Posts: Gene51 | Ugly Hedgehog

Photojournal wrote:

Is there a much noticeable difference between Topaz denoise/sharpening Vs what can be done in Lightroom? Ie… is it worth the $$ for the results?

Yes. Depending on image content, image size and viewing distances it can be a modest improvement or massive one.

(Main Photography Discussion)

RAW vs JPEG: a brief discussion with color management.

RichieC wrote:

Funny thing is in any of these discussions is... RAW & Jpeg are two entirely different things.

One is a compression algorithm that is made FROM a RAW capture, the other the original digital capture format before a final presentation/output format is decided upon.

Really a workflow conversation.

I personally can't ever get past this distinction when ever I see these RAW vs JPEG discussions.

Yes. Whether or not the photographer is satisfied with setting up the camera to process the raw files as a final result, or if the photographer want's to really explore the camera's capabilities beyond the ham-handed, somewhat generic settings and is fine with a little time spent post processing to get the most out of the file and come closer to the creative intent.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Darkroom experiences

TriX wrote:

I bought my Bessler 45 with a Dichro head and motorized chassis plus the timer and a Rodenstock APO Rodagon, the Bessler timer and 3 carriers for $150 at a thrift store some years ago - looks unused. So there are some real bargains out there on film darkroom equipment now that the world had mostly gone digital.

No doubt.

(Main Photography Discussion)

RAW vs JPEG: a brief discussion with color management.

JD750 wrote:

Ok i can't help myself. Either I can reply to this or go outside and clean out the gopher trap which sprung last night (my girlfriend is elated because this gopher has been destroying the lawn). Ok I will make this short. The trap awaits. I want to make two points:

(1) Apologies to Mr Camerapapi, but color management and raw vs jpeg are separate topics.
(2) Raw vs JPEG is a format choice. Color Management is a process for achieving accurate and consistent color.

Except that for the best crack at getting neutral color out of a camera often starts with using a ColorChecker Passport as a target, shooting it as a raw file, and creating a color camera profile in Lightroom.

Of course every other step of the workflow has to be profiled and "managed" but it does start with the camera.

So the two topics are not as separate as the purists on either side would like them to be. Just sayin'

(Main Photography Discussion)

Darkroom experiences

repsychler wrote:

I am in the process of setting up a darkroom for developing and printing B&W film. I am writing to see if anyone has any words of wisdom or helpful experience that they would like to share.
I am currently concerned about the importance (or lack thereof) of adequate ventilation and/ or maintaining the temperature and/or humidity of the darkroom, especially when it is not in use.
I’m waiting on Amazon to send a concrete nailer, so my project is on pause.

Try and get a "Cold Light Head" for your enlarger. Better contrast control. Modest temperature control is good to have. I had Beseler 5x7 with a fully motorized chassis (both focus and height were motor driven), and both a condenser head and a cold light head. I bought it used in 1970 for around $450. I just looked and a new 45mxt is almost $3K - damn!

(Main Photography Discussion)

Bird Watchers

Urnst wrote:

I wonder how many present bird watchers were into birds before the advent of modern telephoto camera lenses.

I bought my first copy of Field Guide to The Birds: Eastern Land and Water Birds in 1969. Along with a pair of Bausch and Lomb binoculars.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Best Paris Walk Around Lens?

picsix wrote:

I'm heading to Paris in a few weeks. Bringing my Canon R5 with the RF 24-105MM. Is that enough or should I also bring the RF 50MM? Or the 50mm instead? I'm also bringing my Leica M10-P with a 35mm lens for street photography. Any suggestions would be helpful.

I don't know of any mfgr that makes a Paris-specific lens. Just bring your favorite and have fun.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Best Paris Walk Around Lens?

rcarol wrote:

Paris - The City of Lights. This is one of my favo... (show quote)

FYI:

On March 15, 1667, Louis XIV made Gabriel Nicolas de la Reynie the Lieutenant General of Police, entrusting him with the task of making Paris more safe. In addition to quadrupling the number of policemen in the city, one of the measures was to install more lighting. Lanterns were placed on almost every main street and residents were asked to light their windows with candles and oil lamps. The idea was to prevent lawbreakers from dodging the police or hiding in dark alleys, therefore reducing the crime rate. From here on, the city gained the nickname La Ville-Lumière (‘The City of Light’).

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/paris/articles/real-reason-paris-called-city-lights/

(Main Photography Discussion)

Import to LR

Jrhoffman75 wrote:

Apple Photos stores images in its own area. See below:

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/migrate-photos-aperture.html

This is good if the OP has a Mac and uses a long abandoned Aperture photo app or Photos. He could be using Windows Photos.

(Main Photography Discussion)

RX10m4 CIZ example

a6k wrote:

These 4 pics were shot on full auto so that the CIZ would work. Two were with my a6500 and FE 70-200 F4 and two with my RX10m4.

These are all SOOC JPG's, of course. I used the "quality" setting that gives the largest JPG in all cases. The distance is about 400'. The time was after 10 am and before noon, sky somewhat clear, Detroit area but not inside the air pollution bubble/dome. The a6500 shots were actually about an hour later.

One RX10m4 shot was at 600 mm equivalent and the other is full-on CIZ so 1200 mm. The exposure is nearly perfect if you consider that the brightest white on the railing is just a hair under 250 on my Mac's Digital Color Meter. The white cover on the porch awning is 255,255,255 on that meter.

The other two shots were the a6500 FE70-200 at 200 mm physically which is equivalent to 300 mm and with CIZ to show equivalent 600 mm. It's a manual zoom lens. The camera has a user-setting to invoke the CIZ and the "hat switch" is used to move from 1X to 2X continuously variable. This is not anywhere near as easy as with the RX10m4.

Now all you pixel peepers and download zealots should have something to work with. As most of you know, the RX10m4 sensor is a "one inch" size and the a6500 is a 1.5x crop frame.

Both shots include normal architecture as well as a bit of nature's shapes. The sky conditions between pairs changed a little.

The EXIF's will give the details but if you can't read them let me know and I will respond with screen captures of them.

A note of observation: Each pair has smaller file sizes for the CIZ version. But since the 2X zoom would be expected to include only 25% of the image area the logical explanation is that Sony is doing a lot of very interesting stuff with CIZ. The EXIF says the pixel dimensions of the shot are the same with and without CIZ. Sony is filling in the spaces, I guess.

I measured a distance on the images on one pair with and without CIZ and as I expected, the linear dimension on the CIZ version was about 0.5X. That means the CIZ image area is .25X. I also measured an object on the CIZ version of the a6500 (600 mm) and the non-CIZ version of the RX10m4 (600) and the sizes were almost exactly the same. So in this case, 600=600.

These 4 pics were shot on full auto so that the CI... (show quote)

I suspect that Topaz, On1 and other software publishers have resizing and image enhancement applications that produce a much better result than CIZ, and you retain all the autofocus capability, and can apply the resizing to a raw file, so the photographer has more flexibility.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Import to LR

AZRetired wrote:

I have my photos stored in the Photos application on my laptop and want to import them to LR classic. I don’t find them in the Import screen, where are they?

I am assuming you want to leave the files where they are, and only adding them to a Lightroom catalog so you can edit them in LR.

When you open the import screed, on the left side of the screen there is a Section called "Source." You can drill down through the drives and folders until you find what you are looking for.

Since you are leaving them where they are now, you would use the "Add" option over the center of the main part of the screen. When you select "Add" a note will appear immediately below it that reads "Add photos to catalog without moving them" .

Copy as DNG will make a copy of them to a place that you specify in the upper right corner and write them as DNG files. The source files will remain where they are.

Copy does the same thing, but does not write a dng. If you have a raw/jpeg file it will make an exact duplicate.

Move does as the name implies. I never use that because any glitch can render the only copy of your file unopenable.

Add is probably what you want to use.

(Main Photography Discussion)

So, I've gotten roped into shooting a wedding. Yikes! Any advice greatly appreciated.

Fredrick wrote:

OK, against my better judgement, I have agreed to shoot a wedding for my cousin’s son’s wedding. Please don’t tell me it’s a really bad idea and that I should offer to pay for a professional photographer. I know you all mean well. I’ve already done that. As a bit of background:
I recently took a series of photos at another wedding (as a guest … they also had a professional photographer) and sent them out to a number of relatives. This groom to be (this August), his fiancée, and his parents looked at the photos and called me and begged me to shoot their wedding. I said no, no, no and downplayed any expectations, but to no avail. They loved the photos that I did as a guest at another wedding, so I just don’t see a way out of this without jeopardizing our relationship. No, I’ve not shot a wedding before. I’m mostly a landscape and street photographer.
So, I’m going to go ahead with this, and here is where I would appreciate any help and insight you could provide:
I currently own a Fuji X100V (fixed 35mm FF equiv, 26mp camera) and a Fuji X-T2 (24mm MILC camera) with plenty of zoom and prime lenses. The X100V has a leaf shutter, enabling me to fill flash up to 1/4,000 of a second. I have just a little experience using flash outdoors or indoors.
The wedding will be at my cousin's house (with a huge backyard). The ceremony will take place in the afternoon in the backyard, and reception will be in the backyard and also inside the house. Probably around 40-50 people. Lots of young adults and laid back relatives.
What I’m trying to figure out is, which camera do I use? Do I use both? What focal lengths? All the photos that I took at the other wedding as a guest was with my X100V, using fill flash with the built-in camera flash. Do I use one camera for outside and one camera for inside the house? The X100V has a built in digital teleconverter for 50mm and 70mm (in addition to the 35mm) which I can easily change. Which flash unit (if any) should I buy? I’m looking at Nissin and Godox TTL flashes (and my head is spinning). I realize if I use a flash I will have to practice quite a bit for it to become second nature to me (I have 4 months before the wedding). I plan on shooting in RAW + Jpeg, and use PSE and Luminar for post processing.
As you can see, I have some decisions to make before I start practicing. Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

OK, against my better judgement, I have agreed to ... (show quote)

You should read this site - https://neilvn.com/tangents/wedding-photography-tutorials/

If afterwards you think you can handle shooting a wedding - best of luck.

