| Author | Message | ||
     Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3372 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Dear All, I have taken pictures of all my objects many times with a regular snapshot camera, Canon Powershot A530. In the beginning, after reading some threads on Gotheborg concerning photography, I was taking pictures on a grey background on a sunny day. Thank you Lutz for this idea.  This went very well on days that the sun was shining, but it failed during dark days, because of the camera flash. The next thing I have done was a studio in a box, a portable studio of 40 cm and a grey background. This worked real fine with the three slave flash lights I had bought, one up and two for each side, standing on 1m50cm. Thank you John for this hint.  My white balance I have taken (in harmony) with my grey background. The camera flash I had pointed up for direct exposure of the slave flash lights, not flashing direct at the object. The camera I set on Manual and I did zoom in as much I could. With an ISO range on 100 and a F on 11, and a time on 1/60 I could make beautiful pictures.  So far so good as I thought, but I was looking for more, for better, so I bought a better camera, I was thinking. A Canon EOS 1000D with Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 DC Macro OS lens was my next move. An idea from a colleague with photography interests. Things getting more difficult by using this new and better camera. I can't make the pictures with my new camera the way I did with my old simple camera. The slave flash lights don't react in the right time and the camera don't react as fast as the old camera, if I by wonder managed a bad picture. My colleague does not know the answer. Do we have some photograph people on this site who can help me? Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Walter Susor White Crane Username: wsus Post Number: 1800 Registered: 08-2003 Posted From: adsl-75-6-250-252.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net |
Hello Arno, Just a quick comment. A quick google search indicates that there may be a problem fine tuning the flash exposure with the EOS 1000D. You may have to resort to using the hot shoe to synch your slaves. | ||
| Joerg Arend Peacock Username: joerg Post Number: 425 Registered: 09-2003 Posted From: 188.96.241.149 |
Dear Arno, did you some tests with a longer exposure time then those 1/60 sec? Do you have the same results then? As far as I know you can choose if you want to synchronize your camera flash on the first or the second shutter curtain. May be this has influence to your slave lights, they may ignite when the 2nd shutter curtain already hides the sensor partially. Just a guess. Can you show an example of the failed pictures? Best regards Jörg | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3373 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Dear Walter, Joerg and All, Thank you Walter and Joerg for looking. Here is a picture I every time get when I try to make a picture with my new camera. This view I see through the camera before I shoot the picture and this picture I have made with the settings F20 and 25 seconds shutter time. If I choose a shutter time of 1/60 than the picture becomes black. The camera flash light and slave flash lights do flash, but on the wrong moment I presume. I have put the slave flash lights on about 50 cm from the box.  I know nothing about how to set a shutter curtain. And what about a "resort to using the hot shoe", this I am not familiar with. But I'm dying to learn all about it. Kind regards, Arno (a hopeless photographer) ps. On my new camera I have put a speedlite 270EX flash, instead the regular camera flash light pps. My slave flash lights are from Falcon eyes, model MF-45 | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3374 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Here is a link of some explanation on "Mastering Canon EOS flash photography", and I have ordered the book of this subject. Now I have to read a lot, but I hope you will be continuing helping me also. http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/#aandb Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3377 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Dear All, This is a scene which explains the curtains in combination with the sensor of the camera. The first curtain gets open, the sensor can make the picture and the last thing is that the second curtain get closed, the sensor get no more light. In real this is an electronic thing of the camera. When the open time is not synchronized with the flash light (too short, or too long) than the picture (sensor) becomes dark, half dark or get too much light;      To understand more of this flash photography, you should see this movie; http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnn5nzPvoIM&feature=PlayList&p=D34F2B08AA96651A&in dex=7 More information will follow. Kind regards, Arno ps. There are more movies on photography from this source, all clear movies | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3809 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Arno, it is not necessary to buy a book for that. Evidently you did not read camera instructions or you did not understood them correctly. What do you mean by ”On my new camera I have put a speedlite 270EX flash, instead the regular camera flash light”? What is 270EX flash, is it a Canon flash specific model? If so, why did you set it if you are indeed using another type of flash? By the picture that you have posted we can say that the flashes are flashing when the camera shutter is closed. That is