Tuesday 31 December 2019

How to choose lens for macro photography?



I have a Canon EOS 450D and the three following lenses :



  • Canon EF-S 18–55mm lens f/3.5–5.6

  • Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II


I would like to give Macro photography a try (lego or tiny people photography) and I would like to know which caracteristics of my lenses would fit best this exercise.


Is there one of my lenses that will give me overall better results with macro photography ?


A very neat example of what I think


Attempt(s) with my Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 :



First attempt with Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS



Answer



None of the lenses have macro capabilities - but you can probably get good images of lego-sized objects (maybe with a little cropping).


Just try, set up some object similar to what you want to photograph, make sure you have lots of light and the entire object is well lit.


Hint: for a static indoor scene low ISO, a tripod, cable release and a window that isn't in direct sunlight will do wonders


Now take each lens, zoom in all the way and get as close as possible before the lens no longer focus (this will get you the maximum magnification of the lens) and take a photo.


Do only basic processing on all images - but do process them (straiten them if need, crop to taste, do basic WB and color corrections)


After you try all your lenses you can look at the images and decide what image (if any) best fits your artistic style and is closest to the images you want to produce.


frames - Should I sign, watermark or otherwise label a framed print? And if so how?



I have an opportunity to show some of my work in a small local coffee shop. Are there any guidelines/practices to signing, labeling or watermarking a photo which is to be on display? Or should a photo be signed, labelled or marked at all? Is signing the back of the photo and showing my name on a separate card below the frame itself the "better" way to do this?


I noticed many people on the web put a very noticeable watermark with their logo, copyright and name right on the photo. Personally, I find this distracting as it often ruins the photograph itself often turning what could be art to kitsch. Painters most often sign the painting itself but this to me is not distracting because it is done with the painter's own hand and it often "works" with the painting.



Answer



I would have thought that having a business card or similar discretely displayed below the print is a classy way to go about it.


Monday 30 December 2019

repair - How can I remove scratches from a lens?


How can I clean a lens (fisheye) scratches? I heard about



  • peanut butter

  • rubbing alcohol

  • car paint scratch removal solution

  • any other? like an abrasive tool etc





What is the relationship between field of view and focal length for fisheye?


What is the relationship between the focal length and field of view for an equal-area ("equisolid") projection fisheye lens? Alternatively, what is the relationship between the 180-degree image circle size and the focal length for such a lens?


Ultimately I want to find the field of view of a Tokina 10-17 mm fisheye zoom at focal lengths other than 10 mm on APS-C (at 10 mm Tokina claims 180 degrees diagonally).




What are some good techniques for using a monopod while shooting sports?


What are some good strategies/techniques for using a monopod while shooting sports?


I'm doing a lot of shooting of Figure Skating right now, and am finding the camera and 70-200mm lens is heavy enough that my wrist and elbow are sore at the end of each session.



I'm thinking that a monopod would help provide support and stability. However, I've never used one before, and am not sure how to shoot while using it.


I suppose also the monopod would reduce camera shake over hand-holding, but if my shutter speeds are 1/500s, will it make that much of a difference?


I'm guessing I need a ball head (or at least some kind of head) because mounting the camera/lens to the top of the monopod would be restricting for trying to track a moving target (panning and tilting). However, if you use a ball head, do you give up stability for freedom of movement?


Updated


I appreciate Alan's answer below, as it does answer some of my questions, but I was also kind of hoping for suggestions on technique (ie. how to use a tripod for support while tracking moving objects, and still get the benefits of stability and support).



Answer



Yes it will make a difference even at 1/500s. Sports shooters often use a monopod for the increased stability without the extra hassle of a full tripod setup, though they typically do so with longer heavier lenses.


Since your lens is on a single leg, there should be no issue panning. You can achieve some tilt as well, but a head would help with that.


With regards to the ball head; any ball head that does not provide the same stability you would get by connecting directly to the leg(s) is either an inferior ball head or not designed to hold the current weight.


What you give up by using a ball head is actually mobility due to weight. A ball head can easily double the weight of your monopod.



It sounds like you need something to help prevent stress injuries, and help with fast shutter speeds. Do you really need the mobility of a monopod? Do you find yourself moving around a lot to get different vantage points? If so, a monopod makes sense. Otherwise consider alternatives, like a tripod, or a wrist brace, or even strength training.


software - How to mass convert RAW images into JPEG in Lightroom 3?


I have 1000 raw photos that I would like to convert all to jpg. Is there a way I can do this all at once or can I only do it one by one?




Sunday 29 December 2019

software - Damaged RAW (NEF)-files: ideas?


I damaged some of my NEF-files by using a script using ExifTool on subdirectories: I copied the exif-information from the original JPG to created JPG, using "-tagsFromFile -overwrite_original_in_place". Unfortunately I did overlook that the ad-hoc-script copied to NEF as well.


Somehow the makernotes or whatever seem to be scrambled/removed, so that the higher-level-programs like AdobeRaw/Adobe DNG Converter, RawTherapee or RawDrop are stumped. RawTherapee just crashes on opening the file, CS4 tells me that it "Could not complete your request as it is not the right kind of document."


It is not a tragic accident, as I already did create colour-corrected final JPG versions, but it unnerves me. Other programs like XnView and IrfanView still get along fine, I guess that they apply some inbuilt default. Picasa on the other hand produces garbage, as RawDrop does: pictures are extremely dark.


Is there a solution to this?


Concerning Backup: As the NEF still looked fine in XnView I did not notice them being damaged until after I overwrote the backup. Wanted to have a look at the capabilities of ViewNX concerning NEF ... and ViewNX did display nothing.


Example: See here


EDIT: PS: I already tried removing all EXIF, did not help. Sorry, forgot to mention.



Answer



I've taken a look at your linked image. The problem is that the following crucial information is missing from the NEF maker notes: NEFCompression, ContrastCurve, LinearizationTable. Presumably this happened because the maker notes were copied from a JPEG image, which doesn't contain this information.



The best you can do is to copy the makernotes from an original NEF image to replace the makernotes in the affected NEF's. This can be done with the following command:


exiftool -tagsfromfile good.nef -makernotes bad.nef


After this, most of the maker notes of no longer correspond to the original image, but you can recover what you can from the JPEG version of the maker notes by executing this command afterwards:


exiftool -tagsfromfile bad.nef_original -makernotes:all bad.nef


This will copy the existing individual maker notes tags back again. (Note that the 2 steps are necessary because maker notes tags may not be created individually, so copying the entire MakerNotes block was the only way to get the necessary tags back into the image.)


When you are done, you should have a usable NEF image, although the linearization may be slightly different so the levels might not be quite the same as they were originally.


flash - How to Avoid Red-Eye in Photos?



Although tools exist to remove red-eye in post-production, what's the best way to avoid it while creating the photograph in the field?



Answer



To understand how to prevent red-eye you need to understand what causes it.


Red eye is caused by light from a flash that is close to the lens entering the subjects pupils and bouncing off the rear of the eye back into the lens. (The main cause for the red colour is the blood in the back of the retina). Wikipedia has more info.


To prevent red-eye you need to prevent this light bounce back. There are several ways to achieve this.




  1. Pre-flash. By flashing a bright light prior to taking the main photo. This causes the subjects pupils to narrow and reduces the amount of red eye. Many modern compacts have red eye reduction modes that do this by flashing multiple times before the main flash, or providing a continuous bright light in place of a quick flash.





  2. Use an angled flash to direct the light to bounce of a wall or ceiling to prevent the direct bounce back.




  3. Use a flash that is separate from the camera so the light bouncing back does not bounce directly back down the axis of the lens.




prevention of redeye


If you have a compact camera it is likely your only option is number 1. With an SLR you have more choices.


Saturday 28 December 2019

autofocus - How to precisely focus in self-portraiture with very wide aperture?



I've been trying to take some self-portraits, but I often have to struggle with the auto/manual focus. I don't miss by a lot, but I really want sharp focus in the eyes. I'm using a 50mm/1.8 around 2/2.2. What are some good techniques to get the camera properly focused when dealing with narrow DoFs?



Answer



Having taken quite a few self portraits lately, I'd recommend the following...



  • If you're trying for a shallow DoF to blur out the background, increase your aperture to 2.8-3.2 and move further from your background - it'll be it alot easier to nail the focus on your whole face.

  • If you have a face detection in Live Mode, try that.

  • Try setting just the center focus point on the camera and line up on that.

  • Make a mark where you're going to stand, pick an object you're always going to point your body towards. Pick another object you're going to point your head towards, and then look at the camera. Its probably going to take a few tries, so you want to be as consistent as possible.


depth of field - Can you shoot with a 55mm lens so that you have both person and background clear?


Is it possible to shoot with a 55mm lens so that you have both the close objects and the background objects (like buildings situated half a mile away) clear?



Answer



I assume that by "clear", you mean sharp.


