The Learning Curve

[MICKEY88]

interesting that you should mention that, right after I got my A700s
I did a shoot using a new 16gig card, when I went to upload the pics to my pc, they were missing, so I downloaded ZAR to try to recover the pics from the card, I sucessfuly recovered the pics, but thought it was odd that they were recovered as tiff files.

I then discovered that ZAR does not support Sony A700 RAw files, neither does PAint shop pro photo X2, which we all know is my editing software of choice...that piqued my curiosity even farther, so I copied some of my raw files {from another shoot} into a seperate folder, then changed the extension to. tiff, just to see what would happen.

I was then able to open the files with PAint shop pro photo X2, so I kind of suspected, that the Sony A700 Raw was a tiff file, although I couldn't find anything to support my theory, thanks for the info..

 

[MICKEY88]

I couldn't find where this had been discussed yet. I've been doing some reading on digital photography and ran across a recommendation that pics be stored as Tiff files instead of jpg's since they won't degrade with editing etc, like jpg's will. This was after he recommended always shooting raw - Tiff's were for storage. Anyone know more about this and if it's correct?

what I've been doing since getting the A700 and checking out the software thaat SOny included with it is this..

I shoot Raw, upload to my pc, then open the folder with Image Data Lightbox, from there I either batch process, which has been the case with most pics so far, or I open with Image Data Converter, for minor edits, if I want to play more I can then open the image into PAint shop pro photo X2, each program lets you open into the next, it's a really nice workflow....once I process a photo or photos I save copy as... into a new folder... that way my raw files stay untouched in the original folder..

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thanks everyone for the information and opinions on image saving - especially relating to tiff formats. A few months ago I had a discussion with an aunt who is very much into photo archiving. She had attended a seminar on it and had been told that all of our photos are doomed - that all files will degrade and be gone in less that 100 years. I find this very doubtful but interesting. So when I read the comment about tiff's versus jpg I thought perhaps the comments at the seminar had been more related to jpg's. Not that I think my photos need to survive any longer than I do!

what I've been doing since getting the A700 and checking out the software thaat SOny included with it is this..

I shoot Raw, upload to my pc, then open the folder with Image Data Lightbox, from there I either batch process, which has been the case with most pics so far, or I open with Image Data Converter, for minor edits, if I want to play more I can then open the image into PAint shop pro photo X2, each program lets you open into the next, it's a really nice workflow....once I process a photo or photos I save copy as... into a new folder... that way my raw files stay untouched in the original folder..

I haven't quite gotten the batch process figured out. I looked at it (for about 15 seconds I admit) but it didn't operate the way I thought it should. I hadn't made it back to it yet but it's one of those things on my list that I'll get to hopefully sooner rather than later. It helps me a lot to know the steps someone takes in their processing as I've been questioning my steps.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I'll add this subject to the index.

Hey, who's shooting fireworks over the next few days - with new cameras? I think I'll bump up the Shooting Fireworks thread.

 

[dr_zero]

Thanks everyone for the information and opinions on image saving - especially relating to tiff formats. A few months ago I had a discussion with an aunt who is very much into photo archiving. She had attended a seminar on it and had been told that all of our photos are doomed - that all files will degrade and be gone in less that 100 years. I find this very doubtful but interesting. So when I read the comment about tiff's versus jpg I thought perhaps the comments at the seminar had been more related to jpg's. Not that I think my photos need to survive any longer than I do!

Most media now days CD/DVD will be gone in the near future either replaced by Blu-ray or whatever flavor there is coming down the road not to mention the CD/DVD if they are not certain ones degrade themselves and will lose data.

Backup your files to multiple locations on GOOD Cd's I like www.cdmediaworld.com/ to read up on the new stuff and find out who really makes my cd's.
Nero will tell you and some other programs can read a blank disk and tell you who really makes them.

http://askbobrankin.com//lifetime_of_a_cdrom_disk.html
http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/2006/10/30/how-to-choose-cddvd-archival-media

 

[Groucho]

Hey Groucho, you probably know this, but for those who don't, mp3s are compressed audio files. My DH and I own a commercial recording facility and we still use WAV or AIFF. It (AIFF) is the industry standard (For now). There is a huge difference in the audio quality and volume from an uncompressed WAV or AIFF file and mp3s.

This is a pretty valid comparison, again WAVs are incredibly primitive but survive due to having a solid foothold, meanwhile a more modern format like FLAC or Monkey's Audio does everything that WAV does and more, while creating much smaller files - unless you're using some piece of software or hardware that cannot function with FLAC, it makes more sense IMHO to use that for your lossless storage needs. Same with PNG vs TIFF.