evident because the exposition is uniform so there are no parts of the image partially covered by one of the two shutter’s curtains. The fact that you are using an extremely closed iris (f:20) together with an extremely long shutter speed (25 sec.) –why that? It is a non sense- means that the image that you have posted has been made in ambient light. The flashes are not synchronized with the camera’ shutter, that’s it. Just see on the instruction book how to properly select the synchronization mode, then set the shutter speed on a relatively long time, let say 1/30 sec to be sure to have the flashes flashing during the shutter opening. It is no matter of fast response by the camera or the flashes, it is just matter of proper synchronization. Good luck Giovanni | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3378 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Thank you Giovanni for hopping in. You are right, the synchronization of my flash and slave flash lights are not in line, and I can't get it right, whatever I try. I have used a Speedlight flash because I don't want to flash on the object, so I get diffuse light because of flashing to above. Here is my new Canon 1000D camera with extra flash on top, the Speedlight 270EX.  I have tried all the shutter speeds, from 1/1600 - 22 seconds, but non was the right. The picture is taken only with ambient light, and I have used the flash all the time. The pre-view is as dark as the picture, I can't see exactly what I'm doing because the camera don't sees the object light. And I am in a room full of daylight! The focus I have taken this high is because I have to zoom in as far I can to make a good picture, that is why the F=20, for a good depth and sharpness in the picture. Or am I talking rubbish? (can be, I don't know) Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3810 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Arno, I understood that you was using a standard regular flash instead of a matched unit as is the 270EX. I still am convinced that it is simply matter of bad settings. I have never handled a reflex digital camera and don't know Canon cameras in particular, but looking at the link you provided I have noted, in the chapter "Cases in which distance data is not used", that the camera and light TTL system doesn't work properly if you are shooting the flash upward as you are doing. The TTL system is an automatic flash exposure system that is useful and possible only in case of matched camera and flash, as is your case. But you are not using it properly if you follow that chapter. Nevertheless, what happens to you is not due to that because by the image of the under-exposed bowl that you have posted your camera is seeing no flash light at all. I have downloaded the instructions of your camera. At pages 116 and 117 it tells you how to select the flash sync to the first shutter curtain. You have to select that. You should not select the TTL mode and see on the instructions of the flash (which I don't have) how to select the manual mode. After that it should just be matter of fine tuning exposure by keeping the shutter speed set on 1/30 sec for safety and by changing the iris opening. TTL flash does not work correctly in your case, also because you are using two slave flashes which are out of control from the camera. Regards Giovanni | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3811 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
PS: you are using a lens made by another manufacturer so the system is probably not full compatible. Also for that reason you should work in manual modes if you can. Giovanni | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3379 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Dear Giovanni, IT WORKS!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I now have put my "External flash func. settings" in the menu at "flash control", from "E-TTL II" to "manual control". I do my pictures shooting all in Manual but did make the wrong choice in the "Flash settings", what a fool I am. :-(  Now I only have to find a way to see the pre-view on the screen, now it is almost dark on the pre-view, with a little bit of the object. I do some extra shining with an extra light (torch) to sharpen the pre-view, silly isn't. The color balance and flash strength I can manage easy, that I did before with my Canon A530. I will show you the way I go with this new camera with pictures all the way, up till I can shoot real nice pictures. Thank you again!! Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Timothy Roberts White Crane Username: porcelain202 Post Number: 2578 Registered: 04-2003 Posted From: c-69-244-61-62.hsd1.az.comcast.net |
Dear Arno, Use Manual mode to set up the aperture and speed. Then switch to Auto mode for composing the photograph. Then switch back to Manual to take the picture. You do not need to repeat the manual setting. It is stored until you change it again. Tim R. | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3814 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Arno, that’s good. Tim answered to your problem about viewing the image on the display. The last picture you have posted is over-exposed of about 1 f-stop of more. This means that if the picture was taken at let say f:5,6 you should close the iris aperture to f:11 and try again. Each f-stop allows an half (or double) of the light to pass through. If the iris is closed to the minimum aperture (I suppose f:22) then you could decrease the lightning by placing the flashes at a bigger distance. Remember that the light intensity is lowering at a rate of square-distance, i.e. by