Richard fired this volley in news:s4CdnUvUw4tXN-
:

I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it
(correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer
exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.

But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD,
anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture,
the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.

LLoyd


LLoyd

Richard fired this volley in
m:

Low f-stop?

commonly-used term for small F-number... ALL the film guys used that
term.

"low f-stop" means "large aperture" -- Always has, but probably has no
meaning at all to kids who've never used a real camera.

I'm an 'all digital' shop now, but there was a time when I had a full
darkroom with all the toys. You had to, if you wanted really custom
work. The local Rexall drug store wasn't going to do it for you!

LLoyd

As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

The original issue was depth of field, which Richard correctly adressed. You
bring in shutter speed, which is different issue than depth of field.
Shutter speed is not directly related to depth of field.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
Richard fired this volley in news:s4CdnUvUw4tXN-
:

I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it
(correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer
exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.

But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD,
anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture,
the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.

LLoyd

"Steve W." wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:29:41 -0700, Erik wrote:

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.

And for that..I want to thank all of you for knocking me on my ass and
making me think. Truely.

Ive never done more than taken "snapshots" with digital...so its
something Im going to have to remember....digital..isnt film.

I have a degree in photography..shrug..but it was 25 yrs ago. Hell..I
taught classes at the local JC.

I spent most of my time doing B&W with some color mixed in...all film
since then. Granted..I won a number of awards and took the county fair
prizes a few times...but...it wasnt with digital. I wasnt half bad at
all. And I still have the "eye", still remember what the "rule of
thirds" is and so forth.

I just read an ad that was pushing a rather neat folding lightbox in a
briefcase and they were using florescent tubes...and a small Sony
digital camera..and it just simply CLICKED..that all that film stuff
I learned..doesnt apply today. That ad for the backround setup that
you guys posted..had spiral florescents..wondering what the hell those
were for..not bright enough for primary lighting..and Im scratching my
head looking for the strobes..and..there wasnt any. CLICK!!

Thanks guys. It took a bit..but..I think Im catching on...finally.

Gunner


There is a lot of film stuff that applies to digital. But these days
it's really easy to do editing outside the lab. One of the great things
with digital is it almost eliminates the old exposure bracketing of
film. No need to shoot over/under and then search for the correct one in
a stack of film. Instead you can see the image you have real time and
deal with it.

As far as color shifts caused by lights. There can be an entire new set
of rules depending on the sensors in the camera, the color settings of
the monitor and printer. There are also finite color settings to deal
with, unlike film with it's infinite color spectrum. Same issue with B/W.


Small, color corrected halogen lamps & diffusers do a nice job. My
background is in TV studio lighting and live TV camera work. You can
buy 150W lamps in rectangular housings, but I want to see how the 10W
LED versions will work. Mount them from the ceiling of the shop, and
paint part of the wall a light color.


One of these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111057953751

"Steve W." wrote:

There is a lot of film stuff that applies to digital. But these days
it's really easy to do editing outside the lab. One of the great things
with digital is it almost eliminates the old exposure bracketing of
film. No need to shoot over/under and then search for the correct one in
a stack of film. Instead you can see the image you have real time and
deal with it.

As far as color shifts caused by lights. There can be an entire new set
of rules depending on the sensors in the camera, the color settings of
the monitor and printer. There are also finite color settings to deal
with, unlike film with it's infinite color spectrum. Same issue with B/W.


I forgot to mention that I use an old flatbed scanner for most small
items. I lay a piece of thin white paper over the item, and use a
fluorescent ring light to eliminate most or all shadows.

"Stormin Mormon" fired this volley in
:

The original issue was depth of field, which Richard correctly
adressed. You bring in shutter speed, which is different issue than
depth of field. Shutter speed is not directly related to depth of
field.

Chris, you don't read attributions very well, do you?

