Print stills question
Cathy
it took me hours. So I would like to ask a few things from any of you. I
am just learning about print stills from a digital camera.
Do most people here print their own stills (I don't mean professional
photographers). Just casual picture takers of their families, relatives,
etc.
I don't have too many problems printing outdoor pictures as what I see
on the screen is much the same as what I print, though the print is
usually lighter in color than the screen. But I have a lot of problems
printing indoor pictures with flash photos especially the group that I
just printed recently all taken on the same night. They usually print
too dark, then if I lighten them in Irfanview gamma correction,which
looks fine on the screen, they print either too dark or too light. I can
never get it right. I have a Canon IP1500 which is not the best photo
printer, so maybe thats why I have so much trouble getting the photos
printed to look "right". Maybe a better printer would do a better job,
but I won't be buying one as I got this one not that long ago.
I think also I should have put on some more lights as it was after dark
outside. At the same time, I took some film camera shots, and they all
turned out fine without me having to adjust darkness/lightness, etc. It
seems to me that digital cameras are great for emailing, and you can do
a lot with your creativity but my film camera takes better indoor
pictures.
I wanted to get some experience printing my own photos, but I am not
sure I want to do that again unless its just one or two and not the 15 I
printed which took up a whole color and a black cartridge and a whole
package of photopaper. Too expensive.
Do most of you have your stills printed at online places? or do you take
them to Walmart on a CDR or memory card and use them on Kodak Picture
Maker (thats what they call them here).
But wouldn't you have to edit the original jpg if you had redeye or if
the picture was too dark before you print the edited version at Walmart
or wherever?
Cathy
Jim
"Cathy" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3-SdnUp1do-JBOLe...@rogers.com...
>I printed about 15 stills of indoor flash shots for the first time and
> it took me hours. So I would like to ask a few things from any of you. I
> am just learning about print stills from a digital camera.
> Do most people here print their own stills (I don't mean professional
> photographers). Just casual picture takers of their families, relatives,
> etc.
send anything out.
To do a good job at printing on an ink jet requires profiling your monitor
and your printer. Most printers come with profiles that are close, but you
can always improve on them.
Getting good exposure for flash pictures is not something you pick up in a
day or so. One nice thing about digital is that you don't have to print the
failures to learn from them.
Jim
Cathy
news:tuNff.23078$dO2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Cathy" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:3-SdnUp1do-JBOLe...@rogers.com...
> >I printed about 15 stills of indoor flash shots for the first time
and
> > it took me hours. So I would like to ask a few things from any of
you. I
> > am just learning about print stills from a digital camera.
> > Do most people here print their own stills (I don't mean
professional
> > photographers). Just casual picture takers of their families,
relatives,
> > etc.
> I don't know about "most people". I print my own digital prints. I
never
> send anything out.
> To do a good job at printing on an ink jet requires profiling your
monitor
> and your printer. Most printers come with profiles that are close,
but you
> can always improve on them.
Not sure what you mean by profiling your monitor and printer?
> Getting good exposure for flash pictures is not something you pick up
in a
> day or so. One nice thing about digital is that you don't have to
print the
> failures to learn from them.
But I've had to print the printers to learn from them. Thats why I've
wasted so much ink and photo paper. After editing and fixing redeye and
jpgs that look too dark on the screen, when I print them, they don't
look the same as on the screen. They are usually lighter or they don't
look nearly as good and some don't look as sharp as on the screen. I
just find it too frustrating, so for me, maybe I should try one of the
machines where you print your pictures or try at one of the local online
places. Of course, even with them, when printed, they might not print
any better looking than the ones I print myself. Only way to find out
would be to try.
Cathy
Joan
Here's a link:
http://www.ilex-press.com/publishing/product.php?productid=16159&cat=249&page=1
--
Joan
http://joan.colley.name:85
"Cathy" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:3-SdnUp1do-JBOLe...@rogers.com...
Bob Williams
A few points to remember.
Make sure your images are at LEAST 240 pixels/inch.
Use Photo Quality inkjet paper, not just regular inkjet paper.
Calibrate your monitor with some Gamma adjustment tool.
If Irfanview does not have one, Google on Adjusting Monitor Gamma to
find one. There are several out there.
Have a few pictures printed by WalMart or Costco (less than 20 cents
for a 4x6).
If they are ok, print the same images on your iP 1500 and compare the
quality.
If your prints are lighter, darker, or have a color hue, you can usually
correct these differences by adjusting the necessary parameters in your
printer driver's options.
Bob Williams
Mary
news:X_Nff.21821$Hj2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> You might benefit from reading Michael Walker's book, Getting Colour
Right.
> Here's a link:
>
http://www.ilex-press.com/publishing/product.php?productid=16159&cat=249&page=1
Hi Joan, thanks but I don't think I want to buy a book on colour. I
notice you are in the UK. I am in Canada. I am hoping by trial and
error, I get better at printing photos. Or maybe I will try a photo
print machine at Walmart, or send jpgs online to be printed at an online
printer. Its not so much the colour thats the problem, its dark and
light and sharpness, and only in indoor flash pictures of people.
Outside pictures print OK, so I think the problem is not having enough
light in the room where I was taking the indoor photos I am discussing..
Some of the photos I took indoors with flash were OK, but others were
not as good. Maybe I will do better next time.
Cathy
Cathy
news:GpOff.5150$xu.624@fed1read01...
Where do I set that?
> Use Photo Quality inkjet paper, not just regular inkjet paper.
Yes, that is what I use. Does it matter what kind of photo paper? I have
been using the semi gloss as I like the look of it better. Is high gloss
any better or just personal preference? I see mostly high gloss paper in
stores.
> Calibrate your monitor with some Gamma adjustment tool.
> If Irfanview does not have one, Google on Adjusting Monitor Gamma to
> find one. There are several out there.
My monitor and/or video card would have that, wouldn't it? Actually its
not the colour in the pictures thats the problem. its dark and light.
> Have a few pictures printed by WalMart or Costco (less than 20 cents
> for a 4x6).
I am going to do that. I am in Toronto and the two Walmarts near me are
always so busy that you can never get on the machine. And I am not a
member of Costco. I think the prints are about 29 cents, so thats much
the same as you if you are in the US.
> If they are ok, print the same images on your iP 1500 and compare the
> quality.
> If your prints are lighter, darker, or have a color hue, you can
usually
> correct these differences by adjusting the necessary parameters in
your
> printer driver's options.
I don't usually adjust darkness/lightness or color in the printer
properties page, though maybe it would help. I usually adjust dark/light
in gamma correction in Irfanview.
Thanks.
Cathy
Joan
cost as the colour ink cartridges you will waste trying to work out what is
wrong, not to mention the paper.
The book will show you things you didn't know existed. When you understand
the relationships between the colour on the screen (sRGB, RGB etc..) and the
colour the printer driver uses (CMYK etc.) and the different gamut of these
colour spaces and how to adjust and know what can't work, you will be much
better at what you want to do.
--
Joan
http://joan.colley.name:85
"Mary" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:UuqdnemnWIu...@rogers.com...
uw_wayne
package from Adobe, called Photo Shop Elements 4. It costs about $69
US. It will open up a whole new world to you which you will have fun
with the rest of your life. The only risk is that you may get hooked on
serious photography after awhile.
Cathy
> I'm in Australia. Is it the cost that bothers you? It's about the
same
> cost as the colour ink cartridges you will waste trying to work out
what is
> wrong, not to mention the paper.
>
> The book will show you things you didn't know existed. When you
understand
> the relationships between the colour on the screen (sRGB, RGB etc..)
and the
> colour the printer driver uses (CMYK etc.) and the different gamut of
these
> colour spaces and how to adjust and know what can't work, you will be
much
> better at what you want to do.
Well, there are different ways to gain knowledge about subjects you want
to know about. It doesn't always have to be through reading books. I
think I can probably find enough information on the Internet or people
in newsgroups like this know a great deal and are very hepful. Its not
just the money. I am not really interested in buying a book about
analyzing colours. I would rather wait till I have enough money and buy
photograph software such as Photoshop Elements or similar. Thanks
anyway.
Cathy
Cathy
news:1132450213....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I probably should get Photoshop Elements 4.0 but not at the moment.
I'm on my Christmas
buying spree right now. $69.00 US is a good price, but you get better
deals on photo software in the US than we do. I'm in Canada and its
$16.80 US more here, and right now our dollar is much closer to yours
than its been for years :). But I agree that its probably a good idea
for me to get it. Understanding it is something else. I doubt I would
get hooked into serious photography though but you never know :)
Thanks.
Cathy
Joan
aim.
--
Joan
http://joan.colley.name:85
"Cathy" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:DuydnfrhIJ_...@rogers.com...
