TranquilPhotos.com

Well I must have slipped or something because I totally over exposed this poor Dahlia.

As you can see I was holding the flash way too close on the bottom and totally overexposed the bottom of the flower.  Well there is a an easy way to save  this image.

If you don’t already know I’m a very big proponent of Lightroom.  It has made my life so much easier.  I can find sports images in seconds with the nice keyword searches, and I hardly ever go into Photoshop anymore.  If I do, I’m there for 30minutes to a day because what I need to do is usually a huge task.  The rest of the work is all done in LR.

This image can be saved in a matter of seconds.

First we need to identify the tool that we would like to use.  As the overexposure happened from a side, this means we need to reduce the exposure of the bottom without changing the exposure on top.  So the gradient (moving from one color to another) negative exposure is what we need.

First, lets switch to the Developer Module by either clicking “Develop” on the top row, or by hitting “D”.   The gradient tool is a right below the Histogram on the right side of the developer module, and it looks like a box with 3 dotted lines going through it.   The 4th option from the left, and 2nd option from the right.   You can see it below circled.

Now choose “Exposure” from the drop down list in front of Effect.  Next move the slider all the way left so that it reads -4.00.  That’s right we’re going to way underexpose the image so that we can see where the gradient will start and end.  Afterward we will pull the exposure back up and we’ll end up where we want.

Now click on where the image is “most” over exposed, and while holding the left mouse down drag the mouse towards where the exposure is correct.  You should be able to see the exposure change as you’re doing this, if your computer is a little slow, just hold the mouse steady without letting go of the button and LR will catch up. When you’re happy with the size of the gradient let go of the mouse, but don’t click anywhere on the picture, if you do you’ll start a new gradient.  If this should happen, click “Cancel” on the bottom right hand corner of the tool window.  You can grab the old gradient to change it’s value by clicking the little white dot (handler) that is on the image.

As you can see we have underexposed the flower on the bottom now, but we can also see exactly where the gradient starts.  If you know exactly how much exposure you need than you can set it from the start, but me, I can’t tell from the image how badly I’ve done something so I usually just go over and reduce as needed.

Now let’s increase the exposure until the bottom and the top matches.

As you can see we now have a properly exposure flower, ready to be matted and framed for the gallery or show.

Also, please notice that the history on the left shows us all of the steps that we completed.  At this point I usually take a “snapshot” of the history point so that I can break this off and/or continue to play with the image to see if anything else can be changed to make it better.  In this case I might run it through Noise Ninja once at a low setting.

Final export:

This is one of those topics that keeps coming up. Almost all digital files are “compressed” formats. Which means they have “zip-like” functionality built-into them. With Zip, or Windows Compress, if you zip a document, or a file — when you unzip it, you get the same exact file back (hopefully). Well this is not true for most digital media formats, such for Audio, Video, or Pictures. These lossy formats actually throw away information to make the file smaller. You can never get that original data back. Now let’s admit — most people cannot tell the difference in listening to a MP3 (lossy audio format) of “Smoke on the Water” or the originally recorded digital CD. That’s because most of the information that was thrown away by the conversion was outside of our listening area. Yes some of it was outside of hearing range as well, but most of it is actually inside of what we can hear but don’t usually listen to, specially where there is something more interesting going on.

So what does this all have to do with images and photographs? Well most of the formats that we use are also lossy formats. JPEG is a HUGE lossy format, GIF is even worse. Jpeg actually has 100 levels of lossy. from 1 to 100. 100 being the least lossy, and 1 you won’t recognize your image from the source. The trick with jpeg is to lower the quality enough so that you can’t tell that it was shrunk down — usually between 60-75 (6-7 as some programs refer to the scale).

Formats such as Raw files (CR2[Canon Raw], NRF[Nikon Raw], DNG[Adobe DigitalNegative]) are lossless formats, which means they’re much larger. TIFF and PNG are also two types of lossless formats. Right now everything I shoot is Canon Raw, which is then converted to a DNG for store and archival. I think it’s always better to have 100% of the data in our raw file and in Lightroom it’s breeze to create any size, spec JPEG I need as an output.

