dSLR thread

[Tea]

Cheers Merc. I bought all the Topaz stuff a few years back but soon found that I wasn't using it. For the things I do (mostly wildlife and natural landscapes, both done in a naturalistic style) Topaz was doing way too much - over-saturating, over-sharpening, over-everything. Sure, you can dial all that stuff back manually, but I prefer working with useful presets which are fairly close to what I actually want to use. *Real* PP people just do everything manually starting from scratch. I mostly start with some sort of canned recipe and adjust from there. I've been using the Nik Collection for about 15 years, originally as a Photoshop plug-in, more recently stand-alone.

I finally cancelled my Adobe subscriptions about a year ago. I never liked Lightroom and mostly only kept Photoshop for the once-excellent ACR raw developer. One day maybe two or three years ago they threw away the well-established ACR UI and moved everything around so that it was difficult to find and unpleasant to use. Seeing as I had to learn a new UI anyway, I figured I might as well make a clean break and get rid of Adobe completely.

I can't remember now how I ended up with the DXO package. I vaguely remember trying a few so maybe I started with a 30-day trial version and went from there. It has bugs but nothing I can't live with. It is much faster than Adobe stuff ever is and much easier to use from the point of view of achieving a look I like without a lot of fiddling. The structure (PhotoLab + individual Nik add-ins) is weird and some of the add-ins are a bit broken. Nik Sharpener muddles your EXIF information if you save a TIFF file, for example. But that doesn't really matter: I mostly use Color FX, occasionally Silver FX or Viveza, and those three mainstream apps work just fine. I look afresh at Topaz just this week with a particular job to do and the Black Friday sales on, but they didn't seem to be offering anything I didn't already have.

The only other app I use at all regularly is Affinity Photo. I'm sure it does a heap of other stuff but the only thing I use it for is dodge and burn (which DXO doesn't do, instead you use control points which are far more flexible, but sometimes and old-fashioned dodge and burn is exactly what I need).

I believe that Capture One is very good. It certainly seems to get good reviews.

 

[Mercutio]

My quasi-SO is an Adobe adherent. She's been going to school for graphic design on and off for some time, and she has the $10/month everything for students package. And here's the thing: in the last 18 months, I've become aware of some of the crazy, crazy advancements that have been added to Lightroom Classic and Photoshop in particular.

As an example, Photoshop has some AI tools now that can apply the makeup or hairstyle from one face to another. And it WORKS. Both can also pick out, mask and copy adjustments across distinct subjects in images, which can be crazy useful for, say, fixing flyaway hair or skin retouching. You and Lunar would never use such things, but passing a run of TIFFs through Lightroom to digitally erase whatever portion of a tattoo might be visible across 150 images is crazy useful.

I hate Adobe with a passion but I can't argue that it's not doing anything for that subscription money, even if I resent the idea of renting software forever or the concept of Adobe having money in general.

Because I do work with models, one of the big arguments for Capture One has been its utility for tethered shooting, so my model can see what I'm doing. Lately, I've discovered that I can add a USB capture device in-line with my HDMI out and set my phone on a shoe adapter and get the same thing with nothing more than 100g of wires and plastic. This is crazy useful, but it also means that Capture One's main advantage isn't so important for me now.

 

[Tea]

Wow! Those are indeed amazing features! I can see why you'd go with them. As always, we do what works for us.

 

[LunarMist]

The EF glass still works great though. I was just using the 500/4 IS II w/1.4x III on the R5 this week and IQ is excellent without need for corrections, even near the edge and without visible CA. The ability to use slow shutter speeds in ES without vibrations and the high-ISO noise characteristics make a huge difference over the old 5DsR.

 

[Chewy509]

Camera review site DPReview finds a buyer, avoids shutdown by Amazon

Amazon layoffs were supposed to shut down the 25-year-old site back in April.

arstechnica.com

Nice to see another resource being saved...

 

[LunarMist]

I'm cautioulsy optimistic, but history has shown that failed businesses are rarely saved in current form.

 

[Santilli]

My quasi-SO is an Adobe adherent. She's been going to school for graphic design on and off for some time, and she has the $10/month everything for students package. And here's the thing: in the last 18 months, I've become aware of some of the crazy, crazy advancements that have been added to Lightroom Classic and Photoshop in particular.

As an example, Photoshop has some AI tools now that can apply the makeup or hairstyle from one face to another. And it WORKS. Both can also pick out, mask and copy adjustments across distinct subjects in images, which can be crazy useful for, say, fixing flyaway hair or skin retouching. You and Lunar would never use such things, but passing a run of TIFFs through Lightroom to digitally erase whatever portion of a tattoo might be visible across 150 images is crazy useful.

I hate Adobe with a passion but I can't argue that it's not doing anything for that subscription money, even if I resent the idea of renting software forever or the concept of Adobe having money in general.

Because I do work with models, one of the big arguments for Capture One has been its utility for tethered shooting, so my model can see what I'm doing. Lately, I've discovered that I can add a USB capture device in-line with my HDMI out and set my phone on a shoe adapter and get the same thing with nothing more than 100g of wires and plastic. This is crazy useful, but it also means that Capture One's main advantage isn't so important for me now.

What do you use instead of Photoshop?
I've been using Photoshop 7, but lost the CD in the move/eviction, 2019.
I refuse to use Adobe Acrobat, or any subscription software.

 

[Santilli]

Anyone have feed back on any of these:

Here are some alternatives to Photoshop:

Free Alternatives:

1. Krita: A free and open-source raster graphics editor that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
2. GIMP: A free and open-source raster graphics editor that is often considered a free alternative to Photoshop.
3. Photopea: A free online photo editor that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
4. Canva: A free graphic design platform that offers a range of templates and design tools, including photo editing features.
5. Pixlr: A free online photo editor that offers a range of features, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
6. Paint.NET: A free image editing software for Windows that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers and effects.
7. FireAlpaca: A free digital painting and comic illustration software that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers and effects.
8. RawTherapee: A free and open-source raw image processing software that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers and effects.
9. Seashore: A free image editing software for Mac that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers and effects.
10. Inkscape: A free and open-source vector graphics editor that offers many of the same features as Adobe Illustrator, including support for layers and effects.

Paid Alternatives:

1. Affinity Photo: A professional-grade photo editing software that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
2. Affinity Designer: A professional-grade graphic design software that offers many of the same features as Adobe Illustrator, including support for layers and effects.
3. Luminar Neo: A photo editing software that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
4. Pixelmator: A professional-grade photo editing software for Mac that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
5. Capture One: A professional-grade raw image processing software that offers many of the same features as Photoshop, including support for layers and effects.

Browser-Based Alternatives:

1. Pixlr: A free online photo editor that offers a range of features, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
2. Canva: A free graphic design platform that offers a range of templates and design tools, including photo editing features.
3. Fotor: A free online photo editor that offers a range of features, including support for layers, filters, and effects.
4. PicMonkey: A paid online photo editor that offers a range of features, including support for layers, filters, and effects.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list, and there are many other alternatives to Photoshop available. The best alternative for you will depend on your specific needs and preferences.

 

[LunarMist]

Which cameras do you have and what are you trying to accomplish?

 

[Santilli]

Canon Eos Rebel.
I take a LOT of animal pictures, mainly at San Diego Zoo, or Safari park 17-300 zoom.
Using mainly manual focus.
I tried to post a great pic of an elephant, at very close range, but it was too big.
So mainly change photo sizes, clarity and sharpening, cleaning up bad focus.

 

[LunarMist]

You cannot fix focus after the fact. Some tools have deconvolution sharpening and AI stuff that makes OOF look less bad. You should be using AF.
Which lenses do you have? For about 30 years I would drive down to the SD zoo and/or safari park to conduct camera/lens testing. It was a lot cheaper than finding out in Africa 10,000 miles away that the equipment was not performing adequately.

Canon DPP is free and works quite well with RAW files for most purposes. It doesn't have AI NR like Adobe LR or PS but has profiles for nearly every EOS lens, even quite old ones. Maybe add Photoshop Elements (perpetual license is about $70) for some additional options.