As for being the son of a photog, that doesn't qualify you. Did you do
it for years as a serious all-engrossing hobby or for pay -- or both?
I'm the son of an Army Lt. Colonel tank commander. I've never driven an
Abrahms, and probably never will.

"Low F-Stop" has ALWAYS meant a 'low f-number', meaning a LARGE aperture.
Depth of field has always decreased with F-number (or changed inversely
to aperture size). Pinhole cameras have the deepest depth-of-field.

Richard had all the relationships correct... he just mistook what the
term "low F-stop" meant.

I know, and Richard knows, what's right concerning apertures and depth-
of-field.

I never brought up exposure, except to disagree with the comment that
"exposure isn't related to aperture". Would you also agree that it's
not?

You, on the other hand, didn't read very carefully. You attributed to me
something I never said.

LLoyd

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:50:53 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Richard fired this volley in
om:

Low f-stop?

commonly-used term for small F-number... ALL the film guys used that
term.

This film guy said "large aperture" to avoid just that ambiguity.


"low f-stop" means "large aperture" -- Always has, but probably has no
meaning at all to kids who've never used a real camera.

I'm an 'all digital' shop now, but there was a time when I had a full
darkroom with all the toys. You had to, if you wanted really custom
work. The local Rexall drug store wasn't going to do it for you!

LLoyd

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:24:12 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

Ahum...an F1.8 has a very low depth of field. An F16 has a far far
greater depth of field.

And under low lights...a slow shutter speed would be indicated (with
film and some digital sensors)

I suspect you are going by the hole size..not the numbers which is
where most folks work from.

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:35:16 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Richard fired this volley in news:s4CdnUvUw4tXN-
:

I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it
(correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer
exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.

Numbers Lloyd..not physical diameter.
f 1.2 is a lower NUMBER than f32. Bigger hole....smaller number.


But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD,
anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture,
the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.

Correct.


LLoyd


LLoyd

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:50:53 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Richard fired this volley in
om:

Low f-stop?

commonly-used term for small F-number... ALL the film guys used that
term.

"low f-stop" means "large aperture" -- Always has, but probably has no
meaning at all to kids who've never used a real camera.

I'm an 'all digital' shop now, but there was a time when I had a full
darkroom with all the toys. You had to, if you wanted really custom
work. The local Rexall drug store wasn't going to do it for you!

LLoyd

Anybody want a pair of Omega Ds? I have 2 collecting dust.

(4x5 enlargers)

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:32:10 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.

As a retired photography instructor..I stand by my statement

G.


.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)

Richard fired this volley in
news
The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...


yup... all kinds of 'trade expressions' in photography.

How about 'push'? G

LLoyd

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:46:01 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner sed...

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.



Yeah, a solid tripod was pretty important with a film pak-backed Press
Grafix on the stand!

Green is green, Gunner... even in digital. The boon, though, is you can
re-balance the colors in "post edit" (call it "the digital darkroom").

I keep forgetting "post processing". Film sometimes COULD be
balanced..but it always was a hit or miss proposition.

I've done tons of product photos. Thousands. You don't need a light
box; just a good seamless backdrop and several stand-mounted floods.
They don't even have to be "photo floods" -- just lights. Use foil
reflectors for unwanted shadows.

LLoyd

Ayup..Im catching on now.

Thanks!

Gunner

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Numbers Lloyd..not physical diameter.
f 1.2 is a lower NUMBER than f32. Bigger hole....smaller number.

gunner, gunner, gunner... I know what the numbers mean. I not only did
the full-monte photography thing from the time I was 15 until 22, but I
also have built and use telescopes. Focal-length/aperture ratio (f-stop)
is one of those, um... 'entry level' things.

Lloyd

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
news
Anybody want a pair of Omega Ds? I have 2 collecting dust.

Color head? full 4x5 condensor, or just the diffuser model? Got any
polycontrast filter sets for it?

(see... I wasn't kidding).

