Let's see your black & whites!!

Camera equipment and technique for taking photos.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
mattpayne11
Posts: 992
Joined: 5/9/2009
14ers: 58 
13ers: 111
Trip Reports (48)
 
Contact:

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by mattpayne11 »

Nice shot of the train! They always make for excellent B+W subjects. One of my favorite sites to learn Lightroom techniques, FroKnowsPhoto - they did a really cool train tutorial. The site is kind of noisy with ads, but they do quality stuff.

http://froknowsphoto.com/raw-edit-of-the-week-22/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyways - here's my contribution to this thread for now:

Image
User avatar
livetothemax96
Posts: 197
Joined: 7/12/2010
14ers: 10  5  3 
13ers: 14 2 1
Trip Reports (1)
 
Contact:

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by livetothemax96 »

mattpayne11 wrote:Image
Did you use one of those filters where the top half is polarized? Magnificent photo btw
whats life unless you live it?
User avatar
TeamDino5280
Posts: 153
Joined: 6/19/2009
13ers: 3
Trip Reports (2)
 
Contact:

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by TeamDino5280 »

Image
User avatar
mattpayne11
Posts: 992
Joined: 5/9/2009
14ers: 58 
13ers: 111
Trip Reports (48)
 
Contact:

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by mattpayne11 »

livetothemax96 wrote:
Did you use one of those filters where the top half is polarized? Magnificent photo btw
Thanks!

I did not use a ND grad filter nor do I own one. I shoot RAW format and use Lightroom. In this case, I used Lightroom to add a graduated filter. I love using Lightroom graduated filters because you can use them to adjust contrast, brightness, exposure, saturation or sharpening and you can adjust the angle and width of the filter. Pretty slick.

Here's a tutorial on it:

http://photofocus.com/2010/02/22/better ... ed-filter/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And.. here is why I shoot RAW and why you should too (if you want to post-process your photos at all).

— A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job of processing the image.

— Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

— File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

— The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

— Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.
User avatar
matthewbe
Posts: 73
Joined: 3/20/2010
14ers: 32  1 
13ers: 11
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by matthewbe »

+1 For Lightroom. Amazing software for photographers!!
Not all who wander are lost.

Matthewbe Photography
http://www.matthewbe.com
User avatar
Dancesatmoonrise
Posts: 1887
Joined: 9/25/2009
14ers: 58  43 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (68)
 

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by Dancesatmoonrise »

mattpayne11 wrote:
livetothemax96 wrote:
Did you use one of those filters where the top half is polarized? Magnificent photo btw
Thanks!

I did not use a ND grad filter nor do I own one. I shoot RAW format and use Lightroom. In this case, I used Lightroom to add a graduated filter. I love using Lightroom graduated filters because you can use them to adjust contrast, brightness, exposure, saturation or sharpening and you can adjust the angle and width of the filter. Pretty slick.

Here's a tutorial on it:

http://photofocus.com/2010/02/22/better ... ed-filter/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And.. here is why I shoot RAW and why you should too (if you want to post-process your photos at all).

— A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job of processing the image.

— Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance), but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes after the fact with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.

— File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.

— The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.

— Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.

I've got to start shooting RAW. The two obstacles are a) a complete unfamiliarity with it and what it takes, and b) I'd need to get a G11 or some compact that shoots raw, b/c I just can't see lugging an SLR on some of these trips and still enjoy the climbing - especially winter trips.

Thanks for posting, Matt - another reminder for me to at least give it a try with the SLR to gain some familiarity. It will be cool to see how much more detail can be extracted from the shadows or if burned areas can be recovered.
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 3186
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 84 1
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by highpilgrim »

Dancesatmoonrise wrote: I'd need to get a G11 or some compact that shoots raw, b/c I just can't see lugging an SLR on some of these trips and still enjoy the climbing - especially winter trips
I bought a Canon S95, which has many of the attributes of the G series cameras and is much smaller. It fits easily into a pocket.

It is capable of shooting in RAW format in a number of different modes.

In addition, they beefed up the case and access ports which were prone to causing trouble in the earlier P/S models.

I've been very satisfied with it so far.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Hunter S Thompson

Walk away from the droning and leave the hive behind.
Dick Derkase
User avatar
davebks
Posts: 764
Joined: 6/5/2008
14ers: 10 
13ers: 10
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by davebks »

Image

Image


first one is from Bierstadt, the second from Nepal... :)
User avatar
Mark Curtis
Posts: 648
Joined: 7/27/2004
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by Mark Curtis »

and here's why I DON'T typically shoot RAW:

- File sizes! I take a lot of photographs and shooting RAW really takes up space on hard drives (I have 4 as it is). Also, it takes up a lot more of your sd card space as you are shooting.
- JPEG quality improvement. Today's DSLR in camera JPEG engine processing has improved in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. In fact, in the camera I use....the Pentax K-r....the JPEG detail is getting close to rivaling the RAW files. You have to be quite the pixel peeper to distinguish. Also, HDR is used for JPEG's and allows for a wider dynamic range.
- Frames per second buffer room. Translation.....in burst mode you can typically take twice the amount of photos using JPEG's instead of RAW. This might be important if you are shooting sports or fast moving wildlife.
- Less noise with JPEG's at higher ISO. For low light shots you might be able to extract more detail from shadows, etc. in RAW.....but you might need to run those photos through some kind of noise reduction software in certain situations.
- Post processing. Yes, the RAW files certainly provide more flexibility, but one thing about them is that you can pretty much count on doing a fairly significant amount of post processing to get a great final outcome. With JPEG's there are many times when you don't have to do much at all. For those who enjoy and have time for PP, RAW is great. But for busy folks who have other endeavors in mind it may not be ideal.
- One other thing that is a cool feature on my K-r is the ability to shoot in JPEG.....but having the ability to add RAW for each shot without switching to that mode (only as each photo is taken however). I will incorporate this as I am shooting if I feel I have an especially exceptional shot......or a shot where the dynamic range is extreme and might require some future extracting of detail. It also will do RAW + JPEG (as most DLSR's do, but then you are really talking about a lot of space! :-)

Don't get me wrong. I agree with all of the positives of RAW mentioned by Matt. And for professionals it is probably heresy to suggest using anything but. I just wanted to point out there are some advantages to using JPEG's. And inherent in those points is the idea that the newer cameras are doing a much better job of providing a pleasing image to many shooters who want to take advantage of those positives.

Finally, while I have no doubt the advantages of Lightroom are boundless, I would throw a caveat into the use of a post processing graduated filter. That is to say, even in RAW where the chances of reversing the effect of blown highlights is greatly enhanced, there are limitations to how much the shot can be overexposed and still be able to retrieve those highlights. You can only pull back just so much. If you use a filter in the field you have more control over those situations where the dynamic range is extreme.....and don't want to take the time and effort to take two different exposures and merge.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46092977@N07/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Dancesatmoonrise
Posts: 1887
Joined: 9/25/2009
14ers: 58  43 
13ers: 1
Trip Reports (68)
 

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by Dancesatmoonrise »

This is a great discussion.

Highpilgrim, thanks for that tip. Sadly, I dropped the little tiny 4 ounce Canon 1200 that has been giving me such great images (talk about heresy...) this past week in the Wilsons. It would still shoot, but lost all the controls including zoom. So I have images for the TR, but it will be the end of an era and time to get a new "tiny" camera for those trips I need something small. The S95, I know, has been the darling of our 14ers.com community - I may just go ahead and get one. I'll plan to study the current crop of compacts; hoping to hold out till September since new ones come out about then - more features, and the existing ones get cheaper.

Davebks, that second one is an extraordinary image, man. Congrats!

Mark, I think a lot of what you mention is why shooting RAW has not been as important to me, despite the helpful insistence of folks in our local photo group. I am a post-processing junkie (have to be to make a four ounce camera's output look good) so on that count, RAW is truly something I should at least explore so I have another tool in the box. I don't entirely agree with the image interpretation of Canon's Digic III and Digic IV processors in my SX110 and 1200, but agree that either one is a darned good interpretation. It would be interesting to lend my own interpretation to the original data.

Hey, BTW - any advice for retrieving lost data in blown highlights? You know, Murphy's law suggests that your best image will include an uncroppable area that's blown. Especially in mountaineering and landscape photography - clouds, snow, rock... How do you guys deal with that?
User avatar
highpilgrim
Posts: 3186
Joined: 3/14/2008
14ers: 58 
13ers: 84 1
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by highpilgrim »

Dancesatmoonrise wrote:Hey, BTW - any advice for retrieving lost data in blown highlights? You know, Murphy's law suggests that your best image will include an uncroppable area that's blown. Especially in mountaineering and landscape photography - clouds, snow, rock... How do you guys deal with that?
This may be blasphemy to some, but what works sometimes for me is to shoot two images from exactly the same spot. Shoot one directly at the area that is going to overexpose and the camera will adjust for it. Shoot the second for the general view. You can (if you're careful) overlay the two images where the whole exposure is nearly perfect. I work in PS CS5 and there are great tools in there to do things like this.

I'm no professional, but this provides pretty decent results.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Hunter S Thompson

Walk away from the droning and leave the hive behind.
Dick Derkase
User avatar
mattpayne11
Posts: 992
Joined: 5/9/2009
14ers: 58 
13ers: 111
Trip Reports (48)
 
Contact:

Re: Let's see your black & whites!!