If you are asking about focal lengths and which camera to bring and whether you will need a flash that you don't already have, then I am pretty sure you should follow your initial gut feeling and continue to say no, no, no, no. And you can use the rationale that you want to share in the joy and excitement of the moment and not have to be encumbered with shooting the event. One thing is casually shooting as a guest, and the other is sitting down with the couple and hashing out the required photo list, venue for the formal shots, whether they want posed or photojournalistic style or both, dealing with the dueling mothers-in-law to be, etc etc etc. Then drawing up a contract for services, including compensation for said services. Doing it for free because of a familial connection is likely going to result in some tension.

It seems that the technical questions you are asking will be the least of your concerns.

On a side note, shooting raw+jpeg is not as good as shooting raw+raw - assuming your cameras can do that. When you shoot a picture of a bride in a white wedding dress next to a white cake and a groom in a black tux, you'll understand why raw will give you a better result. Though I will say that Fuji cameras I have used do have quite a bit of highlight headroom before all is lost. And you are only going to bring one speedlight? Really? and if it fails, what are you going to do? If you don't want to buy one, at least rent so that you can take any equipment failure in stride and not spoil the day.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Which printer for pix

hdwolfe wrote:

Looking for a printer that will be used only for pics. Something that does a good job without breaking the bank either for the printer or the ink. Say <$600 or so. TYIA.

I assume you are talking about a 6 or 8 color printer specifically for printing photos.

I would toss out HP as having lousy build quality
Epson printers make great prints but unless you use them weekly they will clog.

Canon makes excellent hardware, and whether you use a lower cost dye based printer, or a higher end pigment printer, it will last a while. And many of Canon's printers have user-replaceable print heads.

Regarding cost of ink, it's a trade-off. Cheaper printers use small cartridges which have a considerably higher cost per ml than bigger printers.

The Pixma Pro 200 costs $600 and uses a 12.6 ml dye ink cartridges, and they cost $14, so cost per ml is $1.11 - it uses 8 cartridges - standard gamut
The Pixma Pro 10 costs $700 and uses 15ml pigment ink cartridges, and they cost $15, so cost per ml is $1.00 - it uses 10 cartridges - wide gamut

In contrast - the Pixma ProGraf Pro 1000 is a bigger, heavier printer capable of printing 17"x25.5" uses 12 color pigment 80ml cartridges (one is a chroma optimizer), that cost $54 for a cost of $.68/ml, or a little over half the cost of the lower cost printer.

Canon states that if you use Canon's media, the print longevity can be as long as 100 yrs with their dye inks and up to 200 yrs with their pigment inks. The dye ink trades off longevity for a little extra color saturation.

So if you aren't going to print a lot, the Pro 200 should be fine and it will make excellent prints. If you see yourself printing a lot, then at some point in volume, the Pro 1000 with the bigger ink carts will be more economical, though it will cost you a little over 2X the cost of the Pro 200. You'll have to dig around to see what the average number of prints you can get with each printer to be able to better determine which one makes more sense.

I've own all three brands - my Epson 4880 clogged, and it was going to cost me over $500 to have it fixed. I have an Epson WF-7620 multifunction printer sitting next to my desk - with clogged heads. My HP Z3200 24" roll printer snapped its drive belt in the second year of ownership and the estimate for repair was $1100. Lower end HPs always had paper feeding issues, and were very cheaply built with a healthy dose of planned obsolescence. My various Canon printers just worked. When the heads wore out I just replaced them. Very dependable, replacement heads were affordable, and excellent print quality.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Lightroom on Two Computers

Robertl594 wrote:

I would like two have two computers with the same ... (show quote)

Use a Synology storage server for your data and enable its cloud server feature. Put all of your image files (and sidecar files) on it, except for the last couple of years or so of new files, which you will store on a local drive in the computer and make a copy of to your storage server.

Keep your LR catalog files and previews on the server, but run a Sync every time you boot the system you are using to ensure you are using the latest version of the catalog files and previews and to make a copy of recently add/changed/removed files. It will be relatively fast on the machine that is closest to the storage server. With a fast connection it shouldn't take too long on the remote computer. If you are using a cable based internet, the download speed (from the storage server to the remote computer) will be 10X faster than uploading files from the remote computer. If you are using FiOS, it will be equally fast in either direction.

If Goodsync can't do the over the internet sync, then download a copy of SyncBack which I am pretty sure will do what you want - even with the free version.

As Paul said, running LR on the home computer with the catalog files on a connected drive will be really slow, and running it on the remote computer over the internet will be so slow that you'll be tossing that computer into a river the first time you try to use it.

(Main Photography Discussion)

2 TB external SSD

rmalarz wrote:

If 2 is good 16 is much better, and only $30. br ... (show quote)

Hoowan dis?