LLoyd

Richard fired this volley in
m:

He was fabulous at dodging too.

Dodging, vignetting, solarization, toning... it was a richly-complex
hobby. Just the sort of thing to keep a nerdy kid engrossed for years.
I was also our high school photographer, so I had 'smoking privileges'
(not really, but when they knocked to check up, I always had "some film
out!".)

The dean of boys had never heard of a modern film tank, so didn't know
you could develop in full shop light. G

LLoyd

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:20:00 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 5:50 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in
m:

Low f-stop?

commonly-used term for small F-number... ALL the film guys used that
term.

"low f-stop" means "large aperture" -- Always has, but probably has no
meaning at all to kids who've never used a real camera.

I'm an 'all digital' shop now, but there was a time when I had a full
darkroom with all the toys. You had to, if you wanted really custom
work. The local Rexall drug store wasn't going to do it for you!

LLoyd


Now that you mention it, I'm kinda wondering how to get reprints made
from negatives.

Is there a way to scan 35 mm negatives to photo quality? Inexpensively?


They will scan slides, negatives, positives b&W and color negatives
etc


http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trks... =0&_from=R40

They cost $15-150

The one I use:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Veho-Uk-Vfs-...-/390565130137

(picked up a a yard sale for $10)

I do have an Olympus..but its got a scuzi interface and I no longer
use it very often

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Olym...item232a3aea00


Just get a can of air..or a good film brush. As enlarging/scanning
will show dust, fingerprints etc etc

These were scanned negatives (B&W)..and the color ones were slides

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...2602/OldPhotos

These were scanned color negatives

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...otosFromThe70s

I need to redo the above as they are quite dark..but the negatives
were very thin...and I was just learning to use the scanner.

Gunner

And, you are both correct, and gracious.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Richard" wrote in message
news
Yeahbut...

The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...

Thinking about it since, I'm sure that's what Gunner meant.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:24:54 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
news
Anybody want a pair of Omega Ds? I have 2 collecting dust.

Color head? full 4x5 condensor, or just the diffuser model? Got any
polycontrast filter sets for it?

(see... I wasn't kidding).

LLoyd

Nope..b&w only..full condenser. Bases are rough..but the accordians
are still in decent shape.

PC filters are readily available on ebay.

I may still have some lenses. Ive had these in storage for at least
15 yrs. Swap or trade..you pay the shipping or come and get them.

I used the **** out of them..I was always a medium format guy. Got a
goodly collection of Mamyias, Hassies etc etc. and of course...4x5
cameras.

Gunner

Recorder! Add this to the list of Gummers Windies.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
On 4/22/2013 7:18 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

As a retired photography instructor..I stand by my statement

G.

With the attendant loss of resolution.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Richard" wrote in message
m...
yup... all kinds of 'trade expressions' in photography.

How about 'push'?G

LLoyd


Oh man...

Haven't heard that one in a century or so.
One of my Dad's favorite tricks.

I've got you there. Done both dodging, and burning.

Dad and I used to do sepia tone, too.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Richard" wrote in message
m...

How about 'push'?G

LLoyd


Oh man...

Haven't heard that one in a century or so.
One of my Dad's favorite tricks.


He was fabulous at dodging too.

Dear Lloyd,

Dear Lloyd,


Sometimes, mistakes cancell themselves out.


Sometimes, mistakes cancell themselves out.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it
(correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer
exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.

But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD,
anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture,
the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.

LLoyd


LLoyd

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

I do have an Olympus..but its got a scuzi interface and I no longer
use it very often


Is that the Apologetic Italian version of SCSI?

G
Look... no common desktop scanner will give you anything even close to
the resolution that's on the film. 3600 or 4800dpi will look pretty
good, but a 35mm negative is small... that doesn't end up being a lot of
X by Y.

There are excellent lens-adapter attachments that will fit or be adapted
to most SLR-type digital cameras that will allow the negative or slide to
fill the frame, and give you better resolution than a flatbed scanner
can.

