Photography Advice and Tips Thread.

[Anna Iram]

Don't overlook the local thrift shops for a good bargain. There always seems to be an abundance of wicker in those places and cheap! I bought mine for about two bucks!

[dbaldock]

Dbaldock,

Are you shooting in NEF or JPG?  If NEF, the camera actually displays a jpg that is imbedded in the NEF file when the picture is initially writtent to the card. As long as you don't modify the NEF structure the jpg preview will still exist. 

The key to putting images back on the SD card is identifying the folder structure where your camera is looking for the image files. Once you ID that folder its as simple as saving to that location or copy/paste into that location. 


Adam

Thanks for the reply.

Here's why I asked, and what I've tried:

Took a vacation to California last October, and shot ~800 pictures (JPG), using two SDHC memory cards.  I did rename the images so that they're sequential from DSC_0001.JPG to DSC_0800.JPG, and then copied them to an empty, formatted (by the camera) SDHC card.  But when the camera is turned on and the Review button is pressed, there are no images to see.  I'm wondering if there's some sort of Index file or something like that to update so that the camera knows the images are there to display?


Take Care,
David Baldock

[BamaWoodsman]

OK gotcha, If you place the SD card from the camera into a card reader and open the card reader in Windows explorer (or equivalent) you will see the directory structure for the files. I'm at work now and can't look at the nikon folder structure but I believe it is 2 levels in too where the images are stored. I'll check for sure when I get home this evening.

[Francisco Paula]

nikon d90 uses a folder in a folder. If i am correct the first is DCIM with the next being 100NCD90 if you make them like so you should have no problem i would assume.

[Francisco Paula]

I feel so lost without my camera. This weekend i was up at estes park staying in the stanley hotel for a little ghost hunting and heading to rocky mountain national park for some more photo taking. Well after we had dinner and driving through estes we came upon some deer just walking down the street so since two photogs in the car we started to stalk the deer. So when we were done taking thier pics i went to push the flash down on my camera and it wouldn't latch grrrrr. So monday i took it to the local camera shop and am now waiting for them to tell me what i did and how much it would cost.

[DT_Masters]

Well, I hate to say it, but film is dead. They pulled my developer out of the store and replaced it with an arcade machine size kiosk. Digital photos made on the spot, out of store, drop it in the envelope, and pay more than what I did before to get it back in a few days.

Of course, I knew it was coming; knew I had to move into digital and I did two years ago or so. Just as I knew that when I got into digital, really got into it, my 35mm use would drop practically to zero...........and it did. TRF 09, I couldn't find the 35mm housing and went without it, shot the entire thing on the DSLR. And Sherwood? Well, while the 35mm was the final backup in the car, it stayed in the car.

Hard to say why the sad feeling of such. I mean, when I switched from the Pentax to the Canon, I "left" hundreds of dollars worth of lenses behind; this time, it was only several boxes of unused film.

Still, be it photos or slides, it is something of an end of an era I've known for over 40 years.

[Xanthenes The Unbalanced]

Well, I hate to say it, but film is dead. They pulled my developer out of the store and replaced it with an arcade machine size kiosk. Digital photos made on the spot, out of store, drop it in the envelope, and pay more than what I did before to get it back in a few days.

Of course, I knew it was coming; knew I had to move into digital and I did two years ago or so. Just as I knew that when I got into digital, really got into it, my 35mm use would drop practically to zero...........and it did. TRF 09, I couldn't find the 35mm housing and went without it, shot the entire thing on the DSLR. And Sherwood? Well, while the 35mm was the final backup in the car, it stayed in the car.

Hard to say why the sad feeling of such. I mean, when I switched from the Pentax to the Canon, I "left" hundreds of dollars worth of lenses behind; this time, it was only several boxes of unused film.

Still, be it photos or slides, it is something of an end of an era I've known for over 40 years.

I used to develop my own, so there's still a part of me which misses sloshing photo paper around in tubs of chemicals.  Then again, maybe not.  I think what I actually miss is the feeling of anticipation as the photo was coming to life.  I certainly don't miss mucking up the timer on a roll of film, having a roll of film I've already shot crack open, or smelling like chemicals for a whole day. 

What I really don't miss about photographic or motion picture is the slight tension between leaving a job and having it developed (or developed and transferred in the case of motion picture film).  You know what you shot, you're sure you shot it right, but until that baby came back, you didn't really know what you had.  I also don't miss having to stock my refrigerator with canisters of 16mm or 35mm film.

Okay, I miss the anticipation that came with developing photographic film.  That's it.  Viva le digital.

[Ken]

Well, I hate to say it, but film is dead.

Film is most certainly not dead.

However, it has become relegated to the status of "niche" photography.  My wife and I own a photography business.  We currently use digital for all of our paid work in that regard for the simple reason that the clients expect it.  When I shoot things for myself, I almost always use film.  My cameras of choice right now are a 1950's era Voigtlander rangefinder and a 1970's era Hasselblad 500 C/M, though I have a collection of others in the closet that I use from time to time.  In fact, I carry the Voigtlander with me to faires and keep it on my person almost all the time in order that I may make pictures when I see them happening.  Processing has become harder to come by, but not impossible.  The pro lab we used to use has gone completely digital, but there is another that we will be approaching soon to take up our film work.  Freestyle Photographic catalogue still sells a wide variety of film, both color and black and white, as well as black and white darkroom equipment and supplies.  There is an analog photography users group online.  Ken Rockwell, while shooting digitally for some of his work, still espouses the use of "Real RAW", which is what he calls film.

By the way...if you've got some leftover film....   

~Ken

[Xanthenes The Unbalanced]

Well, I hate to say it, but film is dead.

Film is most certainly not dead.

However, it has become relegated to the status of "niche" photography.  My wife and I own a photography business.  We currently use digital for all of our paid work in that regard for the simple reason that the clients expect it.  When I shoot things for myself, I almost always use film.  My cameras of choice right now are a 1950's era Voigtlander rangefinder and a 1970's era Hasselblad 500 C/M, though I have a collection of others in the closet that I use from time to time.  In fact, I carry the Voigtlander with me to faires and keep it on my person almost all the time in order that I may make pictures when I see them happening.  Processing has become harder to come by, but not impossible.  The pro lab we used to use has gone completely digital, but there is another that we will be approaching soon to take up our film work.  Freestyle Photographic catalogue still sells a wide variety of film, both color and black and white, as well as black and white darkroom equipment and supplies.  There is an analog photography users group online.  Ken Rockwell, while shooting digitally for some of his work, still espouses the use of "Real RAW", which is what he calls film.

By the way...if you've got some leftover film....   

~Ken

Please note, this is not about you, it's about Rockwell.   

My opinion of Rockwell may be colored a bit by the fact that he's, for some reason, a bit too "anti-Canon/pro-Nikon", but I've never really been all that impressed with his work (it certainly isn't bad, it's just not something that makes me exclaim "I wish I'd shot that").  While I appreciate my time learning photography in the analog world of film rolls and chemical baths, there are just a number of things I simply don't miss.  I don't miss the over abundance of noise in high speed film.  I like going in the field with 80GB of memory cards (I shoot a lot of HD with my DSLR's, so I tend to carry a lot of memory) and knowing that any opportunity which presents itself I can capture.  I won't run out of film or hit the end of a roll when something presents itself.

As for being "the real RAW", I find I get more picture information at lower noise out of my 21 megapixel 5D Mk II than I ever got out of my old Elan with a good roll of 35 (at least that's been my experience shooting billboard material).  Even with a top-notch scanner, I just get a cleaner look out of my 5D (yes, I could shoot MF, but I've always found them terrific for still life and mediocre at anything requiring speed).  For correcting accidents such as the odd white balance mishap, I'll take the forgiveness of digital RAW.

