Manual mode shots

[Picasso]

When I work my photos, I start in Adobe Bridge. Organizing your shots through Bridge is hard to get the hang of but worth it in the long run because of the time saved later. Then I open the shot in Lightroom. Lightroom is more convenient and quicker to flip through for me. Then I move my shot into PS. PS is very powerful and can do anything that Lightroom can do but PS was written for graphic artists and Lightroom was written for photographers. I'm an "old school" photographer who is used to working in a darkroom and Lightroom feels more comfy for me. I don't know how you are working in PS but I would be happy to do a live chat with you sometime and walk you through a basic editing process that will improve most of your shots. I can edit in either program. Keeping your camera on auto-focus is working for you in these shots but when you want shots with good depth-of-field and contrast I suggest using manual focus with a tripod. Does that help?

Catherine

 

[ccCapt]

I would definitely be up for getting some tips. I want to know more how to set the camera than I want to know how to use editing software. A good pic is easy to make look good while a bad pic is....just a bad pic...lol.

I am somewhat familiar with Photoshop, but moreso for graphics. ;)

 

[Picasso]

I would definitely be up for getting some tips. I want to know more how to set the camera than I want to know how to use editing software. A good pic is easy to make look good while a bad pic is....just a bad pic...lol.

When I taught wet lab photography, I would have agreed with you. Setting up and taking great photos WAS the most important part of photography. Now, I think that statement is naive. IMHO, if you've got enough megs and you know how to edit then you can make any shot look fabulous. For camera advice, I did a huge post to Yote a while back. I don't know how to search the archives or I would give you a link. If yote can't get the link then I'll re-type. For an easy "recipe" for editing in Photoshop I'll meet you in the chatroom and walk you through the process. When's good for you?

Catherine

 

[d2mini]

When I work my photos, I start in Adobe Bridge. Organizing your shots through Bridge is hard to get the hang of but worth it in the long run because of the time saved later. Then I open the shot in Lightroom. Lightroom is more convenient and quicker to flip through for me. Then I move my shot into PS. PS is very powerful and can do anything that Lightroom can do but PS was written for graphic artists and Lightroom was written for photographers. I'm an "old school" photographer who is used to working in a darkroom and Lightroom feels more comfy for me. I don't know how you are working in PS but I would be happy to do a live chat with you sometime and walk you through a basic editing process that will improve most of your shots. I can edit in either program. Keeping your camera on auto-focus is working for you in these shots but when you want shots with good depth-of-field and contrast I suggest using manual focus with a tripod. Does that help?

Catherine

Catherine, I'm curious why you even bother with bridge if you are using lightroom? LR organizes them any way you want, applies keywords and copyright info and will even apply adjustments on import. I use lightroom for all my importing and file management and initial adjustments. Then I finish them off and resize in photoshop.

 

[d2mini]

im not saying photoshop sucks, im just saying that a 300 dollar lightroom program makes psot production a lot quicker and easier then the 700 dollar PS program

What he said. Photoshop can do anything lightroom can do, but lightroom makes it a LOT easier. I've been using PS for about 15 years and still don't even know half of that program. It's insane how powerful it is. And no matter what you're doing you can do the same thing several ways. Lightroom was build specifically for photographers, by photographers so in some ways it's more stripped down, but at the same time it's use is very specific to the field and new techniques for photo adjustment were developed for it. It really speeds up your workflow.

 

[ccCapt]

I'll take any tips I can get, but you pros have a different outlook on photography...which is why you're pros. :)
Now remember I have a non DSLR camera that cost under $300, but I think it can take better pics than what I've taken. I don't want to spend an hr editing 1 pic that the only ppl who see it will be those visiting here. I would like tips to take a better pic using what I have.

For example, what can be done to improve this pic?
exposure 1/60 sec, F stop 5, ISO 200, 15.5mm focal length
Can you guys (Catherine & Dennis) just use your software (preferably only Photoshop since that's all I have) with this pic and show me how much of an improvement can be made only using editing software?

 

[d2mini]

Capt, your pics are looking freakin awesome.

A lot of it is dumb luck (getting something really good straight out of the camera).
Shooting our tanks is soooo hard. Everything is always moving, the lighting freaks out our camera's color balance, lots of highlights and shadows... it's a photographers nightmare.

But once you have something good (any of the ones you posted) you can try to tweak a few things in photoshop. Levels will help with contrast and exposure issues. Unsharp mask will help you get things sharper, and playing with Hue/Saturation, Color Balance, or Selective Color will help you make color adjustments. If you are able to shoot raw, making all these adjustments in the raw dialog box when opening the image will make these adjustments a lot easier and more effective and less destructive to the image.

Without knowing what your image looks like in real life it's hard to make any specific suggestions. Unless you tell us exactly what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[ccCapt]

Thanks Dennis. In the above pic, I guess my question is what settings would you recommend for a better depth of field. I think if it was deeper, the entire coral would be more clear. I don't have a tripod either, so that doesn't help..I know.
I have an older Minolta XG1 (which is probably older than many members of this site...lol) and if I remember correctly, DOF is determined by shutter speed and aperature. I realize with the lighting we use it's a tuff call, but looking at what I used to take that pic, what would you recommend?

 

[d2mini]

For corals that are relatively still, tripod would really help.
To get more of it in focus, close up your aperture (higher f-stop number, 5 is pretty shallow for macro work... i try to get into the teens at least, if not up around f/22) and then you'll have to compensate for light by slowing your shutterspeed or raising your iso. The smaller the aperture hole (higher f-stop number) the less light you are letting in. Think of it like squinting your eyes. So slowing the shutterspeed will let light in for longer. Of course if you lower your shutterspeed too far it will be blurry. 1/60 is already kinda slow. Raising iso is your best bet probably but go too high and you'll have noise issues. There are plugins for photoshop to help get rid of noise.

 

[yote]

I'll go back and see if I can find that post Catherines talking about when I get home from work.
Another tip Catherine gave me,is to get a notebook and keep notes of the settings for every shot.Which has helped me a lot.

 

[ccCapt]

Yote, depending on what editing software you use, it tells you all your camera settings for each pic.

Here's 2 pics. Which is better? Both ISO 400 and F-8.

1/40 sec shutter speed

1/100 shutter speed

 

[d2mini]

I like the second because your highlights aren't blown out.

That brings up another point.
Digital cameras capture much less tonal range than film cameras, especially slide film. So you end up either losing detail in your shadows or blowing your highlights. If you blow your highlights, the information that should have been in those highlight areas is gone. If you lose detail in your shadows, you can usually lighten those areas to get the detail back. So when in doubt, slightly underexpose the shot so your still have some info in the highlight areas. If you need to you can lighten your darks in post. The only thing is you risk introducing more noise in the shadows as you lighten them.

 

[Bifferwine]

I think the first one is wayyyyy better.

 

[Picasso]

I like to start with the full image, a lot of the problem with this is that I have a very low res shot to start with.

Yours:

Mine:

This took me about 45 secs to do. I could do a lot more to it if you send me the full sized shot.