Also, most photo shops (the few there are) usually have high-resolution
slide scanners for doing exactly what you want.

If from prints... it depends upon what you have. You can do a pretty
good job on a cheap desktop scanner on formats as large or larger than
5x7.

I wish I could haul a scanner and my computer/software back to 1969. I
made nice money (for a kid) back then hand-retouching damaged or
carelessly printed original prints. It would've been a 'miracle shop' if
I'd had the digital tools of today!

LLoyd

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:23:40 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

Numbers Lloyd..not physical diameter.
f 1.2 is a lower NUMBER than f32. Bigger hole....smaller number.

gunner, gunner, gunner... I know what the numbers mean. I not only did
the full-monte photography thing from the time I was 15 until 22, but I
also have built and use telescopes. Focal-length/aperture ratio (f-stop)
is one of those, um... 'entry level' things.

Lloyd


Not to 99% of the public...chuckle

I did photography from the age of about 11 till my mid 40s..both as a
amature, as a professional and as an instructor at the local JC

When I started being gone from home 5-14 days at a time doing machine
repair...I largely fell away from the technical aspects and became a
snap shot shooter.. Then I bought my first digital...

The stroke I had 4 yrs ago..put some small holes in the old memory
thingy..but it didnt wipe it all out...thanks be to Crom!!

I see Im going to have to start scanning the Best of...the 10,000
slides and negatives (or more) that Ive got tucked away in boxes. I
cant scan most of my prints...I dont have a big enough scanner. Shrug

I do miss a lot of it..but its been 16 or more years since I started
the machine repair business...and there wasnt a lot of time to do
serious photography during that period. And I closed down the darkroom
and packed it all up..gave a lot of it away. Still have some film
tanks and whatnot...enlarging easels...etc etc. I loaned out a full
darkroom to a local lady..who 5 yrs later...left town and didnt bother
to talk to me about the stuff Id loaned her..including the color
enlargers

Shrug

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:10:35 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:32 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 1:34 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

True indeed. Low f-stop and slow shutter for a minimum depth of field.



I think you have that backerds, hoss.

Higher F numbers mean smaller aperture diameter.
Depth of field increases with f-number

Reducing _aperture_ increases depth of field.

An shutter speed is not involved (directly, anyway)



Yeahbut...

The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...

Thinking about it since, I'm sure that's what Gunner meant.


Correct. Historically...the bigger the number meant the smaller the
hole. 1 is on the top....64 is on the bottom...when you "stopped
down"...you were going farther down the list..and making the hole
smaller...letting in less light...

Im just an old fart.

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:20:51 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Richard fired this volley in
news
The common expression "Stop Down" really does mean to
reduce aperture size (although it also means a higher
F-stop number)...


yup... all kinds of 'trade expressions' in photography.

How about 'push'? G

LLoyd

50%? 100%? 200%?

Plus-x at ASA 200?

VBG

Still have a freezer full of 120 Plus-x I ought to shoot up...one of
these days.

GUnner

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:23:34 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 7:18 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:32:10 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

As the son of a (retired) photography instructor, I must stand with Richard
on this point.

As a retired photography instructor..I stand by my statement

G.


As long as you don't sit on it in your underwear. Ugh,

And on that subject, I saw today that Futurama is not
being picked up for another season.

Sigh...

Futurama?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:27:02 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 7:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:46:01 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner sed...

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.



Yeah, a solid tripod was pretty important with a film pak-backed Press
Grafix on the stand!

Green is green, Gunner... even in digital. The boon, though, is you can
re-balance the colors in "post edit" (call it "the digital darkroom").

I keep forgetting "post processing". Film sometimes COULD be
balanced..but it always was a hit or miss proposition.

I've done tons of product photos. Thousands. You don't need a light
box; just a good seamless backdrop and several stand-mounted floods.
They don't even have to be "photo floods" -- just lights. Use foil
reflectors for unwanted shadows.

