SLR's.

 

These three exposures are combined in order to achieve an HDR.  A program called Photomatix is best at constructing HDR's; I used to use Photoshop's built in HDR tool, but never achieved what I was aiming for.  Photomatix really is a must.

 

The images I attached are examples, the "average' shot as well as an HDR created with Photomatix from 3 exposures using Canon's "AEB" setting.

 

Standard Exposure:

 

HDR:

Nice shot! It brings out the color and detail that the eye perceives on the scene, but that the camera can't capture in a single exposure.

 

You're right about using it with discretion; HDR gets discredited sometimes because some photographers overuse it for exaggerated effects. Once in a while that's an interesting artistic use, but when it's done over and over, it gets to be trite.

 

When using HDR, it's important to note that moving objects will create odd effects in the image. You can see a small example in the walking figure in the lower left. In this case it works fine, because it doesn't distract from the overall beauty of the image.

Thanks for the info.  I just found the AEB settings on my XTi.  Now I guess when I put the photos on my computer it will show as three separate photos right?  It only shows one on the camera.  I'm going to have to try this haha.

I use an XTi as well.  What you need to do is take three photos; either hit the button 3 separate times, or set it to "continuous" mode and just hold the button down, and you will hear the camera take 3 exposures. 

 

Moving objects can cause problems, and usually need to be edited out, although sometimes it creates an interesting ghosting effect.  Trees on a windy day are a huge problem, as well. 

Do you know if the remote control for the XTi is still available?  Because using something like that would make it so much easier to take a photo like that.

Just browsing the online gallery of a photographer whose brick-and-mortar gallery I've visited in Winona Lake, near Warsaw, Indiana. He creates some striking monochrome images using large-format (8x10 and larger) cameras and printing with great skill on fiber-based archival papers. They're all silver prints, with gorgeous tonality and detail.

 

I've seen his work up close, and he's one of the guys who makes me want to put all my gear on eBay and just go back to wrenching on tractors. Or sell all my tractors and spend the money buying his prints.

 

His name is John Eric Hawkins, and his site is here.

Do you know if the remote control for the XTi is still available?  Because using something like that would make it so much easier to take a photo like that.

 

Do you know if the remote control for the XTi is still available?  Because using something like that would make it so much easier to take a photo like that.

 

I have this:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Remote-Switch-RS60-E3/dp/B00004WCID/ref=pd_cp_p_3?pf_rd_p=413862901&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B001G9Y98I&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1H3XP33TKVWDVZV26VGY

 

It's a wired remote, that you can push and lock into place until the 3 shots are taken.  The wireless remote is a bit more expensive, and I think there's an off brand that's $5 cheaper.

Does anyone have experience with RegSoft.com?  They sell a data recovery program for $29 per usage.  It took about 3 hours, I saw my recovered photos scroll by, then I went to pay in order to get them, and...nothing.  So I think I just go scammed.

 

This is only the second time I've had a memory card corrupt, but I can't use the data recovery software at my workplace anymore since I don't work there anymore, and I don't want to go out and spend $200. 

 

 

Now that I've found the right "forum" to post this in-

 

Need/ would like advice on the best times of day and/or  times of year for taking pictures of buildings.

I obviously don't want to be shooting right into the sun and don't want to have the sun reflecting back at me from a building window when I take the picture.

 

Also sometimes I feel like I would have a good picture if it weren't for all the "junk" in the way i.e. construction, light posts, telephone posts and wires, trees, etc.

 

Another thing is- sometimes I see a spot that would be a great place to snap some shots but realize or remember - "Uh, yeah but you'd get hit by a car if you stood there to take the picture(s)!"

Anyone else have this problem?

Thanks for any and all advice you can give me on any of this. :)

I'm sure you'll get a lot of suggestions here. Here are a few things I try to follow:

 

Unless you're going for a particular effect, avoid early mornings/late afternoons on clear, sunny days. The light is harsh and strongly directional, and you'll end up either overexposing the sunlit surfaces or losing the details in the shadowed areas. Same applies generally to brilliantly clear days, like when the sun comes out after a rainstorm; they may be great out in the open country or at the beach, but in the city they make for difficult photography.