ASAAR
>> The book will show you things you didn't know existed. When you
>> understand the relationships between the colour on the screen (sRGB,
>> RGB etc..) and the colour the printer driver uses (CMYK etc.) and the
>> different gamut of these colour spaces and how to adjust and know what
>> can't work, you will be much better at what you want to do.
>
> Well, there are different ways to gain knowledge about subjects you want
> to know about. It doesn't always have to be through reading books. I
> think I can probably find enough information on the Internet or people
> in newsgroups like this know a great deal and are very hepful. Its not
> just the money. I am not really interested in buying a book about
> analyzing colours. I would rather wait till I have enough money and buy
> photograph software such as Photoshop Elements or similar. Thanks
> anyway.
I think you're missing Joan's point. Photoshop, Photoshop
Elements, PSP and other software isn't going to automatically know
how to make perfect prints. You'd still have to apply what you'd
learn from "Getting Colour Right" or some other book, or you'd
probably end up being disappointed with prints made using Photoshop
Elements too. It's not the sort of thing easily learned by reading
newsgroup messages.
On the other hand, since you're satisfied with outdoor prints but
not indoor prints, you may be getting the wrong exposure indoors
because the camera is too far from the subject. Don't forget that
P&S cameras have very little flash output power, so the pictures may
be mostly underexposed. Check your camera's manual to see the
maximum distance your flash is good for. It may be a lot less than
you think. Using the longer focal length of your zoom lens will
reduce the flash's maximum distance, as will using a smaller
aperture. Without checking the EXIF data, do you know what aperture
you used for the indoor pictures? Compensating by increasing the
brightness or changing the gamma can help salvage overly dark
photos, but the results won't usually be very pleasing. If this is
the cause of your problem, then reading all the books in the world
and getting your color management configured ideally for the monitor
and printer will help a little, but bad exposures will still get you
bad prints. The next time you take indoor pictures, waste a couple
of shots by taking a few that are closer to the subject. For
instance, if the original distance from camera to subject is 16
feet, take a couple at 12 feet, 8 feet and 5 feet, even if you can
only capture much less than what you want included in the shot.
This is only to see if additional brightness due to the flash being
closer to the subject gives you more accurate, pleasing colors, with
appropriate brightness. A good flash unit can reduce the light
output if you're too close, but it won't increase the output if
you're too far from the subject. For that you'd need a more
powerful external flash unit. But you may not need one. It depends
on what results you get from the test mentioned above.
Ray Fischer
>I printed about 15 stills of indoor flash shots for the first time and
>it took me hours. So I would like to ask a few things from any of you. I
>am just learning about print stills from a digital camera.
>Do most people here print their own stills (I don't mean professional
>photographers). Just casual picture takers of their families, relatives,
>etc.
Printing your own is faster and gets you better control but is harder
and more expnsive.
[...]
>Do most of you have your stills printed at online places? or do you take
>them to Walmart on a CDR or memory card and use them on Kodak Picture
>Maker (thats what they call them here).
For any quantity I have them done. The printer is for the occasional
single prints.
>But wouldn't you have to edit the original jpg if you had redeye or if
>the picture was too dark before you print the edited version at Walmart
>or wherever?
Only if you want it edited.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Cathy
news:10rvn1t72ie6p9ppb...@4ax.com...
Most people I know who have digital cameras don't even read the manual
never mind photography books. At least I read the manual :). Doesn't
mean my pictures are any better than the people who don't read the
manual though. My outdoor pictures seem to print OK. Just some indoor
shots taken of people with flash were a lilttle too dark, but I haven't
taken all that many indoors with flash yet so I need more experience. I
was just fussy about the pics I took of my relatives so I could send
them the pics which I wanted to look half decent. I spent so much time
and effort on them that I think they are OK now to send (10 ink
cartridges and 5 packages of photopaper late,haha. just kidding. Not
that many :).
> On the other hand, since you're satisfied with outdoor prints but
> not indoor prints, you may be getting the wrong exposure indoors
> because the camera is too far from the subject. Don't forget that
> P&S cameras have very little flash output power, so the pictures may
> be mostly underexposed.
I think I forgot that P&S cameras don't have much flash power. The flash
is very bright so makes you think the flash is powerful. I took some
pictures with my film camera also on the night I took the indoor flash
pictures of my relatives and those pictures were not too dark with the
same room lighting and turned out better than the digital camera ones.
They had hardly any red eye either, but my digital camera had a couple
of red eyed people, which I fixed that OK with Starter Photoshop album
3.0.
Check your camera's manual to see the
> maximum distance your flash is good for. It may be a lot less than
> you think. Using the longer focal length of your zoom lens will
> reduce the flash's maximum distance, as will using a smaller
> aperture. Without checking the EXIF data, do you know what aperture
> you used for the indoor pictures?
No, I don't. I just stood where I thought was the best place to take the
picture, but not too far away from the people. Probably the ones I took
of 3 or 4 people, I had to stand a bit further back and these were the
ones that were a bit too dark. But on the computer screen, the group
pictures didn't look too dark. It was only when they were printed. They
were not terribly dark..Just a little too dark, then when I lightened
them with Irfanview and printed them again, they looked better on the
computer screen, but would sometimes then be too light when printed.
Compensating by increasing the
> brightness or changing the gamma can help salvage overly dark
> photos, but the results won't usually be very pleasing.
I thought that editing by doing the above was OK, or what is gamma and
brightness for in Irfanview? You mean you are not supposed to do that?
>If this is
> the cause of your problem, then reading all the books in the world
> and getting your color management configured ideally for the monitor
> and printer will help a little, but bad exposures will still get you
> bad prints. The next time you take indoor pictures, waste a couple
> of shots by taking a few that are closer to the subject. For
> instance, if the original distance from camera to subject is 16
> feet, take a couple at 12 feet, 8 feet and 5 feet, even if you can
> only capture much less than what you want included in the shot.
> This is only to see if additional brightness due to the flash being
> closer to the subject gives you more accurate, pleasing colors, with
> appropriate brightness. A good flash unit can reduce the light
> output if you're too close, but it won't increase the output if
> you're too far from the subject. For that you'd need a more
> powerful external flash unit. But you may not need one. It depends
> on what results you get from the test mentioned above.
I'll try that.
Cathy
Cathy
news:dlp0gl$5k1$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
> Cathy <n...@no.com> wrote:
> >I printed about 15 stills of indoor flash shots for the first time
and
> >it took me hours. So I would like to ask a few things from any of
you. I
> >am just learning about print stills from a digital camera.
> >Do most people here print their own stills (I don't mean professional
> >photographers). Just casual picture takers of their families,
relatives,
> >etc.
>
> Printing your own is faster and gets you better control but is harder
> and more expnsive.
I would agree with that.
> [...]
> >Do most of you have your stills printed at online places? or do you
take
> >them to Walmart on a CDR or memory card and use them on Kodak Picture
> >Maker (thats what they call them here).
>
> For any quantity I have them done. The printer is for the occasional
> single prints.
You use an online photo printing place? Have you ever tried doing your
own on a Picture maker with a CDR?
> >But wouldn't you have to edit the original jpg if you had redeye or
if
> >the picture was too dark before you print the edited version at
Walmart
> >or wherever?
>
> Only if you want it edited.
Well, if you have red eye or too dark/too light pictures, you would need
to edit it first before sending it.
Cathy
ASAAR
>> Compensating by increasing the
>> brightness or changing the gamma can help salvage overly dark
>> photos, but the results won't usually be very pleasing.
>
> I thought that editing by doing the above was OK, or what is gamma and
> brightness for in Irfanview? You mean you are not supposed to do that?
Yes, make whatever changes will help get better results. I'm just
saying that if you take pictures with the best exposure, the prints
you make with them will produce better looking prints than if you
under or overexpose the shots by several full stops and try to fix
them up in Irfanview or some other photo program. You don't need to
wait until you get the photo images back to the computer to know
whether the proper exposure was achieved. Look at them on the
camera's display. If they're underexposed, they'll appear
noticeable dark. The histogram (I assume that the W5 has one) can
also help point out exposure problems. If you don't like what you
see there, make whatever adjustments are necessary and reshoot.
That'll save a lot of time back at the computer and probably reduce
the amount of wasted photo paper and ink.
Bob Williams
Irfanview should have a command to do that.
In Photoshop, you click on IMAGE > IMAGE SIZE > and then set the size,
to 4x6, for instance, and the resolution to 240-300 pixels/inch.
I don't use Irfanview but it should have a procedure similar to PS.
>
>
>>Use Photo Quality inkjet paper, not just regular inkjet paper.
