• January Turning Challenge: Thin-Stemmed Something! (click here for details)
  • Conversations are now Direct Messages (click here for details)
  • Congratulations to Gabriel Hoff for "Spalted Beech Round Bottom Box" being selected as Turning of the Week for January 6, 2024 (click here for details)
  • Welcome new registering member. Your username must be your real First and Last name (for example: John Doe). "Screen names" and "handles" are not allowed and your registration will be deleted if you don't use your real name. Also, do not use all caps nor all lower case.

Photo Help

Mike Gibson

Mike Gibson

Recognized Professional Artist
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
62
Likes
852
Location
Hoschton, GA
Website
www.michaelgibsonwoodturner.homesteadcloud.com
I was not satisfied with the quality of my photos so l went out and bought a half decent camera and am more than pleased with the results. It seems to have paid off as my photo is Picture of the Day, which l am very thankful. The problem is my last few posts where taken with the camera sideways and on rotating them they come out squashed/dumpy. l even download a better photo programme than came with the camera but still have no success.
Do l need to take all photos with the camera in a normal position? l have downloaded the original photo and l think you will agree that it is a better form than the one posted. Thanks Mike
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0452 sideways2.JPG
    DSC_0452 sideways2.JPG
    29.4 KB · Views: 49
I guess I'm missing it. They look the same proportions to me. If they don't to you, look for some box in your software which says something like "retain original proportions" or such. It'll be associated with the options for reducing pixel count or image resizing. Seems to me the only time I ever had the problem was with TIFF, an old format.
 
I'm an idiot on the computer but I think MM is right. Usually there is some box that lets you retain the horizontal and vertical proportions when you resize just one dimension. If that box is not checked you change one proportion and the other stays the same which makes the piece look strange.
 
not what you asked, but

Depending on how much you want to get into the photo aspect of documenting your turnings (very important if you sell your work, as the photos are the only record of the work you will have after a piece is sold), I have two recommendations for you.

If you want to dabble, a great starter program is Photoshop elements , under a hundred, will cover all of the basics and much of the advanced photo manipulation.

If you find yourself getting serious, Photoshop CS3 (editor) and Lightroom (photo collection manager) are top of the line and priced accordingly. There is a learning curve with CS3, Lightroom, not so much - it is much more straight forward and mostly intuitive.

GIMP is also an option, open source and free, I personally hate this one, the interface looks like it was designed by the database guys (not what you want - let the UI guys do that <grin>). But, it's free.

(pseudo disclaimer - I do not work for Adobe, I just love CS3 and Lightroom) :cool2:
 
Photo software!

I totally concur with John but Photoshop is all that I have ever used. There are other software packages that do the job and you may have one. I have been using photoshop le 5.0 in the past but just upgraded to cs3 which is way beyond what I had. I think that if you are relatively new to digital software and want to just test the water, then elements would be the direction. If you want to get a little (lot) more, then go for cs3 if you are going to go with Adobe.

I am replying here in that I got cs3 through ebay for a little less than half price of $600 and it was brand new sealed in the box never having been registered. So, don't frown on ebay - definitely use it to save some big money.

As for the change in orientation, you need to "keep the same pixel ratio" when rotating. CS3 doe's that very cleanly. I don't see any difference to speak of in your pictures though. You may already have adequate software.

Bill
 
Mike - What camera (make and model) are you using? Some cameras have an option that can be set to automatically orient the pictures.

What software are you using? Without knowing that, it's hard to say what may be going wrong for you.

Ed
 
Photos

MichaelMouse said:
I guess I'm missing it. They look the same proportions to me. If they don't to you, look for some box in your software which says something like "retain original proportions" or such. It'll be associated with the options for reducing pixel count or image resizing. Seems to me the only time I ever had the problem was with TIFF, an old format.
Click to expand...

Michael, I went back and forth several times between the photos, and I have to agree with Mike that the POD looks shorter. I measured both photos, finial vs. hf, and the proportion stays the same, but the photo on it's side (got a crick in my neck studying it) looks taller. Any comments from the photo guys?😕
 
Maybe solved

My first reaction after the first two posts was "what" they must see it, the difference on my computer is drastic.......my computer......oh no, everybody that has viewed the attachment has most probably been saying whats wrong with this guy, and l most probably have given a few people a crick in the neck. Now l need a computer expert, or rather monitor expert. The monitor is a fairly new flat screen, which are more landscape style than the old ones.

I went from a point and shoot to a Nikon and was disappointed in the software that come with such a fine camera. They want one to spend another $100+ for a better program. I downloaded PhotoPlus (free) which is better than the one which came with the camera, and both keep the pixel ratio in resizing, but could not see anything in rotation. I will have to eventually break down and buy a decent program. l think the camera does have an option to automatically rotate, l will have to try that.

Thanks again for all your help.
 
The first thing you want to do is rotate, no resize or anything else. You should be able to do that with the software that came with it, or even in camera. You can also do this easily with Microsofts office picture manager and several others, maybe Picassa (Google)

Then, when resizing, always make sure there is a way to keep the same proportions or aspect depending on how your software words it. But if you are going to manipulate the image at all, change contrast, color temp, white balance, do these before save the photo under a different file name, then resize.
 
Mike - If you have a wide screen display you have to be really careful. You can generally choose to view "non-widescreen" material stretched to fit, cropped to fit or shown with black boxes to maintain the aspect ratio (while showing the whole image). Some software just isn't smart enough to handle the display correctly.