The answer depends on what distance you consider "close" and how sharp is "clear" enough for you. You could use an online depth of field calculator to check what's feasible.


For example, using f/22 and focusing at hyperfocal distance (23 feet) on a Canon 1.6 crop body, your depth of field starts at about 12 feet, so this is the closest distance you can have sharp with this lens and aperture.


If you want to avoid loss of overall sharpness due to diffraction, you should open the aperture to about f/11 and that leaves 23 feet as the closest distance (focusing at hyperfocal distance - 46 feet).



Of course, those are not hard numbers - transition from sharp to non-sharp is gradual, and you might be able to position your front subject closer or be forced to move further depending on how much blur you are willing to accept.


cheap - What are good gifts between $50 and $100 for photographers?



(inspired by AJ's question)


It's that time of year: family and friends are starting to ask what we want for the holidays. I usually try to have several suggestions at various price ranges. AJ's question had some great suggestions for under $50, but it seems that everything else in photography costs hundreds or thousands of dollars.



What are some things that people can give their photographer friends (professional, hobbyist, or just starting) that costs between $50 and $100 dollars?



Answer



Small accessories that will get the photographer trying out a new technique (though you should expect they might replace your gift if they really get into the technique), some examples:



  • A GorillaPod mini tripod (if they have no tripod or only a huge one)

  • A cheap tripod (assuming they don't have a Pro camera/lenses)

  • A shutter release cable

  • A shutter release cable with inbuilt timers (for time-lapse or timed long exposure)

  • ND (neutral density) filter (or a set of a few they can combine)



Any of these will allow/encourage some long exposure experimentation.


Filters or flash accessories:



  • Circular polarizing filter

  • Graduated ND filter

  • tinted or coloured filters

  • tinted/coloured gels for a flash unit

  • flash diffuser (maybe a simple one, maybe a nice Gary Fong or equivalent)


Some filters are more useful, others are just novelty, but they can be fun to play around with. Flash accessories are also quite useful or maybe just a bit of fun. Either way it can encourage a bit of artistic messing around, outside the box of their usual photographic style.



Cheap prime lens:



  • 50mm f/1.8


I know Canon & Nikon have pretty cheap 50mm lenses (around $100 or a bit over). They're very nice lenses if they don't already have a prime around 50mm.


A camera bag



  • First camera bag (how do they not have one?!)

  • A smaller, one-camera-with-lens bag (snout?)

  • A larger backpack style (might break $100 though)



They might have a bag already, but perhaps they need a smaller bag for when they're just taking the SLR with attached lens or a bigger bag that fits their expanding collection (the latter is probably getting past $100 though).


Specialist photog software, for example...



  • HDR software (Photomatix?)

  • Noise reduction (Noise Ninja?)

  • Anything by Nik (there's a variety of apps)

  • Panorama stitching program


It's not photoshop, but there's some good software around that'll do one specific technique very well. HDR is pretty fun and accessible and Photomatix is about the right price.



Second hand gear off eBay or from your own collection



  • An old Film SLR + 50mm prime + some B&W film

  • A DIY reverse-lens macro made from an old second hand manual focus & aperture prime lens, a body cap from their brand of camera, some glue/tubes/...


Whether its old gear (you can get some very good stuff for $50-100) or modded gear if you've got the skills, you could give them something fun to play with and learn from. There's a lot to be said for learning from prime lenses and B&W film photography.




Note For most of these suggestions, you'll need to know at least what sort of camera(s) the gift receiver owns, and probably also what lens(es) they own as well. If you can't find out, you might want to make sure there's a good returns policy and give the salesperson as much info as you can.



  • For shutter release cables, you'll need to know the camera brand and model.


  • Filter sizes, you need to know the lens brand/model or its filter diameter (often written on the front).

  • Flash gels and diffusers, probably best to know the flash brand/model, or at least be able to identify a similarly sized unit in the shop.

  • Tripods generally fit any camera (or a small cheap adaptor can allow it to). If uncertain, know the brand/model of the camera.

  • The cheap 50mm f/1.8 lenses are specific to their brand (Nikon/Canon). In general, you'd need to know the camera body model / brand to be sure of a purchase.




And remember, these are things that'll inspire them to try a new technique. If they really enjoy it, they'll probably go and spend 10x what you spent on an upgrade to what you got them, so don't be too offended if a few months later they've replaced your gift (my mum was a bit miffed when I bought a carbon fibre tripod a few months after she gave me a GorillaPod).


Does JPEG-to-JPEG export Lightroom reapply compression?


I want to crop a JPEG file in Lightroom and export that cropped file to another JPEG so that I can e-mail it. The exported JPEG should have the same quality as the original. I don't have the RAW file available anymore.



When I export the file I choose JPEG as an export format. But now I'm wondering if I should set the quality to the same quality as the original JPEG (= 80), or to 100.


I'm not sure if Lightroom reapplies the compression to the JPEG, i.e.:



RAW -> compress to quality 80 -> JPEG file 1 -> compress to quality 80 -> JPEG file 2



Or that it decompresses the JPEG and recompresses it again, effectively giving the same quality:



RAW -> compress to quality 80 -> JPEG file 1 -> decompress to bitmap -> compress to quality 80 -> JPEG file 2



How does Lightroom handle this?




Answer



The image will be recompressed. The two scenarios you describe are actually effectively the same, because the lossy part of the JPEG compression discards information which stays gone when the image is decompressed. (Hence, lossy.) That means that reapplying with the exact same parameters shouldn't do much, either in terms of further space saves or in terms of further artifacts. The differences come down to precision and rounding errors. (This is the same in Lightroom as it is in any other program.)


So, if you recompress with exact same parameters and have aligned your crop to 8×8 blocks, the degradation should be minimal. However, if you're using a high level of compression (I think 80% qualifies), you might actually see a difference, because the artifacts introduced by the initial compression are permanent changes to the image and will get recompressed too, possibly causing more artifacts.


Setting to 100 will be more safe, as any newly added artifacts will be hard to notice. It won't make the image any better, but not significantly worse. However, it will introduce changes across the whole image, whereas resaving will mostly concentrate changes to where artifacts are already noticeable. This, unfortunately, means that your mileage will vary.


If you're resizing or have made significant manipuations, all bets are off.


See this answer for details on how bad this degradation can get (and how to minimize it).


Friday 27 December 2019

photoshop - Questions to ask when using a professional printing service


I do lots of landscape photography. A friend of mine wants one of my photographs printed; I've never done this before! All of my photos are post-processed in Photoshop, and I only generate JPEG's for web use, never print.


I'll be hitting up a local print shop this week, what questions are important to ask when it comes to printing? I came up with a few...





  1. What file format produces the best print? (PSD, JPG, etc.)




  2. What type of paper should I request (matte, gloss, etc)




  3. How can I ensure the print looks just like the digital format? Do I need to supply a color profile, or do print shops handle this minor color adjustments?





  4. What type of ink should I request?




Did I miss anything? Again, I just need a print, the framing will be handled later.



Answer



OK... I used to run a print shop so i think i qualify to answer this.


Any print shop that can print 36x20 inhouse will be using a large format inkjet printer, id say Epson, HP or Canon.


Assuming the printer is reasonably new (IE < 4 years) it will almost definitely use good inks - in Epson's case UltraChrome. IF the print shop uses a constant feed ink system (after-market) personally id steer clear as they could well be cheap crap inks off ebay which will fade in weeks. Note: you wont get a choice of ink - you will get what they use!


A GOOD printer will accept nearly any format, but for photographs we prefer TIFF, or 100% quality JPG.



If they are any good at what they do they will have a dedicated computer for their print system (s) and they will have a fully calibrated monitor. get them to show you the image on their screen - BECAUSE they will have calibrated their complete work-process in such a way that the image on screen looks very close to the printer output - so if there is a green cast because your monitor was a bit off, then that is how it will come out.


Yes most good printers will check the image for you before printing and highlight any issues, most will be happy to do minor tweaks to colours but will get you to view/sign off the changes before print.


I would go with gloss or semi-gloss / lustre paper if its available and get 250GSM+


However you will pay for a good service like this - i would probably charge ITRO £40 for a full quality print of that size on good quality media (Kodak / Epson) with archival inks (UltraChrome K3)


If you want to pay £5, then expect "a print" !


Is this lightning image a natural phenomena or a digital camera artifact?


This image was taken during a thunderstorm and I am trying to find an explanation for it. My guess is that it is a digital artifact because the digital camera's mechanisms for reading pixels data from CCD sensor and the delay associated with reading and storing each frame. So, I am wondering wether my guess is correctenter image description here



What is the scientific explanation of this lightning image?