I don't know if I agree that there's a huge difference with MP3s - it takes a pretty highly trained ear (or staring at Adobe Audition ) to tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a WAV, and once you get into MP3 Pro or the other even more modern lossy formats, you're starting to get in the realm of those mystical "golden ears" who swear by all the nutty nonsense that unscrupulous companies sell to gullible audiophiles. As I'm sure you know, you'll hear plenty of people talking about the greater "warmth" of their albums over CDs/WAVs too, and then there's the even higher-quality sound of DTS CDs, DVD Audio, and SACDs... but again, like with JPGs, MP3s are certainly not appropriate formats when editing sounds, but pretty good for a final output.

Thanks everyone for the information and opinions on image saving - especially relating to tiff formats. A few months ago I had a discussion with an aunt who is very much into photo archiving. She had attended a seminar on it and had been told that all of our photos are doomed - that all files will degrade and be gone in less that 100 years. I find this very doubtful but interesting. So when I read the comment about tiff's versus jpg I thought perhaps the comments at the seminar had been more related to jpg's. Not that I think my photos need to survive any longer than I do!

You definitely should be doubtful! No files are "doomed", it's only the media that is a problem. Hard drives are very unreliable, CDs and DVDs degrade over time (though I think the problem is overstated, based on my experience burning CDs for well over a decade now), and even tapes will degrade though not so much.

What I do is, when a new format comes along, I eventually replace my old stuff onto the new format. This has a few benefits - redundancy, less media to worry about (the new stuff usually holds a lot more and my originals usually just go on a spindle somewhere), fresh copies, etc. I'm pretty far along with converting all my data CDs to DVDs, and when BluRay media gets cheap, I'll grab a burner and start using that for storage. I expect that in less than 5 years, most of my storage will be on BluRays. Burners are already getting close to $250... I just bought a BluRay reader for my home theater PC for all of $130. A single-layer BluRay will hold about as much as six DVDs, and a single-layer DVD will hold about as much as seven CDs.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

OT but Groucho, I like your new signature line. I've thought about doing something similar.

 

[boBQuincy]

I don't know if I agree that there's a huge difference with MP3s - it takes a pretty highly trained ear (or staring at Adobe Audition ) to tell the difference between a high-bitrate MP3 and a WAV, and once you get into MP3 Pro or the other even more modern lossy formats, you're starting to get in the realm of those mystical "golden ears" who swear by all the nutty nonsense that unscrupulous companies sell to gullible audiophiles. As I'm sure you know, you'll hear plenty of people talking about the greater "warmth" of their albums over CDs/WAVs too, and then there's the even higher-quality sound of DTS CDs, DVD Audio, and SACDs... but again, like with JPGs, MP3s are certainly not appropriate formats when editing sounds, but pretty good for a final output.

We all know that tube amplifiers sound better and speakers require $10/foot cables to work well!

You definitely should be doubtful! No files are "doomed", it's only the media that is a problem.

I agree, it is the media that is the problem. Media, as in internet, tv, newspaper, etc. that keep telling us how doomed our digital files are. It only takes a quick look at statistical reliability to show just how good a few redundant systems can be. If we keep our data in three places it is *highly unlikely* that we will lose it.

 

[Groucho]

OT but Groucho, I like your new signature line. I've thought about doing something similar.

Thanks - I really have to do it, I'm at least a month behind in processing photos (at least!), busy with life, etc... lately I've only been getting on here every three or so days, then it takes a couple hours, and I'm skipping many threads, not participating in any ongoing things like projects or games (with the exception of the contests and one PotD thread)... it's just too much. Cutting out mostly redundant "what to buy" threads should help, especially cutting out the time researching before writing a statement to make sure that it's not going to come back to haunt me.

We all know that tube amplifiers sound better and speakers require $10/foot cables to work well!

Did you ever see this? A few years ago, AOpen sold a PC motherboard with onboard sound that actually used tube amplifiers. !!!

My main local photography buddy has a tube-amp sound system set up in his in-home studio. (Just a spare room, with shelves full of old Kodak cameras and a Hasselblad set up along with some umbrellas, a background, etc.) Neat but I'm not sure that's it's all that much better than any other setup. I did use to have a Teac amp that had some bamboo in it...

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

We all know that tube amplifiers sound better and speakers require $10/foot cables to work well!

Well, I don't believe in the $10/ft cables, but Tube amps do sound a lot better. Most professional recording facilities still use old tube amps, and analog outboard gear. Of course we still render everything down to digital, but the difference between an all digital recording vs. analog to digital is huge. If you look at the waveform in the computer side by side, there is no comparison -- visually you can see it. Audiophiles can hear it. Even non professionals can hear the difference when the final product is played side by side on the same equipment.
If the old tube stuff wasn't so great there wouldn't be tons of software out there in the digital world trying to 'simulate' it. Digital audio is just cheaper and more accessible to the average joe who wants to claim to own a recording studio in their bedroom and that's the bottom line... Sorry, back to photography....