doubling the distance the light intensity falls to ¼, corresponding to 2 f-stops of the iris. By changing the shutter speed it has no effect. You have to select the shutter speed to ensure that during the flash lightening the shutter’s curtains are in the position shown in the middle of the examples you posted in your above post number 3377, i.e. completely open. Usually on the old mechanical cameras this correspond to a shutter speed of 1/60 sec or longer. Only a few cameras was able to synchronize the flash at 1/125 sec. Then you should always keep the shutter speed to 1/60 sec, in fact the time of exposure in your case is not determined by the shutter. It depends only on how long the flash lighting last, which is matter of milliseconds. Nevertheless my personal opinion is to use normal lamps instead of flashes. You will have much less light intensity and then you need a tripod, but you will have a much greater control on the light distribution, for example the right placement to avoid reflections. By means of the flash you will only see that after the picture is done and not previously. Giovanni | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3380 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Thank you Giovanni, welcome and thank you Tim, I like to compose the picture in manual mode because only than I have the possibility to use my computer screen and only than I can choose manual my point to set the picture sharp, I have this not in automatic mode. Than I only have the little viewer on top of the camera, too small for me. If I put away my flash light a little bit further from the box I can lower the light, or I also can change the F. With my Canon A530 I had to zoom in and that was the largest F mode, now with my Canon 1000D I can go on playing with zoom and F for a wide range. I let you know what I discover. Please keep on sending the good thoughts and tips. The problem with pre-view will be the slightest problem, I think. :-~ Thank you All. Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3382 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Dear All, As promised here are the results and resulting picture. The picture I have taken with my new camera and cut to this size, nothing else.  The past days I have tried out the best settings for my new camera, the Canon 1000D with macro lens. The first thing I have done was looking at the 20 Youtube movies from Mark Wallace 1 on 1, I did this twice. Than I have read the camera manual careful, and still do. The first thing that I had to find out was my sync setting from my shutter speed, that is the speed that is just enough to open the whole curtain 1 and start the curtain 2. In that case the sensor is full open and get all the flash light with almost non ambient light. With my camera that is 1/200 of a second. I have tried other speeds too, 1/60 and higher, but I did not saw any difference. The second thing I was trying was to find out a right and most nice aperture (F, Focus), this is not the focus range from the zoom. I have tried to taken several good clear pictures from one object out of the studio box and changed the F value several times. The best F setting for my camera liked to be F=8, but that is personal. The ISO value is best set on 100, but 200 is aloud too. The "White Balance" I had set on Automatic because I was trying out outside the studio, but with flash from my camera. This automatic white balance was no good enough with my studio and therefore I tried to set the white balance on the grey background of my studio, the way it was written in the manual and shown in the movies of Mark Wallace. This about 18% grey background did gave the pictures a little pink shade, so not good enough. The next thing I did was to take an old grey, looking somewhat pink/grey, background and that was my white balance card. And that worked. Now the colors are good. The setting of my flash I had put on manual, just like Giovanni has told me to do, and that was the key to shoot with slave flash light in combination with my camera flash. Giovanni, thank you again. The dark preview I still have. But I can get an better view by put the fire button in half. A pity this is not working in the computer pre-view, this view let me do all the important settings do with life view on the computer screen. Than I have to lower first the F to minimal and give the sensor a help with a candle light. If I have sharpen the picture this way I put the F to 9 again. With the above picture I had to get a F from 12 because I was trying to max the distance to the object for a good dept of view, but that F 12 was not on my camera possible, so I have taken a higher F of 16 and in that case I had to set my ISO on 200. That is the story so far. Thank you all for your support. Kind regards, Arno ps. I'm trying now to fine tuning the pictures to lighten the front a little bit more with a 4th flash light from behind the camera and I will upgrade the procedure by taken the pictures in JPG files as also in RAW mode and make TIFF files out of the last pictures | ||
| Timothy Roberts White Crane Username: porcelain202 Post Number: 2583 Registered: 04-2003 Posted From: c-69-244-61-62.hsd1.az.comcast.net |
Dear Arno, My screen is very well balanced and I see your background as quite bluish. If it is really gray, then your white balance is not good. Make sure to calibrate your monitor. I use the free Quick Gamma and Quick Monitor programs to adjust the monitor. The profile is stored so that it is loaded each time the computer starts. Tim R. | ||
| Lutz Slomianka White Crane Username: lutzs Post Number: 1287 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 130.60.57.144 |
Hi Tim, Most 'grey' cardboard backgrounds have a slightly bluish tint, which would explain why Arno got a pink tint when he did the automatic color balance. Looking at the rgb values of the white in the piece it gives a modest blue and tiny green tint, which is what we actually would expect of a piece of this time. So, I guess the white balance used by Arno is ok. Cheers, Lutz | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3385 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Hi Tim and Lutz, Thank you both for your reaction, I did have calibrated my monitor settings a time ago , but I'm not sure or this has worked. These free programs where can I find these and how are the names of these programs. A good calibrated monitor is essential for a good result! Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3820 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Arno, on my monitor too your image has a bluish dominant. It is not clear to me if you did the white balance setting with the flashes. As I told you I have never handled a reflex digital camera but I hardly believe that it will correctly do the white balance with flash. May be I am wrong. In my opinion you have not carefully read what I told you or you have not fully understand. In fact, about the shutter speed: "With my camera that is 1/200 of a second. I have tried other speeds too, 1/60 and higher, but I did not saw any difference." I told you that the shutter speed has no influence, once it has a low speed enough to allow that both curtains are fully open. The actual exposition time in your case is related to the duration of the light flash. "With the above picture I had to get a F from 12 because I was trying to max the distance to the object for a good dept of view, but that F 12 was not on my camera possible, so I have taken a higher F of 16 and in that case I had to set my ISO on 200.": You can choose even a more closed F setting, and compensate that by moving the flash sources nearer to the subject. Half distance correspond to two F stops. By the way I still don't see the advantage in complicating everything by flashes. If, after the bowl, you have to take pictures of a high vase or a dish, how can you see if the flashes are correctly placed? You will probably have to take several pictures before reaching what you want. I use fixed low energy consumption lamps, I can move them up and down, closer or not to avoid the reflection spots which I can control on the camera display, and then take a single picture. Quick and easy. Best regards Giovanni | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3386 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Thank you Giovanni, I have understand what you are saying and you are right. It is much easier to work with constant light, but I have chosen for flash, mostly in first place to avoid the heat from the constant light. The white from the bowl in above picture is a little more blue-isch than we are used to from Kangxi period, but that bowl is a 16thC bowl. The background looks on my monitor about the same as in real, but I hope that my monitor has been right balanced. Here is another picture made with my new camera. This time an 18thC plate. Kind regards, Arno  ps. This picture is taken with an aperature of F=13 and an ISO of 100. The shutterspeed was set on 1/200, because this is the camera sync speed | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3387 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Can you teach me about lenses, I think I have bought a wrong lens. My depth of field (view) is not that I like to have. On the bowl the front is sharp, but the other side of the bowl is not whole sharp. I have to put my camera close to the box and still have to zoom in. I have chosen for a Macro camera with F2.8-4 because this was said to be the best for studio photography, but now I start doubting. As far I understand I have to stand a little bit further from the studio box and I must try to not to zoom in much to get the frond and deeper taken sharp, isn't? Any other ideas? Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3821 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Arno, I personally don't like flashes for two reasons: lack of depth in the image (I mean flat image, not lack of depth of field) and lack of surface texture details because of the high contrast, as seen for example in the last picture of the plate that you have posted, although that image is a bit over-exposed. I know, mastering the lighting technique all this can be overcome, but why take a difficult road when natural light is so nice? Personal thought. As for the depth of field, it depends on the focal length of the lens, iris aperture and distance from the subject. You have not said which is the focal length of your macro lens, I suppose that it should be around 55 mm. Optical laws says that: Shorter the focal length of the lens, bigger the depth of field. (A wide angle lens has great depth of field but you are forced to go close to the object and this will distort its shape). Lesser the iris aperture (biggest F: number), bigger the depth of field (hence you need more light -flash- or longer exposure time). Bigger the distance selected ON THE DISTANCE SCALE of the lens, bigger the depth of field. To better understand the last statement, pay attention to the focussing scale on the lens. You will see that on the left and on the right sides of the distance pointer there are symmetrical marks (usually marked with different colors) related to the iris aperture. These points are telling you how much is the depth of field. You will see that about one third of the focused field is in front of the object, while two thirds are behind it. By rotating the focussing ring you can see how the depth of field changes significantly according to the distance. Kind regards Giovanni | ||