LLoyd

Ayup..Im catching on now.

Thanks!

Gunner


You can't create content that is not in the original file
Well, I take that back, you can with Photoshop.

But post processing digitally has an amazing about of flexibility.

But green really is still green!

Ayup. But it can be processed in digital...sometimes more..sometimes
less. With color negative...it could be "tweaked" a bit. With
slides..you were well and truely ****ed. Got lots of green slides
...sigh.

I ought to dig out a couple and see if I can process them to something
less green with the scanner...

Note made!

Gunner

On 2013-04-22, Erik wrote:
In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Anyone have any good suggestions for types of lightboxes for product
photography?

[ ... ]

Bracketing go's a long way too... shoot a bunch of shots of each item,
playing with different framing, lighting, exposure compensation and
whatever... so you can pick out the shot/s you like best. You can learn
a lot doing so as well.

And some cameras have automatic bracketing -- but those tend to
be the more expensive ones.

The above won't put your work on the cover of National Geographic, but
will go a long way. The next step would be a basic copy of Photoshop or
equivalent, and boning up on cropping, setting white and black levels, &
'unsharp mask'.

"Or equivalent" should inclued "the GIMP" -- especially for your
linux boxen. I believe that gimp is also available compiled for
Windows, and is certainly a *lot* more affordable than PhotoShop is.

The good tripod is a must... remember you can even make up one. It's
only purpose is to is to keep the camera stationary. Camera tripod
sockets are 1/4-20, use your imagination!

*Most* camera tripod sockets are 1/4-20. However some
(including view cameras -- not being used here, of course) have
something metric which is close to 3/8". There are even step-down
adaptors for the larger sockets to the 1/4-20.

Could go on but those are the biggies, I'm sure others will also have
good suggestions as well.

This is a very good set of suggestions.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:12:25 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:40 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"Steve W." wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:29:41 -0700, wrote:

Tripods I have. Probably 5-6 of them. I used to shoot a lot of 4x5
film...and good tripods are pretty important.

I guess one of my big problems..is both the after effects of the
stroke..and most of my creative stuff was done on film. When I was
reading the posts about using Florescent lights..my hackles started
rising up and I was thinking.."these guys are ****ing nuts!!"...then
it dawned on me...digital..aint film. Green photos/florescent
light... with film...aint necessarily green with digital.

And for that..I want to thank all of you for knocking me on my ass and
making me think. Truely.

Ive never done more than taken "snapshots" with digital...so its
something Im going to have to remember....digital..isnt film.

I have a degree in photography..shrug..but it was 25 yrs ago. Hell..I
taught classes at the local JC.

I spent most of my time doing B&W with some color mixed in...all film
since then. Granted..I won a number of awards and took the county fair
prizes a few times...but...it wasnt with digital. I wasnt half bad at
all. And I still have the "eye", still remember what the "rule of
thirds" is and so forth.

I just read an ad that was pushing a rather neat folding lightbox in a
briefcase and they were using florescent tubes...and a small Sony
digital camera..and it just simply CLICKED..that all that film stuff
I learned..doesnt apply today. That ad for the backround setup that
you guys posted..had spiral florescents..wondering what the hell those
were for..not bright enough for primary lighting..and Im scratching my
head looking for the strobes..and..there wasnt any. CLICK!!

Thanks guys. It took a bit..but..I think Im catching on...finally.

Gunner


There is a lot of film stuff that applies to digital. But these days
it's really easy to do editing outside the lab. One of the great things
with digital is it almost eliminates the old exposure bracketing of
film. No need to shoot over/under and then search for the correct one in
a stack of film. Instead you can see the image you have real time and
deal with it.

As far as color shifts caused by lights. There can be an entire new set
of rules depending on the sensors in the camera, the color settings of
the monitor and printer. There are also finite color settings to deal
with, unlike film with it's infinite color spectrum. Same issue with B/W.