 

[Mercutio]

What do you use instead of Photoshop?
I've been using Photoshop 7, but lost the CD in the move/eviction, 2019.
I refuse to use Adobe Acrobat, or any subscription software.

I generally don't need a Photoshop alternative but a Lightroom alternative. I use Capture One + Topaz software for photos and Davinci Resolve Studio for video editing. I also use a tool called Optyx as a first pass tool to cull the photos I've taken from any given shoot. Optyx was a one time purchase when I bought it, but new users have to pay $8/month for it now.

If I REALLY feel like I need to do serious photo editing, I can do it on one of my partner's computers. Or just ask her to do it for me, which is usually faster since she more or less has a degree in Adobe applications. She doesn't get my Adobe hate, but she's not old enough to ever have had to deal with anything but the software subscription service it is now. In her mind, it's hassle free and worth every penny of the $10/month her personal license costs (she's STILL on a student plan, somehow) or $50/month the copy her employer pays for her to have.

Contemporary mirrorless camera can do eye autofocus and subject tracking. If you turn that stuff on and you have a relatively fast-focusing lens, you'll find that it's actually work to make your camera miss a shot. I do a lot of portrait and candid work with models, but I also shoot concerts and at what I shall euphemistically call nightclubs where I have basically zero control over light. Canon Mirrorless cameras also have a setting called Flexible Priority (Fv) mode that lets me mess with Shutter speed, aperture, ISO and exposure compensation without fussing with the mode dial, which makes it a semi-manual mode. It took me about a year to fully get used to shooting that way but now it's what I use for about 2/3rds of my shooting.

 

[Santilli]

As for the focusing:
at the zoo you want to take the fence, or screen out of the picture.
Autofocus on my Canon tends to put those items in focus, and the animal not.
Hence manual focus to get rid of the foreground stuff.
I'm too old to be an Adobe money slave..
uke:
Oddly, the stuff I want to do is to reduce resolution so I can post pics here.
Didn't come through here, but came out of a tunnel, and was looking at about a 45 year old, African female, with huge tusks.
Stunning...
Couldn't post it, since I don't currently have software to reduce the size.
What is ideal for posting here, size wise?

 

[LunarMist]

Ideally an image should be about 1500 or 1600 pixels wide and 1000 high. Don't tell me you shoot jpegs?
The females generally have rather small tusks compred to males. Are you sure it was female? Can you post the full image online somewhere?

 

[Santilli]

Ideally an image should be about 1500 or 1600 pixels wide and 1000 high. Don't tell me you shoot jpegs?
The females generally have rather small tusks compred to males. Are you sure it was female? Can you post the full image online somewhere?

SD zoo has three teen males, who are huge. Maybe 12k lbs?
Female has her own area. Shes about 45, and she has large tusks for a female.
We go there, ALOT, and coming out of a tunnel, and seeing her at under 25 feet was shocking. Plus, she's very well behaved and quiet.
I really don't know what the defaults are on my camera.
And yes, the camera's default is .jpeg
What would you suggest, instead?

 

[LunarMist]

Download IrfanView freeware. It will do quite a bit including resizing and converting various formats.

IrfanView - Official Homepage - One of the Most Popular Viewers Worldwide

IrfanView ... one of the most popular viewers worldwide.

www.irfanview.com

 

[ddrueding]

To oversimplify, JPG is a finished picture that already has had processing and compression applied. If you shoot JPGs from your camera, that means you are giving your camera control over all the decisions.

The alternative is to shoot RAW, where you get the raw data out of the camera and are able to make your own decisions about what the picture looks like. This of course requires some software and some knowledge, but if you have a color accurate monitor (which you do), you should be able to do better than the in-camera JPG after a couple days practice by specializing the processing based on your intent on each image.

 

[Mercutio]

My first few lenses were definitely kit lens cheapies, the Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 and 75-300, plus some manual FD lenses my dad had from his time in the military that were a PITA to try to adapt on an EF body. Early on, it didn't seem like changing aperture did very much for me on the lenses I had, and I wasn't shooting a lot of motion. I initially thought it was just that I had a cheap camera, but it turned out that getting a 50/1.8 was what I needed. Limited aperture zoom lenses are decent in a lot of situations, but they are rarely great. Moving around and playing with the control because you can't zoom, though? You'll figure some things out if you want to take good photos.

