Balislinger, you wrote:
I have a Canon 50mm prime macro lens, and despite its optical clarity, I find it has two disadvantages. 1) One must position the camera quite far from the subject in order to frame an entire knife. This requires space, or a step stool to not reduce the viewing angle, which then means a different light tent. 2) The lack of zoom means I have to move the camera and tripod back and forth in order to frame shots, much more annoying than zooming in and out. If I can get close to the optical clarity of a prime lens with a good zoom lens, the convenience factor of the zoom means it wins out.
If you feel cramped with the 50mm focal length you must either be in a very cramped room, or you're photographing swords. If you use a zoom lens, I suggest that you gravitate toward the longer focal lengths, because most of the distortions, whether or not they are subtle, occur at the shorter focal lengths.
I use 3-point diffused lighting as well, but I think I could use a lighting upgrade. I used to use blue daylight spectrum photo bulbs, but I switched to CFLs when they ran out. The CFLs run daylight (5500k) also, but run cooler (I can put them closer to the tent) and run much longer (less cost, less replacing of bulbs). But they also don't have quite the light output that I would like. My old photo bulbs were 250 or 500 watts, these CFLs are 100 watts.
Question: What might be a good lighting upgrade for me in terms of putting new bulbs in my lamps? My sockets are rated to 500 watts.
The amount of light and the color is actually not the issue, because the exposure and white balance settings take care of that. But, I do recommend that you use the same bulbs, for consistent lighting. Nothing messes up white balance more than inconsistent lighting. Also, be aware of the surroundings, meaning the color of the walls and ceiling, which can influence the lighting. When photographing Satin blades, the positioning of the lights can influence the look and feel of the reflection. It can be tough.
I don't think I'm ready for straight-to-screen shooting, mainly because I don't want to move my computer. I don't know how to read histograms either, so even the LCD info doesn't help me. I'd love to learn how to read a levels graph, to know whether to bump up exposure compensation, for example, and retake the shot. I also don't mind my current technique of taking a bunch of shots from different angles, then culling them at the computer screen. I always have a bunch I like, and rarely need to go back and retake more shots.
Question: Can someone give me a short paragraph lesson on how to read a levels graph?
I use a laptop, so it is very easy to place my computer close to the camera, and connect them via a USB cable. Being able to see the image on a large screen, with the ability to zoom in to detect a rogue piece of lint that is covering a logo or lettering (and thus difficult to "heal" as a post-process), is a huge benefit. It is also useful for checking to make sure that the focus was set correctly, and that the depth-of-field was adequate. Much of this can be done using the real LCD of the camera, especially if it is high-definition with the ability to zoom.
About interpreting a levels histogram, the best way to explain it is to think of it as a mountain or hill, and that the ideal histogram looks like a hill that starts on the left, and ends at the right, meaning that there is little or no "flat" areas on either side. If there is a significant "flat" area on the right, it means that the photo was underexposed. Being able to interpret these is like an art, and I am still learning.
What's an ExpoDisc? I currently use a grey card to set custom white balance. I don't understand why you think WB is critical. My custom WB setting gets pretty close, and I can correct the rest with Photoshop. I tend to use the "Remove Color Cast" feature in Elements until I see the right color and WB. Never felt like having a slightly off WB at the shot level took any detail away from the corrected picture, but I'm open to hearing why you think so.
Question: Why is getting the white balance correct at the shot-level so critical, and what is an ExpoDisc?
If you're currently using a grey card to set white balance, then you're all set, and probably have no need for an ExpoDisc. An ExpoDisc is a special filter that is used for the same purpose as a grey card. The camera is pointed toward the object that is to be photographed, the ExpoDisc is placed over the lens, and then the white balance is set. It effectively diffuses the incoming light and creates a "grey card" effect. In the past, some people used an original Pringle's lid for similar purposes.
Getting the white balance correct at shot time can save time later on. The more "off" it is, the more time you will spend getting it right. When shooting in JPEG, getting it right later on can become quite tedious.
Yep, I finally figured that out this year. After comparing jpegs and RAW shots of the same knife, side by side, with all the same settings, the RAW shots had noticeably more detail. I still don't know how to adjust pictures in RAW mode, however. When I pull up the RAW shot in Elements it gives me a chance to adjust all kind of things before producing the image, but I don't know what any of those sliders do.
Question: How does one adjust, say, white balance, in RAW mode, before processing the image? How about levels?
I am glad to hear that. About making adjustments to RAW files, it depends on the application and its workflow. I no longer use Photoshop for this, but I know that its early workflow for RAW files required that the white balance be set during import. I have been using Lightroom for a couple of years, and its support for RAW files is more seamless in that adjusting the white balance is merely just another operation that can be done at any time.
I agree. Would Elements make your cut? That's what I use, and it's indispensable to good final shots.
Any of the Photoshop products are good choices, meaning Photoshop CS4, Photoshop Elements, or Photoshop Lightroom. They mainly differ in their workflow. If you're happy with Photoshop Elements, stick with it. Like any tool, knowing its strengths and weaknesses, and learning how to take advantage of the former and work around the latter is golden.
Thanks for the tips, Ken. Hope you don't mind answering some questions, lol.
Sorry for the delay in replying. I got sidetracked.
:thumbup:
