|
Interested in learning art photography? Want to become a master photographer? The following questions and answers are divided into two main groups - digital imaging and traditional, film-based photography. Learn the techniques of both here. If you want to learn more about how to make great photos take Jed Manwaring's Getting Started: How to Make Great Photographs online photography course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dianna Murphy
Contact Dianna
Dianna's Gallery
diannamurphyphotography.com
member since: 3/20/2006
|
|
91
.
Pinterest
Wondering what the thought is about Pinterest and protecting our images. If you've never heard of it check it out. The idea is that whatever you see on the internet that you think is beautiful, cool, interesting, etc. you pin to a variety of boards where people then "Pin" or copy to their own boards. An image an go viral very quickly. Photography, cute pictures, portraits, etc. are very popular "pins". I've seen some BP work there already.
4/10/2012 3:00:27 PM
|
|
|
|
WARNING: This reply conains negative comments. This is frowned upon by BP. Dianna I checked out your gallery here on BP. What I saw was a photographer that knows how to use their camera properly, takes time to create a photograph instead of only snapping a picture, understands the principles of composition and lighting, is capable of creating a mood which is generally delightful and is proficient in processing to make a beautiful presentation.
Dianna how would you feel if someone told you they saw one of your photos of grapes in a full page add in a magazine that advertised XYZ wine when you had not even submitted it for consideration nor had received any compensation for its use? In other words the photograph was stolen from you. When you take a photograph you become the author and own the copyright and no one has the right to use it without your permission and/or compensation. Not even to copy it and make a print to hang on their wall. And putting a copyright with your name on it does little good because they can be easily removed. Pinterest gives a false premiss when they say "anything on the intenet can be copied and used by whomever" That is called in legal circles stealing. Are you able to copy some photos from the internet? YES. But these sites will let you know it is OK for your own personal purposes such as making a lage print and haning it on your wall or possibly use for publication in an educational book. But even then you may not take credit for taking the photo and a photo credit is generally used when doing so. Every day photos are taken from the Printerest site and used as photos for someones site, in their galleries, sold for use in calenders, magazines and other publications. The thieves may get paid for the use of the photos themselves or the company itself may use them for their internal organs or advertisements. They pay for the ad but nothing for the photographer. Sites like this are killing the professional photographer market. As a photographer it is your right to give away any of YOUR photographs to any person or entity that you desire. It is also your right to charge for it in any form desired.
Now if you want to show your photos around the world, 90%n of the time without your name in the photo credit, you are free to do that also. Then Printerest is the site for you. Printerest as well as Facebook are being investigated on their photo policies. To their credit, and pocketbook, Facebook will probably make some changes. But Printerest, because of the way they operate, will have to close down completely and none of the images will be retrieveable. The decision is up to you. I hope that you have enough pride in your photos to make the proper decision. I love your photos as apparently the editors of BP do also.
Lynn
4/12/2012 12:35:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Lynn
I guess I wasn't clear. I feel EXACTLY as you do. My intent was to put sort of a warning out there for my fellow photographers. As I re read what I wrote I can see how you misread my intentions. I enjoy pinterest as a place to mindlessly browse things I enjoy. There are some beautiful photographs and inspiration (sort of like on BP) there and it seems they are being "pinned" with great frequency and with out much regard as to who the photographer is. I have no problem with people pinning my photographs as long as I am credited with the work. I can even see where it may be useful advertising or referral. But thats me... I CAN'T make the decision for other photographers. It is simply people enjoying and sharing beautiful/useful things for the most part. Having said that I can also see a problem as it could be viewed as stealing and according to the law it is. Here is a very great article written my a former pinterest member who just happens to be a lawyer. My intent in asking my original question was to make photographers aware and possibility BP. Maybe we have at the top of our galleries "Pins ok" "Do not pin" I don't know. I can't make decisions for other photographers only for myself. Thank you for you time Lynn
4/12/2012 1:25:22 PM
|
|
|
|
oops here is the link. By the way the author gives approval to share the link: http://ddkportraits.com/2012/02/why-i-tearfully-deleted-my-pinterest-inspiration-boards/
4/12/2012 1:32:01 PM
|
|
|
|
FYI: I just found one persons with one folder who had pinned 35 BP images (all from different owners/galleries) in it - most credit the owner, two did not, all had betterphoto name on it. Even Jim Mitoke had a picture pinned. THIS is why I put this on the discussion board. How many people even know of Pinterest?