I had to disable widescreen viewing on my wife's laptop because her embroidery software (which cost $$$$) kept stretching and squashing what she was working on.

If you are on a windows system, you might be able to right click on the desktop and access the display settings that will solve your viewing problem.

Ed
 
Nikon Software.

Mike, I have a new Nikon D80 with the software that came with it. First of all, I found out that when you choose to rotate the picture in the viewscreen in the camera, that is not performed when downloaded into the computer. I did not buy other Nikon software but found that photoshop cs3 has the capability of even converting the raw file in all of the Nikon's, Canon's etc. You have to buy another addition to cs3, but it is available. After seeing the size of the photos being stored in the computer - mine is a ridiculous 35" x 53" (don't know off hand the pixel count) and many many mb per file for normal jpeg, I am not going to use raw files very much if at all. So, have bypassed that option. CS3 handles all that I need to do with the camera now without a problem.

Bill
 
Bill - You are missing out on a huge opportunity if you don't shoot raw. Shooting raw allows you to use your digital darkroom (CS3) to develop your digital pictures exactly how you want and correct a lot of flaws with no (or little) degradation to the ultimate picture. Shooting jpg is the equivalent of relying on walmart to develop your pictures.

The storage requirements for raw are a lot higher, but storage is cheap these days.

Ed
 
Raw Files

Hi Ed,
The only thing that stopped me was file size. Just purchased a new 750 Gb usb hard drive which is extremely fast. Have already moved all of my picture files to it and it only took 15 minutes at most. Could start using raw but don't know enough about it to apply the digital darkroom.

Are you using it for everything or just for photos of your work? This forum is probably not the place to discuss it. I have a cd which came with cs3 and some teaching books purchased through Adobe. Guess I had better move ahead into the new world, particularly if my photos are being sourced by WalMart with the jpeg format. The problem with jpeg is that there is degradation everytime you restore anything. Bill
 
The difference is that with raw, there is no compression. All the information is there in it's glory. If you are going to manipulate a photo and go with a higher resolution printout, RAW is the way to go. The other format JPG is compressed. Many cameras do a good job at automatically doing sharpening, white balance etc, and if the camera has low noise, JPG in the highest resolution will work fine. For studio shots and non-snapshots, RAW may work better for you. It just makes the camera work more with the larger file size. Kids soccer match, JPG will allow more frames per secomd and great snapshots, studio light tent of your wood turnings , RAW may work better for you. You will need more compute power and software to manipulate the image though.
 
Bill - I use raw for everything. You just never know when you are going to have the "once in a lifetime" shot where something just wasn't quite right. Editing in raw gives you much more lattitude to fix problems than jpg. It's particularly useful for addressing white balance problems. White balance can be a real issue with most digicams when you are shooting in mixed color temp lighting, with exotic lighting, or when shooting in an odd lighting situation (like underwater).

Anyway, if you want to talk some more about it, post a topic in the back porch. CS3 has an incredible amount of power

Ed
 
New view

Had the chance to view my photo on another computer and it is my flat wide screen monitor, was just worried you was seeing it as l was and not in its true form. Thanks again.

Would love to see the camera discussion continue in the back porch. Used to do a lot in the old 35mm world even had my own darkroom, then bought a point and shoot and forgot about the old camera, soon realized it was some what limited and upgraded to DSLR and then found l have to go through a whole new learning curve. One question l have not researched, is there any problem with having slides done.

Mike
 
Raw digital files.

Thanks Steve and Ed. I think Mike and I would like to see the discussion continued further on the back porch. Seems as though there is always a learning curve, even if you have done some of it in the past. To learn from a book is not too bad but takes a little time. Need to start using raw files.

Bill
 
Mike Gibson said:
Had the chance to view my photo on another computer and it is my flat wide screen monitor, was just worried you was seeing it as l was and not in its true form. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

In this case, the monitor is set to the wrong resolution. Look in the manual, and set the display to the highest resolution it can be. What is the brand and model?

And when you get really into it, you will want to calibrate the monitor, especially helpful when you have two displays hooked up. Being infront of a computer all day long, it is tough to work on a single display any more.
 
Steve Worcester said:
In this case, the monitor is set to the wrong resolution. Look in the manual, and set the display to the highest resolution it can be. What is the brand and model?
.
Click to expand...

Is there normally some switch in the monitor driver similar to the "native" presentation in my HD that recognizes that it wasn't widescreen, so I don't really have to view short fat people or change it myself? I have one TV with and one without, and I definitely prefer the with.

Anyone else old enough to remember the flip monitors they touted as allowing you to see the whole page back when?
 
MichaelMouse said:
Is there normally some switch in the monitor driver similar to the "native" presentation in my HD that recognizes that it wasn't widescreen, so I don't really have to view short fat people or change it myself? I have one TV with and one without, and I definitely prefer the with.

Anyone else old enough to remember the flip monitors they touted as allowing you to see the whole page back when?
Click to expand...

There wasn't any such switch on my wife's PC. I ended up just disabling the widescreen because it was pain to be changing it every time she switched software. I think it is up to the software to maintain the aspect ratio when it is important to do so. Some software is just dumber than others.


I remember those flip monitors. Never had one, but I thought they were pretty neat.

Like Steve, I run multiple monitors and I don't know how I ever got along with just one.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top