Here is a link to a video clip that contains the image https://mobile.twitter.com/307Mod/status/1045366144838717440/video/1



Answer



Cameras design utilizes several different shutter designs. The DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) typically use a focal plane shutter design. Such a shutter is favored when the camera supports interchangeable lenses. This is because the shutter resides at the rear of camera body; it hovers just above the surface of the image sensor. This design features a curtain with a slit. When the shutter button is actuated, the curtain with its slit opening travels across the image sensor. The shutter speed is the clock time it takes to travel the width of the slit. In other words, if the shutter speed is set to 1/125 of second, the curtain moves 1 slit width in 1/125 of a second. If the shutter speed is set faster, the width of the slit is set narrower, if the shutter speed is set slower, the slit width is set wider.



In my opinion, this image was taken during a lightning flash. The flash of light produced by lightening can be quite short (milliseconds). I think the shutter speed was set fast and as fortune happened, the lighting strike caught the lighting flash as the shutter was in motion. The part of sensor uncovered, recorded an image that was well exposed. Part of the slit travel exposed the sensor without the benefit of the lightning strike, this region of the chip is under-exposed. We see this happen all the time when the photographer is using an electronic flash. If the blitz of the flash and the shutter slit motion are not synchronized, we get this effect. Let me add, it’s not easy, perhaps impossible, to synchronized a shutter with a lightening flash.


event photography - How can I get barcode-scan information into my photo metadata, onsite, untethered?


I need a DSLR camera with a barcode scanner for on-site tours photography, which means it needs to be untethered! The image would have to contain the barcode scanned information in the image metadata or in the name itself.



I've seen solutions like, Foolography and a $2600 Canon Studio Edition launched in 2010. But I'm not sure of either those products!


So I'm asking the gurus here how I can get this working, which camera would I need and any accessory necessary?


I'm trying to recreate something like I saw the on-site volume photographers do in Disney's parks.




Thursday 26 December 2019

nikon - What compromises are there shooting DX lenses on an FX camera?


I am an enthusiast and currently I shoot with Nikon D90. I am in the process of upgrading the body, but little confused over the same generic question of FX vs DX. I know that an FX sensor delivers better dynamic range, high ISO capacity and more control over depth of field than a DX sensor. However, if I shoot with a FX camera in DX mode does it deliver the same high ISO and dynamic range performance?



Answer



DX lenses project a smaller image circle than FX lenses, smaller than an FX sensor. DX mode allows you to use an area the size of a DX sensor in the center of your FX sensor so the DX lens image circle will cover this area. Since each photosite in this area is still its full FX size, you will retain all the ISO and dynamic range capabilities of an FX sensor. However, since you are only using about an area about 45% of the full FX sensor, you will lose about 55% of your megapixels. This means a 36MP FX camera will produce 16.2MP images in DX mode, and a 24MP FX camera will produce 10.5MP images in DX mode. In addition, in DX mode, you will experience the same crop factor effect on your focal length. This means a 35mm FX lens on an FX body will give the angle of view expected, but a 35mm DX lens on a FX body will give an angle of view approximately like that of a 50mm FX lens on an FX body, just as that lens would do on an DX body.


If you have a large investment in DX lenses, DX mode can be a reasonable bridge, but you will not be using about half of your very expensive pixels, so if you have fully committed to moving from DX to FX, you should seriously consider selling your DX and lenses and acquiring FX lenses to take full advantage of your sensor.


digital - How do you use dodge and burn in post-process to enhance a photograph?


How do you use dodge and burn in post-process to enhance a photograph?


In lightroom, I've used dodge only to dial back some of the more drastic global settings in specific areas, but that's really it.


I'm curious what techniques are out there (tutorials or otherwise) on using dodge and burn.



Answer



Dodge and Burn normally applies when you want to change the relative exposure of part of an image.


In Lightroom you can do this with an adjustment brush that you set to change the exposure or brightness (there is a difference)


In Photoshop and GIMP there are specific tools for Dodge and Burn that you can also use like a paintbrush. For example you may be happy with the general exposure of an image but may just want to burn (darken) the edge of a cloud or dodge (lighten) someone's eyes to make them "pop".


Here is a Photoshop tutorial on the technique


Why am I getting an "ERR" while using my Nikon 50mm 1.4G lens?


I'm using a Nikon D610. In the middle of shooting a wedding I switched from my Nikon 50mm 1.4G to my Nikon 70-200mm 2.4. When switching back to the 50mm, any aperture smaller than 2.2 would result in "err" flashing on the camera.


I can shoot fine with wide apertures 1.4 up to 2 on the 50mm, but at 2.2 it results in the err along with anything higher. Switching back to the 70-200mm everything is fine.



Any thoughts? Both body and lens are fairly new.


Thanks!




Wednesday 25 December 2019

Can I fine tune the manual focus confirmation on my Nikon?


I haven't seen this answered anywhere, but does something or some software exist to fine tune manual (!!) focus confirmation (the dot at the bottom left) to more accurately represent focus? If I have the triangle pointed rightward I know I'm in focus, rather than seeing just the "dot", and it's really putting me off. Would love to fix this, and I'm not afraid to use 3rd party software to get it done.



Answer



Based on discussion in the comments above, where it is experimentally verified that autofocus microadjust can move the automatically-found focus point back and forth from the point identified as in-focus for the manual focus confirmation — I think your theory is right and the adjustment is just applied as an offset to auto-focus. This is somewhat surprising, because as Kamen notes in another answer, it's just using the same autofocus sensors. Possibly a firmware update could change this, but I wouldn't hold my breath.


What I bet you can do, though, is send your camera and lenses to Nikon and ask Nikon to calibrate the manual focus confirmation for you — they can make adjustments that aren't available to end-users (possibly including physical shims, even).


service recommendation - What's the easiest way to create passport-sized prints?


I need to print some passport-sized photos for visa applications. They each need to be 35mm x 45mm.


Is there an easy way to take a single photo of my face and create a new jpeg file from it that I can just print in 6"x4" and have several passport photos on it in the right size that I can just cut out?



Answer



Since asking this question, and answering my own question I've faced the same problem so many times that I decided to write a website that solves it in a nice free way. You just upload a photo and then you can just download a jpeg ready to print at 6"x4".


www.oddprints.com


oddprints


Output photo: enter image description here


Sorry if this is a bit spammy, but it is a free website, no need to register, doesn't watermark the image or anything like that and the source is free on github etc.



canon - What was my flash power?


When I am using a Canon flash in the E-TTL mode, how can I tell which flash power the E-TTL magic chose?


For example, if I got a correct exposure in the E-TTL mode, can I easily choose the same flash power in the manual mode (without a lot of trial & error)?


Is this information available anywhere (camera, flash, EXIF data)? Does it depend on the Speedlite model?





In particular, I would like to easily find out how close to the limits of my flash I am shooting. If I noticed that E-TTL is using almost full power, then I might want to increase ISO to play safe and avoid underexposure if the conditions change a bit, and if I noticed that it is using very little flash power, I might want to decrease ISO.


Of course I know that there is a green "flash exposure confirmation" LED. This way I can check that I had enough power in my flash – but by how large a margin?



Answer



I don't think that data is available.


However, I've found that you get a feel for good starting point just by using your gear. Once you get to know your gear you can look at a situation and say to yourself, "OK, I'm going to have my flash about 6' away, ISO 400 and f/5.6... I'll start with the flash at 1/8th power and adjust from there".


That kind of approximation is likely more useful than trying to use E-TTL to meter it for you - especially since it can be tricky to know that the TTL is metering the right area of your composition. If you really need an exact reading you'd be better off picking up a proper light meter that can fire your strobes.


exposure - How do dedicated light meters account for light transmittance?


Dedicated light meters seem to be well-regarded for their versatility and accuracy of metering.


What puzzles me about them is how can they account for the different light transmittance of different lenses? It's easy for an in-camera metering system that meters through the lens so any peculiarity in transmittance is already applied to light when it reaches the metering sensor. But a standalone meter does not have the privilege of looking at the world through the lens it meters for. I tried looking it up in some light meter manuals and Sekonic FAQ, but this issue was not touched upon at all.


This leaves several variants how it could be handled -



  • light meter uses T-stops for aperture display/input, and photographer is expected to perform the adjustments to and from F-stops (which are used by cameras);

  • light meter assumes some median transmittance of lenses of its era, and automatically accounts for that;

  • photographers simply ignore the matter - even a 75% transmitting lens will be off only by about half a stop, no big deal;

  • each light meter used is expected to know that you have to dial in some exposure compensation to account for the light loss;


  • ...


So how does it work in real world?



Answer



If not knowing the transmittance of your lenses is really bothering you, you could test them and see as this DPReview user did. Most of the lenses tested, about 25 Nikon lenses, averaged in the 80-90% light transmittance (telephoto lenses were less). Compensate accordingly. In the real world of photography, though, a safe assumption is that most don't worry about it.


Tuesday 24 December 2019

tripod - How much benefit can one get from monopod for night photography?


