PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[larkspur]

Edit scratch that post comparing the exif data you may have received in the email notice.
See next post

 

[Ms Music]

WOW! I wonder if they have that for the mac? I will have to look into that! So cool, thanks for sharing.

I see now why I should try RAW. Probably won't do it tonight, still feeling rather puny and sick. Flowers are still looking pretty good, so I think I have a few days. So I will try that soon and let you know? Although that shot WAS taken in auto mode...

Chroot: just saw your post, I did manually adjust the wb specifically for that shot... which actually worked better than using any of the presets for lighting. And I think I said this earlier, but I have compact flourescent lights in my house.

Gotta run folks...

 

[larkspur]

Comparing the Exif data between the two glass shots show a change in ISO from 400 to 100 in the new shot and the gain control in the old shot is "high gain up" compared to "none" in the new shot.

Here is the Exif for the old glass shot followed by the new shot Exif.

[Image]
Image Description = OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Make = OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Model = E-500
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 314
Y Resolution = 314
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Version 1.2
Date Time = 2006-11-12 16:24:16
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 290
PrintIM Data = 528 Byte

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/80"
F Number = F8
Exposure Program = Creative program
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2006-11-12 16 24 16
Date Time Digitized = 2006-11-12 16:24:16
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Max Aperture Value = F3.5
Metering Mode = Pattern
Light Source = unknown
Flash = Flash fired, auto mode
Focal Length = 35mm
Maker Note = 2198 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 3264
Exif Image Height = 2448
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 758
File Source = DSC
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Digital Zoom Ratio = 1x
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Gain Control = High gain up
Contrast = Normal
Saturation = High saturation
Sharpness = Normal

[Interoperability]
Interoperability Index = ExifR98
Interoperability Version = Version 1.0

New shot Exif:

[Image]
Image Description = OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Make = OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Model = E-500
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 314
Y Resolution = 314
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Version 1.2
Date Time = 2009-03-28 14:50:54
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 290
PrintIM Data = 528 Byte

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/80"
F Number = F8
Exposure Program = Creative program
ISO Speed Ratings = 100
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2009-03-28 14:50:54
Date Time Digitized = 2009-03-28 14:50:54
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Exposure Bias Value = ±0EV
Max Aperture Value = F3.5
Metering Mode = Pattern
Light Source = unknown
Flash = Flash fired, auto mode
Focal Length = 35mm
Maker Note = 2198 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 3264
Exif Image Height = 2448
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 758
File Source = DSC
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Digital Zoom Ratio = 1x
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Gain Control = None
Contrast = Normal
Saturation = High saturation
Sharpness = Normal

[Interoperability]
Interoperability Index = ExifR98
Interoperability Version = Version 1.0

 

[chroot]

One more thing to note: it looks like some of your white references are actually overexposed. If you overexpose a white reference, you will saturate the sensor, and it'll look perfectly white, even when it isn't. Make sure you use the blinkies or histogram to prevent that.

- Warren

 

[larkspur]

WOW! I wonder if they have that for the mac?

There is something similar for the Mac.
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/19758"

or
http://homepage.mac.com/aozer/EV/"

 

[Andre]

Anyway, my daughter was counting the coins in her piggy bank, when she found this coin of about 9mm diameter:

Camera Canon 450D Lens 100 mm EF Macro at 32 cm distance magnification 0.98, shrunk to 25%

Life size crop of the crown (W-side)

It's a half cent of a Dutch guilder. She is now trying to find out if it has some value.

 

[Ms Music]

Thanks, larkspur. I will print those and go home and go through the comparisons line by line. I'm just now starting to realize how much this person screwed up my camera. And who knows why... But I will learn a lot having to get it back to normal!

But what I think is funny, is I found a tiny bug crawling on the couch last night, so I picked it up and put it on an envelope, and started taking pictures. They turned out fine. But other times I can't get a decent shot for anything... I just need to find some time to take a class. And I need to get that camera working the way it used to...

And thanks for the links. I am still amazed at how much information you can pull from an internet photo.

Andre: Cool coin!

 

[turbo]

OK, here's a really dumb mistake that could have been avoided. I stopped off at the scenic lookout in back of my property and snapped some pictures. Only after I started playing with them them today did I think that I should stitch them in a panorama, and of course, I should have metered, averaged, and set the exposures manually. I took the lazy way and ended up cloning the sky to get rid of really objectionable banding due to exposure changes in the pan. Duh! Note to self: if you are going to take scenery shots, expose them manually. Warning: Fairly big file. As you can see, there is still plenty of snow on the East slopes of the Western mountains, but we're in a warm dry stretch and the rivers are behaving so far with gradual melting.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/pan.jpg

 

[matthyaouw]

Cloning or not, I really like that. Beautiful shot, even if you had to get it the hard way.

 

[turbo]

Cloning or not, I really like that. Beautiful shot, even if you had to get it the hard way.

Thanks. I can get a similar shot from the hill that I live on, though foreground trees, etc obscure some. This was shot from a smaller hill less than a mile in back of my place, and it has a nice view over the Kennebec river valley. If you look to a larger complex of mountains to the right, you'll see ribbons of show here and there - that's the Sugarloaf ski resort.

 

[Borek]

Warning: Fairly big file.

Pretty small I would say, perhaps you have linked some sized down version?

Big version please, small one was interesting enough

 

[turbo]

Just for Borek! I didn't spend as much time taking out the exposure-banding. If we get a nice clear day soon, maybe I'll take a couple of minutes and snap another set on MANUAL. Duh!

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/pan2.jpg Somehow, I can't get the Photobucket display options straightened out... :-(

 

[Borek]

Strange, I think I remember much larger picture (in terms of resolution) that you took in Autumn.