>
>
> Yes, that is what I use. Does it matter what kind of photo paper? I have
> been using the semi gloss as I like the look of it better. Is high gloss
> any better or just personal preference? I see mostly high gloss paper in
> stores.
Mostly a matter of taste
>
>
>>Calibrate your monitor with some Gamma adjustment tool.
>>If Irfanview does not have one, Google on Adjusting Monitor Gamma to
>>find one. There are several out there.
>
>
> My monitor and/or video card would have that, wouldn't it? Actually its
> not the colour in the pictures thats the problem. its dark and light.
No! Every monitor is a little different in the way it displays color.
Brightness, Hue, Contrast, etc.
Among other things, the Gamma adjustment utility displays a standard
Gray color and then you adjust the response of your monitor to match the
standard gray color. It actually modifies the output of your video card
to get the colors right.
>
>
>>Have a few pictures printed by WalMart or Costco (less than 20 cents
>>for a 4x6).
>
>
> I am going to do that. I am in Toronto and the two Walmarts near me are
> always so busy that you can never get on the machine. And I am not a
> member of Costco. I think the prints are about 29 cents, so thats much
> the same as you if you are in the US.
>
Hey! You are going to have to make a few experiments for diagnostic
purposes or you will never discover the cause of your problem.
You can upload your images to Walmart's Website and pick it up at your
convenience or you can have it delivered to your house by mail.
If the pics are OK, the problem is with the printer.
If it is not ok, the problem is with the way you edit it in Irfanview.
>
>>If they are ok, print the same images on your iP 1500 and compare the
>>quality.
>>If your prints are lighter, darker, or have a color hue, you can
>
> usually
>
>>correct these differences by adjusting the necessary parameters in
>
> your
>
>>printer driver's options.
>
>
> I don't usually adjust darkness/lightness or color in the printer
> properties page, though maybe it would help. I usually adjust dark/light
> in gamma correction in Irfanview.
Irfanview will just change lightness/darkness of the image so it looks
right on YOUR monitor. But if your monitor is not calibrated to some
color standard, it may send incorrectly adjusted colors to your printer.
That is why printer drivers can be tweaked.....to make your print look
like your screen.
I really STRONGLY suggest that you get a copy of Photoshop Elements. You
don't need the latest version (V.4). An earlier version will serve your
needs just fine. I'll bet you can buy V.3 or even V.2 for a song.
A major advantage of using Photoshop Elements is because soooo many
people are familiar with it, you can get very detailed instructions to
solve almost any problem you have.
Bob Williams
Ray Fischer
>> >Do most of you have your stills printed at online places? or do you
>take
>> >them to Walmart on a CDR or memory card and use them on Kodak Picture
>> >Maker (thats what they call them here).
>>
>> For any quantity I have them done. The printer is for the occasional
>> single prints.
>
>You use an online photo printing place?
I've used oPhoto (now KodakGallery).
> Have you ever tried doing your
>own on a Picture maker with a CDR?
"Picture maker"?
I've taken photos to the local store to have them printed. CD or
flash memory card works.
>> >But wouldn't you have to edit the original jpg if you had redeye or
>if
>> >the picture was too dark before you print the edited version at
>Walmart
>> >or wherever?
>>
>> Only if you want it edited.
>
>Well, if you have red eye or too dark/too light pictures, you would need
>to edit it first before sending it.
Easily done, but not something I need to do often since I so rarely
use a direct flash. I routinely crop, straighten, adjust contrast and
exposure.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
kctan
print to lab as you are not ready to print your own photographic print yet.
Try it only when you understand what is device color space, working color
space, type of profiles, image input PPI, image output PPI, print output DPI
and the workflow of color management in order to tweak the printing process.
You still can tweak you image like red eyes or remove wrinkles...but don't
touch those tonal adjustments.
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~kcpps
"Cathy" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:yJqdnYJy-oX8jh3e...@rogers.com...
Cathy
news:dlqg3u$hjb$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg...
> IMHO and sorry to say that it is cheaper for you at this moment to
sent your
> print to lab as you are not ready to print your own photographic print
yet.
You are probably right, but I wanted to get some experience at printing
and didn't realize it was going to take so many tries to get things
right.
> Try it only when you understand what is device color space, working
color
> space, type of profiles, image input PPI, image output PPI, print
output DPI
> and the workflow of color management in order to tweak the printing
process.
> You still can tweak you image like red eyes or remove wrinkles...but
don't
> touch those tonal adjustments.
Its all a learning experience. I will do better eventually. Even though
my printing experience took me a long time to get the pictures looking
OK as some were a bit too dark, many turned out fine with me not having
to make any adjustments and were correct colors and tones. Just the dark
ones caused me to be frustrated and were difficult to get right. But in
the end, they all turned out OK, but I probably gave myself a lot of
work I didn't need to. I was probably also too perfectionistic :)
Funny how you can be perfectionistic about some things and not in
others. For example, my place is a mess and I should be cleaning up
today and not be on the computer. A computer can be an addiction. :)
Cathy
Cathy
> Cathy <n...@no.com> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >Do most of you have your stills printed at online places? or do
you
> >take
> >> >them to Walmart on a CDR or memory card and use them on Kodak
Picture
> >> >Maker (thats what they call them here).
> >>
> >> For any quantity I have them done. The printer is for the
occasional
> >> single prints.
> >
> >You use an online photo printing place?
>
> I've used oPhoto (now KodakGallery).
>
> > Have you ever tried doing your
> >own on a Picture maker with a CDR?
>
> "Picture maker"?
Originally they were called Kodak Picture Maker machines, so the name
stuck here. I am in Toronto Canada, but the US liked the name kiosks
better I guess :) They have been available longer in the US longer than
they have been here.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PKNA02/1032937526.html
They are in Walmart and some drug stores here, but not enough stores
have them
as they are becoming more popular as more people buy digital cameras so
often the machines are busy.
> I've taken photos to the local store to have them printed. CD or
> flash memory card works.
I haven't tried that yet, but will get to it.
> >> >But wouldn't you have to edit the original jpg if you had redeye
or
> >if
> >> >the picture was too dark before you print the edited version at
> >Walmart
> >> >or wherever?
> >>
> >> Only if you want it edited.
> >
> >Well, if you have red eye or too dark/too light pictures, you would
need
> >to edit it first before sending it.
>
> Easily done, but not something I need to do often since I so rarely
> use a direct flash. I routinely crop, straighten, adjust contrast and
> exposure.
If you don't use a direct flash to photograph people, what do you use?
I have done some editing, but am new to digital cameras, so am learning
as I go along. It all takes time.
Cathy
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> Cathy <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >> >Do most of you have your stills printed at online places? or do
>you
>> >take
>> >> >them to Walmart on a CDR or memory card and use them on Kodak
>Picture
>> >> >Maker (thats what they call them here).
>> >>
>> >> For any quantity I have them done. The printer is for the
>occasional
>> >> single prints.
>> >
>> >You use an online photo printing place?
>>
>> I've used oPhoto (now KodakGallery).
>>
>> > Have you ever tried doing your
>> >own on a Picture maker with a CDR?
>>
>> "Picture maker"?
>
>Originally they were called Kodak Picture Maker machines, so the name
>stuck here. I am in Toronto Canada, but the US liked the name kiosks
>better I guess :) They have been available longer in the US longer than
>they have been here.
Oh! Those things! I haven't used them because they are, after all,
just computers with inkjet printers atteched.
>> >Well, if you have red eye or too dark/too light pictures, you would
>need
>> >to edit it first before sending it.
>>
>> Easily done, but not something I need to do often since I so rarely
>> use a direct flash. I routinely crop, straighten, adjust contrast and
>> exposure.
>
>If you don't use a direct flash to photograph people, what do you use?
Either I use available light (which is easier with a digital SLR) or I
use a bounce flash.
>I have done some editing, but am new to digital cameras, so am learning
>as I go along. It all takes time.
Yes, well, we all have our unique strengths. My wife is better at
taking candid shots of people than I am even though she doesn't know
anything about photography.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Cathy
Haha. yes, you could say that, but probably have better printers than
mine, so maybe make better pictures. My printer is a photo printer as
most are these days, but not a great photo printer.You can use CDR's or
memory cards in them. I would have to try them to find out what they are
like.
> >> >Well, if you have red eye or too dark/too light pictures, you
would
> >need
> >> >to edit it first before sending it.
> >>
> >> Easily done, but not something I need to do often since I so rarely
> >> use a direct flash. I routinely crop, straighten, adjust contrast
and
> >> exposure.
> >
> >If you don't use a direct flash to photograph people, what do you
use?
>
> Either I use available light (which is easier with a digital SLR) or I
> use a bounce flash.