I'm with ya on a good rangefinder though.  Been years since I picked one up.  Kinda miss it.

[Ken]

My opinion of Rockwell may be colored a bit by the fact that he's, for some reason, a bit too "anti-Canon/pro-Nikon", but I've never really been all that impressed with his work (it certainly isn't bad, it's just not something that makes me exclaim "I wish I'd shot that").  While I appreciate my time learning photography in the analog world of film rolls and chemical baths, there are just a number of things I simply don't miss.  I don't miss the over abundance of noise in high speed film.  I like going in the field with 80GB of memory cards (I shoot a lot of HD with my DSLR's, so I tend to carry a lot of memory) and knowing that any opportunity which presents itself I can capture.  I won't run out of film or hit the end of a roll when something presents itself.

As for being "the real RAW", I find I get more picture information at lower noise out of my 21 megapixel 5D Mk II than I ever got out of my old Elan with a good roll of 35 (at least that's been my experience shooting billboard material).  Even with a top-notch scanner, I just get a cleaner look out of my 5D (yes, I could shoot MF, but I've always found them terrific for still life and mediocre at anything requiring speed).  For correcting accidents such as the odd white balance mishap, I'll take the forgiveness of digital RAW.

I'm with ya on a good rangefinder though.  Been years since I picked one up.  Kinda miss it.

I agree with you about the work that Ken Rockwell produces.  I like what I see, for the most part; it's good, often very good, but I haven't seen much of his that just knocks my socks off.  Of course, I could say that about most photographers.  But he's got some good ideas and I generally like reading his articles.  I have noticed something of a Nikon-Over-Canon slant, but I personally don't let it bother me.  I've sold both brands working in a couple of different camera stores in years past, and I've owned equipment from both systems.  They both produce fine results, so if he prefers Nikon that's fine with me.

And I agree that a 21 megapixel 5D MkII is going to give you excellent results, even when comparing it to film.  The thing is, though, that the 5D MkII body alone is $2,500 which puts it out of the price range of most consumers and even a lot of prosumers.  But even with cost aside, the thing I love about film is knowing that in 100 years I can take one of the black and white negatives I made today and still print it, somehow.  There is little short of snipping it up or dropping it into acid or setting it on fire that would make it completely unusable.  If that digital picture file gets corrupted, or the disk it's stored on goes bad, then it's probably done for.

Then there's the (very subjective) "look" that film has over digital.  My wife and I sat down a few months ago and started looking at the photos that she shot on film 10 or 15 years ago and compared them with the digital photos that she's made recently, even with a 5D, and we agreed that, overall, we liked the "look" of film over digital.

Understand that I'm not slamming digital, nor am I in any way saying "film is best (or even necessarily better)".  Digital is very convenient.  It has unquestionably changed the way photographers - particularly photojournalists and newspapers - go about their business.  As I mentioned, we use it ourselves.  But when I'm shooting for my own pleasure, shooting the things I want to shoot and not what a client has requested, then I like to shoot film.  I want the photos of my friends and family - the things I remember in the way I remember them - to be passed on to my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the best way I feel I can ensure that is to shoot the way I do.  And, for me, digital seems almost too easy.  Take a picture, chimp, shoot again if it's not right.  Again, it's convenient, but when I'm shooting for myself that takes some of the enjoyment out of it.  That's why I shoot fully manual, mechanical, meterless cameras.  For me, it's just more fun that way.   

I look forward to developing and posting some of the faire photos I make with my ancient equipment! 

