…somehow I feel like we need a photography thread…

I'm not particularly happy with my choice of camera as well, but I can't afford a DSLR. I use the D40 of my mother from time to time, because the FZ100 has unbearable Noise above ISO 400…

But I think JPG is good for a first impression, but if you want to get the best of your photos you should shoot in RAW format. I think Basic+Raw is always a good choice if you can afford the SD cards.

Convince your mom she does not need her D40 and problem solved. Even my D60 is overkill for most pics.

RC-1140 wrote:I use the D40 of my mother from time to time, because the FZ100 has unbearable Noise above ISO 400…

It's very expensive to own sensor/camera that does not have noise above ISO 400. AFAIR almost all cameras have their analog amplification at max on ISO 400, so anything above is already lacking the dynamic resolution and "amplified" by multiplication in the digital domain. Please, feel free to correct me.

RC-1140 wrote:…somehow I feel like we need a photography thread…

I'm not particularly happy with my choice of camera as well, but I can't afford a DSLR. I use the D40 of my mother from time to time, because the FZ100 has unbearable Noise above ISO 400…

But I think JPG is good for a first impression, but if you want to get the best of your photos you should shoot in RAW format. I think Basic+Raw is always a good choice if you can afford the SD cards.

Buy a modern camera and you can forget RAW. Or shoot on film.

When my D90 was new, I shot in both RAW and JPG and I could not see any difference. RAW slows down the camera and you need way more diskspace.

well, I didn't say that the D40 doesn't have noise above ISO400, but it is bearable compared to my FZ100. Look at this iso comparison of the FZ100. Horrible imho, but what can you expect of such a small MOS sensor...

pic stolen from cnet.de

7bit wrote:

RC-1140 wrote:…somehow I feel like we need a photography thread…

I'm not particularly happy with my choice of camera as well, but I can't afford a DSLR. I use the D40 of my mother from time to time, because the FZ100 has unbearable Noise above ISO 400…

But I think JPG is good for a first impression, but if you want to get the best of your photos you should shoot in RAW format. I think Basic+Raw is always a good choice if you can afford the SD cards.

Buy a modern camera and you can forget RAW. Or shoot on film.

When my D90 was new, I shot in both RAW and JPG and I could not see any difference. RAW slows down the camera and you need way more diskspace.

For me the best thing about shooting in RAW is the changes you can make on the computer afterwards, normally tweaking the exposure etc, and RAW gives you far more control over that than JPEG from what I know

With a cheap camera, you should not shoot in bad light and should reduce the size of the pictures.

GeorgeStorm wrote:For me the best thing about shooting in RAW is the changes you can make on the computer afterwards, normally tweaking the exposure etc, and RAW gives you far more control over that than JPEG from what I know

I tweak the exposure before I shoot.

GeorgeStorm wrote:For me the best thing about shooting in RAW is the changes you can make on the computer afterwards, normally tweaking the exposure etc, and RAW gives you far more control over that than JPEG from what I know

exactly. Comparing photos autoconverted to JPG by the camera with photos autoconverted by a PC is useless. The editing possibilities are what makes RAW so great. Also on my camera it's an easy way of avoiding the automatic noisereduction, which is awful.

It's not about the OOC outcome, but rather the possible things you want to alter afterwards.
You can adjust exposure, aperture, etc pp without loosing quality. Simply because in RAW every information of the pic is saved, like the negatives in analog termology.
JPEG is the finished pic. Alternating it likely results in crap.

//You guys were faster^^

I love .png myself these days. Before I was a raging .png skeptic. Now I am a believer.

DeathAdder wrote:It's not about the OOC outcome, but rather the possible things you want to alter afterwards.
You can adjust exposure, aperture, etc pp without loosing quality. Simply because in RAW every information of the pic is saved, like the negatives in analog termology.
JPEG is the finished pic. Alternating it likely results in crap.

//You guys were faster^^

Sorry, but this is total nonsense!

You can't change the aperture you used after you took the shot!

And exposure: You can make it a bit lighter or darker, but you can't change the exposure time afterwards!

rc-1140:"…somehow I feel like we need a photography thread…"
I think it'd have to be a separate forum 'folder', but indeed, it seems it would be the right time for one.
Glances over to pics posted by yours truly... yes, some more theory could be very useful.

7bit wrote:You can't change the aperture you used after you took the shot!

And exposure: You can make it a bit lighter or darker, but you can't change the exposure time afterwards!

True dat. But still because most RAW formats save their color values 16bit instead of 8bit, over or underexposed regions of the picture still contain more information than a JPEG, which allows you to do some more corrections. Of course it isn't as good as taking a good picture in the first place, but still RAW enables you to do more out of your photos.

Edit:

off wrote:Glances over to pics posted by yours truly... yes, some more theory could be very useful.

well, most pictures I posted were taken in a hurry and definitely under bad conditions. I know a lot of theory, but sometimes I just don't have the possibilities to use it.

RC-1140 wrote:

7bit wrote:You can't change the aperture you used after you took the shot!

And exposure: You can make it a bit lighter or darker, but you can't change the exposure time afterwards!

True dat. But still because most RAW formats save their color values 16bit instead of 8bit, over or underexposed regions of the picture still contain more information than a JPEG, which allows you to do some more corrections. Of course it isn't as good as taking a good picture in the first place, but still RAW enables you to do more out of your photos.

Edit:

off wrote:Glances over to pics posted by yours truly... yes, some more theory could be very useful.

well, most pictures I posted were taken in a hurry and definitely under bad conditions. I know a lot of theory, but sometimes I just don't have the possibilities to use it.

Shoot 'em in raw and you can tweak 'em later!

7bit wrote:Sorry, but this is total nonsense!

Yeah, I might have been wrong on that.
But right back to you! JPEG = RAW is bigger nonsense!
Also, RAW lets you decide in which format you want your pic. tiff, jpeg, png, bmp, w/e, without the loss of multiple com- and depression.

And yeah, +1 for a photo sub

RC-1140 wrote:

off wrote:Glances over to pics posted by yours truly... yes, some more theory could be very useful.

well, most pictures I posted were taken in a hurry and definitely under bad conditions. I know a lot of theory, but sometimes I just don't have the possibilities to use it.

Ha, gotcha there! Can't even remember what pics I've seen posted by yours, so take no offence.. 'yours truly' is always a reference to the writer/poster.
I know that's tricky seeing it contains 'you' but, 'ey, even english is a funky language; just one of the lesser evil ones thankfully.

I wonder what cameras you RAW-shooters use?

@demongolator: Please demongolate this into a Keyboard Photography sub-forum.

Back on topic (camera JPG, no RAW):

ripster wrote:Convince your mom she does not need her D40 and problem solved. Even my D60 is overkill for most pics.

Aren't you using D200?

Your tripod, ball head are perhaps more expensive then your camera body by now. I mean not all together but every individual piece of equipment you use is pretty darn expensive! (I recognize Gitzo carbon tripod, Really Right Stuff ball head, Nikon close-up speedlight.) They are certainly overkill for keyboard pics; I see importance of a good ball head and good lighting system but why would you need a super light tripod?

Wonderful set up you have there! Pretty impressive!

Limmy wrote:why would you need a super light tripod?

Call it a hunch but perhaps keyboards is not the only thing he photographs?

HD Porn is pretty demanding work.

7bit wrote:Back on topic (camera JPG, no RAW):

He says, while going offtopic..

ripster wrote:HD Porn is pretty demanding work.

That's why Ripster needs a good macro lens.

Hey, this thread got moved. A proTip for HDPorn..

http://forums.bad-dragon.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2381

From....
http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?2265 ... ent-Thread

Pics are borked, not MY problem....butthurt site administrator.

Anyhoo it's not the equipment.

It's the photographer. Taken with my iPad and steady hands! Light was a bit off because it was in the shade of my blue house. But HEY, it's a KEYBOARD picture!

With the nice rust you must take another one when the sun is out!

I love rust!

The problem withg cheap cameras, or phone cameras is that most people who use them just don't understand how to scale a picture and post them at 100% resolution. The other problem is that most cheap cameras have a too high resolution so pictures look worse than my early 2000s HP 618 with just 2MP.

The sun blew out the pic highlights.

Knowing the limitations of your equipment is the other key to photography.

Can I post my pics here and get suggestion/advise (to improve their quality) from you guys?

7bit wrote:I love rust!

Wanna buy my car?

nntnam wrote:Can I post my pics here and get suggestion/advise (to improve their quality) from you guys?

No harm in posting them

nntnam wrote:Can I post my pics here and get suggestion/advise (to improve their quality) from you guys?

Got a GF? I suggest lots of shots with her in lingerie with the keyboard on her head so I can gauge your Color balance.