Small, color corrected halogen lamps& diffusers do a nice job. My
background is in TV studio lighting and live TV camera work. You can
buy 150W lamps in rectangular housings, but I want to see how the 10W
LED versions will work. Mount them from the ceiling of the shop, and
paint part of the wall a light color.


One of these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/111057953751


Not necessary anymore for digital work.

But if we wanted to be really anal about light color,
three circuits of LEDS (RGB) with PWM control for each
would give darned good color control.

Assuming you had "color adjusted" eyeballs.

When I was teaching..it never ceased to amaze me the color perceptions
that were so widely varied among people.

Something would come out of the developer with a distinct red/orange
cast..and the student would be tickled ****less. They couldnt see the
color being "off"

Its like having someone in the house adjust the TV for color. Cringe!

Some folks have a wide range..others..swung to one side or
another..and in a few..badly. Those folks tended to be somewhat
colorblind and simply couldnt see too much red etc etc.

We would all be gagging at the off colors in the photo..and the
student would be so proud of it. I tried to steer those folks into
B&W.


You might find this interesting

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/color...rception-3.htm


http://n4c.yuku.com/topic/124/Re-How...1#.UXXj6cfh6So

On 2013-04-22, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

[ ... ]

Green is green, Gunner... even in digital. The boon, though, is you can
re-balance the colors in "post edit" (call it "the digital darkroom").

Or -- at least with some digital cameras (Nikon D-70 and D-300s
in my personal experience) you can set a menu item and then shoot an 18%
gray card in the same lighting, and use that as a color balance setting
in the camera so you don't have to do much in the post-processing.

I've done tons of product photos. Thousands. You don't need a light
box; just a good seamless backdrop and several stand-mounted floods.
They don't even have to be "photo floods" -- just lights. Use foil
reflectors for unwanted shadows.

And for really small subjects (bugs, small components, screws,
etc), you can drape a hankerchief over a wire frame (bent up from a
couple of coathangers), put two or three lights outside it, and get very
smooth and even lighting. Use the in-camera white balance to adjust for
light color -- with the 18% gray card if you need it. Usually the
automatic white balance will be pretty good -- unless your subject is
predomently a single color and a large percentage of the frame.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2013-04-22, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:09:09 +0700, J.B.Slocomb
wrote:

A light box is handy but it only serves to light the entire object and
eliminate shadows. You can use reflectors and diffusers to do
essentially the same thing with, probably, more bother.

Try some diffusers made from thin white plastic in front of your flash
and (probably) three or four flash heads and see if you can't get the
effects that you want.

Or one flash head, moved around and popped three or four times.

This works fine with film -- but keeping the shutter open on
digital keeps the sensor active, and thermal noise builds up with long
exposures. Some have a noise reduction system which matches the
exposure time with shutter open with an equivalent exposure time with
shutter closed, and subtracts the latter from the former. This cancels
some of the thermal effects of long exposures, but also slows down the
shot rate. I turn that feature off when doing things like capturing
town fireworks on the 4th, so I can go to the next shot more quickly.

[ ... ]

An electronic camera is nice as you don't need to waste all the trial
shots that you do with film.

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 23 Apr 2013 01:52:57 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2013-04-22, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:09:09 +0700, J.B.Slocomb
wrote:

A light box is handy but it only serves to light the entire object and
eliminate shadows. You can use reflectors and diffusers to do
essentially the same thing with, probably, more bother.

Try some diffusers made from thin white plastic in front of your flash
and (probably) three or four flash heads and see if you can't get the
effects that you want.

Or one flash head, moved around and popped three or four times.