I'll also say that mirrorless cameras are a lot closer to what people expect out of a camera now, because the viewscreens will correctly reflect your exposure settings and because they handle things like object tracking, even on older models. I've been directing people toward a Canon R50 or Sony ZVE10 as a starting point. They're both around $550 when they're on sale. You can also potentially find older models like the Canon RP pretty cheap.

There's probably nothing wrong with his Canon Rebel, but Greg might find that he can do a lot more with either a $100 50/1.8 or a ~$225 EF-S 17-55/2.8 (check Ebay; both lenses have absurd MSRPs but it's entirely possible you can actually get that 50mm lens for $50). Either way, getting a more capable lens goes a long way to show what the camera can actually do.

For what it's worth, the EF-S 55-250 and 18-135 are lenses I still attach to my crop sensor bodies. They're the two smallest zoom lenses I own. Neither of them offer fast apertures, but for just walking around and taking photos in daytime conditions, they're both pretty great.

 

[LunarMist]

I would never suggest that a Canon cropper of any era is the best choice.
The EF-S/RF-S sensors are inferior to many others in the ~APS-C format. I've had almost every Canon one from 8MP to 10MP to 12MP to 15MP to 18MP, 20MP, 32 MP, several of each sometimes. Canon is stupidly with the blurry AA filter and noisy images (no BSI for decades). The AF was never very good; even the 7D II was not up to the FF bodies of the time, but adequate for most purposes.

There are plenty of cheap and not cheap used lenses and bodies in EF or EF-S around for Canon. They were the volume leader for many years and the EF lens mount has tremendous long term compatibility.

 

[Mercutio]

...adequate for most purposes.

Most people are going to consider a ~$500 camera body to be adequate for most purposes and indeed I can get great results results I'd rather shoot with my old T3i than a new phone; that thing will absolutely smoke a 200MP Samsung Ultra-whatever for image quality, and that's what people are going to compare it to. The lenses do more for the process of picture taking than the body and you know it. We pay for better AF and increased ISO sensitivity (100k ISO on my R6 vs 6k ISO on a T3i) and of course a high resolution sensor if we prioritize that.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm reluctant to advise people to buy equipment if they don't have a plan. I'm sure that Greg could do better with what he has first.
And the stuff you photograph or video in the dim, indoor places is not indicative of wildlife and Canon.

 

[ddrueding]

I was chatting about photography stuff with a friend who's never taken a picture with anything but his phone or drone. He ended up buying an R50 with the kit mid-zoom lens to take on vacation to Greece. He's been there one week so far, and secured a gig for the resort (just photos of the resort) that will pay for half the gear.

 

[LunarMist]

Standards.

 

[Mercutio]

Every so often, pictures I take wind up in particular sorts of magazines that I can't believe are still being printed.

Not necessarily those.
OK also those.

Seriously, some of my boudoir work has been used in tattoo pin-up magazines. I have no idea where to buy them; one of my IT customers is actually a (the?) magazine distributor for Chicagoland and he didn't even know where to order the issues in question, although I do know that my models have gotten paid for the work in question.

 

[LunarMist]

Your contract allows them to do that or they are stealing your images?

 

[Santilli]

Canon Eos Rebel SLI
Tamron18-270 F 3.5-6.3

 

[LunarMist]

The closest sensor to the 100D that I find from Claff is the 7D, though the 60D was similar also. That was in the days where Canon A/D lost the brightest two stops at low ISO and was criticized for not having the DR until about ISO 400. I looked at some of my old 7D files from Africa and CR2 RAW files are fine at ISO 800 with DPP.

 

[Mercutio]

Your contract allows them to do that or they are stealing your images?

I generally give models commercial rights to their images unless I know that their financial status is materially changed from their work. I work with a couple people who can afford to pay me real money and that's enough. Anything else I do is just for fun anyway.

