Thread: Photographing your Woodwork pieces – doing it properly

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Brett, I'm not a photographer and the only time I take photos is to put them on this board.

Until now I was using an old Sony digital camera (3.2 mega pixels Cyber-shot) and then reducing the photos to a suitable size for uploading by reducing and cropping on the computer.

Normally I just move forward or backward to get the object centered and press the button. The camera does the rest. So I'm confused about the depth of field and the manual or automatic.

However in the recent renovations/decorating I lost the charger and cabling (I put them away myself in a safe place, so safe that I can not find them) so I have upgraded to another discarded family camera, being an Olympus U 700 model, so keep that in mind. Still have to work out how to use that camera.


Peter.

Roight den. I'll take some pics tomorrow to illustrate depth of field, and my technique to increase it.

As far as manual focus or exposure control, the camera booklet (I was nearly going to say camera manual ) will tell you if it has these features or not. If you have a dial where you can select different types of Exposure methods (like Tv, Av, P etc - that's how they are usually labelled) and there is an "M" then that will be the manual exposure setting. I suspect the cameras you have mentioned may not have it.

There may be another way to overide the autofocus. It can be a little tricky sometimes, but it might just work. On many cameras, if you depress the shutter button halfway down it will start taking readings, focusing etc. If you point the centre of the lens at the spot you want to focus on, half depress the button, and hold it there, recompose the pic to what you want and then complete the depression of the button, and it could very well hold that focus point (and indeed the exposure for the previous area). The full blown DSLRs all do this, and even my little POS does it. I suspect that quite a few of the Point & Shoots will probably do it too.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Brett, I'm not a photographer and the only time I take photos is to put them on this board.

Until now I was using an old Sony digital camera (3.2 mega pixels Cyber-shot) and then reducing the photos to a suitable size for uploading by reducing and cropping on the computer.

Normally I just move forward or backward to get the object centered and press the button. The camera does the rest. So I'm confused about the depth of field and the manual or automatic.

However in the recent renovations/decorating I lost the charger and cabling (I put them away myself in a safe place, so safe that I can not find them) so I have upgraded to another discarded family camera, being an Olympus U 700 model, so keep that in mind. Still have to work out how to use that camera.


Peter.

Peter your not old yet far from it its just another tool without a manual.

Depth of field is when your aiming at the object and it takes a better photo of whats behind.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

As far as manual focus or exposure control, the camera booklet (I was nearly going to say camera manual ) will tell you if it has these features or not. If you have a dial where you can select different types of Exposure methods (like Tv, Av, P etc - that's how they are usually labelled) and there is an "M" then that will be the manual exposure setting. I suspect the cameras you have mentioned may not have it.

Brett, neither the old or my new (but still old) cameras have different types of exposure methods except the new one can be set for different types of photos eg night scene,portrait, sport, indoor, candles etc. I presume that would be a way to adjust the exposures.

Peter.

Unfortunately not Peter, those settings are to internally correct the different colour biases from those light sources (effectively changing them into almost normal daylight)

Always, always, always set the camera for its best resolution - this is not optional. Do NOT think that because the WW Forum wants the pic at 800 pixels across that you should set the camera near to this. ALWAYS HAVE YOUR CAMERA SET TO MAXIMUM RESOLUTION. Did I say that loudly enough?


Do not ever get confused between Dots Per Inch (DPI) or Pixels Per Inch (PPI) and pixel dimensions eg. 800 x 600 or 1200 x 768 or whatever.

DPI or PPI only matter when you are PRINTING the picture. I can explain this somewhere else perhaps.

DO NOT EVER CONSIDER DPI OR PPI WHEN POSTING PICTURES. IT IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT!

The screen you are looking at has a pixel dimension of perhaps 1024 x 768 or for an old screen 800 x600 or maybe 1920 x 1080 for a big monitor. If your screen has a resolution, for example , of 1024 x 768, that is the optimum size to display a photo. If your photo has bigger pixel dimensions than this, the software package your computer uses to display images will either reduce the size to fit -throwing away image data, or you will need to scroll around your screen to see all the image.If your image is smaller, your software may enlarge the image, adding made up data, or you will see a smaller image than your screen allows.

In order to post your photos the best possible way after taking them at the MAXIMUM resolution your camera allows, you will need to transfer them to your computer for a little bit of processing. i will not go anywhere near what may be possible here.

