FEATURED The Big Photography Thread

[hokiealumnus]

Welcome to The Big Photography Thread! This stemmed from a discussion in a build log and rather than continue to hijack poor SeeThruHead's log, I split it off.

This thread is for any questions, comments, general info, etc about photography. Show off your equipment, your photos and your knowledge.

Post Your Photos

If you post photos, there are a couple requirements to keep things reasonable.

• Max resolution 1280px in either direction.
• Use .jpg files; .png is simply too large.
• Photos must be uploaded to Overclockers' servers using this method:
  
  
  
  
  
• If you post a photo that isn't uploaded here, it will be removed. We want a photo thread in which the photos stay around for as long as Overclockers exists (so far 15 years and going!), not however long your random image host decides to keep them. A photo thread with dead photos is stupid.
• Note we can be reasonably flexible on pixel size (no 2500px+ photos please!), but the requirement for photos to be uploaded here is non-negotiable.
• Keep it clean. If it's NSFW, it's not suitable for here.
• This list may be amended, but is a good set of general guidelines for photos.

So post photos, tell us what equipment you use, tell us what settings you used (if you know them). Let's learn from each other and improve our photography together!

Resources

This will be a list of resources that we crowdsource. If you have any sites you frequent that are great for info on photography, post it up and I'll add it to the list. The first is one Thideras and I discovered independently but both use.

• Ken Rockwell's web site. Doesn't sound like much, but it is a heck of a resource.
• DPreview - Reviews, buying guides, and sample photos for each piece of equipment
• Photography on the Net - Forum for Canon users with all kinds of useful information
• TIP: Don't put your lighting too close to your subject.

The rest of this post was my original post in STH's thread. I posted my awesome review photo setup for all to see.

-------------------------------------

Yea, indoor photos are a pain. I don't use a lightbox, just a white (well, slightly off-white) sheet and two of those shop lights like you have with 100W (equivalent) daylight bulbs. For the most part you can keep reflections to a minimum, but a real lightbox would be better. Heh, I just can't bring myself to buy something when something else already 'works'.

EDIT - Ghetto fabulous (Let me know if you want this removed, I'm happy to. Just sharing with you really. )

 

[SeeThruHead]

Yea, indoor photos are a pain. I don't use a lightbox, just a white (well, slightly off-white) sheet and two of those shop lights like you have with 100W (equivalent) daylight bulbs. For the most part you can keep reflections to a minimum, but a real lightbox would be better. Heh, I just can't bring myself to buy something when something else already 'works'.

Yeah I was looking at the lightboxes they sell, ridiculous prices for what they are. Good thing I got dozens of K'Nex gifts as a kid, one of them being the Big Ball Factory. Lots of pieces around to make pretty much anything I need for this sort of thing. Plus it's now easily expandable. I'd argue its better than the ones you can buy.

EDIT: Ha that's great. I like how it's held up by the drawer. My bulbs are only 60w each. Pretty sure I just need more light and better photgraphy skills to get what I want. Something like this kinda photo taking: PHOTO

 

[JeremyCT]

Low f-stop. Macro lens.

 

[hokiealumnus]

Not even a macro lens is necessary for that. Just adjustable aperture (f-stop that JeremyCT mentioned; low f-stop number equals wider aperture) and lighting.

 

[SeeThruHead]

Thats what I've been doing on my photos, the ones that are done with the DSLR anyway. But the depth of field doesn't get nearly as narrow as the one picture I linked to. I set the camera to A mode, and set the Fstop to the lowest it will go, 3.8 I think it is. The outdoor pictures are a result of that.

 

[GTXJackBauer]

Sorry, whats a F-stop? If you guys use certain terms, if you guys don't mind explaining in laymens terms lol if its not too much cause I am learning as we speak. Just got a Lumix GF3 with a lot of macro/lenses. Just ordered a 0.14x xtreme fish eye lense as I already have a 0.45x and 0.34x wide angle. I am enjoying just what the auto settings are producing.

 

[JeremyCT]

Jack, I could write a lot about it, but I'd probably get something wrong. I'm nothing but an amateur, albeit an old school one. I'm still using film in my SLR gear. I advise Googling. The term you want to search is "f-stop depth of field". Low f-stops are what's used to get the effect where the subject is in focus but the background is blurred.