 

Blue sky - white cloud days, or days with just a very light film of high altitude clouds are good because the clouds diffuse the light just enough to fill in the details and reduce the effects of moderate levels of backlighting. Even light overcast days can be good, because the light is diffuse. In those conditions, you get best results if you try to compose your shots to minimize the amount of sky, because it will be much brighter than the ground-level scene. Again, hard-to-manage contrasts. Heavier overcast, so long as it's not dark and gloomy, works OK too if you have access to some software that you can use to maybe bump up the contrast and saturation a little bit.

 

Sometimes there's not much that can be done about visual clutter in urban photography. All you can do is hunt for the right angle/composition to make an unavoidable traffic signal or lightpost a working part of the photo. For example, a traffic light overhead in the foreground of a building shot can provide a sense of depth to your photo. Sometimes you can find the right angle to make distracting overhead power lines a part of the composition.

 

Another way to deal with difficult compositions; sometimes you can shoot from a little farther than you'd like, and then crop the photo. Cropping has a similar effect to using a longer lens; it compresses the apparent distance between near and far objects that are in the distance, giving an impression of greater distance.

 

Here's a simple one, and something I used to fall prey to when I'd get too absorbed in trying to compose a photo; don't back up while looking through the viewfinder. You could step off a curb, fall, and hurt yourself and or damage your camera. There are other hazards too; try to be mindful of where you are and what your surroundings are. For that matter, most places you'll go probably are safe enough, but if you're in an area pretty much by yourself, be aware of other people who might be paying attention to you or approaching.

 

 

 

 

Here's a simple one, and something I used to fall prey to when I'd get too absorbed in trying to compose a photo; don't back up while looking through the viewfinder. You could step off a curb, fall, and hurt yourself and or damage your camera. There are other hazards too; try to be mindful of where you are and what your surroundings are. For that matter, most places you'll go probably are safe enough, but if you're in an area pretty much by yourself, be aware of other people who might be paying attention to you or approaching.

 

 

 

Well yes- I agree. Such was the case last weekend when I went with a friend of mine back to my old neighborhood. I shot some pictures of some of the houses across the street from where my old house used to be. I had a friend who used to live in one of them and there was an elderly couple who lived in the other. Anyway- a man came out of the house where the elderly couple used to live and wanted to know why I was taking pictures of his house. I explained that I used to live there ages ago and that seemed to placate him. But he still didn't seem too thrilled about it.

I brought my friend along because I knew the neighborhood was not as safe as it once was.

My friend thought the man might have been concerned because he might be up to something illegal but you just never know. I can understand his concern either way.

I remember being somewhat harassed by a police officer once when I was taking pictures at a cemetery once when I lived in New Jersey.

Then there is the concern I brought up about seeing a good spot to take a picture or pictures but unfortunately- it's right in the middle of a street or road! :(

Does anyone have experience with RegSoft.com?  They sell a data recovery program for $29 per usage.  It took about 3 hours, I saw my recovered photos scroll by, then I went to pay in order to get them, and...nothing.  So I think I just go scammed.

 

This is only the second time I've had a memory card corrupt, but I can't use the data recovery software at my workplace anymore since I don't work there anymore, and I don't want to go out and spend $200. 

 

Gah, I think you just got screwed! What a ripoff. Try to do a chargeback on your credit card. (One thing: Regsoft.com is simply a billing service and a lot of different shareware vendors sell through it. Your actual beef is with the maker of the software that you used.)

 

Here is a free utility that a German company provides out of utter goodwill: "PC Inspector File Recovery". Its purpose is to recover deleted files from FAT or NTFS partitions. I have experimented with some memory cards and it finds and recovers images that I had deleted *months* ago.

 

http://www.pcinspector.de/Sites/file_recovery/info.htm?language=1

Does anyone have experience with RegSoft.com?  They sell a data recovery program for $29 per usage.  It took about 3 hours, I saw my recovered photos scroll by, then I went to pay in order to get them, and...nothing.  So I think I just go scammed.

 

This is only the second time I've had a memory card corrupt, but I can't use the data recovery software at my workplace anymore since I don't work there anymore, and I don't want to go out and spend $200. 

 

Is there a good local camera shop that you patronize? Sometimes they can help.

 

<  :yap: >I know that some people around here take corrupt or accidentally-wiped cards to long-time locally-owned Sunny Schick Camera Shop, and they often can recover a lot of the stuff. I think sometimes they even do it gratis for regular customers. They've been in the same crammed-full, old brick house on the edge of the CBD for more than 80 years, and they should be a role model for a lot of others camera shops. Whether you're a pro, advanced amateur, or total newbie, the friendly, knowledgable people cheerfully take time to answer questions, help with selections, and provide after-sale support. I've been going there for 40+ years, and consider them a valuable resource. They're less than a mile from my house, on the same street, too. That's a plus. </  :yap: >

Anyone using photomatix on this board?  I am having a major problem and I can't figure out why this is happening.

Pretty huh? :oops:

^Nevermind.  I got the newest version a couple weeks ago and resolved the problem.

^Good info.  I have the regular kit 18-55 and I am wondering if it's worth it to buy the IS model.  Interesting about the EF 28-105.  I might just be looking into that.  What Canon are you using with those lenses?

The 17-40 f4.0L is a great alternative to the 18-55 if you're willing to spend a bit more.  The image quality is simply amazing, I hardly ever take it off my camera.

Yeah I have the XTi also.  I love the camera.  Thanks for the advice on the EF lenses.  I too am starting to think long term when I think about lenses.  I really like the EF-S 10-20mm, but if I ever got a full frame, then I wasted the 850 bucks.  I am thinking about getting the 7D when the time comes to upgrade the camera.  Unless I go into a profession where I need a full frame, I think I could make to with the 7D and still be able to use my EF-S lenses.  This is all years away though so I'm just planning now.  I agree with you on crappy noise you get with the XTi though.  It's a pain.

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

 

Alright, so I guess no one here has one.  Next question - the camera is 10.1 megapixels.  Is this good enough to be able to blow up pictures to sizes larger than 8 by 10?

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

 

Alright, so I guess no one here has one.  Next question - the camera is 10.1 megapixels.  Is this good enough to be able to blow up pictures to sizes larger than 8 by 10?

My XTi is 10.1 megapixels and I just printed out a few 8x10's and they look great.

 

^ I print 11x14 with my XTi and they look great, as well.

 

 

Thanks for the info. That's good that it won't be a problem to print large images.  The Nikon D3000 does not have a "live feature" which I suppose I am OK with.  It has a feature where it teaches you how to use the camera, which is a pretty cool for newbies like me.  The price seems good too.   

The quality of the sensor and lens is also to be considered, in addition to the MP count.  However, I've had some of my 8MP XTi pictures blown up to 20"x26" and they look just fine for hanging on a wall.  If you look very close you can see some of the pixel artifacts, but it's not noticeable unless you are closer than 1' from the picture.  I wouldn't worry about blowing up a 10MP image to that size, especially if it is going to be hanging over an object that prevents people from getting within one foot from it, such as over a desk or mantle.

I find live view to be a borderline useless feature.  I've had a D300 for over a year and haven't found a regular use for it. 

 

The ability to make big prints depends on the conditions of a particular scene as much as a camera's specs, and considering that most people who want the ability to make big prints end up making fewer than 10 over the lifespan of a camera, it shouldn't be a major consideration. I have to date made exactly one print from my D300, and it looked worse than some of the 16x20's I made with my older D70 because of the context of the photograph. 

 

I find live view to be a borderline useless feature.  I've had a D300 for over a year and haven't found a regular use for it. 

 

The ability to make big prints depends on the conditions of a particular scene as much as a camera's specs, and considering that most people who want the ability to make big prints end up making fewer than 10 over the lifespan of a camera, it shouldn't be a major consideration. I have to date made exactly one print from my D300, and it looked worse than some of the 16x20's I made with my older D70 because of the context of the photograph.

 

I'll second both of those. I have yet to use my live view, and don't anticipate that I ever will.

 

And yes, the scene affects the outcome a lot. The nature and level of the light, the severity of contrast, the amount of fine detail, etc., all affect how a big enlargement will look. My first DSLR was a D70 (6+ megapixels, as I recall) and for most general urban scenes I was able to print 12x18 without any problems.

 

Ten megapixels should take good care of you for quite a while, especially with good software like Photoshop. You might find Genuine Fractals interesting. From everything I've heard, the software does a good job of living up to the vendor's claims.