Well an SLR is a different thing than a P&S and should create better
indoor pictures with a bounce flash. But I wonder if SLR cameras produce
better outdoor pictures than P&S cameras. I have a sony W5 P&S and it
seems to be an OK camera so far. It has a 2.5" screen which I like. I'm
blind as a bat - well not quite, but I can see a bigger screen better.
It also has a view finder which I also like to have.
> >I have done some editing, but am new to digital cameras, so am
learning
> >as I go along. It all takes time.
>
> Yes, well, we all have our unique strengths. My wife is better at
> taking candid shots of people than I am even though she doesn't know
> anything about photography.
Yes, I can believe that. Women seem to be good at taking candid shots of
people, perhaps because most women pay more attention to what people are
doing and how people look.
I probably notice too much at times :)
Cathy
Cathy
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:12:39 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>
> >> Compensating by increasing the
> >> brightness or changing the gamma can help salvage overly dark
> >> photos, but the results won't usually be very pleasing.
> >
> > I thought that editing by doing the above was OK, or what is gamma
and
> > brightness for in Irfanview? You mean you are not supposed to do
that?
>
> Yes, make whatever changes will help get better results. I'm just
> saying that if you take pictures with the best exposure, the prints
> you make with them will produce better looking prints than if you
> under or overexpose the shots by several full stops and try to fix
> them up in Irfanview or some other photo program. You don't need to
> wait until you get the photo images back to the computer to know
> whether the proper exposure was achieved. Look at them on the
> camera's display. If they're underexposed, they'll appear
> noticeable dark.
Sometimes its hard to tell from the display.(at least for me, maybe not
for you) I need to see them on the computer when the picture is much
bigger.
The histogram (I assume that the W5 has one) can
> also help point out exposure problems. If you don't like what you
> see there, make whatever adjustments are necessary and reshoot.
> That'll save a lot of time back at the computer and probably reduce
> the amount of wasted photo paper and ink.
I am not ready to go into histograms. They seem very complicated to me.
I wonder if most people who have histograms ever use them or understand
them. I like things kept simple.
Cathy
ASAAR
>> The histogram (I assume that the W5 has one) can
>> also help point out exposure problems. If you don't like what you
>> see there, make whatever adjustments are necessary and reshoot.
>> That'll save a lot of time back at the computer and probably reduce
>> the amount of wasted photo paper and ink.
>
> I am not ready to go into histograms. They seem very complicated to me.
> I wonder if most people who have histograms ever use them or understand
> them. I like things kept simple.
You could train a chimp to understand histograms. Just because
it's a chart doesn't mean that there's any advanced math involved.
Some, but not all, of the more advanced photographers here denigrate
histograms because they're too simple and don't provide enough
information. But for typical shots, there's nothing to work out.
At a glance you can look at the curve and tell if the exposure was
probably good or not. They're really very, *very* simple. It's
only unfamiliarity that has you thinking that histograms are
complicated. The truth is that they're the opposite, quite simple.
Basically, you'll want the curve in the histogram to be centered
most of the time. If you see that it has shifted far to the left,
the shot is probably underexposed. If shifted too far to the right,
you probably gave the shot too much exposure. Calculations not
needed. If you have the flu and aren't thinking too clearly, it may
slow you down such that it takes much longer to understand the
histogram's implication, maybe half a second or so. Normally, when
you're in good health, you'll need much less time than that. <g>
Mark˛
> "ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
> news:2780o1l7817qd1gud...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:12:39 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>> Compensating by increasing the
>>>> brightness or changing the gamma can help salvage overly dark
>>>> photos, but the results won't usually be very pleasing.
>>>
>>> I thought that editing by doing the above was OK, or what is gamma
>>> and brightness for in Irfanview? You mean you are not supposed to
>>> do that?
>>
>> Yes, make whatever changes will help get better results. I'm just
>> saying that if you take pictures with the best exposure, the prints
>> you make with them will produce better looking prints than if you
>> under or overexpose the shots by several full stops and try to fix
>> them up in Irfanview or some other photo program. You don't need to
>> wait until you get the photo images back to the computer to know
>> whether the proper exposure was achieved. Look at them on the
>> camera's display. If they're underexposed, they'll appear
>> noticeable dark.
>
> Sometimes its hard to tell from the display.(at least for me, maybe
> not for you) I need to see them on the computer when the picture is
> much bigger.
Hi Cathy,
I agree with you that it's hard to tell simply by looking at the image on a
camera display.
Many cameras present a bright image, even though it might later appear quite
under exposed on the computer monitor. This is where understand the basics
of histograms comes in handy.
Once you understand what an under-exposed images shows on a histogram
(blank, or nearly blank section on the right hand side of the histogram),
you can make the adjustment--even though the picture displayed on your
camera might look fine.
> The histogram (I assume that the W5 has one) can
>> also help point out exposure problems. If you don't like what you
>> see there, make whatever adjustments are necessary and reshoot.
>> That'll save a lot of time back at the computer and probably reduce
>> the amount of wasted photo paper and ink.
>
> I am not ready to go into histograms.
Histograms aren't as confusing as they seem. You don't have to understand
everything about them to leanrn the very basic aspect of noting
under-exposure. If you see a fairly balanced curve in the histogram, but
not a distinct lack of "shape" on the far right side, the shot is likely
under-expposed...especially when shooting a scene that is generally
well-lit.
I don't know if this will translate into your reader well at all...
But if it looks like this:
--------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Here |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
-------------------------------------------------------
The lack of "shape" on the far right means that no (or nearly no) pixels in
the shot show exposure in the brighter end of the scale...(The brighter end
is the part marked "here"). In a wel-lit scene that isn't mostly black,
this would mean it is most likely under-exposed.
In an over-exposed shot, you'd see tall shape stacked up against the far
right side.
In a badly under-exposed shot, you might see nearly ALL "shape" pushed up
against the far left side.
You can sort of think of it as a bell curve...which shows the brightness
range of all the pixels in your shot.
Almost all on the left means a dark shot, and all on the right means bright.
Most well-exposed scenes contain a fairly even distribution, which forms a
"mountain" shape, usually with the middle being the highest point (since
there are often more mid-toned subjects in an exposure).
So..... You compare the histogram with the scene.
If you aren't shooting an extremely un-balanced scene (lighting-wise), and
your histogram show an unbalanced curve...then you can determine if it's
over or under-exposed by looking at which side the "shape" pushes toward.
To the right? -Over exposure is likely.
To the left? -Under-exposure is likely.
>that way, but what you need to understand in order to see when shots are
>under-exposed is fairly simple. >They seem very complicated to
> me. I wonder if most people who have histograms ever use them or
> understand them. I like things kept simple.
I understand that fully.
It's just that the basics of the histogram is one of the greatest tool that
can assist you in that very thing:
-Keeping things simple, and easily reviewed for errors.
My Canon 10D tends to show me a nice, well-exposed-looking image on the
camera's little screen unless it is WAY over or WAY under-exposed. This is
where simply looking at the histrgram saves the day.
I leave my 10D set so that after a shot, the screen automatically shows both
the image, AND the histogram.
This is extremely helpful, and also helps me avoid having to fiddle later
trying to rescue poorly exposed shots.
-Mark
PS--If that funky typed "histogram" comes out weird in your reader, let me
know...and maybe I can post a light and dark version of the same image on
Pbase, complete with their histograms. This would demonstrate it quite
clearly, I think... (Maybe I should have done that to begin with...)
:)
Cathy
I don't have the flu so the half a second has past and my thinking is
the best it is going to be, for the moment at least. Thanks for the
histogram information. Now I know :) But how often do people use
histograms? mainly when they are not sure if the picture will be too
dark or light? I don't imagine you would need it outside. Most pictures
I've taken outside seem to turn out OK.
Cathy
Cathy
news:IQ8gf.3601$dv.2706@fed1read02...
Well, at last somebody agrees with something I say - I was beginning to
get a complex :)
> Many cameras present a bright image, even though it might later appear
quite
> under exposed on the computer monitor. This is where understand the
basics
> of histograms comes in handy.
> Once you understand what an under-exposed images shows on a histogram
> (blank, or nearly blank section on the right hand side of the
histogram),
> you can make the adjustment--even though the picture displayed on your
> camera might look fine.
There are not many manual adjustments can be made in my camera. There
are only a few such as
two apertures to choose from and the histogram is only available on
certain settings -probably manual settings. I use Auto most of the time.
The outdoor pictures turn out fine using Auto, and same with macro. Even
the manual says most times you can use Auto. Indoors with flash might be
better set to something other than Auto though if there is not enough
light. But I think the pictures I took of my relatives indoors with
flash and which some of them turned out a little dark, was probably
becuase the room was not bright enough in some places where I took the
pictures. The photos I took when it was two people in the photo so I was
closer, were OK. But I had to step back to take 4 people, and that
probably would have been better with more light in the room.