~Ken

[Xanthenes The Unbalanced]

My opinion of Rockwell may be colored a bit by the fact that he's, for some reason, a bit too "anti-Canon/pro-Nikon", but I've never really been all that impressed with his work (it certainly isn't bad, it's just not something that makes me exclaim "I wish I'd shot that").  While I appreciate my time learning photography in the analog world of film rolls and chemical baths, there are just a number of things I simply don't miss.  I don't miss the over abundance of noise in high speed film.  I like going in the field with 80GB of memory cards (I shoot a lot of HD with my DSLR's, so I tend to carry a lot of memory) and knowing that any opportunity which presents itself I can capture.  I won't run out of film or hit the end of a roll when something presents itself.

As for being "the real RAW", I find I get more picture information at lower noise out of my 21 megapixel 5D Mk II than I ever got out of my old Elan with a good roll of 35 (at least that's been my experience shooting billboard material).  Even with a top-notch scanner, I just get a cleaner look out of my 5D (yes, I could shoot MF, but I've always found them terrific for still life and mediocre at anything requiring speed).  For correcting accidents such as the odd white balance mishap, I'll take the forgiveness of digital RAW.

I'm with ya on a good rangefinder though.  Been years since I picked one up.  Kinda miss it.

I agree with you about the work that Ken Rockwell produces.  I like what I see, for the most part; it's good, often very good, but I haven't seen much of his that just knocks my socks off.  Of course, I could say that about most photographers.  But he's got some good ideas and I generally like reading his articles.  I have noticed something of a Nikon-Over-Canon slant, but I personally don't let it bother me.  I've sold both brands working in a couple of different camera stores in years past, and I've owned equipment from both systems.  They both produce fine results, so if he prefers Nikon that's fine with me.

And I agree that a 21 megapixel 5D MkII is going to give you excellent results, even when comparing it to film.  The thing is, though, that the 5D MkII body alone is $2,500 which puts it out of the price range of most consumers and even a lot of prosumers.  But even with cost aside, the thing I love about film is knowing that in 100 years I can take one of the black and white negatives I made today and still print it, somehow.  There is little short of snipping it up or dropping it into acid or setting it on fire that would make it completely unusable.  If that digital picture file gets corrupted, or the disk it's stored on goes bad, then it's probably done for.

Then there's the (very subjective) "look" that film has over digital.  My wife and I sat down a few months ago and started looking at the photos that she shot on film 10 or 15 years ago and compared them with the digital photos that she's made recently, even with a 5D, and we agreed that, overall, we liked the "look" of film over digital.

Understand that I'm not slamming digital, nor am I in any way saying "film is best (or even necessarily better)".  Digital is very convenient.  It has unquestionably changed the way photographers - particularly photojournalists and newspapers - go about their business.  As I mentioned, we use it ourselves.  But when I'm shooting for my own pleasure, shooting the things I want to shoot and not what a client has requested, then I like to shoot film.  I want the photos of my friends and family - the things I remember in the way I remember them - to be passed on to my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the best way I feel I can ensure that is to shoot the way I do.  And, for me, digital seems almost too easy.  Take a picture, chimp, shoot again if it's not right.  Again, it's convenient, but when I'm shooting for myself that takes some of the enjoyment out of it.  That's why I shoot fully manual, mechanical, meterless cameras.  For me, it's just more fun that way.   

I look forward to developing and posting some of the faire photos I make with my ancient equipment! 

~Ken

Agreed.  In the end, it's all about preference and acceptable tradeoffs.

I agree that digital can make us all lazy on occasion.  The big tradeoff for me is never, ever running out of film.  88 Gigs of CF cards in my bag means I can take off for five days of shooting and never miss a shot.  I will admit that my signal-to-noise ratio, good shots to bad, was higher with film. 

I may have to go play with a film camera again (it's been a good three years).  Perhaps I should hit eBay and see what an old rangefinder is going for. 

But while there are some things that I do miss film and film cameras, if I ever use one on a paying gig again, it'll be to soon. 

[DT_Masters]

,,,,,,,But even with cost aside, the thing I love about film is knowing that in 100 years I can take one of the black and white negatives I made today and still print it, somehow.  There is little short of snipping it up or dropping it into acid or setting it on fire that would make it completely unusable.  If that digital picture file gets corrupted, or the disk it's stored on goes bad, then it's probably done for.