So I am confused on choosing a monopod or tripod for night photography, considering the fact the camera may need delayed shutter speed tripod is better.


I know everyone would prefer a tripod over monopod for night photography (I just guess tripod is preferred more) . I find it heavy and at times uncomfortable carrying it around due to its complexity and weight.


Give me a reason to choose a monopod for night photography(if you think monopod are good) and what model would you choose. I don't want it to be too expensive something affordable.


*Camera: Nikon D5100 *Lens:18-105mm



Answer



Although I've used a monopod in a pinch (because I had a monopod with me and didn't have a tripod), the only real way to go for night photography unless you are shooting in a place very well lit with artificial light is a tripod. In general I've found a monopod buys about three or four stops slower than the 1/(focal length X crop factor) rule for non-stabilized lenses. For stabilized lenses the monopod will help extend whatever benefit the Image Stabilization, Vibration Reduction, etc. by another couple of stops or so. A good tripod, on the other hand, will allow you to take much longer shots than a monopod. For me the primary benefit of a monopod is supporting the weight of a heavy lens during an extended shoot such as a sporting event or air show, not to allow longer shutter speeds. For that you really need a tripod. The other use case for a monopod is when you are in places that do not allow tripods but do allow monopods.


This shot was taken from a monopod at 1/5 sec, f/3.5, 35mm focal length, ISO 1600. The lens used was a non-stabilized Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L mounted on a Canon EOS 5D mark II. I was shooting a little over three stops below the 1/focal length rule. I had used my longer lens and a 7D on the monopod all afternoon at an air show. Not being aware there was going to be fireworks after dark, I had left my tripod in the car quite a distance from the venue. It is not razor sharp as there appears to have either been a little camera movement or the manual focus left the foreground a little soft. Fortunately, the fireworks in the picture are very forgiving since they are very short bursts of bright light for any single spot in the photo.



Airshow fireworks


This image, on the other hand, was exposed for 30 seconds and would not have been possible without a tripod or other solid camera support. There may be someone that could hold a monopod motionless for 30 seconds, but I've never met anyone that can.


Bridge at night


focal length - How to achieve full-frame look/view on a crop-sensor - without changing the lens?


I have a Canon 600D, which is crop-sensor camera. If you're shooting with a Canon EF 50mm, it'll be (50x1.6) = 80mm on a normal full-frame body right? I'm also a street-photography-kinda guy, which I prefer going on 50mm lens than a 18-55 kit lens for shooting (while in a moving car).


Now, how to achieve that real full-frame 50mm focal look/view on a crop-sensor without changing the lens? I know that 50mm on full-frame is around 30mm on crop-sensor. Is there any other way than changing the lens to around 24 or 35mm?



Answer



You can't.


What we refer to as equivalence is only an approximation. You can't put a different lens on a crop sensor camera and get the same shot with the same field of view from the same shooting position with the same depth of field using the same ISO and the same shutter time as you can get with a full frame camera. The converse is also just as true. You can't put an 80mm lens on a FF camera and perfectly replicate the same shot you got with a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera. To get a number of the variables to match, you must be willing to allow other variables to differ.


Having said that, to even begin to get close to the look you can get with a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, you must begin by using a lens with a similar field of view on your APS-C camera. This means a lens with a focal length of around 30mm. And to replicate the depth of field of a 50mm lens at f/1.8 on the FF camera, you must use an aperture of around f/1.1 on the 30mm lens. Unfortunately, there are no 30mm f/1.1 lenses available in the Canon EF mount. If there were any such lenses available they would likely be several orders of magnitude more expensive than any version of an EF 50mm f/1.8. It is quite likely the price difference would be even greater than the price difference between your 600D and a Canon FF model such as the 6D.


lens - Can Canon T70 be converted to digital?


Is it possible to convert my Canon T70 to digital format? Will I still be able to use my collection of lenses after conversion?




Is there any plugin for Lightroom that enables face recognition?


Is there any plugin for Lightroom that enables face recognition (i.e. show me all photos where someone appears, and tell me which new ones you think the person is)? I've considered switching to Aperture just because of this feature.


Is Adobe considering that for a future release?




Monday 23 December 2019

exposure - How do TTL flash metering systems calculate how much power is needed?


Does anyone know how TTL calculates the amount of power to put in after the preflash is done? I understand that the value is somewhat brand specific, but what is the general logic? Because if you think about it, before flash the camera calculates the exposure to the 18% rule. But this makes no sense for flash.


For example, if I'm already at the perfect exposure (18%) before flash, the flash will still fire. If it followed that logic, it should not fire at all.


Also, if the logic is to bring the whole scene to 18%, doesn't that mean the flash power is inversely proportional to my continuous light exposure? i.e., the more I underexpose the background, the more power it will flash?





artifacts - Are these blotches of wrong color caused by a corrupt SD card?


My old camera was taking images that had blotches of the wrong colors when zoomed in, and I take a lot of macro pictures. I bought a new camera and put my old sd card into it and now it's doing the same thing. I can only imagine that it is the card, since that is the only thing these two cameras have in common.


I read somewhere that you should reformat SD cards ocassionally. I've never reformatted mine at all. Could this help my problems or do I need a new card?


Also, my daughter has my old camera and is using her memory card in it. She says there are no bad spots in her photos now.




post processing - Are there any tools out there to automatically level an image?


I am wondering if there are any tools (standalone, Lightroom/Photoshop plugins, or other) that can take a photo, look for lines that are almost vertical or horizontal (eg horizons, telephone poles, etc), and automatically rotate and crop the image?


This is a manual process for me right now, and it seems like something that could be automated.


Does anything like this exist?



Answer



There may well be programs that attempt to do what you describe, but I'm doubtful it would be that effective. If the camera is pitched up or down slightly then you could have a perfectly level image, despite not having a single horizontal or vertical line.


The reason for this is that unless your camera is dead flat along the optical axis (that runs parallel to the lens) then your telegraph poles etc. won't be vertical in an image, even if the camera is level - the lines will all converge on an imaginary vanishing point in the sky. Likewise, if the camera is not face on to a true horizontal line it won't be rendered horizontal in the image.


It's possible to employ a more sophisticated approach, by either trying to identify the horizon in images, or even better grouping lines that share a common vanishing point, estimating the pitch angle and thus the correct angle to rotate the image, but such a process would be considerably more involved.



lens - What is good equipment to buy/hire for a generalist photographer, new to event photography?


I'll soon be covering an event, and my existing lens set isn't necessarily ideal for low-light people photography.


As with many events, this may be both indoors and outside, and runs throughout the day, so need to be prepared for all sorts of lighting.


Of course, there are lots of non-equipment things to consider - such as scouting the venue in advance to get a better idea of potential conditions, and other possible pitfalls mentioned here.


Equipment-wise, I have a Nikon D300s and a D70.


My current lenses are:




The 30mm can do low light, and will be fine for general/scene shots, but not great for individual people/portrait style shots, since it requires getting in close.


The 70-300mm is bad in even a little dim light, and in general is slow and crappy.


So what would be a good lens to buy or rent for someone not yet an experience event photographer?


Is there any other equipment that would be useful to have? (for example, is a battery grip beneficial, or is a pair of charged spare batteries sufficient?)



Answer



I would think at least one external flash that you will be able to bounce off of walls etc is not only a "nice to have" , but probably a requirement for event photography.


Sunday 22 December 2019

raw - When shooting in mRAW or sRAW, how does the camera generate smaller files?


Most mid- and high-end DLSRs offer two or three sizes for RAW capture. When the camera is generating the medium or small sized RAW files, how does it make them smaller? Does it capture less information onto the sensor? Does it capture the full amount of information and then apply some sort of in-camera compression? Does it do something else that I'm not describing?




Answer



Douglas Kerr gives a masterful and largely non-mathematical summary at The Canon sRaw and mRaw Output Formats . The situation is complicated and not perfectly understood, but much has been deduced by reverse engineering. Evidently sRaw is a 2 x 2 aggregation but with some chrominance subsampling; mRaw is likely a bona fide resampling (involving local interpolation), with heavier chrominance subsampling. One might indeed characterize each as a form of "in-camera compression" performed in a sophisticated way to optimize the appearance of detail to the human eye for a given output file size.


dslr - Is Canon 60D still a decent camera?



I have a Canon 60D, bought it back in 2013. Use it quite a while, but in past two-three years, I lost interest in photography. I will be going on a long trip this summer and would like to take a decent camera with me. Is Canon 60D still a decent one or I will be missing on features and upgrades comparing to the latest versions?



In terms of lenses I own Tamron 24-70 2.8 And Canon 100 2.8 Macro.



Answer




I have a Canon 60D, bought it back in 2013. Use it quite a while, but in past two-three years, I lost interest in photography. I will be going on a long trip this summer and would like to take a decent camera with me. Is Canon 60D still a decent one ...