Meaning too dark?
> In an over-exposed shot, you'd see tall shape stacked up against the
far
> right side.
> In a badly under-exposed shot, you might see nearly ALL "shape" pushed
up
> against the far left side.
Too light?
I didn't realize a histogram was so helpful, but when I am using the
camera on Auto, it does not seem to appear on the LCD, so seems to be
only used for Manual settings and as I said, the camera does not allow
many of them. So for simplicity, most of the time auto is more
convenient and usually will take a good picture, except in certain
instances which it explains briefly in the manual.
> My Canon 10D tends to show me a nice, well-exposed-looking image on
the
> camera's little screen unless it is WAY over or WAY under-exposed.
This is
> where simply looking at the histrgram saves the day.
> I leave my 10D set so that after a shot, the screen automatically
shows both
> the image, AND the histogram.
> This is extremely helpful, and also helps me avoid having to fiddle
later
> trying to rescue poorly exposed shots.
But your Canon is probably mostly manual settings? Many P&S cameras
including mine seem to be mainly automatic, and only allow a few manual
settings.
> -Mark
>
> PS--If that funky typed "histogram" comes out weird in your reader,
let me
> know...and maybe I can post a light and dark version of the same image
on
> Pbase, complete with their histograms. This would demonstrate it
quite
> clearly, I think... (Maybe I should have done that to begin with...)
> :)
Your funky typed histogram came out OK in my reader. I know what a
histogram looks like and you explained it quite well, and so did ASAAR.
I haven't used the histogram yet, because I wans't sure what it was. The
manual says to use Auto most of the time and in Auto mode the histogram
does not appear.So I haven't needed to use it. I read somewhere that
some people think histograms help and others say they are not much help
maybe they can take pictures well enough so they don't need them).
Thanks Mark.
Cathy
ASAAR
> I don't have the flu so the half a second has past and my thinking is
> the best it is going to be, for the moment at least. Thanks for the
> histogram information. Now I know :) But how often do people use
> histograms? mainly when they are not sure if the picture will be too
> dark or light? I don't imagine you would need it outside. Most pictures
> I've taken outside seem to turn out OK.
You're right, the histogram is generally not needed. It's just a
tool, and you only use it if you think you might need it. If using
it helps you to understand why some of your indoor flash pictures
are too dark, then you've learned something and won't have to use
the histograms for that type of shot. From your next msg. to Mark:
> There are not many manual adjustments can be made in my camera.
> There are only a few such as two apertures to choose from and the
> histogram is only available on certain settings -probably manual settings.
It sounds as if your camera has a "live" histogram feature that
shows it while you're taking shots. Don't worry about whether the
histogram isn't available in certain picture taking modes. You
should be able to see the histogram for ALL pictures when reviewing
them later on the camera's LCD.
Mark˛
Even with a fully automatic camera, there are usually little things you can
do that help determine what exposure the camera selects. The most common
way comes in the form of "exposure lock." To do this, you often have to
press something while pointing at one portion of the subject you're
shooting, then lock exposure (based on the lighting of that subject), then
re-frame (re-aim) your shot.
An example of this would be a bride in a white wedding dress, standing on a
grassy lawn.
If you point it right at the bride, your camera (even the most expensive
professional models) will assume that the scene is far too bright (the white
dress fools it), so you end up with an image that produces a very dark grey
dress, rather than a white dress.
So here's what you would do with an "exposure lock" feature:
You would point your camera over toward the green grass (which happens to
almost always be right about neutral in terms of light/dark), lock exposure
(the camera's settings based on how light it thinks the scene is) on the
grass...then re-frame the shot to include the white dress/bride.
By doing this, YOU are taking control of the camera's meter--even though it
might not actually give you full MANUAL control. :) You have essentially
"tricked" the camera into selecting the right exposure.
-Now your dress will be a nice white, and everybody's happy.
:)
>>> The histogram (I assume that the W5 has one) can
>>>> also help point out exposure problems. If you don't like what you
>>>> see there, make whatever adjustments are necessary and reshoot.
>>>> That'll save a lot of time back at the computer and probably reduce
>>>> the amount of wasted photo paper and ink.
>>>
>>> I am not ready to go into histograms.
>>
>> Histograms aren't as confusing as they seem. You don't have to
>> understand everything about them to leanrn the very basic aspect of
>> noting under-exposure. If you see a fairly balanced curve in the
>> histogram, but not a distinct lack of "shape" on the far right side,
>> the shot is likely under-expposed...especially when shooting a scene
>> that is generally well-lit.
Oops. That should have read, "but a distinct lack of 'shape' on the far
right side"
(If there's much more "shape" on the right than the left side, it's likely
under-exposed).
>> I don't know if this will translate into your reader well at all...
>> But if it looks like this:
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Here |
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The lack of "shape" on the far right means that no (or nearly no)
>> pixels in the shot show exposure in the brighter end of the
>> scale...(The brighter end is the part marked "here"). In a wel-lit
>> scene that isn't mostly black, this would mean it is most likely
>> under-exposed.
>
> Meaning too dark?
Correct!
:)
>> In an over-exposed shot, you'd see tall shape stacked up against the
>> far right side.
>> In a badly under-exposed shot, you might see nearly ALL "shape"
>> pushed up against the far left side.
>
> Too light?
Correct!
:)
It's quite possible that you camera has a "nearly full auto mode," where it
does most of the thinking, but allows you to choose things like flash/no
flash, etc. Check to see if you can set it to show you histograms at the
same time that it shows you the shot you just took. If not, you can always
go back in the "play" mode, and turn the histogram on as you're reviewing
shots you've taken. This is your opportunity to check for major imbalance
in the shape of the histogram on the far right or left sides.
>> My Canon 10D tends to show me a nice, well-exposed-looking image on
>> the camera's little screen unless it is WAY over or WAY
>> under-exposed. This is where simply looking at the histrgram saves
>> the day.
>> I leave my 10D set so that after a shot, the screen automatically
>> shows both the image, AND the histogram.
>> This is extremely helpful, and also helps me avoid having to fiddle
>> later trying to rescue poorly exposed shots.
>
> But your Canon is probably mostly manual settings? Many P&S cameras
> including mine seem to be mainly automatic, and only allow a few
> manual settings.
Any camera that can show histograms can usually show it when playing back
picture (view mode, or whatever they call it) after the fact.
Exactly what model camera are you using?
Did I miss that somewhere?
Could you tell me again?
>> -Mark
>>
>> PS--If that funky typed "histogram" comes out weird in your reader,
>> let me know...and maybe I can post a light and dark version of the
>> same image on Pbase, complete with their histograms. This would
>> demonstrate it quite clearly, I think... (Maybe I should have done
>> that to begin with...) :)
>
> Your funky typed histogram came out OK in my reader.
Hooray!
:)
>I know what a
> histogram looks like and you explained it quite well, and so did
> ASAAR. I haven't used the histogram yet, because I wans't sure what
> it was. The manual says to use Auto most of the time and in Auto mode
> the histogram does not appear.So I haven't needed to use it. I read
> somewhere that some people think histograms help and others say they
> are not much help
While I won't pass judgement on people making such declarations...I will
only say that the histogram may very well be the most useful measuring tool
in Photoshop...and arguably the most useful feature on a digital camera
display (besides the obviously useful ability to view the whot itself).
Whether people utilize this tool is, of course, another matter entirely. :)
If they took away the histogram in Photoshop, though, they'd be taking a
HUGE leap backward.
:)
>maybe they can take pictures well enough so they
> don't need them). Thanks Mark.
While it is always possible to acheive great results without all the tools,
I think it's fair to say that even a master craftsman stands to benefit by
having quality tools at his/her disposal.
:)
Some people take pride in being able to do things the hard way, and I ay
more power to them.
I admire their skill. For other masters of photography, they have made
terrific use of the new tools and techniques now available to them...and
again I say...More power to them, too!
:)
-Mark
Mark˛
Actually, the presense of strong light isn't the determining factor of when
it is helpful.
An example of this fact is snow.
You could be under VERY sunny skies, but your snow pictures will often come
out FAR too dark.
Remember...there is PLENTY of light. That's not the issue.
The issue is the fact that your camera doesn't have any idea what it's
pointing at.
For all it "knows", you're pointing at a grey dress, and so it turns the
exposure value WAY down to compensate what the snow...which it assumes is a
grey color that is far too bright...and therefore in need of less exposure.
So again, it's not the presesce of adequate light that makes or breaks.
-Instead, it is how your camera adjusts to the scene.
Camera's are basically hell-bent on rendering neutal tones (not to bright,
and not too dark).
