SnapShot Archives - 04/02/2001
SNAPSHOT - PHOTO NEWS FROM BETTERPHOTO.COM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to SnapShot, the weekly newsletter on the art
of photography from http://www.betterphoto.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
IN THIS ISSUE
~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, May 02, 2001
* SPOTLIGHT: Tired of Do-It-Yourself Digital Editing?
* BETTERPHOTO: Free Travel Photography Class by Yours Truly
* BETTERPHOTO: The Names Have Changed But They're Still The Same
* BETTERPHOTO: Have You Seen the New Photo Galleries?
* BETTERPHOTO: Your Online Photo Guide is Still Free of Charge!
* PHOTO LINK: Adobe Photoshop Basics
* PHOTO LINK: Inspiration for Making Money With Your Camera
* PHOTO LINK: Photo Processors, Rated by PhotoResouce.com
* PHOTO TRIVIA QUESTION: Side Consulting Business / Bargain or Rip-Off
* THIS WEEK'S TIP: Squint a Preview
* NEW QUESTION: Miniature (1:12 or smaller) Dried Flowers
* NEW QUESTION: Reproducing Pictures and Printing Digitally
* NEW QUESTION: Photographing Jewelry for Catalog
* NEW QUESTION: JPEG Manipulation
* NEW QUESTION: JPGs on CD - How to
* NEW QUESTION: Zoom Lens for Nikon N80
* NEW QUESTION: Grainy Photo
* NEW QUESTION: F-Stop and Shutter Speed for Slides of Prints
* NEW QUESTION: Nikkor Portrait Lens
* NEW QUESTION: Black Negatives
* NEW QUESTION: Cokin or Tiffen?
* CONTINUING Q&A: What Causes a Picture to Be Grainy?
* CONTINUING Q&A: Recommended Film Speed For Concert Photos
* CONTINUING Q&A: The Real DIfference....
* CONTINUING Q&A: Shooting Mouth Close Up
* CONTINUING Q&A: Getting 4x6 Glossy Prints from Digital Camera
* CONTINUING Q&A: Recommendation on Camera and Software to Buy
~~~~~~~~~~~
IN THE SPOTLIGHT - A WORD FROM THIS WEEK'S SPONSOR
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tired of Do-It-Yourself Digital Editing?
Image Edit & Art is the place to go when you want affordable high-quality
custom editing for your digital images. Our artists are experts in
retouching, restoration, photo-illustration, digital handcoloring and more.
Our services start at $10 per image and all orders are managed through a
convenient Web-based system. See what we can do for you at:
http://www.image-edit.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT'S NEW AT BETTERPHOTO.COM
~~~~~~~~~~~
Free Travel Photography Class by Yours Truly
If you live in the Seattle, Washington area, you might like to attend a
free, one-night class that I will be offering at Rick Steve's headquarters
in nearby Edmonds. Many of you will be familiar with Rick's excellent travel
shows the air on public television. His down to earth recommendations and
backroads philosophy have been a huge help to many visitors of Europe,
including myself. The free class that I am teaching will be held on June
14th.
Also, this Sunday, I will be giving a slide show of my recent travels in
Great Britain - with photo tips for advanced amateur photographers - with
Rick's World Travelers' Slide Club. Feel free to drop by to say hello or
pick up a few tips to help you while shooting on the road. Visit
RickSteves.com for details and directions to either event:
http://www.ricksteves.com/classes/
*****
The Names Have Changed But They're Still The Same
Many of you will notice that the Workshop and the Digital Workshop - our
other two emails - have had their names changed to PhotoFlash and the
Digital Darkroom. They will remain the same in content - packed with tips,
assignments, and other practical instruction; we simply renamed them to
lesson the possibility of confusing them with other, in-person photo
workshops:
http://www.betterphoto.com/subscribe.asp
*****
Have You Seen the New Photo Galleries?
We have recently launched a highly appropriate and long-overdue section at
BetterPhoto - the Photo Galleries. This is the place to view photos to
discuss, help other photographers with constructive critiques, view all
pictures by a particular photographer, or upload an image or two yourself:
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery.asp
P.S. If you do upload photos, please limit yourself to 20 uploads. We are
charged by the volume of photos received, among other things, and will soon
be forced to implement an upper limit. In the meantime, please be selective
and keep the number down a bit.
*****
Your Online Photo Guide is Still Free of Charge!