Or film can be destroyed if its storage area gets mildewed. That's what happened to a lot of my early works, both in print and negative.....especially the negative. Now, looking back at it, its lost is debatable. My work wasn't better back then, quite the opposite, so it is something of a loss of memories. But back then, I was more of the dane photographer than a player, so even those memories are not painfully lost.

On the other hand, I'm under the belief that stuff that is digital can be theoretically corrected by a computer. It may not be economically worth it for it may take a lot of fuzzy logic approaches (to me, that's like tracking a stealth aircraft with a low frequency radar.......you can do it, but you'll need a decent computer for it)........but it's possible.

Further, with digital, how hard is it to make several backups? As http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbpKawqA6VQ&feature=related points out, in the personal security area (think before you post), not too hard at all.

One thing about digital is that it enabled me to reach a "goal" I had for years: take pictures during the day to have on the conference table at night so to decide the next day's plan.

These days, my DSLR, serves about four functions. It's the recon camera that gets carried with me day after day and I don't have to worry about how old the film is in it. A classmate is feeding the ducks? I want to take pictures of the ducklings? Pull it out and snap away. It's my photocopier. Sending off government papers? Take a picture of it. It's there, there infrastructure has been paid for, snap it. Of course, it's my Renfest camera. And it's the camera for those shots that I'm not taking to put in a photo album.

On that last piece, that was something that always irked me. Take recon type pictures, need to have them to show the superiors, rush them thru the developer....and the cheapest price for the speed got me two sets and a CD .......................... as if I really needed a second set.

Understand that I'm not slamming digital, nor am I in any way saying "film is best (or even necessarily better)".  Digital is very convenient.  It has unquestionably changed the way photographers - particularly photojournalists and newspapers - go about their business.  As I mentioned, we use it ourselves.  But when I'm shooting for my own pleasure, shooting the things I want to shoot and not what a client has requested, then I like to shoot film.  I want the photos of my friends and family - the things I remember in the way I remember them - to be passed on to my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the best way I feel I can ensure that is to shoot the way I do.  And, for me, digital seems almost too easy.  Take a picture, chimp, shoot again if it's not right.  Again, it's convenient, but when I'm shooting for myself that takes some of the enjoyment out of it.  That's why I shoot fully manual, mechanical, meterless cameras.  For me, it's just more fun that way.   

Actually, for me, the opposite, film, causes a massive hurdle. That is, I take HUNDREDS of pictures at ren fests, the film calculation for how much to carry was a shot a minute, and after the 2 months to get all the rolls back (ripple fire them to the developer), one still has to scan them into the computer to show all of one's friends on the net. 24 picture roll? One hour, almost, scan time. That's why at http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewAlbums&friendID=118158178 the renfest coverage over the years usually varies between double and triple digits. Usually, those albums with double digits were film shots......and there are tons still waiting to go into the computer. Most of those in triple digits were digital.

The down side to digital? For those shots that should go in albums, there isn't a byproduct normally. I have lots of hungry albums.......of course, I've got three boxes of prints I had made from digital last year or so, waiting to go in some of those albums.

That's a constant problem as our world moves faster and faster............there will be a bottleneck somewhere.

[SleepyArcher]

If you have a Canon 40D and want to see how many times the shutter has been pressed when it is on you can download this nifty program to do it. I downloaded but haven't tried but but noticed on Ebay a lot of people who sell their cameras use something like to  post how many times the shutter has been used. Im guessing ther are program al over that do this. This one is free.




http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx

[renfairephotog]

BBC Photography Materclass Lessons.
http://www.bbcwildlifemagazine.com/masterclasses.asp

[Mandrake Von Sets]

Just came across a free HDR-rendering program for Mac users in Apple's download page.

HDRtist