Have you ever taken a picture of a man in a black suit, and noticed that his
face is FAR too bright in teh picture? This is not because the light was
too bright...rather it is because the camera assumes the black suit is a
grey "thing" that needs more exposure to be rendered as grey. So...it
exposes the image sensor until it satisfies that assumption. The result is
a black suit that looks grey in the picture, and a face that is way
over-exposed.
The opposite happens with the white wedding dress example above.
>Most
> pictures I've taken outside seem to turn out OK.
Try the snow picture...where the main area in the middle of your shot is
bright white snow.
Your camera MIGHT not be fooled, but most cameras will be.
-Mark
Joan
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/creative_i/ilex/Colour_right/colouright.htm
for just a little snippet from the book I mentioned.
--
Joan
http://joan.colley.name:85
"Cathy" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:tKOdnXxT9ejapBze...@rogers.com...
Cathy
> Cathy, take a look here:
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/creative_i/ilex/Colour_right/colouright.htm
> for just a little snippet from the book I mentioned.
Thanks Joan. Its quite interesting.
Cathy
Cathy
Well luckily we have had no snow yet, but eventually we will get some.
There is a snow mode setting on the W5. wouldn't do much good for those
living in Florida or CA or southern climes.
> Remember...there is PLENTY of light. That's not the issue.
> The issue is the fact that your camera doesn't have any idea what it's
> pointing at.
> For all it "knows", you're pointing at a grey dress, and so it turns
the
> exposure value WAY down to compensate what the snow...which it assumes
is a
> grey color that is far too bright...and therefore in need of less
exposure.
In the case I was talking about where my photos were a bit too dark -
not all of them were dark. The ones which turned out ok were taken in
areas of the living room where there was no light, so yes, it makes a
difference. I notice this myself, even in film cameras. If some of the
picture composition is a bit dark area, its going to be darker than the
rest of the picture.
> So again, it's not the presesce of adequate light that makes or
breaks.
> -Instead, it is how your camera adjusts to the scene.
> Camera's are basically hell-bent on rendering neutal tones (not to
bright,
> and not too dark).
> Have you ever taken a picture of a man in a black suit, and noticed
that his
> face is FAR too bright in teh picture? This is not because the light
was
> too bright...rather it is because the camera assumes the black suit is
a
> grey "thing" that needs more exposure to be rendered as grey. So...it
> exposes the image sensor until it satisfies that assumption. The
result is
> a black suit that looks grey in the picture, and a face that is way
> over-exposed.
Can't remember taking a picture of a man in a black suit., but I will
take your word for it :)
> The opposite happens with the white wedding dress example above.
>
> >Most
> > pictures I've taken outside seem to turn out OK.
>
> Try the snow picture...where the main area in the middle of your shot
is
> bright white snow.
> Your camera MIGHT not be fooled, but most cameras will be.
I have no snow to photograph - yet!
Cathy
Cathy
I checked out the manual for histogram info today. The manual is not
greatly detailed about anything, but gives you enough information togive
you an idea of things. I put on the histogram on the camera and it can
be put on anytime by pressing a button on the back of the camera when
you are either taking pictures or when reviewing pictures you have
taken. So what you said above is how it is with the histogram on my
camera. I checked the pictures I took which were a bit dark and they all
showed dark on the right side, but so did some other pictures which were
were a little dark too but were not what I would consider too dark. But
the pictures which looked ok taken on the same night were taken where
there was more lighting. It is clearly a factor in the photos.The ones
that were a bit too dark were ones where it was a few people and the
light in the location where they were taken was not uniform.
Cathy
Mark˛
Yes, it does make a difference once you reach the limits of what light the
lens allows in, or the length of time your camera will allow your shutter to
remain open. If you've got it in full auto mode, your camera will attempt
to compensate...until it reaches the limt of lens aperture size or shutter
speed duration. Once you pass those limits, it can't create more
light--unless you crank up the ISO, which simply means your camera will
increase the amplification of what little light signals your sensor picks up
(this is a gamma increase), which is what leads to overly noisy renditions
in images. It might manage to present a well-exposed image, but at the
expense of noise as a result of the heavy gamma amplification.
>I notice this myself, even in film cameras. If some of the
> picture composition is a bit dark area, its going to be darker than
> the rest of the picture.
I never meant to imply that the difference of lighting WITHIN a shot wasn't
a problem. That's the bane of ALL photographers! -Finding light that is
"gentle" enough to allow shadow detail...AND highlights that are overly
bright (blown)....
No camera can set differing levels of exposure for portions within the same
image in the actual exposure. They can take the sum of those values and
attempt a happy medium, but it's never going to be perfect in shots
containing more contrast than the film/sensor can handle. The camera has to
choose what portion of the image to expose for. This is why shooting
landscapes at mid-day is not the best plan--because the light areas are SO
much brighter than the shadow areas (under trees, next to boulders, etc.)
that you'll end up with super-bright light elements, and pitch-black shadow
areas. Why? -Because you only get one exposure level for the entire scene.
Some people take multiple shots, identically framed, but taken at different
exposure levels. Then in Photoshop, they combine the two images...keeping
the shadows in the image from the shot that had more exposure...and the
bright areas of the scene they keep from the less-exposed shot. This is one
of the few ways to deal with the fact that cameras only get to use one
exposure for an entire shot.
-Mark
Mark˛
As I've also posted to your response to me today... It's not that the light
isn't a factor.
It is...but not necessarily always the cause (think snow example).
Cathy
> Cathy wrote:
<snip>
I must have been daydreaming when I wrote my above paragraph. What I
meant to say was:
The ones which turned out ok were taken in areas of the living room
where was ENOUGH light"
The ones which were a little too dark, did not have enough light.
If you've got it in full auto mode, your camera will attempt
> to compensate...until it reaches the limt of lens aperture size or
shutter
> speed duration. Once you pass those limits, it can't create more
> light--unless you crank up the ISO, which simply means your camera
will
> increase the amplification of what little light signals your sensor
picks up
> (this is a gamma increase), which is what leads to overly noisy
renditions
> in images. It might manage to present a well-exposed image, but at
the
> expense of noise as a result of the heavy gamma amplification.
Yes, you are right, but I screwed your analysis up a bit by saying the
wrong thing above.:)
> >I notice this myself, even in film cameras. If some of the
> > picture composition is a bit dark area, its going to be darker than
> > the rest of the picture.
>
> I never meant to imply that the difference of lighting WITHIN a shot
wasn't
> a problem. That's the bane of ALL photographers! -Finding light that
is
> "gentle" enough to allow shadow detail...AND highlights that are
overly
> bright (blown)....
Yes, you have to get the right balance I guess. I am pretty good at
taking outdoor photos and I even took a nice marco shot of a lady bug
which was crawling along the railing of my balcony. (I thought it was
nice anyway). I had to be quick as it looking like it was going over to
the edge of the railing. As to indoor photos with flash, I will get
better as I take more of them.(I hope). Actually, I took some indoor
photos with flash a couple of nights ago of a couple of people and they
turned out OK. I put enough lights on in my living room and took the
pictures closer to where the lights were and the photos turned out much
better this time.
> No camera can set differing levels of exposure for portions within the
same
> image in the actual exposure. They can take the sum of those values
and
> attempt a happy medium, but it's never going to be perfect in shots
> containing more contrast than the film/sensor can handle. The camera
has to
> choose what portion of the image to expose for. This is why shooting
> landscapes at mid-day is not the best plan--because the light areas
are SO
> much brighter than the shadow areas (under trees, next to boulders,
etc.)
> that you'll end up with super-bright light elements, and pitch-black
shadow
> areas. Why? -Because you only get one exposure level for the entire
scene.
Yes, I notice that bright sunshine is not always the best time to take
photos. The sun is too bright or something. Though I took a couple of
photos in part sunshine/part shade of the garden area at the front of my
apt. building and the flowers came out very nice. A lot of the shot was
in the shade.
> Some people take multiple shots, identically framed, but taken at
different
> exposure levels. Then in Photoshop, they combine the two
images...keeping
> the shadows in the image from the shot that had more exposure...and
the
> bright areas of the scene they keep from the less-exposed shot. This
is one
> of the few ways to deal with the fact that cameras only get to use one
> exposure for an entire shot.
My camera takes multi shots, but I don't think I want to try that right
now. Maybe at some later time.
I'll leave that kind of thing to the photo experts. I would be happy
just to be able take nice sharp photos with good color, and no redeye or
very little,and good exposure.