STH - f3.8 isn't terribly low, but it should work. You won't get the extremity of the effect like that shot you linked to though. Since these are internet pictures, try playing with your distance to target and seeing if that changes your results at all, sometimes it does. You can always crop it later since you'll have way more pixels than you'll need for posting here. You'll probably need to get closer, not further away though.

Which, of course, is Chef's way of saying, "Sorry for the hijack."

 

[hokiealumnus]

I'm also an amateur but have been reading a lot recently. My current understanding is still very limited, but hopefully this will help. F-stop number = aperture size. The smaller the number, the larger the aperture. Most kit lenses don't have excessively large apertures (my kit lens, which is the only one I have right now, has a max of f/3.5).

Here's an easy example of some photos taken for a future review (they are the power section of an ASUS Maximus VI Impact). This photo was taken with a narrow, f/10 apperture. Notice how a good sized portion of the power section is in focus. That is called a deep (well, moderately deep) depth of field. This photo was taken with a larger f/5 aperture. That is a shallow depth of field, which focused on a smaller portion near the center of the power section. Here's another one with F/4.5, which is an EVGA X79 Dark's power section.

Aperture is just one part of the depth of field equation, but it's probably the easiest one to manipulate. Look at this page for more examples. Search terms if you're interested: aperture, f-stop, depth of field. That'll keep you busy for a few hours.

EDIT - Hah...I went and actually read that link and it does say that aperture is the easiest way to manipulate depth of field. Apparently all my prior reading did pay off somewhat.

EDIT II - FYI, I grabbed that photo SeeThruHead linked to check the metadata (right-click, properties, Details tab) and it was taken with only an f/5.6 aperture. Your camera definitely gets that low (you said 3.8). Either the metadata is messed up or they shot that photo in the dark though - the exposure time is listed as four seconds. Odd.

/hijack

p.s. - SeeThruHead, I will be happy to move this to its own thread if you want it out of your build log; just let me know!

 

[GTXJackBauer]

Jack, I could write a lot about it, but I'd probably get something wrong. I'm nothing but an amateur, albeit an old school one. I'm still using film in my SLR gear. I advise Googling. The term you want to search is "f-stop depth of field". Low f-stops are what's used to get the effect where the subject is in focus but the background is blurred.

FTH - f3.8 isn't terribly low, but it should work. You won't get the extremity of the effect like that shot you linked to though. Since these are internet pictures, try playing with your distance to target and seeing if that changes your results at all, sometimes it does. You can always crop it later since you'll have way more pixels than you'll need for posting here. You'll probably need to get closer, not further away though.

Thanks for the info Jeremy. Very helpful!

I'm also an amateur but have been reading a lot recently. My current understanding is still very limited, but hopefully this will help. F-stop number = aperture size. The smaller the number, the larger the aperture. Most kit lenses don't have excessively large apertures (my kit lens, which is the only one I have right now, has a max of f/3.5).

Here's an easy example of some photos taken for a future review (they are the power section of an ASUS Maximus VI Impact). This photo was taken with a narrow, f/10 apperture. Notice how a good sized portion of the power section is in focus. That is called a deep (well, moderately deep) depth of field. This photo was taken with a larger f/5 aperture. That is a shallow depth of field, which focused on a smaller portion near the center of the power section. Here's another one with F/4.5, which is an EVGA X79 Dark's power section.

Aperture is just one part of the depth of field equation, but it's probably the easiest one to manipulate. Look at this page for more examples. Search terms if you're interested: aperture, f-stop, depth of field. That'll keep you busy for a few hours.

EDIT - Hah...I went and actually read that link and it does say that aperture is the easiest way to manipulate depth of field. Apparently all my prior reading did pay off somewhat.

EDIT II - FYI, I grabbed that photo SeeThruHead linked to check the metadata (right-click, properties, Details tab) and it was taken with only an f/5.6 aperture. Your camera definitely gets that low (you said 3.8). Either the metadata is messed up or they shot that photo in the dark though - the exposure time is listed as four seconds. Odd.