4/12/2012 1:46:46 PM
|
|
|
|
I guess I haven't fully grasped the issue at heart here... if I load my own photo to my public BP gallery, anyone in the world with a browser can get to it, see it, view it, and if so inclined, screen-grab the 800x533 pixel presentation of that image. Fortunately, they have no access to the actual JPG or TIF file I uploaded to BP---although I only upload pre-shrunk 800x533 files to begin with... So then if someone pins that image from my BP public web gallery into a Pinterest board, then folks who cruise Pinterest will also see my image there; when they click it (from my experience cruising Pinterest boards) it drills right back to my gallery image, no? The Pinterest "pinner" isn't taking a screenshot of my on-screen 800x533 pixel image, and uploading that resulting JPG to Pinterest, right? They're simply "broadcasting" the link (graphically) to my public BP display of the image? Is that an accurate summary? (I ask seriously, because I don't know enough about Pinterest beyond a cursory glance.)
4/18/2012 7:58:39 PM
|
|
|
|
I just read the blog link, haven't been to pinterest. But I did catch part of Anderson Cooper when he was talking about it. I guess what it does is if people like a photo that somebody's uploaded to pinterest, they can use that upload to "see what else you got" and end up at your website.
What most of the activity might be people passing along photos to each other they like, forming social bonds with them.
But I love how the blog states that pinterest says, don't promote your own stuff but make sure everything you use you have rights to use as if it is yours.
4/20/2012 5:34:54 PM
|
|
|
|
LOL Gregory - as if any of the people who are pinning things have anyone's permission to do so.
4/20/2012 6:53:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Christopher I think you have grasped the issue and that you are correct. Its all very interesting because as Gregory said Pinterest rules state that you cannot pin anything you don't have rights too. Well... if that were so I can't see how they would have anything to pin especially since we're not supposed to promote our own work though there are people that do. Thanks for the responses guys and gals, I wish more people would see this. I think some BPers will be raging mad that people are pinning their work and I also think some will appreciate that people like their work and that it could even work like a referral. I think the later is the way I'm leaning. But I also have become more and more careful about only uploading low res files and watermarking them and imbedding them.
4/21/2012 8:07:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Not sure if this was covered, but one of the biggest issues with this pinterest is once the link is broken back to your website, the image is just wandering out there on the web and is apparently free game.
4/25/2012 5:07:44 PM
|
Dennis Flanagan
member since: 12/31/2005
|
|
Thomas, Can't the exact same thing you just typed refer to BP as well? It's the price we pay of uploading to the world wide web. I love lamp.
4/27/2012 6:35:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Yep.
And I love chocolate milk.
4/27/2012 3:35:00 PM
|
|
|
|
BP does have a 'right click' protection. While it isn't infalible there a lot fewer people that know how to beat that than those that know how to remove the copyright.
Lynn
4/27/2012 8:53:53 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Hans Abplanalp
member since: 2/8/2005
|
|
92
.
Backing Up JPEGs
If I transfer (save), for example, 500 JPEG images from my PC to an external hard drive, I assume that I will have a slight loss of quality. If I then shoot another 50 images, download them to my PC and then transfer (save) all 550 images onto the same hard drive (because I don't remember which ones are new), do I then lose quality on all 550 or only the new 50? In other words, does the hard drive skip over what is already saved on it and only add the new 50 images? Thanks for any help.
Hans
4/1/2012 1:23:15 AM
|
|
|
|
You only experience JPEG degradation when you open the file in an editor and save it again. So if you have all your finalized JPEG's sitting on your C: drive, and you merely drag-and-drop a copy of those files onto your external drive (doing a File-Copy, for instance in Windows Explorer), you're not opening/resaving each one, and not introducing "new file compression" that a File...Save As... JPG does each time you save.
So If you file-copy (not Save As) 500 files to external, and then later file-copy those same 500 plus another 50 new, as long as you're doing a file copy, and not a Save As, you should see no newly-introduced image degradation. You should also get a prompt asking if you want to write over the 500 existing images or not.
You can confirm all this easily in a test: Take a finalized JPEG you already have on C:, and file-copy it into say, 5 other folders... then go look at the properties of each file (such as using Windows Explorer to see the properties.)
Then, take a different JPG, open it in your editor, save as JPEG to a different folder. Close it. Go open that newest JPEG (not the original) in editor, save as to yet another different folder, close it; do that 5 times, and compare the File Properties of the original to the File Properties of the 5th Save As version. When I do that test, the Save As (i.e., opening, saving, closing each "next generation file" repeatedly), I see slightly-decreasing file sizes for each file, ranging from 387,401 bytes (original) to 386,096 bytes (last Save As file) indicating each successive Save As is doing more compressing each time.
4/1/2012 6:39:31 AM
|
Hans Abplanalp
member since: 2/8/2005
|
|
Many thanks Christopher, that's very helpful. Hans
4/1/2012 10:53:44 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Pat Harry
Contact Pat
Pat's Gallery
member since: 11/26/2006
|
|
93
.
Point & Shoot for travel
I'll be traveling in a couple of weeks, and I want to take a camera, but my DSLR is not really practical for this trip. I'm looking for a good point & shoot, just in case I stumble across the perfect photo op. :) Also, I've been wanting a good P&S to always have with me. I've searched the forum, but don't see any recent discussions on this topic. Any recommendations?
3/30/2012 7:14:08 AM
|
|
|
|
I should probably add that I want one that shoots RAW, and allows aperture, speed, and ISO to be controlled manually. Low noise at higher ISO's would be nice. I don't need video, since I would never use it. My DSLR's are Nikon, but the point and shoot doesn't have to be Nikon since I'm not worried about lens compatibility.
3/31/2012 7:00:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Here are a few possibilities for you. The Canon S100 has the SAME sensor as the larger, heavier G-series. It is about the most compact package you can get. I also like the Panasonic or Canon superzoom offerings. These are small DSLR- shaped bodies with a built-in zoom lens that racks out to about a 300mm equivalent.
When I want compact, but with clean high ISO and a large file size, I take my Pentax K-5 DSLR with a couple of the extremely compact DA_series prime lenses. There's a mini-review on my site of the Pentax and the older version of the Canon S100.
4/2/2012 9:15:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Doug. I ordered the Canon S100. It looks like a great size for my purse, and something I can have with me at all times. I appreciate the feedback.
4/3/2012 7:48:24 AM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Paul D. Freedman
Contact Paul
Paul's Gallery
member since: 11/10/2008
|
|
94
.
Slow Shutter in Aperture Preferred
I was in New Orleans earlier this week. I have a Nikon D90 with an 18-200 lens. It was not a bright day but not overcast or dark. It was around 1:00 in the afternoon so not a lot of shadow. I had my Aperture set to F8 and my ISO was 200. I thought I would get at least 1/60 sec shutter speed but the result was 1/8 which was way to slow. Why would I get such a slow shutter under these conditions?
3/29/2012 8:11:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Do you know what metering mode you were in at the time? And did you have any Exposure Compensation (negative) dialed in?
3/30/2012 10:39:39 AM
|
|
|
|
That's about right actually. Large shaded area from a building. You weren't over near where the shade borders the sunlight. And you said it wasn't a bright day to begin with.
Maybe a different metering mode would've put you at 1/15, but there's no accidental exposure compensation. The picture isn't over exposed.
3/30/2012 3:26:46 PM
|
|
|
|
I went back to the original and I was at a -1 EV on exposure compensation. So assuming I zeroed out the EC this would have put me at 1/15 from 1/8. Still a bit slow for handheld with a moving subject. Should I have pumped up the ISO to 800 which would have given me two more stops to 1/60th from 1/15th? Would all cameras, at the same ISO, Shutter and Aperture give the same exposure or are certain cameras (eg full size Sensor) yield better performance under marginal lighting conditions. PS. I enjoy street photography but walking around with a strobe or reflector does not really lend itself to that genre and a tripod does not help if the subject is moving. I am often out in the evening after work so lighting is often subdued. What can I do or buy to get good exposures at resonable shutter speeds without sacrificing depth of field?
3/30/2012 5:29:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a pretty tall order---shooting in less than "fast" light, your subject is often in motion at the time (presumably you want to freeze their motion, at least moreso than in your example image?) and you want generally more depth of field rather than less, plus lower noise. Hmmm...
I'd start with a field analysis of your gear---ie, I'd go out with a friend, in the light you usually encounter, have them walk around at a normal clip, and photograph them at a variety of ISO's, and f/4 - f/8 (a variety of f-stops, paired with a variety of ISO's), and then examine the results, to get a feel for where the gear will yield acceptable results.
Your shooting scenario would seem to suggest to me, that you need the best-performing noise sensor you can get---one that can run well up past 800 before noise starts to degrade the image---allowing you to stick with your chosen f/8... or, you'd need to grow comfortable with shallower DOF? Or accept some subject blur?
3/30/2012 6:29:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks Chris and Greg. I guess I thought that under the conditions I would have had a bit higher exposure value. I can certainly understand the advantage of fast glass but as an amateur spending upwards of $2000 for a 1.8 or 2.3 zoom is a bit much. As far as reducing noise at a higher iso, would I see much of an improvement by upgrading my D90 to a D7000 or D700? Thanks again.
3/31/2012 4:18:45 AM
|
|
|
|
If you were at -1 ev, putting it to zero would have made your exposure 1/4. Or it would have kept it at 1/8 and changed the aperture to 5.6
I'd say you should have raised iso and wider aperture. That short a focal length, for that subject and what they're doing, you're not going to have that much effect on how the picture feels as far as depth of field by going from f/8 to the widest that lens you were using can give you.
I don't know which brand of lens it is, but I'm guessing at 60mm it's about 4-4.5 is the widest it can do.
I wouldn't say that different cameras will give the exact same exposure, but they'll be really close, giving that the metering points are probably similar. A full frame sensor wouldn't matter much unless it meant something drastically different at the edge of the frame would now be visible that a smaller frame wouldn't include.
Full frame sensors have an advantage of less noise because the sensor sites are usually bigger. But that's not a hard rule. I believe Canon's 1D is still considered to have the best picture quality out of all it's cameras.
As far as doing street photography, your camera goes up to iso3200, and it's not that old. It came out in 2008. Picture quality should be pretty good past iso800. Work at staying at wider apertures and moving around instead depending on the zoom. It'll help with learning to blend in and you might even get into conversations and taking pictures of people right next to you.
3/31/2012 10:13:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi Paul, Chris are Gregory have given you some great points on the camera side of things, which is fine. I would suggest to use noise-reduction softwares such as Noise Ninja, Topaz Denoise, etc which can be had for a lot less money than going for a fast glass or a full frame camera. Nikon D90 is a reasonably good hardware IMHO. I, for one, am shooting with a primitive Nikon D40, with barely acceptable noise management over ISO800. However, at times I jack it up to 1600 for an image that is sharp (blurry-less) but with high noise image. Then in post-processing, I subdue the noise to a great extent and I have an image which is sharp with minimal noise which I consider much more acceptable than a blurry noise-free image.
My 02 cents.UB.
3/31/2012 7:42:50 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Debra S. McBride
member since: 8/1/2004
|
|
95
.
Drawbacks to using film
I have an Olympus OM - 1, and findingg film for it is fairly easy, but finding a BATTERY is a problem. Since mercury batteries used in the 1970's are outlawed for environmental reasons, I have to substitute. I found a company in England "Small Battery Company" that sells something called a WeinCELL MRB625. Wish there were someplace to get it in the US.
3/24/2012 5:42:16 PM
|
|
|
|
This one at Amazon.com?
www.amazon.com/WeinCell-MRB625-Replacement-Battery-PX625/dp/B00009VQJ7/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332788134&sr=8-1
3/26/2012 11:57:03 AM
|
|
Warren E. Wilson
member since: 3/12/2008
|
|
There is....just about any camera store will carry them.
I know....I know...they look at you funny when you ask for a roll of Tri-X...but they should be able to at least order it for you. I gave up on spending the $ for a new battery, got a light meter.
9/27/2012 3:33:50 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Carlton Ward
Contact Carlton
Carlton's Gallery
carltonwardphoto.com
member since: 12/13/2005
|
|
96
.
Adobe Photoshop CS 6
Adobe Photoshop CS 6,
Here is a video to check out :)
ACR 7.0 looks amazing...
Photoshop CS6
Cheers,
Carlton
3/22/2012 5:05:11 PM
|
Courtenay Vanderbilt
member since: 7/13/2008
|
|
Here's a link to Lynda.com where Deke McClelland explains all the new features of CS6. This tutorial is free. http://www.lynda.com/Photoshop-tutorials/Photoshop-CS6-Beta-Preview/97406-2.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ldcemail&utm_campaign=adobeCS6beta-mem-B
3/23/2012 4:15:58 AM
|
|
|
|
I tried to load the Beta version last night but will need to upgrade to 10.6 (Lion) on my MAC's.