Cathy
Cathy
Maybe not, but the photos that I took which is under discussion, there
was not enough light in some areas where I was taking the photos. With
my film camera, I have taken pictures in the same spots, and they were
OK. I guess a flash on film camera is stronger. I thought a P&S camera
had a stronger flash than they seem to have. I guess they all have
different flash ranges though. I should have thought of that. Next time
I will be more aware of this.
> It is...but not necessarily always the cause (think snow example).
This is not the time to tell me that. We have had good weather for the
last 5 months. Well from June 1 to mid September it was way too hot for
me. hottest summer on record, so I was pleased when the hot weather
ended, and its been mild lately. But tomorrow the forecast says some
light snow and you never know that that means till the time comes. They
always make a big thing of the first snow of the season. Anyway, I am
not in a hurry to try out my snow mode on the camera to see if it works
:)
Cathy
Mark˛
You said your camera has a "snow mode" though, which will probably solve the
snow problem (not to mention undermine my example :)
This "snow mode" setting you refer to likely means that it simply tells the
camera to no longer attempt the creation of a middle-toned image, and lets
the white be white. This can also be done without a "snow mode" by telling
a more adjustable camera to increase the exposure value by a couple of
stops.
Cathy
> Cathy wrote:
Yes it has a snow mode, but I am not always out in snowy weather though
it is very pretty when it has snowed and not yet messy and turned to
slush. Here it snows, it rains, we get freezing rain, it ices,
alternately all winter long. Thats what its like in this part of the
country. North of Toronto they have a lot of ski resorts because they
get a lot of snow up there. Our weather is similar to New York City and
Chicago. Buffalo which is only about an hour and a half from here, is
south of us, and gets a lot more snow than we do. They are in a snow
belt. New England states like Vermont get more snow than we do (and
Colorado :) - looks beautiful there. I love Vermont, New York State and
Maine. Been there many times but unfortunately not for a long time.
> This "snow mode" setting you refer to likely means that it simply
tells the
> camera to no longer attempt the creation of a middle-toned image, and
lets
> the white be white.
Which was what you were referring to. Do a lot of cameras have snow mode
settings? I don't remember seeing any when I used to read camera
reviews.It could come in handy especially for people who ski and in US
states where they get a lot of snow, and Canada of course.
> This can also be done without a "snow mode" by telling
> a more adjustable camera to increase the exposure value by a couple of
> stops.
I'll let you know when I take snow pictures:) BTW, where are you
located in the US?
Cathy
ASAAR
>> It is...but not necessarily always the cause (think snow example).
>
> This is not the time to tell me that. We have had good weather for the
> last 5 months. Well from June 1 to mid September it was way too hot for
> me. hottest summer on record, so I was pleased when the hot weather
> ended, and its been mild lately. But tomorrow the forecast says some
> light snow and you never know that that means till the time comes. They
> always make a big thing of the first snow of the season. Anyway, I am
> not in a hurry to try out my snow mode on the camera to see if it works
> :)
Yes, it is time to tell you that. You can't see the forest for
the snowflakes! <g> The snow example is not meant to apply only
to snow and only in wintery weather. It's used because it's a
useful example in that most people hear "snow" and immediately see
the intended image in their mind, which is a scene that's
predominantly white and bright. But you're supposed to take what
you learned from that extreme case and apply it to other scenes that
also have vast expanses of some uniform color or mixture of similar
colors, not necessarily white, and not necessarily as bright. It
doesn't matter if it's the brightest white or a very dark black or a
very light pastel blue or a moderately dark maroon. They'll all
"fool" the camera into using the wrong exposure (and possibly white
balance), and it's *your* job to be smarter than the camera's
limited program and anticipate when a particular scene won't have
the typical set of mixed colors and brightnesses that allow the
camera to produce a reasonably accurate exposure. But if you don't
anticipate it, that's ok too. You don't have to always get the
perfect shot, but understand the concept so that when the shot
doesn't turn out as well as you expect, after looking at the picture
briefly, you'll be able to quickly and easily adjust the camera and
then get the shot you expected. Do this a couple of times and
before you know it, it'll become second nature and you'll be making
the adjustments when required without giving it much thought.
Mark˛
I've never had any digital cameras other than DSLRs. DSLRs don't tend to
offer all the little "mode" choices, since they are marketed mainly to
people who are more interested in making these little adjustments on their
own, or with more control. I think it's a great idea for point&shoot
cameras, though, since it's an exposure issue that confuses even experienced
hobby photogs...
>> This can also be done without a "snow mode" by telling
>> a more adjustable camera to increase the exposure value by a couple
>> of stops.
>
> I'll let you know when I take snow pictures:) BTW, where are you
> located in the US?
A looooooong way from you...in Sunny Southern California.
It was 75 degrees and beautiful at my house today.
:)
-Wish we had your colorful seasons, weather, and greenery here, though.
:(
On the other hand...I can go cycling in my bike shorts in December.
:)
Mark˛
Well put, ASAAR.
:)
(And I know you still want to smack me, so you can ignore the smiley if it
suits you...but you're no longer in my tantrum-induced klink-file...)
ASAAR
number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> (And I know you still want to smack me, so you can ignore the smiley if it
> suits you...but you're no longer in my tantrum-induced klink-file...)
Was that a message ghost that just flitted by?
Cathy
All good points. You have all been very helpful with your advice and
tips to me and its appreciated. I have a good idea what Mark meant in
his message about snow. I was just kidding with him about snow. Its not
my favorite kind of weather especially when driving :)
Cathy
Mark˛
No... You're looking at me...
I can see you without ghosts now.
Mark˛
I do see dead people though...
Cathy
<snip>
> >> This "snow mode" setting you refer to likely means that it simply
> >> tells the camera to no longer attempt the creation of a
middle-toned
> >> image, and lets the white be white.
> >
> > Which was what you were referring to. Do a lot of cameras have snow
> > mode settings? I don't remember seeing any when I used to read
camera
> > reviews.It could come in handy especially for people who ski and in
US
> > states where they get a lot of snow, and Canada of course.
>
> I've never had any digital cameras other than DSLRs. DSLRs don't tend
to
> offer all the little "mode" choices, since they are marketed mainly to
> people who are more interested in making these little adjustments on
their
> own, or with more control. I think it's a great idea for point&shoot
> cameras, though, since it's an exposure issue that confuses even
experienced
> hobby photogs...
I didn't know you had a DSLR. I always thought you had a P&S camera for
some reason.
A snow mode setting is mainly just for taking pictures in the snow
though isn't it?
> >> This can also be done without a "snow mode" by telling
> >> a more adjustable camera to increase the exposure value by a couple
> >> of stops.
> >
> > I'll let you know when I take snow pictures:) BTW, where are you
> > located in the US?
>
> A looooooong way from you...in Sunny Southern California.
> It was 75 degrees and beautiful at my house today.
> :)
> -Wish we had your colorful seasons, weather, and greenery here,
though.
> :(
It would be nice in a way to live in S. California, but I can't say I
would like to live there, but would love to visit.
Yes, I like the different seasons we have here. I can't tolerate the
heat here in the summer though, but don't mind the cold too much. I
don't like snow when it makes the roads bad for driving and things like
freezing rain, black ice can be so dangerous. I only work part time, so
its nice not to have to drive, unless forced to. Through the years, I've
paid my dues driving on bad roads.
> On the other hand...I can go cycling in my bike shorts in December.
> :)
Yes, I suppose that is an advantage.
Cathy
Cathy
news:rNTgf.7431$dv.5279@fed1read02...
As long as they are not real ghosts - if there are such things.
Cathy
Mark˛
I don't believe in ghosts...but "6th Sense" gave me the creeps ayway--like
nothing else in my life EVER!
Of course there was the time when I fell asleep in front of the TV late one
night...only to wake up after "The Exorcist" had come on...so that I opened
my eye literally at the moment the head turned, and at full-screen spoke in
that creepy mother's voice... I about jumped out of my skin!
Bad!
ASAAR
writing:
>> I do see dead people though...
>
> As long as they are not real ghosts - if there are such things.
But there are. Don't you remember discussing George and Marion
(let's not forget Neil) earlier this year?
Cathy
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
message
> > news:rNTgf.7431$dv.5279@fed1read02...
> >> Mark² wrote:
> >>> ASAAR wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:52:25 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> >>>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> (And I know you still want to smack me, so you can ignore the
> >>>>> smiley if it suits you...but you're no longer in my
> >>>>> tantrum-induced klink-file...)
> >>>>
> >>>> Was that a message ghost that just flitted by?
> >>>
> >>> No... You're looking at me...
> >>> I can see you without ghosts now.
> >>
> >> I do see dead people though...
> >
> > As long as they are not real ghosts - if there are such things.
> >
> > Cathy
>
> I don't believe in ghosts...but "6th Sense" gave me the creeps
ayway--like
> nothing else in my life EVER!