It’s a little late for this year, but keep an eye on the LIDS’s (Long Island Dahlia Society) website for their next event.  It’s a simply layout but the colors and types of Dahlia’s that they had were absolutely fantastic.  You can see a bunch of the images that I took with just one off camera flash hand-held on site in the full gallery pages.  I’m sure I’ll be including one or two of them in the main galleries as well.  Oh, it is ‘lord of the flies’ in there, so the visitors get to buy Dahlia’s at the show.  I have no idea if these are the rejects or just extra, but nonetheless they’re fantastic.  I bought two large vases, to do a more controlled set of photos as well.

Here is one from the show:

I’ve been a sports shooter for as long as I can remember, I just like shooting sports.  With that comes certain restrictions.  You can’t always crop your pictures the way everyone else thinks you shoot.  First as a commissioned piece, you have to allow for editorial space.  Second, the publisher (whatever the format it might be) will tell you exactly what size the image should be.   For example, all of the images that I deliver to the Rough Riders for their website has to be 1155×855 pixels, and yes it has to be horizontal images.  That’s because the primary media for the site is their website.  They do also want verticals and standard ratios as well since they do use them for print, but that’s the size of their template for their site.

This is specially true if you move from a cropped sensor to a full frame.  You end up with a lot more room than you’re used to.  After you get used to it, you start cropping less and less, but you still do it.  Also in sports, everything is cropped, because you can’t move.  You have to take the frame that the player develop for you.  If you want that instant you have to click, and crop it later.

All that said, what’s the best crop?  A crop should be to spec, and it should emphasis your subject as much as possible.  Now some people go for the deepest crop they possible can.  I don’t subscribe to this theory.   I think dead space, used properly, can add to your image.  It all depends on what you’re trying to show, and point to.

Since I just got my 1000th person telling me how they lost something because they didn’t have a proper backup, I thought I would point this fact out again.   There really is no excuse.

“Mozy is a simple and safe way to back up all the important stuff on your computer. A copy of your data is stored in a secure, remote location for safekeeping, so that in the event of disaster your data is still retrievable.”  according to Mozy.com.   You can get a free account which allows you to backup 2GB of data for free.  This can be your bookmarks and misc files.  Obviously you’re not going to backup a great deal of images with 2GB.

Here is athe good news.  They have an unlimited, single machine, option.  Which means you can backup a single machine (all local storage) with a single price — $4.95 per month if you sign a two year agreement.  That’ ~$104.00 for two years of unlimited backups and restores.   You can even restore files remotely.  I’ve been on the road and realized that I needed a file from my workstation.  I’ve initiated a restore to my laptop from the road and gotten last night’s backup.  Oh, did I forget to mention that the backups are in the background and seemless.  They run when you don’t use your machine.  No need to schedule a specific time.  As you getup and go get coffee Mozy figures out what needs to be backed up and backs it up.   They even keep multiple copies of files on their server, in case you need a version of the file from 4 days ago.

I, highly, highly suggest Mozy to everyone.   You can use my referral code, this gives me 128MB added to one of my free accounts for everyone who signs up and actually uses Mozy.  Or you can just sign up without it. Just start using it.

DISCLAIMER: Mozy is now owned by EMC.  I have no direct affiliation with EMC or Mozy.   However I do hold 401K portfolio(s) which at times may hold EMC stock, but they would not be direct holdings and not under my control.

Yeah I know I’m getting out of hand with the music.   I’m sure I’m not the only one that hates American Idol, although I admit, I actually like Kelly Clarkson’s voice, as the show is more of a who can best “show” in every category rather than be really good at one genre.

Ok, way way off topic. Here is Colbie Caillat singing Fallin’ for you.

You can buy MP3s of these songs from Amazon’s MP3 Service.  (Don’t forget to checkout “Green” by Brenden James too)

Here is a very nice (obviously professionally done) video shot on the 7D. I’m very impressed with the low-light footage.

Did anyone know that Canon Made a 85mm f/1.4? Or is that a typo? (UPDATE: As it turns out — it’s an old MF lens)

Shot in 1920 x 1080 at 24p. Transcoded to XDcam codec. Edited in Premiere Pro CS3.

No color grading was utilized. No additional lights were used.

Lenses:

• 16-35 mm 2.8
• 17 mm TS
• 35mm 1.4
• 50 mm 1.4
• 85mm 1.4
• 100 mm 2.8 macro
• 70-200 mm 2.8

I’m very impressed.  The night/low light stuff is virtually clean.