| Timothy Roberts White Crane Username: porcelain202 Post Number: 2585 Registered: 04-2003 Posted From: c-69-244-61-62.hsd1.az.comcast.net |
Dear Arno, I use two or three compact fluorescent lamps with 5500K and 150 W. They are cheap and work great with little heat, and I never have to mess with the white balance. Probably you and Giovanni will not agree with this, but that's how I work. Find QuickGamma and QuickMonitorProfile at www.quickgamma.de. Tim R. | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3828 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Tim, me too use that. I use two or three, rarely four, compact fluorescent lamps (that I meant by low energy consumption). They are 20W, which correspond to 100W of incandescent light. Almost all their energy is light, very low heating so no problem for the pieces. Giovanni | ||
| Timothy Roberts White Crane Username: porcelain202 Post Number: 2586 Registered: 04-2003 Posted From: c-69-244-61-62.hsd1.az.comcast.net |
Dear Giovanni, I meant that by using 5500K lamps no need to white balance IMO. They were cheap on ebay. Tim | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3388 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip4da26c4f.direct-adsl.nl |
Compact fluorescent lamps with 5500K, cheap on eBay....... HMMM, I think I will look for the 20W..... I now think that can be even better :-) Kind regards, Arno | ||
| R K Fletcher Peacock Username: rkfletch Post Number: 311 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 203-213-112-17.tpgi.com.au |
I am glad I just caught this conversation about Kelvin values, I have been wondering lately which value was going to be ideal for taking pictures of items since I am still yet to try an artificial setup. Has anybody tried a lower value like 4000k? This should have a little more yellow in it and maybe resemble daylight a little better; maybe even combining different values could be effective. I might have to buy some different value bulbs myself, give it a try and post back. Cheers, Rory. | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3830 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Tim, that's right if the white balance has been set on AWB or Daylight (or Sun). In any case something must be set on the White balance menu. But of course you perfectly know this. Dear Rory, from your question I understand that you do not calibrate the white balance setting on your camera. If you try a lower color temperature and keep the setting to daylight, then of course the image has a warm tone. But the colors are not true. The white balance should be always calibrated. I don't rely on automatisms and always calibrate the WB by means of a grey card. To be clear, if you use a 4000K lamp and calibrate the WB to it, and take another image of the same subject with a 5500K lamp and the camera calibrated on it, you should have two identical images. Actually, by choosing a daylight lamp as Tim does you are sure that all the colors will come through, because they are within the spectrum of the light emitted by such lamps. Lower color temperature lamps together with a proper calibration are giving you correct color tones but some color can be missed in the high frequency range. Giovanni | ||
| Walter Susor White Crane Username: wsus Post Number: 1811 Registered: 08-2003 Posted From: adsl-75-6-228-125.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net |
Hello Rory, I have been using 3200K lamps for illumination. The reproduced colors are very close, not always perfect, but they are reproducible. Photos taken with daylight and daylight white balance are NOT reproducible because the quality of daylight changes minute to minute even when you are not plagued by ever moving fog and clouds like we are here. The daylight balance chosen by the camera manufacturer is arbitrary, chosen to give natural looking colors to outdoor scenes shot by amateur photographers. In reality the quality of outdoor light will vary with time of day, season, cloud cover, and latitude. Even with the 3200K lamps, I reset the white balance every few sessions to compensate for the aging of the bulb. Walter | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3833 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Walter, well said, I totally agree with you except about the use of lamps having a color temperature of 3200K. That way you surely are missing colors in the high range of the visible spectrum. I am posting here a diagram taken by the following page after a short search on internet. For sure there must be much better sites on the matter: http://www.techmind.org/colour/coltemp.html Kind regards Giovanni  | ||
| Walter Susor White Crane Username: wsus Post Number: 1813 Registered: 08-2003 Posted From: adsl-75-6-241-208.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net |
Hello Giovanni, The white balance correction should adjust the color curve to the normal visual curve which I presume is closest to the 6500K curve. When using 3200K illumination, the camera's firmware should boost the violet end of the spectrum to approximate the 6500K curve. This article describes another way to perhaps more accurately adjust the color balance. http://bermangraphics.com/digital-jury-resources/black-white-color.htm I have not tried this method but It looks promising. I think that with either method it is important to use only a single light source and not allow competing light sources. For instance if you are shooting with incandescent light near a window your illumination will be partly 3200K incandescent and partly 6500K skylight giving odd colored shadows and highlights. Walter | ||