It's a decent camera, even today. If you've 'lost interest' spending money is something you have to decide for yourself.


Take the camera and your lenses, possibly see if somewhere will rent a lens for a vacation or use the Internet to research somewhere to rent lenses at your destination (and read their Fine Print).


Bring your phone, a backup camera (and portable telephone) is handy while traveling.



... or I will be missing on features and upgrades comparing to the latest versions?




Yes, you're missing a bit. You can find out what by using 'Online Comparison Tools':



Once you determine what you're missing (not an awful lot) you can use the link suggested by @scottbb When should I upgrade my camera body? to decide if it's "worth it" - I opine no.


Since you have so few lenses another choice is to get out of Canon's two digit lineup and look elsewhere. If saving size and weight is your primary consideration then mirrorless is another option.



They make some compact mirrorless cameras like the M100, you should examine why you became disinterested and seek to fix that - without spending a lot of money.



In terms of lenses I own Tamron 24-70 2.8 And Canon 100 2.8 Macro.




See prior advice about renting, if it's an expensive trip (far away) a bunch of great (and different focal length) photos makes financial sense; to record your memories and increase the value of trip.


Spending money sounds like an easy fix, the question is: will it fix the problem?


lens - Would it be better to use a 35mm prime instead of a 50mm prime on a cropped sensor body?



It's said that 50mm is close to what the human eye sees and is a very versatile focal length in general, especially good for street photography which is what I'm most interested in. That being the case, if I have a cropped sensor (1.6) would I better off with a 35mm prime since it would give me a field of view similar to a 50mm lens (35 X 1.6 = 56) as opposed to a 50mm prime which would give me a field of view similar to an 80mm lens (50 X 1.6 = 80)?




equipment recommendation - Is there a camera that operates silently, suitable for use at a wedding?


I would like some advice or suggestions for a camera to use at a wedding.


I normally use a Pentax K-5 (which is quiet enough) and a Pentax K-r (which is noisy) but I have a wedding to shoot with a vicar who is very anti-cameras, in particular during the ceremony.


The couple have asked me to take what I can and it occurred to me that if I have a camera which can be set up on a tripod near the vicar and couple and operated by wireless remote (not infrared) this might work. However, it must be silent (or almost silent) when operated. My K-5 is very quiet but I want a electronic rather than a mirror shutter and it must have good low light capability as flash will not be allowed.


So I'm looking for something with:




  • very very quiet operation

  • wide aperture

  • tripod mount

  • capability for wireless remote firing


Note I don't need a telephoto or very wide angle zoom.




lens - Does a bigger aperture create better photos?


I have observed that the wider the aperture, the more expensive the lenses are. However, I would like to know whether it really makes a difference in your photos or not?



Answer



Yes, there are several reasons for this.



  • Larger apertures allow for a smaller depth of field, and generally better bokeh.

  • Faster/more accurate auto focus, because more light is available to the focus system.

  • Much more versatility, because more light falls on the sensor at a wide aperture, which opens up your options in lower-light settings.


  • Better image quality. This is a little more complicated to explain, but imagine you have an option between an f/2.0 lens, or an f/8 lens. If you shoot the same scene with both set to f/8, the f/2.0 will almost always be sharper and have less vignetting. This is because lenses tend to get soft when they are wide open, and by stopping down partially you can improve both sharpness, as well as decrease the light fall-off that creates vignetting.


Saturday 21 December 2019

How do I disassemble my Canon 18-55mm lens to repair water damage inside it?


My Canon 18-55mm lens has residue on the inside of the lens. I'm trying to take it apart, but I've tried 8 different screw drivers and these screws won't budge. What else can I try?





filters - Bright image with infrared D3s and cap on (image included)


I have a D3s with no infrared filter (it has been removed). When I take dark images in high ISO with body cap on and covered in a wrap (so no light gets in), and no lens mounted, the images are not dark but surprisingly bright.


Is it because of internal heat and/or infrared radiation? Can I do something about it? enter image description here




Here's an image with IR filter on and same conditions (ISO:51200, Expo. time 1/400 s) enter image description here




people - How can I get my portrait subjects to look natural and drop the cheesy smile?


I am surprised by how many people automatically put on a cheesy smile when I point a camera in their direction.
How can I encourage them to act more naturally, and what can I do to get better, more natural-looking portraits?



Answer



I find the cheesy smile comes out when the subject is uncomfortable.



Depending on the style of photo you're after your options fall into distinct groups:


The "When did you take that?" photo


Sometimes referred as the paparazzi style (although the circumstances are generally more favourable), but the method is very similar -- long lens, wide aperture, and generally from distance, so the subject has no chance to get uncomfortable.


You can also get some closer candids by pointing and hoping for the best (or taking a crafty look at live view) - practice will improve the ratio of good to bad.


Formal portraiture


So things like the family shot at the wedding, it can be beneficial to build rapport with the models, with the odd joke, but maintain the position of authority as a director too. Kids tend to photograph best when they're amused, so a similar idea can work.


Friday 20 December 2019

photoshop - How can I maintain photo color consistency across computer monitors?


When saving photos for the web from within Photoshop I run into issue where my colors are not consistent between monitors. While I understand there will be some difference between monitors there are at times a huge difference between my desktop monitor and my laptop monitor. In the best cases the colors (on my laptop monitor) are a bit washed out but not to bad in worst cases the colors are completely different shades and the picture is not blown out but close. If I adjust the colors on my desktop monitor to compensate for my laptop monitor the colors (majority of the time) are way to dark. Are there any tips/tricks on maintaining consistency across monitors?


A few notes: I always save my photos for web using Photoshop's Save for Web and Devices below is a screenshot of my settings. (I have un-checked Embed Color Profile would that help?) I have calibrated both monitors as best as possible with software. (I am not using any form of hardware calibration.) And the monitor for my desktop is an old LCD monitor. (It is at least 6 years old but was not in use for at least 2-3 years of that 6.) The laptop is a new computer. (Is age going to be playing into this issue?) And finally neither monitor is a "Glossy" monitor.


Photoshop Save for Web and Devices Settings



Answer



I think the basic answer here is: you need to get a hardware-based calibration device and use that on both monitors. As you have experienced, it's really hard to get this right by eye. Getting the monitors calibrated correctly will help, but if one or both of them are really poor equipment, you still may have limitations.


We've got some questions and answers on how to do this (and what to do it with) in the display-calibration tag.


You're already saving the image in the limited and "safe" sRGB color space, so there's really very little more you can do to the image itself.



technique - How to cope with high contrast?


Many times (especially around midday), we encounter lighting situations where the contrast of the scene is too high to capture with a camera. What can we do to create a useful picture in such environment, besides completely blowing the highlights or shooting a silhouette?




silhouette
Here, I went with the sky.



Answer



This is my attempt to summarize various ways this can be handled:





  • You can reduce the contrast by lighting up shadow areas by fill flash (on- or off-camera). This required having a flash, and if you use on-camera one the resulting areas (faces) may look a bit flat if on-camera flash is the only light source. You also may run into color correction issues (neutral daylight flash vs. slightly orange evening sun). See Matt's answer for example.




  • A well-positioned reflector can light shadow areas with reflected light of your main source. For this you need a reflector and something/someone to hold it in place. [Kendall]




  • Sometimes it's best to change the scene completely and perhaps shoot a portrait in the shadow instead of in the midday sun. Or wait for more favorable time of day. [ysap]




  • Especially in landscape photography, a graduated ND filter can be used to darked top part of image with bright sky. [John]





  • Shooting RAW might help use more of your sensor's dynamic range and later use some of the in post-processing. [ysap]




  • Finally, you can shoot several pictures, and combine them into one tone-mapped HDR photo. This can be done either manually or with various automatic tools and settings. Matt's answer provides a tone-mapped alternative to fill-flash photo.




How important is a fast aperture in a wide angle lens?


I am looking for a good wide angle lens: I am looking at the Sigma 8-16.


It has great reviews, by far the widest angle I can get on my camera. Only thing I am worried about is the relatively low f4.5. I do a lot of shooting in bars and nightclubs, one of the reasons I want a wide angle lense is to be able to take group pictures more easily. Right now my widest lens is the 18-55mm kit lens, but I mainly use the 35mm 1.8. So this would be SIGNIFICANTLY wider, but not nearly as nice of an f-stop. That being said I always shoot with my SB-600 anyways, so I don't think it would be that big of a deal.


The other option I am looking at is the new Tokina 11-16 Ver II.


Nice fast f2.8, but more expensive and not as wide (though 11 is still a lot wider then I have been working with).


Do you think have a f4.5 will be too much of an issue when shooting in indoors/relatively low light when i am using a nice flash (and my camera handles high ISO fairly well, plus I am pretty good with Lightroom noise reduction)?