You may have noticed a trend going on with Web sites - many are either going
out of business or asking you to pay membership fees. Surviving as a Web
business has indeed been challenging lately. However, BetterPhoto is
committed to continuing as a free, educational service. Thanks to the
contributive spirit of many of our members, we have been able to keep giving
honest answers to budding photographers at no charge. In the very near
future, more ways will open up for you to participate in serving the
BetterPhoto community - but the site will remain free and open to all. In
the meantime, I hope you continue to enjoy our guide, shoot great photos,
and find your most satisfying path with photography:
http://www.betterphoto.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~
WEB NEWS ON PHOTOGRAPHY
~~~~~~~~~~~
Adobe Photoshop Basics
Check out these free online Photoshop classes:
http://www.betterphoto.com/rdrt.asp?rid=aboutFreePSD
*****
Inspiration for Making Money With Your Camera
Here is a quick list of ideas on how you can make a buck or two with your
camera:
http://amateurphoto.about.com/hobbies/amateurphoto/library/blmakecash.htm
*****
Photo Processors, Rated by PhotoResouce.com
If you have been trying to find a good way to get your film developed, this
page may offer you some direction. Four major labs are rated; if nothing
else, this page may keep you from sacrificing a roll or two to a mass-market
commercial lab:
http://www.photoresource.com/archive501.html
~~~~~~~~~~~
PHOTO TRIVIA QUESTION OF THE WEEK
~~~~~~~~~~~
Side Consulting Business
Last time, we asked:
Ansel Adams was a consultant for which major film company when they first
started out?
The answer is Polaroid. What he specifically advised them to do would be an
interesting topic for a fireside chat.
And Now... This Week's Question - Bargain or Rip-Off
In David Mamet's movie, The Spanish Prisoner, how much does Steve Martin
offer Campbell Scott for his camera?
Answer this question online:
http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/trivia.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS WEEK'S TIP
~~~~~~~~~~~
Squint a Preview
Film and camera lens do not "see" the world as well as our eyes see it. The
fact is that our eyes and brain do an amazing job of compensating and
adjusting on the fly, to give us an optimal view of a scene. One of the most
major limitations of our camera and film is that is cannot capture the same
range of color; where a scene looked subtly toned and beautiful to the naked
eye, it will likely render - for better or for worse - on film with much
more contrast. The lighter areas seem to get even whiter and the darker
shadows lose all their detail. To keep yourself from being as surprised by
the prints or slides that you get back from the lab, try squinting while
looking at a potential scene. This can give you a rough idea of how the
scene will look on film.
Top Ten Tips:
http://www.betterphoto.com/exploring/tips.asp
More tips:
http://www.betterphoto.com/exploring/allTips.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~~~~~~~~
BigFoto.com
See hundreds of excellent or inspiring images at BigFoto.com. Free to
download for personal use, these photos are sure to please the eyes or
entertain the soul. Check it out:
http://www.bigfoto.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW PHOTOGRAPHY QUESTIONS
~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW QUESTION: Miniature (1:12 or smaller) Dried Flowers
I'm trying to take pictures of miniature dried flower arrangements and don't
understand the lighting rules, some pictures come out looking like they're
in yellow light. I'm shooting them on a light blue cloth with 4 small (20
watts each) halogen lights over the piece, some look the right color and
some of the pictures look all yellowish. I truly need help please? Any help
would be most appreciated! Thank you
- Clysta
See Sample Photo - "test basket yellow.jpg"
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=1872
A. Clysta,
You didn't state what film you were using, but I'd bet dollars to donuts
it's "daylight" balanced. The "halogen" lights are "tungsten." While the
light they give off may look white, it's not. Our brains do a marvelous job
of color correcting artificial lighting to make it look "whiter" than it
really is. Film doesn't. Lamps with tungsten filaments give off much more
red/yellow and much less blue than daylight from the sun contains.
I would also guess you're using color negative film and looking at the
prints from it. If so, the print processor is undoubtedly able to do some
color correction with some of the negatives but not all of them. If it's a
consumer lab with an automated print machine you can end up "all over the
map" with the color correction.
Suggestion:
Use some "tungsten" balanced film. They are made for shooting under tungsten
studio lights and the halogens you are using are very close to their color
balance. These will be professional films and you will have to buy them at a
camera store that carries pro films. The numbers are the film speeds.
For color negative (prints):
Kodak Portra 100T
Fuji Fujicolor NPL 160
For transparency (slides):
Kodak EPY-64
Kodak EPT-160
Kodak EPJ-320
Fuji Fujichrome 64T Type II
You might try one of the negative films first and do the shoot just as you
did before. You will probably find a huge difference in the result.