| Arno Jacobs White Crane Username: jcbs Post Number: 3392 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: ip-145-85-133-40.fontys.nl |
Dear Giovanni and Walter and All, There is a separate setting on my camera of 4000K, I think that must be for this kind of light (but I don't know for sure). Kind regards, Arno | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3835 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Walter, I may perfectly be wrong but I don't think that what you said is correct. How the camera should knows the intensity of the violet of the original subject? No way I think. In my opinion what the white balance compensation does is just to "translate" all the spectrum in such way to have the white as clear white and not warm white or cold white. That's it I think. If the correction will increase the colors of the violet zone what happens if the subject has a lot of violet? BTW it should be easy to make a comparison by taking separate pictures of the same subject with the two different light sources and different calibration. I am talking on camera calibration only, not a later correction or compensation by means of Photoshop and similia, which I never do because of my distorted mentality, or not updated mentality if you want. Dear Arno, do not rely on fixed camera settings, like 4000K or sunlight or shadow or whatsoever. As Walter correctly said, the light is changing continuously. Pay attention at how your home appear when you go back home from the job. It is never the same as the day before, every day is a bit different. The miracle of light. The right way to have the best color balance setting is through a manual calibration on the grey (really grey) card. The same must be said for the light intensity metering, where the correct way is to measure the incident light and not the reflected light as all the inner camera's exposure systems does. But that's a different story and just apply to the dinosaurs like myself that still are using slide films. Giovanni | ||
| Ricardo Manta Simões Peacock Username: ricardo Post Number: 639 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 87.196.89.164 |
Dear members, What an interesting subject. I think the most important thing is, along with the white balance (measuring what is white or neutral gray in the suject)is the CRI (colour rendering index) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index See also http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/index.html I use solux light sources as they are very very good to render colour- the only thing which troubles me is that it is a very hard "punctual" type light and diffusers tend to distort colours. Philips is the only brand that is allowed to sell this lighting under the name of diamond line brand halogen light. "where the correct way is to measure the incident light and not the reflected" Dear Giovanni, a lot could be said on this subject as I am sure you know. Best regards, Ricardo PS I think there should have a topic dedicated to photos of pieces - the good and very good ones (I mean the photos not the pieces) | ||
| R K Fletcher Peacock Username: rkfletch Post Number: 312 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 203-213-112-17.tpgi.com.au |
Giovanni, I am very guilty of not learning to use my camera properly, I have had a Canon 350D for many years and rely on automatic settings using direct sunlight, sometimes I do use manual set shutter speeds. As Walter pointed out this has many downfalls but I have found very good consistent results in direct sunlight and I think the colour reproduction and clarity can be excellent, especially for close ups of enamels, foots or marks. Waiting for the sun to come out at the right time of day can be a little tedious though, it also not that effective for larger pieces because of shadowing. I will have to get some lamps and try some of your suggestions, I havent been able to take any pictures here for weeks because of the winter  Here is an example of mine using sunlight, I think it shows how it can be good for really bringing out some enamels. Sorry if I am getting off topic. Cheers, Rory.    | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3839 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Rory, take the pictures in shadow and not in sunlight, but remember: it is absolutely mandatory to calibrate the white balance, better if you will do that with a grey card and not by just selecting "shadow". You will see that you will have better pictures than the one in direct sunlight. If you look at the pictures that you have posted, you will see that there is a great difference in light distribution: parts of the bowl are over-exposed and you can't see the details and the same happens in the areas in shadow. By taking the pictures in shadow or in cloudy day the illumination is more uniform. Try that on the same bowl and you will see. Kind regards Giovanni | ||
| R K Fletcher Peacock Username: rkfletch Post Number: 313 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 203-213-112-17.tpgi.com.au |
Hi Giovanni. Your right, I did realize once I posted this how patchy these pictures are, its also probably no way to file pieces properly which I need to start doing. I think it still can be effective for some close up pictures, I think my third picture shows this, but other than that its just too unreliable and fiddly. Time to make the effort of a proper artificial setup. Thanks, Rory. | ||