Answer



First off 11mm is very wide, well into the so wide it's difficult to use territory. I can't imagine anyone feeling stuck with 11mm not being wide enough. You are likely however to run into problems with people looking stretched at the edges of your images, or getting too much unnecessary foreground detail in shot. Secondly you'll be able to use slower shutter speeds than you could with the 35mm lens so the aperture is less of an issue.


You should be aware though that ultra wide lenses are often not very Sharp wide open, particularly at the borders.


If you want wide and fast then you're a bit stuck on a crop body. I first upgraded to full frame for this very reason. I needed more options to shoot events in poor light where flash is not practical. On a full frame body you can get a 24mm f/1.4 lens. The fast lens matching that on a crop would be 16mm f/2.8, which is two stops slower. Two stops is a big deal.


I really don't think you need to go any wider than 24mm equiv. due to the problems mentioned above. Cutting through the crowds and making space for yourself are very useful skills. If I were you I'd stick with the 17 kit and save up for a full frame camera, used bodies are becoming available at good prices now.


lens - Confused about T-stop number. Does it account for crop factor?


I understand that a T/stop number deals with how much light is let in, instead of the sensor size vs. aperture like the f/stop number. However, what I haven't found is whether or not that T/stop number deals with crop factors. As we all know, on an APS-C or MFT sensor, an f/1.8 50mm lens is actually behaving like an f/2.7 75mm or f/3.6 100mm respectively.


However, what I'm wondering is if my T/2.1 10mm cine lens on my MFT camera (GH5) is behaving like an f/4.2 20mm or an f/2.1 10mm. (Or f/2.1 20mm for that matter.)


Does this question make sense? I'm basically wondering if the T/stop number accounts for the crop factor, since it deals with the amount of light let into the lens.




Thursday 19 December 2019

product photography - Fluorescent/neon clothing


I am in charge of taking pictures of all of our products for our website.


The new collections (clothing) are going to have a lot of fluorescent/neon colors.


I have a small studio with a Sony alpha a550 camera: I am already shooting in raw and for photo processing I have Photoshop Elements 9.



How can I get a realistic representation of these colors?


What are the best techniques to capture in camera, and then to process with PSE9, this kind of products?


Here is an example: the stripes should be fluorescent/neon, but they don't look like that on the picture. example




aperture - Why does Canon and Nikon limit or disable autofocus beyond certain f-numbers?


One thing that I've noticed with Canon DSLR camera is they will disable or limit autofocus when the lens' maximum aperture is narrower than certain values, which are specified in my answer to What apertures are required to enable autofocus, including cross-type or high-precision focusing, on Canon DSLR cameras? Note that Nikon cameras are also typically limited to f/5.6 except for models featuring the latest revision of the Multi-CAM 3500 AF system as in the D4 and D800.


As far as I am aware, Olympus and Pentax do not have these limitations, even if autofocus may be slow or unreliable beyond f/5.6. (Sony/Minolta requires at least f/6.3, with one exception for a 500mm f/8 autofocus mirror lens, and the Alpha 850 and 900 have a center AF point with high precision at f/2.8.) For example, on Pentax, 9 of the 11 points are cross-type and remain so at all apertures. The Pentax AF system has been reported to work at f/8 and beyond, though extremely slowly. Olympus Four Thirds cameras will continue to attempt to focus below f/5.6 as well. Why do Canon and Nikon choose to limit AF functionality instead of attempting to focus with reduced performance beyond the above cutoffs?



Answer



The auto focus systems are not capable of using the highest precision cross type focusing points if you do not use a large aperture lens. They aren't artificially limiting the precision, they are simply working within the constraints of the maximum aperture.



Canon puts these limits in to ensure reliable AF. If you don't believe that theory, add a piece of tape between your teleconverter and lens, on the top three left pins. This will trick your body into thinking that you don't have a teleconverter attached, and your lens is simply a 300/4.0 or whatever you have.


Furthermore, only the Canon 1-series cameras are capable of AF with a f/8 lens, albeit at the center point only. Usually this setup comes from combining a long lens with a extender. (Note: more recently the Canon 5D Mark III, 7D with firmware v.2.0 or later, and 7D Mark II can AF with the center point up to f/8. The Canon 5D Mark IV and 1D X Mark II can AF with multiple AF points with an f/8 lens. The Canon 1D X requires later firmware to AF an f/8 lens with the center point. As originally shipped it would only AF with f/5.6 and wider lenses.)


This really comes down to a issue of user experience. Sure, they could include ISO 204800 or 409600, but the quality would not make anyone happy. They are trying to keep the majority of users satisfied with what the camera can do, and most consumers are satisfied if AF doesn't hunt endlessly.


Can I use lens brand X on interchangeable lens camera brand Y?



I've got some lenses of brand X, but I've just got a new camera of brand Y. How can I tell if it's possible to use my lenses on my camera? I accept that I may lose a lot of automatic functionality like autofocus, aperture control and metering when using an adapter to connect the two.



Answer




For the most part, no, you can't mix'n'match lenses from different brands of cameras, because they'll usually use different mount systems. The mount system specifies how the lens and camera body physically link, and may also specify electronic communication between the lens and camera. If the lens and camera are not in the same mount system, you cannot use the lens directly on the camera without some kind of adapting--and most such adapting may only take care of the physical link, not the electronic one. The only different-brands same-mount situations that may arise are Olympus/Panasonic both making gear in the four-thirds dSLR and micro four-thirds mirrorless mounts, and Sony's A-mount being the same as Minolta's AF mount. Or 3rd-party lens makers like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Cosina Voigtländer, Vivitar, Samyang, etc. making lenses for multiple camera mounts.



You often see people talking about how much cheaper it is to adapt older glass. Well, if all you want to use are 50mm lenses, maybe so. But the days of bargains in vintage glass pretty much disappeared when dSLRS began to do HD video and film students around the globe wanted cheap manual focus lenses of high quality (e.g., Zeiss) for their projects. And given crop factors, wide and fast are going to cost you, no matter the mount. If the lens isn't a 50mm f/2 or f/1.8 prime and it's supercheap, it'll probably be one that's tough to adapt to a dSLR mount, or has something wrong with it. And if you do save money, trust us when we tell you, you'll be paying that savings back in inconvenience. You really really want to ask yourself if a current autofocus native-mount lens might not be a better use for your cash.


If, however, you're into vintage collecting, or you just want to see if you can do it, and you've got a good sense of how to pick up vintage gear in good condition (not fungus eaten), and like doing delicate glass & metal disassembly/repair/reassembly work or know of an affordable CLA guy, maybe this will be rewarding enough to pursue. Here are the main factors to consider:



Brand is not enough to identify a lens mount. A lot of camera companies made (and make) a variety of cameras and lenses (e.g., see the Canon Camera Museum website's Lens Hall). A lot of companies have done not just SLR lenses, but also rangefinder or possibly even medium format lenses as well. And for dSLR mounts, some companies make completely different (and incompatible) manual focus, autofocus, and/or digital mounts. Or make both mirrorless and dSLR/dSLT systems (e.g. Canon EOS vs. EOS-M, Sony A-mount vs. E-mount, etc.). In addition 3rd-party brands, such as Vivitar, also made lenses for multiple brands. Be sure that you identify the specific mounts for X and Y.


See: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-99.html for a good pictorial guide on identifying common SLR lens mounts.



Typically, unless you're happy to put up with severe vignetting, you can never adapt from a smaller system to a larger one, because the image circle the lens is designed to project is too small to cover the sensor. That is, 135 format (aka 35mm or "full-frame") lenses can't be adapted to medium format cameras; but medium format lenses can be adapted for 35mm/full-frame cameras. 35mm cine lenses can't be adapted to 135 format. Some micro 4/3 users are happy to slap C-mount 1" video lenses on their 4/3" format cameras, because they can get f/0.95 lenses for cheap that way. But this is more of an exception than a rule. With 35mm format lenses, the other rule to remember is that you can adapt SLR lenses to rangefinders, but not rangefinders to SLRs (or mirrorless to dSLRs). This is because of registration distance.



(or, as Wikipedia puts it, "Flange Focal Distance") is simply the mount depth. It's how far you hold the lens away from the image plane. Each mount system is designed with a specific distance, and lenses cannot achieve focus to infinity without being held at this specific distance. If the lens is held closer, its close focusing is compromised and it may focus past infinity. If the lens is held farther away, its close focusing is enhanced, but it cannot focus to infinity (think: macro extension tubes).


Ideally, you want to maintain the full focus range of the lens by adapting from a deeper mount to a shallower one with a simple ring adapter that makes up the difference in distances and provides a physical linkage for differing bayonet flanges and/or screw threads. You can look up the registration distance for a specific mount on the Wikipedia page linked to above.


Your worst bet with dSLRs is Nikon, because Nikon's registration distance is the second largest, (only Leica R is larger). To use most film SLR lenses, you'll need glass element adapters or lens mount replacement kits (see below).