Yes, there is a way to balance daylight to tungsten lighting using a filter.
However, it is a very dark blue, creates a very dark viewfinder, it's hard
to compose and focus with it, and it exacts a huge cost in loss of light.
This effectively makes the required exposures as if you are using a very
slow film. Use tungsten balanced film if at all possible!
- John
A. Oops... left out one more thing...
The color negative films I listed are C-41 process, just like daylight color
negative films. This means the film can be developed and printed the same as
any daylight color negative film.
The transparency (slide) films are E-6 process and developing them is the
same as for any daylight Ektachrome or Fujichrome.
- John
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1787
*****
NEW QUESTION: Reproducing Pictures and Printing Digitally
Can I replace a print doing high quality reproductions digitally?
- Walter
A. It depends on how you define "high quality." My standards are high; very,
very high. I'm accustomed to the work pro labs can do and results possible
from the finest grained medium format films on pro papers. I'm also
accustomed to high archival life; for prints it means being able to hang
them on walls for decades without noticeable color shift or fading. What
follows is my opinion about the absolute minimum of what's required
technically for "high quality."
It is possible to get "high quality" reproduction at considerable cost if
you limit size to about 8x10 maximum. First, you need very high resolution
scanning capability. Then you need the printing capability. According to
what I've read the current technology for archival longevity is the dye
sublimation process.
Working backwards from the print, that should be done at no less than 300
dpi with a minimum of 24-bit color requiring a final digital file for an
8x10 of 2400x3000 pixels at 24-bit color information. (I would want 600 dpi
printing for this size using a 4800x6000 pixel file). The scan should be at
least twice this resolution so it can be appropriately sharpened using an
"unsharp mask" technique to restore sharpness lost during optical scanning.
This means a scan that contains 4800x6000 pixels at 24-bit for an 8x10. This
is _optical_ resolving power, not interpolated. Resize required scanning and
file sizes for smaller prints, but don't drop back on the 24-bit color.
In addition, the scanner must have a high "dMax" for contrast and high end
optics to prevent aberration or distortion. I've encountered distortion with
less expensive flatbeds used for scanning prints and it's a royal pain to
correct . . . with some loss of resolution in the process. The best scanning
is done from the film using film scanners, not prints, so do it from the
film if at all possible.
Now start figuring the cost of this with high end scanning and printers
specifically made for dye sublimation. My conclusion is it's still less
expensive to get hundreds of large prints (8x10 to 10x15) or thousands of
smaller ones (4x6's) done by a pro lab than buy the capability to do it as
well as they can.
- John
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1781
*****
NEW QUESTION: Photographing Jewelry for Catalog
Hi, I want to photograph jewelry and use the images for a paper brochure and
also scan them in and use them on a web site. I have a Canon AE-1 and a
flash mounted on the camera and some close up lenses (+1,+2,+4).
What is the best background to use? I was thinking about black velvet. What
lighting techniques should I try? What angles? etc... Thanks for any tips.
cheers,
- Anu
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1780
*****
NEW QUESTION: JPEG Manipulation
Hi all. I'm using an HP Photosmart 315 (2.1 megapixel) camera and running a
733Mhz computer on Windows 98.
I'm very happy with the imaging and printing from my camera, but when I
attempt to e-mail an image to family and friends, the JPEG file that they
receive is HUGE. I've searched everywhere and can't find a way to manipulate
the size of the JPEG.
What am I missing here? Any suggestions? Thanks!
- Kevin
A. If you look on the web for Image compression utilities, you will be able
to compress the image into smaller size. Beware: Some Image compression
techniques reduce the image quality. But there are some good ones out there
that can reduce size by half, yet keep almost the same image quality. I
suggest you look up Image Compression on the site download.com You should
find free, shareware as well as software that you can pay and get. Best of
luck!
- jalesh
A. You can also reduce the DPI to reduce the size. This is the most
effective, but also most "lossy". 72 DPI is the recommended for viewing on
screen and 300 for printing on photo paper.
- Ken
A. Some software manipulates the size as Ken mentions . . . by the "dpi" and
his recommendation for that is good.
Other software does this by specifying specific pixel dimensions for
resizing the image. For "full size" viewing on a screen I recommend making
full frame 35mm images 639x426 pixels in size. The guideline is about 640
pixels on the longest edge. Turned horizontally or vertically it fills a
good portion of a computer monitors (most people are using 1024x768 or
higher for their monitors).
