This is the Photoproject for learning about photography of all types. Go out and take pictures! Bring them here for discussion.
I want to try some time-lapse photography where a picture is taken every day. I'm worried about how to make sure that each picture is taken in the same way. Is it possible without a tripod? --JWSchmidt 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you want an identical frame, you really should use a tripod, if possible. Otherwise, It's going to be very hard (if impossible) to get it right each time. If it's not possible to use a tripod, you could use an object that is fixed on a particular spot, and take the photograph resting on exactly the same spot on this object every day, noting where the sides of the frame (ie picture) are marked in the scene. This will be made easier by a camera with a clear (and preferably large) viewfinder - traditional, film-based compact cameras will not be good for this - an SLR would be better, and a decent digital compact would probably be fine too. Cormaggio talk 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to show us how it turns out.Elatanatari 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Also there is a way to make sure that the pictures are aligned. Take your camera and take pictures everyday at a relative spot like on something fixed. Then you can upload the pictures to photoshop and put it in layers, there is an option that will try to auto align the layers for you. Then you will have to crop it and take the sides off because some pictures might be off a little so photoshop will move it to the side a bit. After that you then can proceed to make a video out of it. I have already done something similar and uploaded to youtube. the link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s64qF0v2AG0 Also I am doing a similar project and I have a forum for it. --Rlin06
Please add your photos here, and tell us how you made it, and why. If you have any questions about the photography (such as how it could be improved, for example), please add them too.
This image is a photogram, which means it was made with the sole use of a photographic enlarger, and not a camera. The process is of arranging objects onto photographic paper, and then exposing the paper to light (from the enlarger), thus creating a shadow of the object on the paper. (The image is a negative, so the shadow is white.) In this case, the paper used was colour paper, with a deliberate cyan colour cast, and there was a piece of handmade, textured paper in the negative carrier - which was enlarged, and which added to the overall colour. The objects used were slices of lemons and pieces of a tomato vine - and I placed these on a piece of transparent cling film to avoid affecting the photographic chemical development process, particularly because of the acidity of the lemons. Cormaggio talk 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Very Interesting. Where did you learn about this?Elatanatari 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- My undergraduate degree (well, diploma actually) is in photography. I became fascinated for a while by photograms, particularly in their slightly unreal quality - often similar to X-Ray photographs. In fact, the earliest book of photographic images was actually a book of cyanotype photograms by Anna Atkins, including images like this one. My image is a nod to those early images... Cormaggio talk 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, very cool. Whats your alma mater?18.104.22.168 01:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I like this image not because the subject or execution was particularly interesting, but because I was able to rescue what could have been a wasted photo with just a little, judicious post-production work.
The original image was honestly dreadful: taken on the spur of the moment with my 2.0-megapixel mobile in foul lighting. The camera lacked a flash (which would have ruined the image anyway) and so cranked it's ISO all the way up instead. The resulting image looked underexposed, poorly-focussed, and was of course noisy as hell. Initially I thought I could salvage the image using despeckle filters and the blur tool on the background, which did nothing to help the obviously bad focus and noise on the subject. By desaturating the image and increasing the contrast as much as I dared, ugly multicoloured speckles turned into a vintage graininess. Using a light sharpening filter around the subject improved the effect. The same process also caused the detail and highlights of Marmy's fur to stand out better.
I get the impression from some commercial photographers that post-production (be it digital or darkroom) is where sub-par photographers camouflage for their lack of skill with funky effects. Comments? (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spootonium (talk • contribs) .)
- I'd like to see the original image to see the results of your nifty post-production. :-) The photograph looks good - the increased contrast and sharpening in black and white works well. And yes, it is true that you can mask a certain amount of ill-ability with Photoshop effects (and it is incredible just how extensively Photoshop is used in fashion photography, for example), but there's a limit to how much you can do with an under/overexposed image. Post-production can be great when used intelligently (as you have done here), but it can also look "gimmicky" if over-used... Cormaggio talk 14:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Macro photography remains something of an enigma to me. Practically, I find it quite hit-and-miss. Largely, I think this is because I don't have any deeper understanding of how it works. This image turned out alright, but I have no idea why. How beneficial is it, for instance, to use a macro lens? Why is it that your DOF is often measured in millimetres? Extreme close-up photography intrigues me, and is a field I want to know more about. Spootonium 10:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Macro photography is complicated. First of all, there is a minimum focusing distance for every lens - any closer, and the lens will not be able to resolve the image (in the same way as your eye can't focus on objects closer than its minimum distance). Perhaps this is the reason some images haven't turned out? Depth of field (DOF) is always very low in macro photographs - this is a physical property of the lens (and, believe me, there's only so much you want to know about the physics of lenses on a practical level - perhaps, if you like, try Wikipedia's articles on w:lens and w:optics). If you're using an SLR camera, you can get a separate macro lens for your camera - or you can fit macro filters onto your lens (check they're the right width), which have worked for me quite well. I've also been fascinated by macro photography - it gives a whole new dimension to the world at times. :-) Cormaggio talk 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Let me see if I understand correctly - my camera has a non-removable 28-300mm lens achieving only a 10cm macro, but does posess a 58mm filter thread. If I really want to get in there, I could acquire a suitable macro-conversion lens to artificially boost the dioptre (whatever that means) of my lens and reduce the macro focus range. Using a filter yourself, Cormaggio, what improvement did you notice, and what's the trade-off? Spootonium 11:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response. When you say a "non-removable" lens, do you mean that you're using a compact camera as opposed to an SLR? It would seem that you're using an SLR if you have a 58mm thread, but then the lens would be removable. In any case, I have found the filters to be excellent - the "trade-off" is that they are not perfectly aligned to the optics of your lens (lens optics are truly "rocket science", and any fraction of over/under-curvature can result in aberrations in the image). However, I never noticed any such aberrations in any images I took, and I have enlarged images to reasonably large sizes. The "improvement" with using filters is that they basically do what a macro lens will do - allow you to take photographs at a much closer range - thereby giving you much more magnification. The ideal would be to buy a lens specifically designed with macro capabilities; filters are a really-not-too bad alternative, and it seems as if that conversion lens is somewhere in between (even though I've never used such a thing). Cormaggio talk 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I see. That's food for thought. Thanks. Spootonium 10:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If you have an issue you would like to raise about any aspect of photography, please add it here.
I'm getting a new camera. I want an SLR, but I'm broke. What should I get? Where should I look?Elatanatari 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want a digital or film-based SLR? You can pick up good second-hand film-based cameras quite cheap (though you'll have to pay for subsequent processing of film and prints). Where are you based? Cormaggio talk 11:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Digital, I already have a great film SLR, but the processing can get pricy. Detroit.Elatanatari 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also what do you think of bridge cameras?--Elatanatari 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose if you're broke, then second-hand is going to be a real option. There are always people who get a middle-range camera and who subsequently want to upgrade to a pro-end camera, so you might be able to get something decent on, say, eBay. For specific digital camera reviews, this is a good website. I think it's always worth thinking ahead when buying a camera - will it have enough resolution to produce decent-sized prints? What will I be using it for (will I need particular lenses or other additionals in the future)? I think this is the major drawback of "bridge" or any other non-SLR - you can't add any lenses to it down the line. I'd recommend a Canon or Nikon - they have a great range of lenses - but other major manufacturers, like Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, etc are pretty good too. Let me know what you find out, and I'll try to help. Cormaggio talk 09:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)