With dSLRS, your best bets are Canon EOS and Olympus or Panasonic four-thirds camera mounts, which can use simple rings to adapt Nikon-F, Leica-R, Contax/Yashica, Olympus OM, Pentax K, and M42 lenses. (Actually, theoretically, four-thirds can adapt far more, but being a less popular mount system, these are the only six mounts you'll easily find adapter rings for).


But the best bet of all are mirrorless cameras, because they have very shallow registration distances. Mirrorless mounts can adapt all dSLR mount lenses, as well as most rangefinder lenses (however, sensor stack thickness may become an issue).


But a simple ring adapter with infinity focus isn't possible if X's registration distance is shallower than Y's. And may not be possible even if X is deeper than Y, because the depth difference has to be thick enough that a ring can be reliably machined to hold up.


If you try to adapt a shallower mount lens to a deeper mount body with a simple ring, this often means the lens can't focus past 10'. If you're not doing macro or close portrait photography with this lens and want to focus past that point, then you're going to have to do one of two things: modify the lens's (or camera's) mount, or use an adapter with a glass element in it to achieve focus to infinity.


Modifying Mounts



This is actually something of a sport among vintage lens collectors. Many vintage lens enthusiasts have spanner wrenches and machine shops at their disposal and think nothing of replacing a lens's mount with a modified adapter ring and experimenting with shims to get the proper registration distance. However, for those not willing to go quite that far, there are the Leitax lens mount replacement kits for specific lens combinations that are more popular among enthusiasts (e.g., Leica-R and Zeiss C/Y lenses to Nikon, etc.) But only a small set of X/Y combinations are liable to be found there because of this.


Adapters with Glass Elements


The other way around the registration distance issue is to use an adapter with a glass element to act like a short teleconverter. The negatives to this are that the glass acts like a short teleconverter: your focal length increases, your maximum aperture decreases, and if you get a cheap one, you'll add softness to the image. That doesn't mean these aren't usable. There are a lot of happy people who use adapters with glass elements for older lenses, but these are generally folks who are willing to compromise on image quality for cost. Depending on the lens you want to adapt (say, a cheap 50mm f/2 lens vs. a US$8300 Leica-M Noctilux 50mm f/1.0), this may or may not be worth your time.



And there are, of course, a lot of other possible gotchas.


Adapter Accuracy


Remember that an adapter ring is a mechanical thing. Making one perfectly flat, a specific thickness, etc. are all going to rely heavily on the manufacturing process. These things vary. Some adapter rings have a looser fit than others. The quality you get from an adapted lens can vary depending on the precision of the adapter you're using, and even the best of them may still have image quality compromises. See Roger Cicala's lensrentals.com blog entry: "There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters".


Mount Throat


While registration distance is important, it's not the only factor--particularly if you're adapting to Sony A-mount (once called the Alpha mount) dSLTs. While the Sony dSLTs have the same registration distance as Canon's EOS mount, they cannot use those same six mounts that Canon EOS dSLRs can, because the mount throat is smaller than Canon's, forcing the lenses to be held farther away. The only simple ring adapters for Sony A-mount you'll find are for Leica-R and M42 (M42 is much smaller in diameter than the bayonet-type SLR mounts).


Mirror Clearance



Not all dSLRs have the same mirror clearance as their film counterparts. A lot of eager-beaver adapters for the Canon full-frame prosumer bodies discovered that some Contax/Yashica and Leica-R lenses have back elements that collide with the mirror on a 5D (all marks) or 6D body while being clear of the mirror on a crop-body or 1-series pro body. You can get around this by grinding down or "shaving" the mirror, but it's easy to damage a body and you'll definitely reduce its resale value by doing so--particularly if you grind down far enough for it to be seen in the viewfinder.


Obviously, if you're shooting mirrorless, this doesn't apply to you. Sensor stack thickness, however, does.


Sensor Stack Thickness


Roger Cicala is the one who figured this puzzler out. Certain lenses known to be great performers on film and that test as top performers (e.g., Leica-M rangefinder lenses), when adapted onto mirrorless camera bodies were showing image quality problems--particularly wide angle Leica rangefinder glass on the Sony A7 cameras. Also new mirrorless lenses that tested great on mirrorless cameras didn't test so well on his optical test bench. He did experimentation and research into the issue, and wrote a three-part series on the sensor stack issue: "The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses", "Sensor Stack Thickness: When Does It Matter?" and "Sensor Stack Thickness Part III: The Summary"


In essence, the thickness of the glass protecting the sensor, in proportion to how far the lens's exit pupil is from the sensor, has an effect on optical performance. He also found that his test bench didn't have anything like a sensor stack in the optical path, and that adding one made the results of the test bench more accurate. Some mirrorless cameras (most notably micro four-thirds) have thicker stacks than you'd expect, and rangefinder lenses have much shorter entrance pupil differences, and particularly with faster lenses, there can be a notable performance drop off.


Aperture Rings


If you want to adapt to another mount, because of the lack of electronic communication (unless, say, you're using a Metabones autofocus adapter), you lose aperture control from the camera. Regaining it is extraordinarily problematic if the lens you're adapting doesn't have an aperture ring (e.g., Canon EOS, micro four-thirds, Minolta AF, or Nikon G lenses). There are ways around this (with a Canon EOS lens, for example, you can mount it on a Canon body, adjust the aperture, hold down the DoF preview button, and then unmount and remount it on the adapted body, and it will retain its aperture setting), or use an adapter with a built-in iris, but they tend to be less than optimal.


Upshot: you really want an aperture ring on the lens you're trying to adapt.


Stop-Down Metering


Because of the lack of aperture control, you may lose accurate metering. Entry level Nikon bodies cannot accurately meter with non-CPU lenses. And if your camera body does perform stop-down metering, then the lens actually has to be stopped down when getting the metering. This may require the adapter to have a pin in it that holds down a lever to stop the lens down to the aperture set with the lens ring (e.g., some Olympus OM adapter rings do this; some don't). And no matter what happens, when you stop the lens down, the view in the viewfinder gets darker. You may need to use liveview to compose.



Manual Focusing Aids


Most modern digital system cameras are designed with autofocus in mind, and this extends to the viewfinder. If you are using a dSLR with an optical viewfinder, the focusing aids that made manual focus lenses fine for use on manual film SLRs are no longer there. Split circles and prism collars can be added, but can darken or go black in the viewfinder with slower (f/5.6) lenses. If you have an entry-level dSLR or one with an LCD overlay in the viewfinder, replacing the focusing screen is problematic at best. Your best bet may be to use liveview and features such as focus peaking or magnification, but this also makes using a manual adapted lens far less spontaneous than with a modern autofocusing native mount lens. Some adapter rings are chipped to provide AF confirmation, but user reports are varied on the efficacy of this.


Autofocus


Even if you get an autofocus-capable adapter that can translate and communicate the autofocus and aperture information between the lens and the camera, chances are good that the autofocus performance could be compromised (e.g., Metabones Sony A to Sony E mount adapter; Conurus Contax N to EOS adapter).


EXIF


Not only do you lose aperture control and wide-open metering, but you also lose lens EXIF information such as your aperture setting or the lens's name and focal length. Some of this information can be supplied to the camera body with a chipped adapter ring, but may require some manual setting of the aperture in each and every shot.


X=Y Special Cases


Your two best bets for using older vintage glass in the same brand directly on a current digital mount are Nikon F and Pentax K. Even the older manual focus lenses, albeit with a few restrictions, still work on those cameras.


Canon EOS and Minolta AF (aka Sony A-mount) OEM lenses from the mid-80s forward are compatible with current dSLR bodies (although 3rd party lenses may need to be rechipped); however manual focus Canon FD/FL and Minolta MD/MC have shallower mounts than EOS and Sony A, respectively.


Olympus completely changed its mount system between film cameras and digital ones, so OM mount lenses require an adapter, either for four-thirds dSLRs or micro four-thirds mirrorless.



See also:



Wednesday 18 December 2019

Do RAW files really allow more RAW dynamic range than shooting in JPG?



I've heard a lot of time people saying that shooting in RAW offers a better dynamic range than shooting in JPG. But in some way I've always felt it as hard to believe.


So, the question is: there is any evidence of this fact?


Follow the (probably wrong) reasoning that I have done, why it's hard for me to believe that RAW has really a great advantage in achieving more dynamic range.


The reason is that if that I know that having 12 bit for each channel (instead of 8) offers the possibility to memorize 8 time more shades, so theoretically it would be possible to save more info in a RAW picture.


But at the same time I also know that the final result of a perfect HDR processing is shown using 8 bit.


So, somehow if a picture is taken to JPG as having some zone burned out (clipped) I wonder why the firmware, having the RAW information with the higher dynamic range, prefers to burn out some zone deleting details instead of doing a simple HDR on the fly to save some detail.