- John
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1779
*****
NEW QUESTION: JPGs on CD - How to
I have a digital camera and take lots of pictures of my children's sporting
events. When the memory gets full, I download all the photographs to my
computer's hard drive. Then I can safely clear the camera's memory and start
all over.
Some of these pictures I would like to have a hardcopy of. My printer is not
very high quality and I've never been very satisfied printing photographs
using it. I've even tried some very high quality photographic paper. It
still looks like it came off a printer.
So, I did a little research and found out you can take a CD into Walgreens
and you can pick and choose which ones you want made into hardcopies.
"This is great," I thought. I have a CD burner, so I burned all my photos
onto a CD and took it in to my local Walgreens.
Not so fast! As it turns out, you can not use a conventional CD at
Walgreens. The images must be on a Kodak Photo CD ... not just *any* CD.
Bummer!
So, here's my question: How or where can I go with all my JPEG's that reside
on these CD's. You would think that with the proliferation of CD burners and
digital cameras somebody would offer a service where you could come in with
your CD and simply extract the images off the CD an print them into
hardcopies. Is this too hard?
Now, I know I can take my camera in, and they can take the images directly
off the memory card. But that would be inconvenient because once the memory
is full with images, I would immediately have to decide which photos are
worthy of being printed and I'd have to run in and do that immediately, or,
at least before I purge the memory and take any more pictures. I much prefer
downloading them onto my computer for later consideration.
- demerlin
A. Try using Ofoto. They are a web based photo processing center. It is very
easy to upload your pictures. Their quality is fantastic. You can even order
8x10's. I have tried a few others but truly like Ofoto the best. When you
sign up, they give you 25 free 4x6 prints. Turn around time is about a week
... Enjoy
- debfranks
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1778
*****
NEW QUESTION: Zoom Lens for Nikon N80
I like travel photography, which zoom lens (24-120mm or 28-200mm) of which
manufacturer would you recommend?
- eli_naor1
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1775
*****
NEW QUESTION: Grainy Photo
What is the reason for grainy B&W photos? Is it not enough light? It was a
photo with people in a cotton field. Cotton looked good; people grainy.
- Mart
A. Yes on negative film underexposed shots will appear grainy. Also higher
speed films will have more grain. Without knowing which film and what
lighting circumstances you were shooting under I can't be more specific.
- Jeff
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1774
*****
NEW QUESTION: F-Stop and Shutter Speed for Slides of Prints
I'm shooting slides from some photos using regular household bulbs to light.
What f-stop and shutter speed should I use and should I use the flash?
- amun
A. First of all, if you are shooting with household bulbs you need to be
using tungsten film to get the best results. Even at that, the shots may end
up on the warm side. As far as what exposure to use, you have to determine
that yourself. You need to position the lights (2 of them) at 45deg angle to
your work. Place a gray card over the picture. Once the lights are set up
take a meter reading. You should meter all 4 corners and the center and move
the lights until the meter readings all match to assure even light. Make
sure your film plane is parallel to the print and use an f-stop somewhere
between f8-f16 for the best sharpness. If you use flash you must have 2 of
them so you can set them up as described above and it would help to have a
flash meter. If you use flash you don't need the tungsten film. Easy huh?
;-)))
- Jeff
A. Jeff's right that household will be slightly warmer than tungsten film
balance. It is close, _much_ better than daylight film, and easier to
completely balance when making prints.
Additional Tip:
Higher wattage bulbs, 150 Watt to 300 Watt, tend to be closer. For
_fire_safety_ do NOT use a higher wattage than the bulb socket or lamp is
rated for and be careful where high wattage bulbs are placed, especially
under things.
- John
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1773
*****
NEW QUESTION: Nikkor Portrait Lens
I have a Nikon N80 and I want to buy the best Nikkor lens for portraits. I
don't know if I should get a fixed lens or a zoom. Please help - any
information will be appreciated. I want the lens that will produce the
sharpest, clearest photos possible.
thanks
- beth
Nikon N80 SLR Camera:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=792
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1772
*****
NEW QUESTION: Black Negatives
I just got a set of prints back from the camera shop. The first six
negatives were solid black. At first I thought maybe something was wrong
with the camera or I may have inadvertently done something. However, I
noticed that there were no lines separating the frames. The first 7 or 8
inches of negative strip was black. Does this look like a lab mistake, or
could there have been a problem with the camera or myself. I do know that
the back was not opened.
- dhbranum2
A. Look at the negatives, both the solid black strip and your other ones.
You will see the film type and frame numbers along the very edge of the
other ones. If you cannot see these on the solid black strip, the film was
exposed to light.