Post by mattpayne11 »

Great discussion guys!
Mark Curtis wrote:and here's why I DON'T typically shoot RAW:
- File sizes! I take a lot of photographs and shooting RAW really takes up space on hard drives (I have 4 as it is). Also, it takes up a lot more of your sd card space as you are shooting.
I agree this is a down side of RAW, for sure. I convert all of mine to DNG files in Lightroom and as I go through each import I delete the ones I don't like right out of the box. I also go through after I'm done with a project (read - trip report) and delete ones I know I will never use again. But - storage is cheap and I have yet to fill my 1.2 TB drive yet.
Mark Curtis wrote: - JPEG quality improvement. Today's DSLR in camera JPEG engine processing has improved in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. In fact, in the camera I use....the Pentax K-r....the JPEG detail is getting close to rivaling the RAW files. You have to be quite the pixel peeper to distinguish. Also, HDR is used for JPEG's and allows for a wider dynamic range.
I don't agree about .jpgs having a wider dynamic range or HDR use. I use my raw files (.DNG) to process in Photomatix. Maybe that's a flaw in process, but I have read books that say that you should. Also - it is a fact that RAW files have more dynamic range in them. When I shoot star trails at ISO 100, the frame looks black on import but when applying just a touch of exposure - boom - there's the stars!
Mark Curtis wrote: - Frames per second buffer room. Translation.....in burst mode you can typically take twice the amount of photos using JPEG's instead of RAW. This might be important if you are shooting sports or fast moving wildlife.
I think this depends on two factors - the camera and the memory card used. My camera (Nikon D7000) has 6 FPS continuous regardless of jpg or raw. ""And there is no reduction in continuous shooting frame rate even when high ISO noise reduction or Active D-Lighting is activated."

What does impact FPS is your memory card - I use two of these cards: http://www.adorama.com/IDS16GEPUHSI.html&kbid=66322 in my camera (which has two memory card slots). The better your cards, the bigger the buffer.
Mark Curtis wrote: - Less noise with JPEG's at higher ISO. For low light shots you might be able to extract more detail from shadows, etc. in RAW.....but you might need to run those photos through some kind of noise reduction software in certain situations.
I've not experienced this or read this anywhere until now- are you sure? I use the in-camera noise reduction for long exposures, so I guess it has not been an issue for me.
Mark Curtis wrote: - Post processing. Yes, the RAW files certainly provide more flexibility, but one thing about them is that you can pretty much count on doing a fairly significant amount of post processing to get a great final outcome. With JPEG's there are many times when you don't have to do much at all. For those who enjoy and have time for PP, RAW is great. But for busy folks who have other endeavors in mind it may not be ideal.
Totally agree!
Mark Curtis wrote: - One other thing that is a cool feature on my K-r is the ability to shoot in JPEG.....but having the ability to add RAW for each shot without switching to that mode (only as each photo is taken however). I will incorporate this as I am shooting if I feel I have an especially exceptional shot......or a shot where the dynamic range is extreme and might require some future extracting of detail. It also will do RAW + JPEG (as most DLSR's do, but then you are really talking about a lot of space! :-)
I need to use RAW+JPEG more often but I have yet to really find much of a use for it. I could see it being useful for a wedding where you want to get pictures up quickly for a slideshow though.
Mark Curtis wrote: Don't get me wrong. I agree with all of the positives of RAW mentioned by Matt. And for professionals it is probably heresy to suggest using anything but. I just wanted to point out there are some advantages to using JPEG's. And inherent in those points is the idea that the newer cameras are doing a much better job of providing a pleasing image to many shooters who want to take advantage of those positives.
You bring up great points. I think shooting RAW is really only useful for people that do a lot of PP like myself. Otherwise, it is a waste of space and time. LOL.
Mark Curtis wrote: Finally, while I have no doubt the advantages of Lightroom are boundless, I would throw a caveat into the use of a post processing graduated filter. That is to say, even in RAW where the chances of reversing the effect of blown highlights is greatly enhanced, there are limitations to how much the shot can be overexposed and still be able to retrieve those highlights. You can only pull back just so much. If you use a filter in the field you have more control over those situations where the dynamic range is extreme.....and don't want to take the time and effort to take two different exposures and merge.
[/quote]

I agree - really want to get a filter! I also want to get one of those filters that reduces the number of stops! Sexy clouds!

highpilgrim wrote: This may be blasphemy to some, but what works sometimes for me is to shoot two images from exactly the same spot. Shoot one directly at the area that is going to overexpose and the camera will adjust for it. Shoot the second for the general view. You can (if you're careful) overlay the two images where the whole exposure is nearly perfect. I work in PS CS5 and there are great tools in there to do things like this.

I'm no professional, but this provides pretty decent results.
Good call man! I agree. I like to sometimes use the function in photomatix for exposure blending. It is good for situations like this. The key is to have a very steady image or you will see ghosting artifacts and other nasty stuff.

P.S. Jim - congrats on getting published - I'm jealous!
Post Reply