photo sharing: Spectromagic!

[Olaf]

Those are great, Groucho.

 

[handicap18]

Good info Groucho, I'll be taking note for later this year as I plan on taking photos of Spectro and MVMCP parade which may be a little tougher as there aren't the lights with the floats, though maybe easier because using the flash wouldn't be as much of an issue because there are no colorful lights to wash out.

 

[ehagerty]

Never heard of it before - but just googled it, read up on it, and will give the demo version a try. I certainly understand the concept and the application - now I need to determine if I have sufficient need to acquire a copy.

Groucho - do you have any before pictures for comparison?

 

[jann1033]

Never heard of it before - but just googled it, read up on it, and will give the demo version a try. I certainly understand the concept and the application - now I need to determine if I have sufficient need to acquire a copy.

Groucho - do you have any before pictures for comparison?

the noiseware community version is free . there is a free neat image as well but it only works on smaller photos ( larger one it only processes part of the photo)

 

[Groucho]

Groucho - do you have any before pictures for comparison?

Ahh, you want to peek behind the curtain? Seriously, though, sure.

Since they're already loading if you're looking at this page, I'll also show the de-noised ones again. I kept the sizes similar to make it fair. These are both ISO 1600.

The warmup, before de-noising:

The warmup, after de-noising:
(image missing)

The creepy lighted face guys, before de-noising:

The creepy lighted face guys, after de-noising:

The noise levels in the originals weren't bad at all, IMHO, I just figured that I'd clean them up to make them that much more presentable. I usually don't bother due to the loss of fine detail, but I have been going through my old 5mp PnS pictures and trying to clean those up - many of them are big, noisy messes, and a presentation but "plasticky" picture is better than one that is shamefully noisy.

On general Spectromagic talk, here's a couple of "failed" photos that are kind of interesting.

I think this was one of my attempts at panning - didn't work, and someone else's flash going off during it gives it a really strange effect. ISO 400, F3.5, 1/8th second.

Speaking of flashes, they do look kind of interesting when you catch other people's going off... here's two... ISO 400, F6.7, 2 seconds.

 

[ehagerty]

Next curiosity question - when you post the shooting information, are you documenting what the camera selected or did you select everything yourself? I know you mentioned aperature setting - but exactly what are you doing? Turn shooting mode to "x", manipulate "y" dial to "z" setting? I don't have my camera handy, but want to practice the steps to internalize them before next vacation.

 

[Groucho]

Well, I'm mostly just reading the exif data and off the top of my head, I don't remember for sure. Fortunately, the exif data does store what mode I was in... so I can check. Let's see... I know I did set the ISO to 1600 manually right off the bat. I believe I was using the monopod, also.

I think I may have mentioned that I was doing a lot of experimenting during the parade. The warmup photo and the creepy-face guys were shot in aperture priority mode, set to F1.7.

I then got a couple blurry photos with those settings, when one shot went to 1/60th of a second and another went to 1/8th. I switched to shutter priority with the idea of doing some tracking photos - the first being the 1/8th second Mickey shot that I posted just above this. The next one was the 2-second one also posted above. I did a "test" 1-second shot that actually turned out pretty good but doesn't really have the parade in it, just crowd. In retrospect, it's probably the steadiest monopod shot I got all trip. Did another 1-second but it's a bit blurry (doesn't help that it's F1.7 vs F5.6 for the one before) and the only parade float is half off the frame! Bleah! I did a few more shots, some at one second then 1/2 a second, and decided that my tracking skills were useless, and went back to aperture priority mode, F1.7.

I did a couple shots like that, then F1.4, then went back to shutter priority again, at 1/90th second. That seemed to work well, and the Alice and Minnie Mouse photos that I originally posted were shot that way.

I think I mentioned above, but at the risk of repeating myself, next time, I'd do shutter priority, at least 1/90th (maybe faster), auto ISO set to 200-1600, and maybe even try some shots at ISO 3200 as the 1600 ones generally turned out pretty good, noise-wise.

 

[ehagerty]

..... I did Spectro with ISO = 1600 and the camera selecting all of the other variables ("P" on the dial). My camera does not have 3200 - which seems like a significant feature that you are using that I do not have. What camera are you using?

 

[Groucho]

My camera is the Pentax *ist DL ($367 after rebate, with kit lens - best deal ever) - but it has the same sensor as the 6mp Nikons which are limited to ISO 1600, so you can probably achieve similar results by setting the exposure compensation to -1.0 and shooting at 1600, then "pushing" it to 3200 in software by adjusting the exposure up a step, usually in the raw conversion step (you'll definitely want to shoot in raw if you try that.) It is pretty noisy, but in the right environment, it definitely can produce a usable photo.