The first 3-4 inches at the very beginning of a 35mm film roll should be
solid black. If you have to manually load film onto the takeup spool it will
be slightly longer than auto-loading cameras. It is exposed when you load
the camera with film. With this length at the beginning, there are two
possible causes:
1. Someone opened the camera back just after the film was loaded, but
probably no more than after the first frame was shot.
2. The lab accidentally extracted too much of the leader when unloading the
film cassette for processing it.
- John
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1771
*****
NEW QUESTION: Cokin or Tiffen?
I am sort of new to photography. I have done a lot of research, and for my
budget, even though I know SRay are the very best, for my funds, Tiffen
filters are probably the best in quality. The thing is, I know I will end up
having more than one lens, and now that Tiffen has cut back on their
production of the Cokin P series sized lens, I am tempted to buy the Cokin
filter system altogether instead. My main concern is picture quality, and
not having to buy new filters everytime I buy a new lens. What should I do?
Are Cokin really that crappy? I spent all this time researching my first
lens, and I picked it for optical quality. I have a Nikon N65 and Nikkor
50mm F1.8. I am interested in polarized, warming, and diffusion filters.
thanks!
- Renee
A. My advice is buy the Cokin P holder and buy filters from other mfr's. I
use some of Cokin's colored filters in my b&w and haven't noticed any
problems but a lot of their filters I have seen don't seem to be the
greatest. The P series holder though is great and a heck of a lot cheaper
than others. You don't have to buy all the filters at once. Besides, as I've
said before, I think one of the big mistakes beginners make is thinking they
have to have a filter on every shot. It just isn't necessary or advisable.
If you do have to use them, however, they should be of good quality.
- Jeff
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1769
~~~~~~~~~~~
CONTINUING PHOTOGRAPHY Q&A
~~~~~~~~~~~
CONTINUING QUESTION: What Causes a Picture to Be Grainy?
I'm back... I'm lovin you guys... I sent you a question yesterday that you
promptly answered. Thanks! The camera I have uses APS film. I usually always
buy 200. I used Fuji 200 on all my past rolls and I have tried a couple
different developers. Do you think I could be trying to out do my lens'
capabilities? Will that cause a picture to be grainy? It is only 22-55mm.
- Kristin
A. Any chance you can upload a scan of your photos? We can tell lots more by
seeing rather than reading.
Here are the things that make photos grainy. Someone might be able to add
more, but here are the most common.
1) Large nitrate grains on the original film (Not the case in the Fuji 200
you use) This happens more on faster films as well as films intentionally
designed that way (for artistic effects)
2) Underexposure. Exposing poorly means that compensation has to be applied
during printing, and that makes the photo greyish and grainy.
3) Overexposure. Once again, compensation needs to be doing during printing,
but most likely, the photo will be whitish.
4) Poor processing. I don't know the exact reason behind it, but I do know
that a professional 3 day lab is much better than the 1 hour labs. For
example Colour Control Centre in Sydney actually hand develop your photos,
adjusting each one if exposure or colour balance is poor, and the resolving
power of their equipment is incredible. Photos are crystal sharp with no
grain (Admittedly, I was also using 100 speed film)
If I've missed any, someone please feel free to add.
Regards,
- Ken
A. Yes, lenses can affect the sharpness, contrast, color, and perspective of
your shots but grain is a film characteristic. My guess is you were outside
of the range of your flash and the ISO of the film.
- Jeff
A. Kris, I looked up the specs on the EOS IX Lite. The built-in flash has a
woefully low Guide Number of 32 (ISO 100 film, in feet). Converting to ISO
200, this is a GN of about 46, still woefully low for your lens speed
(f/4.5~5.6).
Theoretically, at maximum possible flash output with your film speed (ISO
200) and the widest lens opening of your lens, the maximum range for the
flash is 8-10 feet. (8 feet at 55mm [f/5.6] and 10 feet at 22mm [f/4.5].) I
suspect your problem is the very weak built-in flash . . . especially if you
are using the "red-eye" feature which may dissipate some of its capacity
before firing for the exposure.
Try an external flash that puts out a lot more light. Your EOS IX Lite is
made to use the Canon Speedlite 220EX or 380EX. Compared to the built-in
flash GN of 32, the 220EX has a GN of 72 and the 380EX a GN of about 125
giving you a much greater flash range. The flash tube in an external will
also be farther away from your lens, greatly reducing red-eye risk.
As an aside, I'm disappointed built-in integral SLR flashes are so horribly
weak (not just Canon, but Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, etc.). You're not alone in
this problem. The reason for these weak flashes is preventing unacceptably
high battery consumption because they run off of the camera batteries.
External ones for a "hot shoe" run off their own cells, usually "AA" size. I
wouldn't use a flash with a GN less than 66 or 67 (ISO 100 in feet) and
prefer those with a GN rating of 110-150.
- John
A. "Underexposure. Exposing poorly means that compensation has to be applied
during printing, and that makes the photo greyish and grainy....
Overexposure. Once again, compensation needs to be doing during printing,
but most likely, the photo will be whitish."
What if you're going for a photo that has a lot of black w/just a few
highlights? Or is really burned out (overexposed). Is the compensation that
makes it grainy/white really made during PRINTING, or is it in developing?
Meaning will the negative be fine so you can take to a special shop to have
printed so its not grainy?
Thanks
- Elaine
A. About severe underexposure or proper exposure of very, very dark subject
material that is improperly printed . . .
The answer to this gets a little technical about film emulsions, so here
goes . . .
First, a caveat:
The graininess you mention applies to negative films, not to transparency or
slide films. Severe underexposure . . . or very, very dark subject material
leaves negatives very "thin," meaning they're nearly clear.
It's not caused by film developing if it was done properly. The film
developer cannot tell before developing the film what's on it. Therefore,
the developer will assume it's properly exposed unless you tell them
otherwise (pushed or pulled) and they can compensate in processing for it.
Very few consumer labs, if any, can handle developing pushed or pulled
films. Most would not even know what you're talking about!
The "grainy" effect is often caused by both the film and the print. Film
emulsions have grains of different sizes. The larger grains react to light
faster. Thus, if severe underexposure occurs, only the very largest of the
emulsion grains on the film reacted. Thus, a part of the graininess occurred
when you made the photograph on the film.
A print is a photograph of the film image. It's much like film with an
emulsion and an opaque paper backing. Automated consumer print machines
assume properly exposed negatives that average to about 18% gray and will
try to make a print that averages to about 18% gray. [18% gray is what
humans perceive as half-way between white and black.]
When an automated consumer print processing machine encounters a badly
underexposed negative that's nearly clear, it will still try to make a print
averaging 18% gray. To do so, it has to expose the negative print paper for
a much shorter time than it would with a negative that does average 18%
gray. The same thing occurs as did in underexposing the negative film. Only
the very largest grains in the print emulsion had a chance to react to the
light. This makes the graininess even worse.
Footnote (you mentioned very dark subject material):
I've done night city-scapes of buildings at a distance. They produce
extremely thin negatives, just as a severe underexposure would. Properly
printed, they're very dark images with tiny points of light. There is also
none of the graininess. Very few automated consumer print processors (if
any) can print negatives like these correctly. Nearly all pro labs use much
more sophisticated analyzers, even for their "machine prints." They will
typically do a much better job of printing these night city-scapes by
looking for the few highlights and shadows, not just the average . . .
making the large regions black that should be black. I'm uploading one of
the night city-scapes that was properly printed. The scan does not do it
justice . . . you can see the larger objects such as desks and doors in
people's offices through the very tiny windows! You wouldn't get that detail
if it were grainy.
- John
See Sample Photo - "Indianapolis Canal Walk by Night"
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=1871
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1785
*****
CONTINUING QUESTION: Recommended Film Speed For Concert Photos
I have been shooting concerts with Kodak Max 400 film, and some turn out ok
and others are very grainy... maybe slightly under exposed they look real
light on the prints. I have a Canon Rebel 2000 and keep it set on automatic
mode all the time because I am not sure of myself yet. I have noticed that
sometimes my pictures turn out better with out a flash and sometimes they
don't. Any suggestions on film speed and any help on figuring out the rhyme
and reason to what I am doing would be greatly appreciated.
- Jocey
Canon Rebel 2000 SLR Camera:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=228
Kodak Max 800 Film:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=351
A. Well, you've picked a tough subject to shoot if you are unsure of
yourself. Concert photography is not easy. My preference is for concert
shots without flash. I love the dramatic lighting. The toughest part of
concert photography is the exposure. As you've discovered it's pretty hit
and miss to let the camera decide your exposure. There is just too much
contrast. I would suggest you go to the bookstore and find a book on
exposure (they're out there) and become "sure" of yourself. Once you
understand what you're doing you can make the decisions regarding exposure
and you will enjoy the experience much more.
- Jeff
Great Book: "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=531
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1767
*****
CONTINUING QUESTION: The Real DIfference....