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Hey Pea-n-me, how about a discussion of hyperfocal distance? I don't know if you covered this or not, but I found this on line and thought it may help someone. I hate math , so I'm still trying to figure it all out.

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3513b.htm

sorry that was page 2, here's page 1: http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3513.htm

 

[Dcanoli]

Well, I'm glad this thread popped up in my Inbox tonight because it reminded me that I have a question, and I'm sure it's relatively easy for you "pros" on this board, but since I am still a newbie with SLRs, I thought I'd ask....

Are you ready? Okay, here I go....

Why is it with SLRs that sometimes when you take a picture with multiple subjects (let's just say--two people or two shoes...two anything...) only one comes out focused?

Is it a setting within the menu controls or is this just how SLRs operate? Does it have to do with a focus setting or a meter setting? (..and no, I haven't taken the time to fully research metering yet...as you can tell! LOL...)

I just want BOTH my boys to be in focus when I take their picture. At the present, I am having to point at one subject and get the Auto Focus on it, and then move the camera over so that both subjects are in the frame.

Do I need to manual focus? I'm just thinking I have a setting wrong somewhere....

Any quick tips or suggestions? Thanks!

 

[MassJester]

Well, I'm glad this thread popped up in my Inbox tonight because it reminded me that I have a question, and I'm sure it's relatively easy for you "pros" on this board, but since I am still a newbie with SLRs, I thought I'd ask....

Are you ready? Okay, here I go....

Why is it with SLRs that sometimes when you take a picture with multiple subjects (let's just say--two people or two shoes...two anything...) only one comes out focused?

Is it a setting within the menu controls or is this just how SLRs operate? Does it have to do with a focus setting or a meter setting? (..and no, I haven't taken the time to fully research metering yet...as you can tell! LOL...)

I just want BOTH my boys to be in focus when I take their picture. At the present, I am having to point at one subject and get the Auto Focus on it, and then move the camera over so that both subjects are in the frame.

Do I need to manual focus? I'm just thinking I have a setting wrong somewhere....

Any quick tips or suggestions? Thanks!

The first things that comes to my mind is that your depth of field may be too narrow. You might try closing the aperture a little.

 

[Dcanoli]

Hmmm...hadn't really thought of that...but would that be the case if you have two subjects standing side-by-side?

 

[handicap18]

Hmmm...hadn't really thought of that...but would that be the case if you have two subjects standing side-by-side?

I would say its definitely a DOF issue. Even if you think they are standing next to each other they may not be. If one is an inch or so behind the other and your using a wide aperture then you'll have one in focus and one out of focus.

I would check the EXIF date on the image. I've had shots with f/4 where 1 of 3 people are slightly out of focus. I should have used at least f/5.6.

How to fix it in the future. Bump up your ISO so you can get a smaller f/stop. f/5.6 would be good, but I can't say for certain, you may need closer to f/8. Though I have gotten some tack sharp images with ISO 400, 1/60th and f/5.6 with three people in the image and not standing or sitting next to each other. They were all close together, but directly in line.

If your taking a picture with more than a few people in it you'll need probably at least f/5.6 or f/8 and a good flash if indoors along with no slower than ISO400, but maybe 800. At lot will depend on the lighting conditions and how powerful your flash is to give you more light. The smaller the f/stop the more light you need.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

but Tube amps do sound a lot better.

Do they? What do you mean by better - more pleasant or a more accurate reproduction of the input signal? In other words, do they introduce a distortion that sounds pleasant (like a warming filter on a lens) or is there something about them that cannot be reproduced by solid state electronics?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Sorry guys, been away for a while.

I wanted to include this: Focusing to Infinity

Hey Pea-n-me, how about a discussion of hyperfocal distance?

Sure. I'll add it to the Index. (Still have to read your link myself.) Can you tell us more about it? I've never heard the term before.

 

[Groucho]

Why is it with SLRs that sometimes when you take a picture with multiple subjects (let's just say--two people or two shoes...two anything...) only one comes out focused?

Like others have said, it's almost certainly a DoF issue. You're probably seeing a difference because of the much larger sensor in a DSLR versus a digital PnS. The PnS's tiny sensor means that DoF effect is minimized to a large degree, so it's more common to have more things in focus at once. The problem is that you can't get great shallow DoF when you want to!

As for Hyperfocal... this is on where it helps a lot to have an older and/or high-end lens that actually has DoF markings on it. The reason to use the hyperfocal distance actually directly related to Dcanoli's question.