This works fine with film -- but keeping the shutter open on
digital keeps the sensor active, and thermal noise builds up with long
exposures. Some have a noise reduction system which matches the
exposure time with shutter open with an equivalent exposure time with
shutter closed, and subtracts the latter from the former. This cancels
some of the thermal effects of long exposures, but also slows down the
shot rate. I turn that feature off when doing things like capturing
town fireworks on the 4th, so I can go to the next shot more quickly.

Well, I don't own a good digital camera. When I'm in Chicago, where I
do most of my photography, I borrow my nephew's Nikons. g

I thought that some of them will take multiple exposures? Again, I
don't own a good one, so I don't know.

With film, I try to do it with one of my two cameras (Calumet 4 x 5,
and a Yashicamat 6 x 6) that allow it without moving the film. My F2
won't allow it; they started that with the F3.

However, I did a series of nightime architectural shots, for a
portfolio, with my F2 and a 28mm shift lens. I left the shutter open
in the dark and just had my assistant cover the whole camera with the
dark cloth (from my Calumet) between flashes. One of those involved 13
different flash shots on one frame of film.

It really is a good technique where you can use it. With a good
flashmeter, you can plan the shot very precisely.

BTW, I used to work with a guy who specialized in making still photos
of theater sets, without the cast present. He "painted" with a single
photoflood. One light, but it looked like a dozen when he was done.
Very impressive.


[ ... ]

An electronic camera is nice as you don't need to waste all the trial
shots that you do with film.

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN.

Actually, for that Amada brochure, I wound up using the digital shot
from a Nikon D5000. Not having used the camera before, I didn't trust
it for a one-day shoot that cost me $1,000 in travel costs. You don't
want to go home from one of those without good photos. g I previewed
it on my laptop, but I wanted to see how it stacked up against film.

So I used three cameras; one each for the slide and the negative film,
and the digital. They were all useable but the negative shot was quite
a bit grainier than either the digital or the transparency. I shot the
negative film in case the daylight fluorescents required some color
correction. They did not.

Otherwise, except for a Web publication (Fab Shop Magazine Direct), I
use my wife's very good, but smallish Fuji pocket camera to check
composition and light balance. For the Web, I use that camera for my
final shots.

I'll buy a good digital some time, but I haven't had enough need to
justify it. I don't shoot for fun like I used to, and I haven't shot a
magazine cover for around a decade now. I rent when I need to.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/23/2013 3:34 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:34:47 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:45 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:17:05 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 7:58 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Just get a can of air..or a good film brush. As enlarging/scanning
will show dust, fingerprints etc etc

I've tried scanning with my printer/scanner.
It takes more than a can of air.
I've had to wash the negatives - soap and water!

Then I started experimenting.
Black and white might work ok - on a better scanner.
I've gone to 4800 DPI, but still get a lot of artifact.
And huge files!

As for color, it's problematic doing it this way.
Of course the color has to be inverted, but getting any
control of saturation, hue, or balance depends purely on the
tools used. They work best if reduced to BW.


I have thousands of negatives. 35 MM and Instamatic.
And I've given away most of the really good prints.

That 7200 DPI dedicated scanner looks interesting...

You can save them in any file size you like.

I assume you have heard of..or are using Irfanview

www.irfanview.com

HIGHLY recommended..and it will indeed sort out and save in any
format/file size etc etc you want as well as doing all the editing
functions you might need.

Be sure to get the add on pack as well

And of course...its free.

Gunner

Highly recommended - and way over rated...\

IMHO

Your opinion is noted. What do you use?


A combination of things...

ACDSee (an ancient version 3.1), Page Image and the newer version
called Image Folio for drawing/Paint work, and a little bit of
PhotoShop (6.0).

I've never been satisfied with a single tool that does everything.

On 4/23/2013 6:14 AM, Pete Keillor wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:40:46 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:49 PM, anorton wrote:

wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 8:52 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN.



Ran into that one head on when I was trying to take pictures of the
lunar eclipse with my Fuji. I got a couple - ok decent. Nowhere near
as nice as those from a 200" telescope (wonder why) but I burned a lot
of ones and zeros getting anything usable.