 

[jtr1962]

To oversimplify, JPG is a finished picture that already has had processing and compression applied. If you shoot JPGs from your camera, that means you are giving your camera control over all the decisions.

The alternative is to shoot RAW, where you get the raw data out of the camera and are able to make your own decisions about what the picture looks like. This of course requires some software and some knowledge, but if you have a color accurate monitor (which you do), you should be able to do better than the in-camera JPG after a couple days practice by specializing the processing based on your intent on each image.

I just checked the camera (Panasonic DMC-ZS7) I'm using now out of curiosity. I couldn't even find an option for RAW. Anyway, there's a very practical reason people save as JPGs. Before we had multi-gigabyte cards, you might get a few hundred JPGs on your card, but maybe only a dozen or two RAW. I remember seeing the number of pictures remaining switching to RAW and told myself this is just silly. I'll have less pictures than even an old-school film camera.

Even now, I'm not seeing the point of it. The aforementioned camera can take up to 128 GB cards. That holds roughly 24,000 pictures at the highest resolution if saved as JPGs. No idea what the RAW capacity would be, but it's a lot lower than I would like. So far I have all the pictures and video I ever took with that camera on a 64 GB card. When it's full I'll start using the 128 GB card I got for free at MicroCenter (one of their promotions). I like having all my stuff on one or two cards, never needing to delete anything to make room for more pictures.

I couldn't care less about post-processing most of my pictures. I'm not doing anything on a professional level.

 

[LunarMist]

If you are using a 2010 P/S, then obviously IQ is not a priority.

Back in summer 2003, a 2GB CF card was $600. I was using an 11MP FF camera that produced ~10MB RAW files. So each image required $3 worth of a memory card. I had 10GB of cards in total, a laptop with an 80GB HDD, and two PSDs with a 60GB drive each. That was the state of the art 21 years ago. Today most FF sensors are not more than 45MP (4x the size of 2003) at a cost per lossless RAW image of $0.02-0.04 (about 1% of 2003). There are also much cheaper cards if speed and reliability are less important.

FWIW, I once captured about 90,000 mostly 45MP RAW images in 12 long shooting days. I only had about 2.5TB of the fastest CFe cards, about 0.5TB of UHS-II, and some TBs of slower ones. I had about 20TB of portable SSDs and an 8TB laptop back then though.

 

[jtr1962]

For my purposes it's fine. It can take 12MP images, which is plenty for what I do. And the macro feature works great. Here I zoomed in on a quarter:



Here's another of one of my circuit boards:



I can easily resolve details to about 0.001" (i.e. the wider track is 0.025" for comparison purposes).

 

[jtr1962]

Here's a $200 phone with a 50 MP camera:

Motorola’s new $200 Android phone looks like a great deal

There's a new budget phone arriving from Motorola. It’s called the Moto S50 Neo, and it looks like a solid deal.

www.yahoo.com

 

[LunarMist]

Those pixels are about 800nm, just more than visible light wavelength. You need to do the math and decide what Airy disk to use, but it's nothing like having 4.1µm pixels each with 26x the area.

Sony cranks out those types of mini sensors in stupendous volume so the cost is reasonable. A camera phone is probably fine for your low quality needs.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm not getting your point. I assume the pixel size is large enough that having more megapixels still adds to image quality. If not, why not just use fewer megapixels? What's better about larger pixels, other than maybe more light-gathering ability?

Also, as far as I know, there are no mainstream displays which are even 50MP, never mind more. An 8K display is only 32MP, for example. So are you even going to notice the difference between sensors?

Low quality needs? That's all relative. No, I don't need or want to take a picture of a flea from 5,000 yards, or a screw on a satellite in orbit. For most people that's the case. In fact, for most people sensors beyond maybe 10MP are overkill given that best case they'll be viewing the stuff on a 4K display. I'm just pleasantly surprised they can incorporate that many pixels in a $200 commodity device. I remember when 2 MP cameras cost more. I know this isn't a device for professional photographers, nor does it pretend to be.

Choosing a camera Part 1: should I worry about pixel size?