It looks like you got pretty good results, though taking wider photos certainly helps (less motion blur, etc.) There's no exif data in your photos so I can't compare that but I'm guessing that most are 1/60th of a second or faster?

I also found myself pushing the exposure compensation up (settling on +1.5) in order to bring out more details in the floats and performers - since the lights are so bright, the default metering will often produce fairly well-exposed lights but the backgrounds are very dark and it's difficult to see anything but the lights. Sometimes this is a good effect, sometimes it's not what you're after. It all depends on the kind of picture you're trying to take...

 

[AbbysFamily]

Although my pictures are NOWHERE near as nice as the SLR ones posted above, I thought I share my take on spectro. The following pictures were all taken fall of 2005 with my Canon S2 IS.

So they show spectro 'can' be taken with a non-slr too... Enjoy!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2824342817537192380&pr=goog-sl

 

[LMarge]

AbbysFamily -- great job on the video -- my kids loved it!!
I have the S2IS as well, and will be shooting with it this fall. I love seeing what is and isn't possible with this camera! Have a great day and TFS!!

 

[AbbysFamily]

AbbysFamily -- great job on the video -- my kids loved it!!
I have the S2IS as well, and will be shooting with it this fall. I love seeing what is and isn't possible with this camera! Have a great day and TFS!!

Thanks.. Nice to get feedback from someone "outside the family". It is one chapter out of a photo-dvd that I am making. I may post some more if there is positive feedback.

So far I've finished the trip down, CBR, spectro, and MNSSHP parade.. I may post more of the 'non-family' type ones as I finish them.

 

[carolina_yankee]

Groucho - I really love the photo with the CM on Main Street. Great shot!

This is my contribution to the effort:

These are with my 28-75 using the P setting. Next time, I'm going to try my 50 prime at 1.8 to see what I can do. I'd like to use a tripod and try for more background.

Dirk

 

[Groucho]

Nice work, Carolina Yankee, especially the first one - I don't know if it was intentional or not to frame the castle like that, but it's a nice effect. (Something I may have to remember for next time....... heheh)

 

[carolina_yankee]

Thanks - I didn't set the shot up that way - but certianly notice it once the floats were in place!

Dirk

 

[MassJester]

Hey Dirk,

I enjoyed the photos on your web site. I was struck by the colors in many of your outdoor shots--they have a vivid "pop" that I thought was quite interesting.

I looked at the shots from inside the Floridian for a while. How do you adjust your white balance for interior shots? Just curious.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[carolina_yankee]

Hey Dirk,

I enjoyed the photos on your web site. I was struck by the colors in many of your outdoor shots--they have a vivid "pop" that I thought was quite interesting.

Thanks for visiting the site and the compliment. Pop Century is particularly easy to get that "pop"! I used a Polarizing filter on some of the shots, and I tend to keep the expoure adjustment at -2/3, which helps bring out the colors. My Rebel XT tends to over expose if I keep the epxoure adjustment at 0 in sunlight.

I looked at the shots from inside the Floridian for a while. How do you adjust your white balance for interior shots? Just curious.

The Floridian is very, very hard for me to photograph. The sunlight coming in through the atrium windows makes it hard to get a non-tripod shot without blowing out the windows or under-exposing the atrium. That said, I checked my exif data and it said I used auto white balance. I guess the XT just did a good job.

In that setting, I would try auto, daylight, incandescent, and cloudy and then see which I liked best in the view finder.

The other thing is that I also shoot RAW, which makes white balance adjustments very, very easy. I can't remember if I tweaked those, but it wouldn't have been by much.

At the end of the day, I think it's just trial and error and learning the quirks of your camera (like adjusting exposure in the XT by -2/3 for almost every shot).

Dirk

 

[Groucho]

I had the same issues with Grand Floridian. I ultimately ended up being, well, inconsistent. For example:

This shot I went with the "auto" white balance...

But this shot I went with the tungsten (IIRC) white balance (converting the RAW).

The second shot is almost certainly more a true representation of the actual colors, but the first shot is "warmer" and not too yellow-tinted, so I decided to leave that one as is.

 

[carolina_yankee]

This is my RAW shot with auto white balance for the gingerbread house:

You're right - it is a bit on the warm side, but does give a nice effect. I particularly like it here:

I think this is pretty true to color, but the auto white didn't have to fight between the sunlight and incandescent so much due to the windows.

It's all in the eye, isn't it? And a great reason to keep going back: trying new angles and settings!

Dirk

 

[MassJester]

Groucho, I think you're right that the colors in the second were likley more true--but it struck me as being a pinch over exposed--am I wrong about that?