 

[turbo]

I think I've sorted it out. I can't upload any larger files unless I pay for premium service. This is the biggest one I can get with free service.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/pan2-1.jpg

 

[Borek]

Thanks

I can try to prepare a panorama from my roof one day, but it will be boring flat and full of boring flats

 

[Ms Music]

Larkspur, I did take the picture the other day under the exact same lighting conditions, but in RAW, and the flowers still turned out very very bright blue. I will post if you want to look at the numbers, but so far I keep forgetting to upload the picture.

And then hope to remember to change it back, so as I don't fill my card with only 10 pictures... hah.

 

[~christina~]

I think I've sorted it out. I can't upload any larger files unless I pay for premium service. This is the biggest one I can get with free service.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/pan2-1.jpg

Nice panorama, turbo

 

[turbo]

Nice panorama, turbo

Thanks, ~~! Next time I get a clear day, I'll take the 5-minute trip over to that hill and shoot it again with manual settings and my new Manfrotto 808RC4 tripod head. I've had a really nice, heavy Bogen tripod sitting around unused for almost 20 years. I robbed the head off it to mount on a Gitzo Pro Studex that I picked up for $75 at an insurance-salvage store and sold the Gitzo when I went digital (back when digi-cams were all tiny). Finally had to spring for a real tripod head instead of messing around with jury-rigged alternatives.

 

[matthyaouw]

Larkspur, I did take the picture the other day under the exact same lighting conditions, but in RAW, and the flowers still turned out very very bright blue. I will post if you want to look at the numbers, but so far I keep forgetting to upload the picture.

Did you change the white balance later? I think most Raw files appear with the white balance set to some default level, but allow you to edit it later.

 

[~christina~]

Thanks, ~~! Next time I get a clear day, I'll take the 5-minute trip over to that hill and shoot it again with manual settings and my new Manfrotto 808RC4 tripod head. I've had a really nice, heavy Bogen tripod sitting around unused for almost 20 years. I robbed the head off it to mount on a Gitzo Pro Studex that I picked up for $75 at an insurance-salvage store and sold the Gitzo when I went digital (back when digi-cams were all tiny). Finally had to spring for a real tripod head instead of messing around with jury-rigged alternatives.

Your lucky to have such a view after just taking a 5 min trip. I think you should try making a HDR shot. It would be great.

Interesting, I got a tripod for Christmas, and want to use it to take pictures of a sunset.
I haven't use it yet because it would look pretty funny to see me at the zoo, carrying a large tripod around as I'm not too tall. People already gave me funny looks when they saw me with a 300mm lens on my camera...imagine tripod too? lol

 

[Andre]

A random castle from a 'frog perspective' to make it more interesting. But on the belly again.

Anybody care naming the landmark?

 

[Ms Music]

Did you change the white balance later? I think most Raw files appear with the white balance set to some default level, but allow you to edit it later.

I will have to sit down with my book to figure out how to edit the WB. I'll see if I can here soon, as the flowers are starting to get REALLY sad looking if I need to take more pics. My daughter also found a bunch of purple stuff (crayons, markers, a flower, etc) and the pic of even those came out blue. I thought it might be the flowers, but its like my camera can't see the color purple.

Lovely castle Andre. I'd love to go to Europe some day and see castles.

 

[Borek]

I have found this guy accidentally.

http://www.panoramio.com/user/109117

As someone said about Larkspur - I would like to live in the world as he sees it.

 

[~christina~]

A random castle from a 'frog perspective' to make it more interesting. But on the belly again.

Wow, I love the bridge there. Nice castle, dirty moat.

 

[Andre]

Wow, I love the bridge there. Nice castle, dirty moat.

Thanks, ~Christina~ about the moat, it's in the eye of the beholder. Actually the water is clear and there is no trace of pollution. What you see is a body of floating water plants, holding an abundance of life.

 

[Borek]

I can try to prepare a panorama from my roof one day, but it will be boring flat and full of boring flats

OK, so I went up the roof, took the pictures and stiched them:

http://www.bpp.com.pl/IMG/panorama_z_dachu.jpg

Beware - it is wiiiiiiiiiide

It is around sunset, taken at ISO 1600, thus noisy.

 

[hypatia]

Nice birds eye view. Matching up the roof top shingles, will be next to impossible.

 

[turbo]

It IS wiiiide! and flat with lots of flats.

 

[Borek]

When we moved here in 2000 half of the buildings that surround us now didn't exist. These yellow ones with blue roofs, these 'high' with red roofs and buildings on the far right (with a high chimney behind) were all build since.

 

[~christina~]

Thanks, ~Christina~ about the moat, it's in the eye of the beholder. Actually the water is clear and there is no trace of pollution. What you see is a body of floating water plants, holding an abundance of life.

Ah okay. Let me rephrase that sentence. There's a lot of algae in the water.
But then again, you'd think they'd clean that plant life up when they can afford to own a castle...

 

[Andre]

Ah okay. Let me rephrase that sentence. There's a lot of algae in the water.
But then again, you'd think they'd clean that plant life up when they can afford to own a castle...

It's not algea but a variety of water plants. The water is clear

But would you really want to destroy this little critters biotope?

(image Wikipedia)

 

[chroot]

Andre's... critter... sure is a hard act to follow, but, uh, please allow me to introduce my girlfriend, Jessica.

- Warren

 

[Borek]

Cute critter

 

[Andre]

Tried a panorama too. The light was nice after the heavy rain / cold front passed. Close to 180 degrees from the south window. The right frame is not nicely fitting despite locking all settings for all the frames.

 

[lisab]

Tried a panorama too. The light was nice after the heavy rain / cold front passed. Close to 180 degrees from the south window. The right frame is not nicely fitting despite locking all settings for all the frames.

Wow, that's a really striking shot! The tracks make a nice frame. Did the software come with the camera?