If you take your photos on your phone and upload them directly, then the results will depend entirely on your phone's processing ability - almost always terrible.

Once you have copied the photos from your camera to your computer , you need to use the software that displays the image on your screen to resize the image for posting. There are too many variables here to take on. Almost every screen display software has the ability to do this reasonably well. Learn the one you have and use it. Adjust it, alter it, crop it, color it, contrast it, sharpen it...do what you want. Then save it at 800 x 600 for posting.

POST IT!





OH dear, now for the arguments...

Originally Posted by Avery

OH dear, now for the arguments...

Cracker! If you remember how the start of "Wipe Out" goes, then you just heard me.

I'll read that all again for digestion in the morning, but at face value it looks like some experiments coming up for me.

FF, If there's one significant thing missing from this thread that has to be some actual examples.
It would be useful to see examples of poor and better shots of the exact same subject illustrating what you mean.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

. . . If you have a camera that takes interchangeable lenses then it's no slower using a macro to using any other lens, and far, far superior. As I recall, they aren't all that expensive either.

I have all the macro gear including, dedicated macro lens, extension tubes, macro stand with dedicated lighting setup, box of velveteen cloth backdrops etc etc but mostly I'm in a hurry so 99/100 times I just use the first camera I can find and use whatever lens was left on that camera. Maybe retirement will bring better photos?

No worries Bob. It's on the agenda for the next day or two (I've just got to work out how to take some lousy photos kidding, kidding)

Originally Posted by BobL

Maybe retirement will bring better photos?

Indeed it probably will, given that you'll have the newfound time, but still the inquiring mindset.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Cracker! If you remember how the start of "Wipe Out" goes, then you just heard me.

I'll read that all again for digestion in the morning, but at face value it looks like some experiments coming up for me.

Geez. offensive without substance.

By your own words , your knowledge of digital photography is poor, perhaps your knowledge of digital displays is even less comprehensive.

I really don't understand why you would think that what I wrote is laughable. I thought that you had a fairly good grip on the subject, perhaps not... I will be more than happy to experiment with you. I'll show you mine...

I really like FenceFurniture's Post #1. That is kind of how it goes.

I started processing and printing B&W in about 1955. I've never owned a camera format smaller than 6 x 4.5. 6x6 for years and I still do some 6x9. For decades I was chasing the cash in a niche called "Decor Photography." Once I realized what potential clients wanted to see (not my tastes at all), I did very well. Ansel Adams, I am not. Big prints, pure silver, razor sharp and no grain.

Pretty much all I still do and have done for 30+ years is 4x5. Toyo 45D body with full movements and my fav., a Rodenstock 210. I don't sell 8x10 prints. 16 x 20 was and still is a nice size to print and work with. I found a lab to do 36 x 40, up to 48x96.

What is each imaged intended to do? Purpose? Function? Analog or digital, composition, background, lighting, depth of field and plane of focus are still points to ponder.
In that day and time, a 4x5 B&W neg cost me $1.51 to put away. Color trans was $10 each. . . . . but when you sell the display rights for $750.00, it eases the pain.

I like P&S digital, particularly for internet use. I have a Kodak EasyShare C190
and an old Ricoh 1a marketed in the UK but not North America. If I had no commercial experience or success, I'd be doing a lot of photographic experiments and reading to figure out how to best show off the subject.
On the downside, I don't like a camera with a mind of it's own to do what I don't want to see.

Originally Posted by Avery

Geez. offensive without substance.

....
I really don't understand why you would think that what I wrote is laughable. ....

Please don't drag this thread back into moderation, if you look carefully, he quoted the bit that he thought was funny.

OH dear, now for the arguments...

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

...
On the downside, I don't like a camera with a mind of it's own to do what I don't want to see.

Yup, the No.1 problem I have with my little camera is convincing it when I do or don't want the flash to go off.
The previous one I used had a button on the back to force it on or off, this one has a menu setting to force it on or off but then it has an iA mode that I reckon must stand for 'ignorant automatic' 'cos it just ignores all your setting & does what it feels like.

Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers

Please don't drag this thread back into moderation, if you look carefully, he quoted the bit that he thought was funny.

I second that.
I have just read 2 posts in another thread that would have been here if the mods had not been pondering this one when they wanted to post their thoughts, they have come up with a different answer.
Regards