Printing big is rare because big prints need big frames. Until digital it was virtually impossible to print beyond 20x24 without hiring a commercial printer or having access to a college darkroom with space for an enlarger to project on the wall.  Now with these digital printers 30x40 and larger can be printed much more easily by labs, but it still costs a ton to frame them.   

 

About 10 years ago I saw Yale University's 8x10 enlarger, which was in a room with a 15ft. ceiling and had a 10x10ft. block that sat one foot off the ground with holes drilled into it.  A vacuum kept huge sheets of photo paper sucked flat on the block and the enlarger itself was adjusted from a catwalk.  This is what was necessary in the past to print above 20x24.   

 

I'm not good at framing and I think the expense of having artwork professionally framed is worth it.  I've seen many attempt by individuals to frame their own stuff.  Some succeed, some fail. 

 

Printing big is rare because big prints need big frames. Until digital it was virtually impossible to print beyond 20x24 without hiring a commercial printer or having access to a college darkroom with space for an enlarger to project on the wall.  Now with these digital printers 30x40 and larger can be printed much more easily by labs, but it still costs a ton to frame them.   

 

About 10 years ago I saw Yale University's 8x10 enlarger, which was in a room with a 15ft. ceiling and had a 10x10ft. block that sat one foot off the ground with holes drilled into it.  A vacuum kept huge sheets of photo paper sucked flat on the block and the enlarger itself was adjusted from a catwalk.  This is what was necessary in the past to print above 20x24.   

 

I'm not good at framing and I think the expense of having artwork professionally framed is worth it.  I've seen many attempt to frame their own stuff.  Some succeed, some fail.

 

One restraint when framing your own big prints is that retail mat board and mounting board come in 32x40 sheets. I've never found a way to seam a mat without it being conspicuous. And Nielsen-Bainbridge has discontinued their wood frame component kits. Their plain black gallery frame was my long-time favorite, and it was available in sizes up to 40" on a side at a local art-supply store.

 

In the sixties I got a peek inside the darkroom at Dover AFB where they printed aerial recon photos. Their 8x10 enlarger was horizontal, with a cast-iron frame and a head that rolled back and forth on rails. The machine was built to be vibration-resistant and and probably weighed around a ton.

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

 

Alright, so I guess no one here has one.  Next question - the camera is 10.1 megapixels.  Is this good enough to be able to blow up pictures to sizes larger than 8 by 10?

 

10 megapixels is plenty for 8x10's and can produce high quality 11x14's. Technique is most important, though do understand crop sensor cameras have compromises besides megapixel count. The main issues are digital noise and slightly lower dynamic range (you learn to work with it). Keep ISO low if you're using APS-C crop sensor cameras (ISO 400 and under is best for enlargements). I use an XTi/400D, and I don't print anything shot at ISO 800. Digital noise looks worse in prints than film grain.

 

A perfect shot from a 10-megapixel DSLR (low ISO, tripod and/or high shutter speed, good lighting, etc.) can probably look sharp up to 16x20 or so. I've seen big enlargements from 10-megapixel cameras that look as good as 35mm slide film and top line negative film like Reala and Portra. 10 megapixels was a pretty big milestone in DSLR's. I'd say that's when they matched what you could do with 35mm film. Since then, they've eclipsed 35mm.

 

Some of the newer full-frame cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II are competitive with medium format film, maybe even besting it. And keep in mind full-frame cameras can be handheld in remarkably bad lighting conditions. They look clean at insanely high ISO settings. Digital noise just isn't an issue with full-frame DSLR's.

 

So the bigger issue is not megapixels, it's digital noise. Also, remember it's not just the camera, but the lens in front of it. Invest good money in lenses. I'm not saying buy all Canon L glass or the Nikon equivalent, but don't cheap out either. Do your research and find lenses that are the best bang for your buck. For anything but extreme wide angle, buy lenses that are compatible with both crop sensor and full-frame cameras. That way if you upgrade in the future, your lenses are still useable. You won't have to worry about selling them off and starting over. Camera lenses are not like computers (or camera bodies for that matter). They can retain value and function for a very long time, even decades.

 

As to your comment on buying quality lenses - anyone know anything about the Nikon 55-200 mm telephoto lens?