| R K Fletcher Peacock Username: rkfletch Post Number: 319 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 203-213-112-17.tpgi.com.au |
I was just doing a little searching, I found this to be a good simple example of using custom white balance with a white card, http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=57011 The clarity looks excellent, I wonder if as shown here 300watts of halogen might better than the compact fluorescents? Cheers, Rory. | ||
| Joerg Arend Peacock Username: joerg Post Number: 426 Registered: 09-2003 Posted From: dslc-082-082-244-030.pools.arcor-ip.net |
Dear All, a very useful & cheap help to lighten up shadows is a simple silver coated foam board as one can buy it in DIY-markets. Placed opposite the light source or may be cut a hole in the middle to put it over the lens it will bring good results. It pays to make some test this way. Using Photoshop for a long time I newly frequently use a low cost software simple called FixFoto (just google). There is an english version available under the name PhotoPerfect. In the simplest form it is freeware but there are some very interesting extensions (XE847, Perfectly Clear and others, also downloadable as 14 days trial version). And last I have tested an interesting and cheap swedish product/software for color balancing named QpCard. It helps to get neutral colors under changing light conditions. All is well illustrated on their site www.qpcard.com. But alas - the eye is not a reliable fellow...  Best regards Joerg | ||
| Giovanni Repetti White Crane Username: grepetti Post Number: 3844 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: host61-110-dynamic.56-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it |
Dear Rory, the link you provided demonstrates everything what I said. Pictures A and B: demonstration that one must not believe in automatic white balance Pictures C and D: demonstration that the custom white balance works well, and demonstration that camera’s exposure systems are not working well. They are calibrated on the neutral grey, so they tend to transform the both the white and the black into grey. To correctly obtain bright white and deep black it is necessary to correct the exposure system by respectively over-exposing and under-exposing. Pictures E and F: they are basically the same, being the bigger difference the depth of focus field. Picture E was taken with a total of 500 W, and the lamps were probably placed not far from the objects. Picture F with an overhead 60 W, probably the ceil lamp over the desk. That means that E was taken with ten times more light, which in turn means that the iris of the lens was 3 F stops more closed, hence a bigger depth of field and more detailed imaged. Dear Rory I don’t suggest you to use a total of 300W of halogen lamps. Instead, if you use three 20W compact fluorescent lamp, daylight type (custom white balance, always!) you have the same power light, save energy, have a better light spectrum, a more constant light spectrum (on halogen lamps spectrum vary according to voltage supply fluctuations) and don’t risk to overheat the piece. Only advantages! Dear Joerg, the reason I don’t like to correct images by means of imaging software is the same why color slides are preferable to color negative film. On color slides the color is there in the film, once properly exposed of course. Color prints are made by filters, and both if automatic or manually made, they are always subjective. Image software are allowing fantastic performance, but at the end the image is as you like it or as you think it is good, subjective in one word. My opinion of course. Kind regards Giovanni | ||
| Joerg Arend Peacock Username: joerg Post Number: 427 Registered: 09-2003 Posted From: dslc-082-082-244-030.pools.arcor-ip.net |
Dear Giovanni, many people working at a museum or restorers still prefer slides (calling it Ekta even if it is Fuji :-) ). But I think the problem is similar. In the past I have bought a bulk of slide film with equal emulsion number followed by a basic neutral filtering. Others choose their film job related (Kodak for fleshtones, Fuji for bold colors a.s.o.). Sometimes the slides for presentation were "sandwiched" with CC sheets or even retouched with translucent ink. This for me also is some arbitrary intervention. Or push/hold developing. Personally I am glad to have the chance to - for example - correct the influence of a yellowed softbox by selective color correction. But it is true, many options also harbours the risk of many wrong decisions. Kind regards Joerg | ||
| John Wocher Dragon (Board Moderator) Username: johninjapan Post Number: 5015 Registered: 09-2003 Posted From: 210.162.146.224 |
Greetings - I can't recall the last time I shot in JPEG preferring RAW and processing in LR2, CS4 or PSE7 where white balance can be easily adjusted, clarity and saturation controlled etc... Many of the difficulties encountered can be mitigated by shooting in RAW and post processing by software. I hope this is helpful. John | ||
| Ricardo Manta Simões Peacock Username: ricardo Post Number: 656 Registered: 06-2003 Posted From: 87-196-155-94.net.novis.pt |
Hello all again. I only shot in raw. I find jpeg's almost useless to post processing. When you process ("develope") the raw file ("digital negative") your can create your own jpeg's not depending on canon or other brands taste. As I use Pextax I shot DNG which is a non proprietary raw type file use by other brands like Leica, Panasonic etc. For editing I use LR and if need more refined work, PS. Regards, Ricardo |
