[thechat] Photography help

[javier velasco]

Madhu Menon wrote:
>
> At 09:58 PM 23-08-02, javier velasco wrote:
> >I bet those Martha Stewart pics are using preofessional Illumination,
> >the beans must have been boiled with some special additive to make them
> >look so green (bicarbonate does this trick)...
>
> Blanching them for about 10 seconds in boiling water also does that. My
> stir-fries always turn out bright and colourful. The trick is to know when
> to stop cooking. See the broccoli in the blog link I sent last time.

Yes cooking time is key, but bicarbonate can help too :)


> >and those water drops
> >have probalby been carefully placed, and the shot was taken with a macro
> >lens and a wide aperture to achieve a shallow depth of field - lots of
> >production!
>
> English, Javi, English! :p

Ok...

> I want to be able to shoot photos like that gorgeous moonlight pic you sent
> me yesterday. That was stunning.

tehre i used the deepest depth of focue my camera offered (F8), and had
the shutter open for 8 complete seconds -  don't ask me how to do it
without a tripod
http://members.evolt.org/mantruc/digicam/noche_luna_cordi.jpg

long exposure times give a better quality to the images, i don't know
the explanation, but i think it's the same reason why food tastes better
when cooked slowly (and other things as well that could account for a
new interesting thread altogether)

here's a good start....

Beau Hartshorne wrote:
>
> > What I want to know is how to make my digital pics look this good:
> > http://www.simonhoegsberg.com/
>
> Were Simon's photos taken with a digital camera?
>
> I read somewhere that digital cameras have a very deep depth of field.
> If I took those pictures with my digital camera, everything in the frame
> would have been in focus.

Some digital cameras have variable aperture, allowing control over depth
of field.
The A20 you have has mild control over that :Lens Aperture F2.7 - F4.8
(my Sony offers F2.5 to F8, my SLR Canon 50mm lens offers from F1.8 to
F22)

F2.7 would be the widest aperture (more light less depth of field)
F4.8 gives you less light and more depth of field

in this case it is recommended to have low depth of field, main subject
on focus, background blurred (F2.7)

> Simon's photos would lose a lot of their power
> if the leaves on the trees in the background were just as sharp as the
> person's eyes in the foreground.

Right

>
> Think about Martha's food photos. Would they still be beautiful if the
> background was in perfect focus?
>
> Another important thing is lighting. The camera's flash can ruin a
> picture. (I think the flash has ruined your food photos.) Try to take
> some of your food shots without the flash, and maybe on a tripod. Go get
> some better light from somewhere else.

Right, you can put them ina  table that recieves light from a window at
the side, light comes from the side, making shadows that increase
textures. flash gives you light from the same angle as the lens, so
images appear flat


> Also keep in mind that Simon probably took a few hundred shots and ended
> up with the small selection on his site.

right

> He probably touched them up in
> Photoshop as well. 30 seconds with image->adjust->curves and
> filter->unsharp mask (100%, 1, 0) can make any photo look much better.

I was taught to use 100%, 0.6, 0 - the book said 0.6 was the appropriate
radius for 72dpi, but nowdays i'm using amounts of less than 100%



Martin Burns wrote:

> Both.
>
> For the camera, the most important thing he's doing is using a long lens
> with a very shallow depth of field (the two tend to go together anyway).

Depth of field is controlled by lens aperture (F), a long lens
(telephoto) normally increases this effect, macrofocus also normally
produces shallow depth of field


> With the editing software (and I'd be *very* surprised if it weren't
> Photoshop), he's being very careful about bringing out the colours and
> contrasts.

+1


> I would also put a large amount of cash on there being *lots* of unused
> shots.

+1


> He's also placed himself very carefully to get his subjects lit right - as
> well as the main daylight coming in from the right (and it looks like near
> sunset in a lot of the shots, which is a very flattering light), there's
> also something to the left reflecting light back. See how many of the
> subjects have light on both cheeks? This may be related to the pics being
> taken within a small physical space - that's the space where the lights
> right.

Or you can use things to reflect light, like a foam pad, in the apporach
where i told you to place the dish in a talbe that gets light from the
side, you dould put a foam pad in the opposite side of the table from
where the window is, then you have 2 light sources one main, on
secondary



> He's also got the timing right, and you often get the best from
> (non-professional model) subjects if they're unaware of being
> photographed. Little spoils a photo more than having the subject bring
> their mind into how they expect a photo of themselves to look. That's why
> kids photography is relatively easy - they're less self-conscious.

right, kids are easier to catch unaware.
it's tough to shoot portraits, these are the most decent shots i've
achieved in 10 years of photograhpy
http://mantruc.com/fotos/gente/index.htm