I just got a Rebel 2000, and thus far I'm very happy with it (Of course,
I've only shot a few rolls, and under pretty normal conditions). Before I
had (well, still have) a moderately decent compact that I got some great
pics off of, but I'm amazed at the difference in SHARPNESS!! Even just with
the 28-80 kit lens that everyone says is so horrible...
Anyhow, my questions....
First, a rather stupid question, but there's nothing special about camera
bags are there, some kind of special fabric or anything? I mean, you can use
any bag that works, right?
Second, a more pointed question: I did my research before getting this
camera, and what I found is that although the higher level pro SLRS like the
Elan IIe and such have a lot more modes and settings, it seems that as long
as you have a body w/the basics if you're really skilled (and have decent
lenses) you can get pics of the same quality from an entry-level SLR. Is
this true or not (in your opinion)?
Thanks
- Elaine
A. First of all, congratulations on your jump to SLR's. The shot you posted
looks great.
As far as bags go, the only important thing to watch for is bags that have
foam inserts. This foam can deteriorate with age and get into your camera
and lenses. Otherwise, any bag you feel comfortable with and will carry all
your gear is great.
What you say about SLR's and features is absolutely true. I've always found
it ironic that the cameras supposedly designed for pros, who should mostly
be shooting on manual, have all of the bells, whistles, and program modes. I
have an EOS3 for instance that has a ton of functions which I never use. I
chose it because I needed an AF camera and it was the best on the market and
it is fairly durable. I could care less about program this and TTL that.
- Jeff
A. Bodies and Lenses (John's Opinion):
Yes, it really can be done with an entry level SLR. I'll go one step
farther. A technically and creatively skilled photographer can create
outstanding images using a 50 year old manual, mechanical Argus C-3
"bakelite brick" rangefinder (in excellent working condition). I'll concede
the images would be constrained to those that exploit its capabilities and
work within or around its limitations . . . but no less imaginative or
compelling in content.
IMO the body is a film and lens holder, with a shutter and a viewfinder that
contains a focusing aid. It needs to be durable, do the first two well, and
do the second two accurately. Everything else is a convenience item,
including TTL-metering. Sometimes it's very convenient, but still a
convenience. From a technical aspect of hardware capability, the rest is in
the lens(es). It's what the light from the subject material travels through
to form the film image. Four decades of great photographers from the 1930's
through the 1970's managed to create very compelling images without any
electronic, computerized camera bodies.
Bodies, lenses and accessories only provide technical capabilities. All the
technical capability currently available will not create an imaginative and
compelling image though. Artistically, the most important piece of equipment
is the photographer's brain. That's where the creative vision for an image
forms and where the methods for using the hardware capabilities on hand to
achieve it are developed. Envisioning an image asks and answers the
questions of who the image is for and it's purpose or message . . . shape
and form, materials and texture, convey emotion, tell a story, etc. Within
the constraints of film and equipment at hand, the details of what the image
will be and how it will be made flow from these answers.
Sometimes it's simple and these come to me quickly. Other times it's complex
and difficult, and I must put the camera away to spend time with the subject
material . . . in a "zen-like" manner to become "one" with it . . . to "see"
its essence and how it can be portrayed it in an image. This is "making" a
photograph versus taking one.
Keep making photographs. If anyone pooh-pooh's what you use, ask to see
their portfolio of images. Real "bragging rights" belong to those who have
the most compelling photographs, not the latest and greatest hardware.
- John
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1761
*****
CONTINUING QUESTION: Shooting Mouth Close Up
I am a dentist. I have a Camcorder Sony Handycam DCR-TRV103 Digital 8 with
factory f=3.6 - 72 mm optical 20x zoom lens. I want to use my camcorder to
shoot close ups of my patients mouths.
I don't have any idea of what kind of lenses I need to obtain this. I have a
brochure of a dentists photo workshop that suggests a 105mm macro lens but
the info is for 35mm cameras.
Please give your recommendation along with some alternatives of products to
buy.
Thanks!
- Haibory
A. This is an older Q, and I hope you've found the answer already, but I
will try to answer it anyway.
You have a few options. Various screw-in telephoto lenses are available, and
can narrow your angle of view (zoom in). They're available for standard
camcorder threadmount sizes--40.5mm, 37mm, 52mm, 58mm, etc.
Some mfgrs are: Kenko, Century, Raynox, Sony, Tiffen, and several more.
Check out BHphoto.com, the section on Video. I find their prices/service are
representative of a the top 90% photo/video on the net.