 

So what I think I might do is check out black friday at Best Buy - they have a package of the Nikon D3000, 18-55 mm lens, 55-200 mm lens, and camera bag for $599.  Seems like a good starter kit.

I don't know how many photographers on the boards do their own printing, but I just got the Canon Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss, and it's pretty damn good.  I just made a print on my PIXMA MP520 and it looks amazing.  I know I could probably do better with a higher quality printer, but I am amazed how good the print looks. 

I always use Epson (despite the fact that I have a Canon i9900 printer) papers.  Specifically, the 5 star Ultra Premium Photo Paper Glossy.  I print up to 13x19.  I love that paper..

I wish I could print 13x19.  My canon printer doesn't print that large.  I have yet to try epson products, but I got the canon paper for my birthday and I love it.

This year I replaced my Epson 2200 printer with an R2880. I always thought the 2200 was excellent, and it was; a lot of people crank out beautiful prints with it.

 

The R2880 with the Ultra-Chrome inks and Ultra Premium Lustre Paper really surprised me, though. I made a print of one of my favorite images with a bright-red caboose against a snowy background, and the difference from the print I had made on the 2200 was dramatic.

 

My system was already calibrated and profiled, and I used the downloaded Epson print profile for the paper. It was pretty near spot-on, and required very little tweaking to get a really gorgeous print. The R2880 prints up to 13x19. A friend bought the 3800, which I believe goes up to 17" wide. I rarely need anything that big, and when I do, there's a very good custom printer just six blocks away who can give me same-day turnaround if I take a disc first thing in the morning.

You can't really completely rid the image of that barrel distortion for two reasons:

 

1. it's not simply barrel distortion.  It has a more complicated character than simply bending evenly at the corners.  Sometimes it's called moustache distortion, and it's really bad with the super-wide zooms like the 12-24. 

2. it's compounded by the camera being hand-held and therefore not perfectly level. For architectural shots day or night, use a tripod and a bubble level.  A significantly croppsed stopped down image from a perfectly leveled camera will often have better overall image quality than one that's corrected for perspective. 

 

So I'm pretty sure I'm getting the EF 50mm f/1.8 II for xmas. C-Dawg or any other canon users; have you ever used this lens?  I know the image quality is superb for a lens with such a low price tag.  But what about the quality?  I'm really excited to get this lens, I just hope it doesn't fall apart within a year.

The 50mm f/1.8 is basically 100% plastic.  You get what you pay for in terms of build quality, but it's definitely worth it and in the 6 months I've had mine I've never had any problems with it.  It's a great lens for indoor or low-light situations because of the speed.  I wouldn't leave the house without that lens!  Can't go wrong for $100. 

So I picked up the Nikon D3000 last week from Dodd (they also gave me a Nikon S210 for free).  I have been happily snapping some pics - but still definitely learning the camera.  I do have a question - My pictures are all about 2MB in size, should I change the settings on my camera to make them smaller?  Also, I tried emailing some pics via gmail and they were absolutely huge when viewed in the email, how can I shrink the size of pics I have already taken.

 

This is my favorite picture taken so far, not sure if it is a "good" picture, but I think it looks pretty cool.

 

^looks good. Is that the American wing at the Met?

Pfft! The Met. That's the CMA, son! :-)

sheesh! okay!! But at least those are American paintings, right? Whistler, maybe--or someone like that...

Survey says?!?

 

http://www.clevelandart.org/explore/work.asp?accNo=&keywordid%2D3=&keywordid%2D1=4409&startYear=1700&title=&recordtype=2&department=2&showImageOnly=on&endYear=1900&showOnDisplayOnly=on&advsearch=y&searchText=&recNo=64&tab=2&display=

 

http://www.clevelandart.org/explore/work.asp?accNo=&keywordid%2D3=&keywordid%2D1=4409&startYear=1700&title=&recordtype=2&department=2&showImageOnly=on&endYear=1900&showOnDisplayOnly=on&advsearch=y&searchText=&recNo=93&tab=2&display=

 

http://www.clevelandart.org/explore/work.asp?accNo=&keywordid%2D3=&keywordid%2D1=4409&startYear=1700&title=&recordtype=2&department=2&showImageOnly=on&endYear=1900&showOnDisplayOnly=on&advsearch=y&searchText=&recNo=94&tab=2&display=

 

:-D