Think of it this way. At a given aperture, you'll have a certainly size DoF. If you set your lens to focus at infinity, then you only get about half of your available DoF - in other words, you'll get the range of things closer in focus, but since you're already at infinity, the extra DoF is effectively "lost".

In order to get the maximum DoF, you need to focus at the hyperfocal distance - this is the focus point where, as your given aperture, infinity is just barely in focus. This will give you the largest possible DoF while still keeping far-away objects sharp and in focus.

Now, ideally, you are using a lens with the markings that tell you this information... for example, here's my Zenitar 16mm fisheye (I just happen to have a decent shot of its markings online.)

The red line in the middle is where the center of your focus is. The yellow markings above it are the distance, this is part of the focus ring. This is currently set to focus at about 1.2 meters. Now, notice the matching green aperture numbers that are on either side of the red focus indicator. Those tell you the DoF for that aperture.

To get the hyperfocal, you move the infinity indicator to the marker for the aperture you're using. In this shot, if you're using F8, you should be able to get infinity in focus. Looking on the other side, F8 likes up to around 0.65 or 0.7 meters. That means that at the current focus setting and F8, everything about from 0.7 meters to infinity will be in focus. This is a pretty huge DoF, because it's such a wide lens - set it here and by and large, you don't even have to worry about focusing it, because virtually everything will be in focus. For comparison, if you focused the lens directly at infinity, your DoF would only be around 1.2 meters to infinity - the difference would be quite a bit more on a lens with more focal length.

So, are you thoroughly confused yet? Obviously, hyperfocal is much easier to determine when your lens has all the markings, which is getting rarer and rarer nowadays. Even rarer is the little red "R" that's on that lens, that is for infrared photography.

 

[Dcanoli]

Like others have said, it's almost certainly a DoF issue. You're probably seeing a difference because of the much larger sensor in a DSLR versus a digital PnS. The PnS's tiny sensor means that DoF effect is minimized to a large degree, so it's more common to have more things in focus at once. The problem is that you can't get great shallow DoF when you want to!

As for Hyperfocal... this is on where it helps a lot to have an older and/or high-end lens that actually has DoF markings on it. The reason to use the hyperfocal distance actually directly related to Dcanoli's question.

Think of it this way. At a given aperture, you'll have a certainly size DoF. If you set your lens to focus at infinity, then you only get about half of your available DoF - in other words, you'll get the range of things closer in focus, but since you're already at infinity, the extra DoF is effectively "lost".

In order to get the maximum DoF, you need to focus at the hyperfocal distance - this is the focus point where, as your given aperture, infinity is just barely in focus. This will give you the largest possible DoF while still keeping far-away objects sharp and in focus.

Now, ideally, you are using a lens with the markings that tell you this information... for example, here's my Zenitar 16mm fisheye (I just happen to have a decent shot of its markings online.)

The red line in the middle is where the center of your focus is. The yellow markings above it are the distance, this is part of the focus ring. This is currently set to focus at about 1.2 meters. Now, notice the matching green aperture numbers that are on either side of the red focus indicator. Those tell you the DoF for that aperture.

To get the hyperfocal, you move the infinity indicator to the marker for the aperture you're using. In this shot, if you're using F8, you should be able to get infinity in focus. Looking on the other side, F8 likes up to around 0.65 or 0.7 meters. That means that at the current focus setting and F8, everything about from 0.7 meters to infinity will be in focus. This is a pretty huge DoF, because it's such a wide lens - set it here and by and large, you don't even have to worry about focusing it, because virtually everything will be in focus. For comparison, if you focused the lens directly at infinity, your DoF would only be around 1.2 meters to infinity - the difference would be quite a bit more on a lens with more focal length.

So, are you thoroughly confused yet? Obviously, hyperfocal is much easier to determine when your lens has all the markings, which is getting rarer and rarer nowadays. Even rarer is the little red "R" that's on that lens, that is for infrared photography.

Yes, now I am thoroughly confused!

I will have to re-read thru this and concentrate on it. I never understand the focusing on infinity thing.

Did you mean to include a picture of your lens? It looks like you left some space there, but then maybe forgot to go back and put a picture in.

Anyway....I understand what everyone keeps saying about DOF, but I'm talking about subjects side-by-side. Say I take a picture of my two boys.

I have to literally pick one of the boys to be in focus. I focus on one and then move the camera over to center the boys. Sometimes, I take two pictures so I'll have a picture with each of them in focus.

In my mind, I'm thinking DOF is subjects in front of and behind each other, not two people standing side-by-side.

Guess...I'll keep reading and understanding! Thanks Jeff for the long reply!

 

[Dcanoli]

Well, dang, Jeff--the picture is up now!