- Joshua
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1728
*****
CONTINUING QUESTION: Getting 4x6 Glossy Prints from Digital Camera
I've started using my new digital camera and don't know how to obtain 4x6
prints of the images I've obtained. What is the most economical way to get
prints? Do I have to mail my SmartMedia card away or can I send the images
through email?
- Marlene
A. I don't do digital but you might check out Ofoto online. I think they can
help you.
- Jeff
A. You can print them from your computer, with the software that comes with
the camera ( most digital cameras come with the needed software). The
quality of the print will be based on the printers ability and the cameras
ability i.e. resolution, dpi, etc. You can also use imaging software other
then what you got with the camera. Although I use film cameras most of the
time, I do have - and use often - a nice digital camera. You can purchase
photo paper for your printer in glossy as well as matte. I must confess, I
get incredible photos from my digital set up printed thru my PC and printer.
- Dana
A. Nothings comes equal to a Photo lab digital printer when printing digital
camera images. You might get images just like what you would possibly get
from a transparency. Get your touch up done on your images - crop, squeeze,
sharpen, wrap add your name and date things like that. Then make the image
in 4x6 size and then store it either as JPEG (where you can store more) or
TIFF (store less but without loss) files. Copy to a floppy or a removable
drive. Carry it to a digital colour lab, ask them to arrange it their
convenience and take print out on either matte, glossy or silk... as simple
as that.. with less price on ink cartridges and papers...
- Dr. Vipin
A. I have one word - Ofoto.com. They are the best. My favorite software when
printing at home si MGI PhotSuite 4 and Printmaster Publishing Suite. I have
even arranged photo pages in Microsoft Publisher. I print out at home on my
Epson 740 with great results. A good quality printer these days can run
about $100.00
- debfranks
Ofoto.com
http://www.ofoto.com/
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1679
*****
CONTINUING QUESTION: Recommendation on Camera and Software to Buy I'm
looking at starting a small digital photo studio. I'm asking for your
recommendations on what camera to buy. I have a Kodak DC290 camera and Epson
printers 750, 870, 1270, and a 1520. I'm looking at the Olympus E10. Any
recommendations and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanx
- Lewis
Olympus E10 SLR Digital Camera:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=965
A. Lew, I think the E10 is a great choice. I'm for Olympus all the way. I
have a 2000 and 2500L. A good place to buy, and I haven't seen a less
expensive place is: BestStopDigital.Com. I also have an Epson 1520 and 850.
- Billy B.
Olympus 2000 Digital Camera:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=177
Olympus 2500L Digital Camera:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=252
A. Fuji. Fuji. Fuji....
- Dr. Vipin
A. Your Kodak DC290 should work great. I own a DC 265 and have been
extremely pleased with the results.
- debfranks
Kodak DC290 Digital Camera:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=253
Kodak DC 265 Digital Camera:
http://www.betterphoto.com/product/productDetail.asp?productID=159
Respond to this question:
http://www.betterphoto.com/QnAredirect.asp?threadID=1664
~~~~~~~~~~~
ASK YOUR OWN PHOTO QUESTION
~~~~~~~~~~~
Ask a question or answer a few from your fellow photographers:
http://www.betterphoto.com/qnaTOC.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~
READ SNAPSHOT ARCHIVES
~~~~~~~~~~~
Read past issues of SnapShot in the archives on the BetterPhoto Web site:
http://www.betterphoto.com/snapshots.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~
SIGN UP FOR PHOTOFLASH AND THE DIGITAL PICTURE
~~~~~~~~~~~
Join the fun and master the arts of traditional or digital photography!
Participate or follow along as we discuss topics & lessons, practice
assignments, and offer feedback on each others' work. Subscribe to our other
two free newsletters - PhotoFlash and the Digital Darkroom - at:
http://www.betterphoto.com/subscribe.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~
ADVERTISE IN SNAPSHOT
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tell over 8000 serious photographers about your product or service!
Learn more about advertising in SnapShot by visiting:
http://www.betterphoto.com/g/advertise.asp
If you already know what you want, purchase ad placement at:
http://www.betterphoto.com/g/advertise.asp
Until next week, enjoy shooting!
Thank you,
Jim Miotke
BetterPhoto.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would rather not receive SnapShot, you may unsubscribe at:
http://www.betterphoto.com/subscribeun.asp
To change your email address, visit:
http://www.betterphoto.com/subscribeCOA.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright 1999-2003 BetterPhoto.com - No part of this
newsletter may be copied or published without prior
permission, but please feel free to forward this to
friends as long as you include the entire newsletter.
SnapShot Archives Index