Also considering that the human vision is very similar to a natural HDR (it's really rare that the eye see the sky as being white because too much luminous)


Refer also to this link: Why is Adaptive Dynamic Range incompatible with ISO Expansion?




nikon - How is the cold resistance of entry level DSLRs?


Next month I am going to North of Sweden for 6 months. So I'm looking for a new SLR-camera to take photos there. I'm not a professional photographer so I decided to buy an entry level SLR camera - the Nikon D5100 or Canon EOS 600D. Since it can get very cold in Sweden (around -30 degrees) I'm looking for some information about the cold-resistance of these cameras (or other equivalent models you can recommend to me). Has anyone used these models at very low temperatures? How does the camera react at -10 to -30 degrees and does it work after all?



Answer



I live in Sweden and I own a Canon EOS 450D. So far I've never had any problems with it in temperatures down to -20 °C (apart from a somewhat reduced battery life).


I wouldn't really worry about your camera not working at sub zero. Every swede I know uses his/her camera in the winter (as well as their cell phones and other electric toys) and to the best of my knowledge the only thing that really stops working are touchscreens which become unbearably slow under -10/-15 °C.



The biggest problem if you really are serious about taking pictures at -30 is that you don't really want to take your gloves off so you should look for a camera where you can change as many settings as possible while wearing you thickest gloves.


What are other popular composition techniques in addition to The Rule of Thirds?


I always hear a lot about The Rule of Thirds. I'd like to know more about other 'tried-and-true' composition techniques (not special effects) that can make a photo more interesting.


In particular, I'd especially like to know:



  • The name of the technique

  • Any particular types of settings the technique is particulary useful

  • Interesting ways to 'break' the rule



Answer



While this isn't a duplicate, this can essentially be answered by linking to a few questions we've collected regarding other composition techniques (thanks largely to @JayLancePhotography!):




Searching the composition and composition-basics tag provides a wealth of knowledge.


lightroom - .CR2 pictures damaged and corrupted


Last night, I shot 400+ pictures with my Canon 650d. I was happy until I plugged my memory card into my card reader. The .CR2 files look okay, but when I import them to Lightroom, an error shows up: "The files appear to be unsupported or damaged"



Screen Shot


Only 12 pictures survived and they look corrupted :


screenshot


Please help me - I've lost a long day of great shots.




Tuesday 17 December 2019

Does the use of Canon's DPP Software have any advantages over using Aperture 3 straight away for Raw Processing?


During a recent photography course in South Africa I was strongly advised to download and use free Raw Processing Software before editing in Aperture 3. As a relative newcomer to working in Raw, I had not previously been conscious of the difference between Raw Processing and editing and have been processing and editing Raw files in Aperture 3 (on an iMac with OS X Lion).


By way of rationale, I was told that unprocessed Raw files contain separate layers of colour whereas files opened in Aperture 3 will already have had those layers compressed into one layer, presumably meaning that any alteration to green would also alter blue and red etc and vice versa. Shooting on a Canon 7D, I have tried on returning to London to download and use the DPP software for Raw processing but have immediately encountered a block indicating that it is not suitable for use with my iMac software (though the DPP software does claim to be compatible with MAc OS X version 10.2-10.8.)



I fear that I may have misunderstood what I was advised in South Africa as, even if I could could get it to function, this workflow pattern of using Canon's raw processing software prior to using Aperture 3 does seems inordinately complex and time-consuming. What (if any) harm would I be doing to my Raw images and/or what would I be foregoing if I simply reverted to my previous practice of downloading my Raw images straight into Aperture 3 and processing / editing them there?




optics - How does a short flange back distance improve image quality?


In the description for the new lens mount for their X-Pro series, Fujifilm says:


diagram from fujifilm



1: Specifically designed to maximize the mirrorless design of the body, the X-Mount has a short flange back distance of just 17.7mm. This means the rear lens elements are as close as possible to the sensor. The wide opening allows the lens to be mounted deeper within the body - up to 7.5mm (approx) from the mount surface - reducing the back focus distance of each lens to the minimum possible, thus achieving high resolution all the way to the edge of the image.



How does this shorter-than-usual distance help "achieve high resolution"? Does it come at a cost? I remember both Olympus and Leica making a big deal about the issues with non-parallel light rays at the edges of digital sensors, and how that caused a sort of vignetting not found with film (where the emulsion is basically non-directional). It seems to me that a shorter flange back distance would force light rays outside of the center of the frame to be even more oblique. Am I misunderstanding how this works?


The Sony E-mount is almost as close. Is this shorter distance all advantage, or does it bring problems as well? (Clearly, it means all-new lenses, but it should also make adapters easy.)



Answer




Having the lens sit much closer to the sensor removes the need to have a retrofocal (reverse telephoto) group which results in less extreme image correction, fewer lens elements and often a sharper image.


However the increased angle of incidence of light rays at the edge of the image often results in increased light falloff (vignetting). For this reason a weak retrofocal group is included even when a non-retrofocal design is permitted.


Monday 16 December 2019

curation - What storage solutions are there for working with large volumes of digital photo data?


I'm dating a professional photographer that has been accumulating digital images at an alarming rate (thousands of high-res images per month).



Does anyone have any recommendations of external and/or remote storage solutions to effectively work with such large volumes of data? Managing burned DVDs seems a little scary.




Sunday 15 December 2019

software - How can I force Lightroom to export metadata for all photos?


I created a temporary catalog for several shoots, but forgot to enable the (IMHO most important and should be enabled by default *shakefist*) check-box in Catalog Settings: Automatically Write Changes to XMP. I edited all the photos from one set and want to move them off my SSD onto my external drive and then import them into another catalog.


The problem is, no XMP files exist after enabling the checkbox.


I first tried selecting every photo, right-clicking -> Metadata -> Save Metadata to File. After a few seconds the process was finished, however only 1/10th of the XMP files were created.



EDIT: Waiting any number of minutes doesn't seem to help.


I also tried to generate 1:1 previews, but that didn't help any.


How can I force Lightroom to "flush" changes to XMP files for every photo?


Note: I would rather not use the export/import catalog feature because a) it takes forever and b) I still need XMP files in case my catalogs are lost/corrupted/etc.


EDIT #2: I can't seem to recreate this problem with Lightroom 4.x.




flash - Color issue: studio images have a pink hue


I have a small home studio and use 2 x 250 flash heads, and a white vinyl background.


I use a Canon 5D Mk II and generally shoot at 1/125 and f11-13.


My problem is my images all have a pink hue to them.


I can rectify this in Photoshop, but want to get it right on camera. Should I try gels? Thanks





post processing - How can I take portraits in the style of Charles Hildreth?


I recently discovered the work of portrait photographer Charles Hildreth. His portraits and color grading techniques are, in my opinion, remarkable and I was wondering how he is achieving his signature look? I'm not talking composition. I'm talking exposure, color and style. For example, what sort of post production is being done to this portrait? Despite the matte effect which is obvious and can be easily achieved with a curve layer, I can't tell much more. The image has so many different colors that it makes it difficult to tell what has been done to it. I noticed that the whites of the background have that teal look while the foreground (eyes and skin) does not. This suggests a lot of masking.


Here are 5 other outstanding portraits taken by Charles :



I, II, III, IV, V.


Can someone provide some insight as to how such effects are achieved and/or tidbits on how to recreate? I am also wondering how important is the quality of the light when shooting such portraits. Despite the use of a fast portrait lens, is there something important to say about the light in the portraits of Charles?



Answer




Is there something important to say about the light in the portraits of Charles?



There is. There is no mastering of light here. It's always diffused natural light, either from an overcast sky or very large windows, with very little shadows. No risk taken, just the very basics and lots of color retouch in post. The catchlights in the eyes here and here show one or two white reflectors on the ground.


It looks to me like regular magazine material, no creativity, just pretty girls. It's easy to reproduce, and easy to forget.


Lens


Buy an expensive bokeh maker, not a lens. That is a 85 mm F/1.4 or perhaps a Canon 85 F/1.2 with a full frame camera.



Location


Choose a background color contrasting with your model hair color, playing with complementary colors, and enhance them (too much) in post.


Retouch



I'm sorry to be harsh, but being experienced, I see this kind of pictures every day, it looks always the same and I don't know why someone would like to reproduce it. Right know, just from memory, I can cite Maxim Guselnikov, Sean Archer, Lisa Holloway, Jessica Drossin, Helena Shumilova as copycats of this one. See ? It's crowded. There is nothing to envy, nothing to copy, just big strings. They will vanish with the trend they are following.


You may search your inspiration elsewhere, maybe in museums or on The Art of Photograpy.


Why is the front element of a telephoto lens larger than a wide angle lens?

A wide angle lens has a wide angle of view, therefore it would make sense that the front of the lens would also be wide. A telephoto lens ha...