I’ve been doing a lot of research into Infrared photography and there doesn’t seem to be a single place that contains all of it, so here is what I found:

With DSLRs there are three types of IR Techniques.

1. Photoshop
2. Converted Bodies
3. Filters

Photoshop: Techniques do exist to “imitate” IR photography.  This is a trick and cannot reproduce the amazing images that you can get from IR itself.

Converted Bodies: The main reason that IR photography is not readily available to us is that all DSLR cameras have a IR Filter that blocks most of the IR light from the sensor.   Method #3 is to physically remove this filter from in front of the sensor.  This conversion is destructive, and that body is not longer able to take normal pictures again, it can only take IR images.    Yes, this means you have to carry yet another body with you everywhere you go, but this is the best possible image you can get.   A typical conversion (there are two or three different kinds) is around $250.   The positives are endless, Auto Focus Works, Exposure Controls work (somewhat, you still need to adjust exposure compensation), you can see the image in your Preview Window as it is, you can use it with any lens you like (even fish eye or long zooms that don’t accept filters or use drop ins).

Filters: They are expensive, but can be used and unused as you like.   The draw backs to filters are:

1. They’re expensive (did I say that already?)
   • Hoya R72 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($90 – $210 respectively)
   • B+W 093 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($114 – $203 respectively)
   • Tiffen 87 IR Filter, 52mm – 77mm ($106 – $153 respectively)
2. With Filters, you have to use very long exposures (as most of the light is blocked by the IR filter of the camera.
3. Only certain scenes can be captured (because of the duration required)
4. AF is disabled (you can’t see anything once you put the filter on) — You have to compose your shot, put on the filter and hope nothing moves, than take the shot.
5. Exposure Control is disabled.
6. You have to use a tripod – since you get only a small % of the light you need very long exposures (10″-30″, 30″+ second exposure are typical).

In the next few posts, I’ll delve more into each of these items in more detail.

For all those local:

Come Stroll The Village To Experience “The Bellport Art Scene” in a Village-Wide art show installed in our galleries and shops.

Later Dine In One Of Bellport’s Fine Restaurants.

Reception Friday September 25 6 pm to 9 pm
Exhibits and Shops will be open throughout the weekend

Bellport Village is known for it’s many artists and artisans, contemporary and traditional fine art galleries, antique shops, boutiques and exceptional restaurants.
Now, for the first time we are uniting to celebrate Bellport’s art with this festive evening.
Don’t miss this extraordinary event.

I’ve been seeing a lot of discussions on forums and in clubs regarding Digital Negatives.

So let’s put together some Pros and Cons of Adobe DNG:

Pros:

• You can embed the original RAW file inside of your DNG.  Yes it makes it bigger, but in case you ever needed the original you still have it.
• If you convert your RAW to DNG (and not store a copy of the RAW).  DNG will be smaller, most of the time, than the original RAW file.
• DNG is an open format, not a manufacturer specific format.  You want to share you file between a Nikon, Canon, and Sony User?  You can either export your RAW file to a DNG, or TIFF.  Those are your only “real” options.  There are other formats such as PNG, but you’re still chucking a lot of data right out of the window.
  
• You can convert from RAW to DNG inside Lightroom as you import, so you won’t even know it happened.
  
• This know separate Side XMP file that you have to carry around with a RAW file is no longer needed.  DNG’s changes and history are kept within the file.
  

Cons:

• DNG is not a native format for any manufacturer
• DNG file conversion does take extra time (minimal for today’s computers, but there is still an initial hit, otherwise it is just as fast in opening and convert than the original RAW file).
  
• There is a risk — adobe might stop supporting DNG format.  Yes, it’s a very small list and Adobe would be shooting themselves in the foot if they ever do, but it is a possibility.
  
• DNG files that include the original RAW file do take up more space than the original RAW file alone.

I personally have been using DNG for about 1.5 years now and have not had any issues.  I really like the ability to export a DNG from lightroom and sending it to a customer without having to tell them how to open it or needing them to install Adobe RAW for Canon.  All of my lightroom libraries have also been converted to DNG, even the original JPEGs.