I am also considering the latest release of Lightroom and may go that way if the ACR is the 7.0 version.
3/23/2012 10:32:15 AM
|
Courtenay Vanderbilt
member since: 7/13/2008
|
|
I thought it was supposed to work with Snow Leopard...uuggg, I'm not sure I want Lion, yet. Found lots of questions and comments on the Adobe Labs forum. Here's a link if you want...
http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/photoshopcs6/
3/23/2012 7:06:15 PM
|
|
|
|
I used CS6 ACR a lot today. I converted about 50 raw files. I usually use Capture NX2 to process with but I may change with the new ACR. I like it a lot. I haven't played inside Photoshop a lot yet, but I like what I see so far.
3/24/2012 7:28:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Randy/Carlton... can you elaborate on any of the ACR updates? I'm in CS4, and I *love* ACR now---so if they've improved it, wow!! I'll check out the links provided here, but was wondering if you had some quick-hits of ACR enhancements you've seen or tried so far?
3/26/2012 7:59:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
Click on the blue link Photoshop CS6 in my original post to see a video.
Content aware was great w/CS5 and looks like they have made it even better. The move tool is going to be useful.
Adaptive wida-angle also looks great and I just bought a 12-24mm lens :)
There is also video editing as well which I may start using since I do have the Canon 5D Mk II...
Carlton
3/26/2012 8:14:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Chris,
The ability to recover highlights seems to have improved quite a bit and the noise reduction filter is very good. I just seem to have more control on the output. Download the Beta and give it a whirl.
3/26/2012 8:22:40 AM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Carlton Ward
Contact Carlton
Carlton's Gallery
carltonwardphoto.com
member since: 12/13/2005
|
|
97
.
Adobe Photoshop CS 6
Adobe Photoshop CS 6,
Here is a video to check out :)
ACR 7.0 looks amazing...
Photpshop CS6
Cheers,
Carlton
3/22/2012 5:04:28 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Tom Fleeman
Contact Tom
Tom's Gallery
member since: 4/26/2010
|
|
98
.
Copyright of people over more than one day
All you copyright experts, I shoot high school sports(baseball,football,basketball,soccer) I put my photos online with Zenfolio and use Mpix labs. I sale to parents and anyone else who wants photos.Do I need release for these photos, and if so do I need to get one for each game for the season. I know someone will have answer out there.I was thought as longs as you were at a public place you could take whatever you wanted as long a it wasn't copyrighted or patented. Help.
3/22/2012 7:42:41 AM
|
|
|
|
The best stock agencies out there use a release form that would take most people a day to fill out! OK, a bit of an exaggeration, but the amount of information truly required on a release to protect yourself is staggering. You do not need a release if you are just selling images of someone back to that person or their parents/legal guardians. You do need a release if you are selling them to someone else, and Yes ... each shoot or day of the shoot must be on the release. You cannot shoot someone today and tomorrow, and then sell the "tomorrow" image if that date is not specifically on the release. Even in public you need a signed release ... that is why you often see folks blurred out in various images. If the image is for editorial purposes, then you do not need a release. The second you are selling for commercial purposes, you must have a release.
4/13/2012 12:32:42 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Debra S. McBride
member since: 8/1/2004
|
|
99
.
Does use of software filters disqualify a photo?
I have just finished with an inspiring course on creative photography, and have been introduced to some very remarkable software for online purchase. These various products work by applying filters to photos, and are plug-ins to PSE or Photoshop. Does their use disqualify a photo as "not real" in BP contest judging?
3/18/2012 8:15:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Filter away to your heart's content! BP allows filters in all categories, although if the filtering is the more important aspect of the photo, it should probably go in Digital Darkroom.
3/18/2012 1:42:29 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Kathy Wesserling
Contact Kathy
Kathy's Gallery
member since: 4/21/2005
|
|
100
.
Adding a Copyright line on images
BP has spoiled me. My copyright line is added automatically to every image I upload (with a simple 'button' click.) Now, however, I want to add it myself in order to upload to other sites (Flicker, FB). It's a pain because every site has different sizing requirements, and some will not allow any writing on competitive entries. Is there anyway to add the copyright info just before saving to jpg without doing it individually? I use PSP12 for my editing.
3/15/2012 5:02:15 AM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