A common technique for digital astrophotography is to average many
frames instead of or in addition to using long exposures. There are
several software packages that automatically register the images and
combine them.

The same technique can be used for multiple positions of the flash. Take
several images and overlay them in photoshop. I believe the Nikon D-SLRs
allow you to take multiple exposures and combine them in the camera.


WAY beyond my pay grade.
I wouldn't have a clue how to flash the moon.
(Well....)


My worst problem that night was vibration.

It's really touchy at 36X - even on a tripod.


Some of that software, like Registax, is free. There's also software
that will let you control your dslr from a laptop.

Pete Keillor


Interesting stuff there, Pete.

http://www.astronomie.be/registax/previewv6.html

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:17:05 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 7:58 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Just get a can of air..or a good film brush. As enlarging/scanning
will show dust, fingerprints etc etc

I've tried scanning with my printer/scanner.
It takes more than a can of air.
I've had to wash the negatives - soap and water!

Then I started experimenting.
Black and white might work ok - on a better scanner.
I've gone to 4800 DPI, but still get a lot of artifact.
And huge files!

As for color, it's problematic doing it this way.
Of course the color has to be inverted, but getting any
control of saturation, hue, or balance depends purely on the
tools used. They work best if reduced to BW.


I have thousands of negatives. 35 MM and Instamatic.
And I've given away most of the really good prints.

That 7200 DPI dedicated scanner looks interesting...

You can save them in any file size you like.

I assume you have heard of..or are using Irfanview

www.irfanview.com

HIGHLY recommended..and it will indeed sort out and save in any
format/file size etc etc you want as well as doing all the editing
functions you might need.

Be sure to get the add on pack as well

And of course...its free.

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:08:16 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Gunner Asch fired this volley in
:

I do have an Olympus..but its got a scuzi interface and I no longer
use it very often


Is that the Apologetic Italian version of SCSI?

Rednecks version of a interface G

G
Look... no common desktop scanner will give you anything even close to
the resolution that's on the film. 3600 or 4800dpi will look pretty
good, but a 35mm negative is small... that doesn't end up being a lot of
X by Y.

There are excellent lens-adapter attachments that will fit or be adapted
to most SLR-type digital cameras that will allow the negative or slide to
fill the frame, and give you better resolution than a flatbed scanner
can.

Also, most photo shops (the few there are) usually have high-resolution
slide scanners for doing exactly what you want.

If from prints... it depends upon what you have. You can do a pretty
good job on a cheap desktop scanner on formats as large or larger than
5x7.

I wish I could haul a scanner and my computer/software back to 1969. I
made nice money (for a kid) back then hand-retouching damaged or
carelessly printed original prints. It would've been a 'miracle shop' if
I'd had the digital tools of today!

LLoyd

Ayup! I did a few b&w family photo repair jobs ..but retouching was
such tedious work that I didnt do much of it.

I think I still have a retouching kit in storage somewhere....

Gunner

"Richard" wrote in message
...
On 4/22/2013 8:52 PM, DoN. Nichols wrote:

'Second that. I even use one for doing test shots, to balance the
lights, when I'm doing the final on 4 x 5 film and using a Minolta
Flashmeter IV for exposure.

So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except
as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long
open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the
image on your computer monitor.

Enjoy,
DoN.



Ran into that one head on when I was trying to take pictures of the lunar
eclipse with my Fuji. I got a couple - ok decent. Nowhere near
as nice as those from a 200" telescope (wonder why) but I burned a lot
of ones and zeros getting anything usable.




A common technique for digital astrophotography is to average many frames
instead of or in addition to using long exposures. There are several
software packages that automatically register the images and combine them.

The same technique can be used for multiple positions of the flash. Take
several images and overlay them in photoshop. I believe the Nikon D-SLRs
allow you to take multiple exposures and combine them in the camera.