In the first of a three-part beginners' guide, we're going to look at whether you need to worry about pixel size when choosing a camera. Parts two and three will look at the benefits of a larger sensor size, and the trade-offs you make.

www.dpreview.com

 

[LunarMist]

The main reason they use excessive pixels is for cropping (digital zooming) and for averaging out the noise when using the full image. You are correct that more pixels results in more information, but there are diminishing returns as the pixels get really small. The ARMos in the phones do fancy AI things with the images to make them look better, at least superficially and in good light. In low light the cameras can run in a sort of multiframe mode where they stack the most similar parts of images, discaaaard outliers, and average the rest. It works best for completely static subjects and not for action. A 24MP FX camera with a good lens will produce an image that most people will find excellent. Feedback from pro photographers has led Canon to continue with 2x MP cameras even with the new 2024 model.

I prefer 200-1,000 megapixels for landscapes. If you are looking at the entire image and not details, then low-res is fine. If you like looking at 1:1 and like seeing mushy leaves and grass that looks painted on then fine. If you have a 4K display then you may need to view at 2:1 to see pixel level detail.
45-60MP is fine for wildlife, but there is only one 61MP sensor and it is a really slow readout one. I was hoping we would have at least a 60MP stacked sensor from Canon or Nikon by now.

 

[jtr1962]

Well, for video that makes sense. All that AI stuff can't be done well in real-time if you're shooting 60 or more fps.

I know a larger sensor with the same number of pixels is better than a smaller sensor just from a pure light-gathering perspective. Obviously if I got more into photography I'd get better equipment than my decade old P&S. My maternal grandfather was seriously into photography. He obviously never lived into the digital era but he did pretty well with the equipment he had. He took pictures of the old WTC going up. One of our other relatives has them, unfortunately. Also took some of the Cross Bronx Expressway being built.

That said, I'm amazed at the 4K videos today's smart phones can take. Even a decade ago, you would have needed professional equipment for that.

 

[LunarMist]

Newer technology allows for greater volumes of crap content.

In the old days we used large format like 4x5", 8x10" or medium format (cm) 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc. for high image quality.

 

[ddrueding]

JTR, one of the reasons that a lower MP count on the same sized sensor can be better is that there are gaps between the sensor pixels. They do all kinds of tricky things with lenses trying to grab it all, but it isn't perfect. More pixels on the same size sensor, particularly as the sensors get really small and the MP count gets really big, will lead to less usable sensor space and therefore less light hitting the sensor, so longer exposures or worse images.

 

[jtr1962]

JTR, one of the reasons that a lower MP count on the same sized sensor can be better is that there are gaps between the sensor pixels. They do all kinds of tricky things with lenses trying to grab it all, but it isn't perfect. More pixels on the same size sensor, particularly as the sensors get really small and the MP count gets really big, will lead to less usable sensor space and therefore less light hitting the sensor, so longer exposures or worse images.

Well, I fall in the camp that I don't much see the point to cramming 50MP on a sensor for bragging rights unless the sensor is large enough to get a decent amount of added information from those extra pixels. I guess in bright light it matters less, but not all of us take pictures in full sunlight.

I'll admit I'm still amazed at the capabilities of cell-phone cameras these days. I have an old 2MP P&S which I never use. That didn't do well under low-lighting conditions. My DMC-ZS7 does a lot better, but even that is still way off what today's cell phones can do, never mind a real camera.

Newer technology allows for greater volumes of crap content.

Yeah, like the floodgates of selfies. 99.99% of the pictures I see online are crap in every sense of the word. At least when film was relatively costly, plus you had to wait to see the pictures, people were a lot more discriminating about what they photographed. Now people eat out and post pictures of their food on Facebook to get likes.

 

[LunarMist]

The 5DsR's 50MP was fantastic for 2015. Today we have the a7RV with 61MP and the older a1 with 50MP. Unfortunately the 61MP sensor is slow, but the IQ is usually better than the common 45MP or 50MP sensors. The resolution is fantastic, although some of the sharpness is at the expense of aliasing common to certain brands. You do need to use excellent lenses and careful technique.