I've seen that program advertised on the TV but never watched it. Maybe
I shouldn't by the sounds of it. What TV station is it on? A&E or Fox,
one of these?
> Of course there was the time when I fell asleep in front of the TV
late one
> night...only to wake up after "The Exorcist" had come on...so that I
opened
> my eye literally at the moment the head turned, and at full-screen
spoke in
> that creepy mother's voice... I about jumped out of my skin!
> Bad!
Haha. I saw the Exorcist a long time ago. When I see previews of it
being on such and such a TV station, it seems so dumb. I find people
like Sylvia Browne, the medium who is on Montel to be kind of
entertaining. I don't believe everything she says though. I am very
skeptical about the beyond.
Cathy
Cathy
I can't remember seeing a discussion about that. Topper? I have a video
of a few episodes of Topper. There have been a couple of Topper movies.
I liked the one with Robert Jeffries and forget the womans name and I
liked the Topper in that one. The other Topper guy was good too and I
think Cary Grant was in a Topper movie with Constance Bennett. I really
like movies from the 40's. Before my going to the movies time, but I
like them just the same. Film Noir.
Cathy
Mark˛
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> This "snow mode" setting you refer to likely means that it simply
>>>> tells the camera to no longer attempt the creation of a
>>>> middle-toned image, and lets the white be white.
>>>
>>> Which was what you were referring to. Do a lot of cameras have snow
>>> mode settings? I don't remember seeing any when I used to read
>>> camera reviews.It could come in handy especially for people who ski
>>> and in US states where they get a lot of snow, and Canada of course.
>>
>> I've never had any digital cameras other than DSLRs. DSLRs don't
>> tend to offer all the little "mode" choices, since they are marketed
>> mainly to people who are more interested in making these little
>> adjustments on their own, or with more control. I think it's a
>> great idea for point&shoot cameras, though, since it's an exposure
>> issue that confuses even experienced hobby photogs...
>
> I didn't know you had a DSLR. I always thought you had a P&S camera
> for some reason.
Hmm.
If that comment came from anyone other than you...I'd think you were trying
to insult my photos!
:)
> A snow mode setting is mainly just for taking pictures in the snow
> though isn't it?
Well...sort of.
It's for taking pictures of scenes that are supposed to appear mostly white,
or very light, bright grey.
It might work well for a shot of a girl in a wedding dress...where the
wedding dress takes up most of the frame, for example.
>>>> This can also be done without a "snow mode" by telling
>>>> a more adjustable camera to increase the exposure value by a couple
>>>> of stops.
>>>
>>> I'll let you know when I take snow pictures:) BTW, where are you
>>> located in the US?
>>
>> A looooooong way from you...in Sunny Southern California.
>> It was 75 degrees and beautiful at my house today.
>> :)
>> -Wish we had your colorful seasons, weather, and greenery here,
>> though. :(
>
> It would be nice in a way to live in S. California, but I can't say I
> would like to live there, but would love to visit.
> Yes, I like the different seasons we have here. I can't tolerate the
> heat here in the summer though, but don't mind the cold too much. I
> don't like snow when it makes the roads bad for driving and things
> like freezing rain, black ice can be so dangerous. I only work part
> time, so its nice not to have to drive, unless forced to. Through the
> years, I've paid my dues driving on bad roads.
:)
I, on the other hand, crave driving to places that require use of bad roads.
I'm not one of those 4-wheeler types, but I do like to travel to far-away
destinations few people see...especially if there is wildlife to "hunt" for
(with a camera, that is).
I've driven all the way to the Arctic Ocean via the pipeline "haul road" or
"Dalton Highway", which (when I drove it) was 4-wheel-drive only, and quite
treacherous. You needed to take at LEAST two spare tires and tire repair
stuff...and there were streches of 260 miles with no services, power, phone,
gas, help of any kind...save for the occasional big-rig carrying supplies to
the stations in the far North.
The last time I was there (in 2001) they were in the process of paving the
dirt road...which will make it a comparatively EASY trip. In a way, though,
it takes some of the charm out of it for me because it will likely mean
you'll see more people up there. The first time I drove it...I literally
saw more large animals than people.
I've driven through the nastiest roads (mud-bogs) in Brazil, Colombia, Papua
New Guinea, Panama, and others in my weird life...
>> On the other hand...I can go cycling in my bike shorts in December.
>> :)
>
> Yes, I suppose that is an advantage.
I guess that depends on how one looks in bike shorts(?) and whether we dare
go out in them at all...
:)
ASAAR
> All good points. You have all been very helpful with your advice and
> tips to me and its appreciated. I have a good idea what Mark meant in
> his message about snow. I was just kidding with him about snow. Its not
> my favorite kind of weather especially when driving :)
Ok, and thanks. I didn't catch the kidding this time, but I don't
know of anyone that has a perfect record so I don't feel too bad. :)
The ice you mentioned isn't just bad for driving. It can make
walking treacherous too. There's a slight chance of seeing some of
that here in the next couple of days. With luck it'll be no more
than a couple of light snow flurries that don't last.
Cathy
You're right. Ice can make it very bad for walking, especially for older
people as their bones take much longer to heal than a younger person.
You really have to be very careful when walking. Our winters are similar
to New York and Chicago.I find weather patterns interesting and watch
the TV weather for our area and the rest of Canada, and the US every
night. I watch the all weather channel for weather all over the world.
We especially focus on Florida, because so many Canadians go there on
vacation at this time of year and many stay for the winter. My friend
just went down and won't be back till next April. She's lucky. Snowbirds
they call us, the ones who have places in Florida.
We are supposed to get light snow tomorrow, but when they say light
snow, it can mean more than that, or it can be less. We had some snow
flurries a couple of days ago. I was driving at the time, but it didn't
last long, then the sun came out and it was sunny for the rest of the
day. It can be very unpredictable here in winter.
Cathy
ASAAR
> I can't remember seeing a discussion about that. Topper? I have a video
> of a few episodes of Topper. There have been a couple of Topper movies.
> I liked the one with Robert Jeffries and forget the womans name and I
> liked the Topper in that one. The other Topper guy was good too and I
> think Cary Grant was in a Topper movie with Constance Bennett. I really
> like movies from the 40's. Before my going to the movies time, but I
> like them just the same. Film Noir.
I'm pretty sure we discussed the various Toppers, as well as Don
Ameche and a few other oldsters in oldies. Remember mentioning Here
Comes Mr. Jordan and Heaven Can Wait? You corrected a
misrecollection I had about one of the versions. But was there a
Robert Jeffries? I think that in the TV version with Leo G.
Carroll, George & Marion (the hostess with the mostest) were played
by Robert Stirling and Ann(e?) Jeffries.
Cathy
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:11:19 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I can't remember seeing a discussion about that. Topper? I have a
video
> > of a few episodes of Topper. There have been a couple of Topper
movies.
> > I liked the one with Robert Jeffries and forget the womans name and
I
> > liked the Topper in that one. The other Topper guy was good too and
I
> > think Cary Grant was in a Topper movie with Constance Bennett. I
really
> > like movies from the 40's. Before my going to the movies time, but I
> > like them just the same. Film Noir.
>
> I'm pretty sure we discussed the various Toppers, as well as Don
> Ameche and a few other oldsters in oldies. Remember mentioning Here
> Comes Mr. Jordan and Heaven Can Wait? You corrected a
> misrecollection I had about one of the versions.
I remember about us discussing Here comes Mr. Jordan and Heaven can
wait. I think I corrected about the two different versions of Heaven can
Wait. The older version is the only worth while version with Don Ameche.
Most times movie sequels are not as good as originals.
But was there a
> Robert Jeffries? I think that in the TV version with Leo G.
> Carroll, George & Marion (the hostess with the mostest) were played
> by Robert Stirling and Ann(e?) Jeffries.
You are right. It was Robert Stirling and Ann Jeffries and Leo G.
Carroll in the TV version. I always liked Leo G. Carrol. In another
version of Topper, Cary Grant and Constance Bennett played George and
Marion. I think that was a movie. That was a different Topper, but he
was good too and you see him in a few older movies. I forget which
version I have on VHS. I'll have to check.
Cathy
Cathy
I got Here comes Mr. Jordan on DVD last year. I already had the video. I
hate when I do that. I have a really good video collection, but when the
DVD comes out, I want to get it and feel its a waste of money since I
already have it, even though its on VHS. So my guideline is if the DVD
is not too expensive, I buy the DVD, then I give the video to one of my
daughters. They like some of the old movies. Or I give them to Goodwill
or my local library who don't mind getting used videos.
Thats how I justify my habit. DVD movies have gone down a lot in price
in the past year or two. Another weak justification :)
Cathy