/hijack

p.s. - SeeThruHead, I will be happy to move this to its own thread if you want it out of your build log; just let me know!

Thanks Hokie. I used the "flower" settings for one for close up shots and had a similar effect as described in those photos.

I can keep going and going but don't want to hijack this thread. If you create another thread I'll gladly post some examples and would like to hear from you guys.

 

[hokiealumnus]

Jack, it has been done. Now this is the grand, overarching photography thread, created in your honor.

The flower setting, which is macro mode on almost all cameras, automatically sets a large aperture. In my experience, it also cools colors off, trending toward the blue end of the spectrum, so I don't really use it much. The color aberration annoys me.

EDIT - Moved to Displays & Imaging Devices, mostly so it would show up in Today's Posts.

EDIT II - Now this section is called Displays & Digital Cameras, which will hopefully help bring more life in this sub-forum. Thanks to IMOG for the change!

 

[EarthDog]

I have a lightbox for all mine.. works well for the money ($40?).

That said, it does NOT work well for large items. I need to get a simple white bedsheet though for those... like this thing I have now... its packaging is a MONSTROSITY, LOL!

 

[ivanlabrie]

I took some shots with help from my gf and her dslr...This thread is a really valuable resource.
We had a similar ghetto lightbox setup going, like the one hokie posted. Works good for indoors night shots
Gonna check those links out, I could use the knowledge for my build log post (long overdue)

 

[MattNo5ss]

My favorite cheat sheet poster when I first started messing with manual settings...

 

[GTXJackBauer]

Jack, it has been done. Now this is the grand, overarching photography thread, created in your honor.

You man!




Well in that case let the games begin!!!

Here's a photo of what I picked up a few days ago. Also will be including in the shots is the lense/filter kit and the flash diffusers that just came in just now. One thing missing here is the 0.14x Fisheye as I just ordered it this morning.

Panasonic Lumix GF3

(Taken by my very old Kodak 4MP EasyShare LS743)

(All shots are now taken with the Lumix)

SAMPLES

(Did this yesterday all in my father's backyard. Yes it really is a jungle back there no joke. He's old school meaning the end is near if you clip a tree or break a branch walking by.)

 

[GTXJackBauer]

My favorite cheat sheet poster when I first started messing with manual settings...

View attachment 131997

Omg you're the BEST!!!! I used to work in my godbrother's DJ business and have met many photographers/videographers. Stop that line of work many years ago and recently went to my cousin's kid baptism and ran into one of the old school guys holding prolly a $5K+ camera with about over $10k+ in lenses as he was telling me. I asked him about ISO's but after a few beers and shots all that info went out the window.

Sorry for the story but that "cheat sheet" is awesome! Thanks Matt!!!

 

[hokiealumnus]

That little Lumix does well for itself.

 

[GTXJackBauer]

That little Lumix does well for itself.

Yeah, not bad right? Really impressed.

I have to play with it more to understand each lense/macro/filter. Even the settings but in the mean time I'll be using the presets since there's so many of them and actually work well.

Only scare I have now is since last night I updated its firmware on the body and I can't connect to the PC anymore. Kinda pissed about that. Other than that the camera works fine.

 

[SamSaveMax]

Ooh! We can show ours camera equipments here? Nice!
Being putting off buying computer play toys and investing camera equipment instead during the past year.

 

[GTXJackBauer]

Oh I almost forgot, those flash diffusers don't fit for my camera even though they were advertised to fit my model.

Flash Diffusers (Got those exactly from that seller.)


So my issues are with the diffusers and no pc connection with newly paid usb cable. $25-$30 down the drain total its looking.

 

[hokiealumnus]

My camera is a Canon EOS T3 (or 1100D, depending on your country) with an 18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I actually traded it (BNIB) for computer equipment in these very forums.

(Photo courtesy my Galaxy S3, heh.)

I also have a much smaller filter/diffuser kit that's scattered about and not worth gathering to photograph. The kit lens is currently my only lens, but I've got my eye on this 70-300mm, f/4-5.6 beauty here when the budget allows. You can see from Mr. Rockwell why that's the one I've decided warrants the investment.