Photography/Photoshop tips and tricks?

[DJ Orion]

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

Alright, so I guess no one here has one.  Next question - the camera is 10.1 megapixels.  Is this good enough to be able to blow up pictures to sizes larger than 8 by 10?

My XTi is 10.1 megapixels and I just printed out a few 8x10's and they look great.

[Ram23]

^ I print 11x14 with my XTi and they look great, as well.

[CorySnyder]

Thanks for the info. That's good that it won't be a problem to print large images.  The Nikon D3000 does not have a "live feature" which I suppose I am OK with.  It has a feature where it teaches you how to use the camera, which is a pretty cool for newbies like me.  The price seems good too.   

[hydrobond]

The quality of the sensor and lens is also to be considered, in addition to the MP count.  However, I've had some of my 8MP XTi pictures blown up to 20"x26" and they look just fine for hanging on a wall.  If you look very close you can see some of the pixel artifacts, but it's not noticeable unless you are closer than 1' from the picture.  I wouldn't worry about blowing up a 10MP image to that size, especially if it is going to be hanging over an object that prevents people from getting within one foot from it, such as over a desk or mantle.

[jmecklenborg]

I find live view to be a borderline useless feature.  I've had a D300 for over a year and haven't found a regular use for it. 

The ability to make big prints depends on the conditions of a particular scene as much as a camera's specs, and considering that most people who want the ability to make big prints end up making fewer than 10 over the lifespan of a camera, it shouldn't be a major consideration. I have to date made exactly one print from my D300, and it looked worse than some of the 16x20's I made with my older D70 because of the context of the photograph. 

[Robert Pence]

I find live view to be a borderline useless feature.  I've had a D300 for over a year and haven't found a regular use for it. 

The ability to make big prints depends on the conditions of a particular scene as much as a camera's specs, and considering that most people who want the ability to make big prints end up making fewer than 10 over the lifespan of a camera, it shouldn't be a major consideration. I have to date made exactly one print from my D300, and it looked worse than some of the 16x20's I made with my older D70 because of the context of the photograph.

I'll second both of those. I have yet to use my live view, and don't anticipate that I ever will.

And yes, the scene affects the outcome a lot. The nature and level of the light, the severity of contrast, the amount of fine detail, etc., all affect how a big enlargement will look. My first DSLR was a D70 (6+ megapixels, as I recall) and for most general urban scenes I was able to print 12x18 without any problems.

Ten megapixels should take good care of you for quite a while, especially with good software like Photoshop. You might find Genuine Fractals interesting. From everything I've heard, the software does a good job of living up to the vendor's claims.

[jmecklenborg]

Printing big is rare because big prints need big frames. Until digital it was virtually impossible to print beyond 20x24 without hiring a commercial printer or having access to a college darkroom with space for an enlarger to project on the wall.  Now with these digital printers 30x40 and larger can be printed much more easily by labs, but it still costs a ton to frame them.   

About 10 years ago I saw Yale University's 8x10 enlarger, which was in a room with a 15ft. ceiling and had a 10x10ft. block that sat one foot off the ground with holes drilled into it.  A vacuum kept huge sheets of photo paper sucked flat on the block and the enlarger itself was adjusted from a catwalk.  This is what was necessary in the past to print above 20x24.     

I'm not good at framing and I think the expense of having artwork professionally framed is worth it.  I've seen many attempt by individuals to frame their own stuff.  Some succeed, some fail. 

[C-Dawg Njaim]

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

Alright, so I guess no one here has one.  Next question - the camera is 10.1 megapixels.  Is this good enough to be able to blow up pictures to sizes larger than 8 by 10?

10 megapixels is plenty for 8x10's and can produce high quality 11x14's. Technique is most important, though do understand crop sensor cameras have compromises besides megapixel count. The main issues are digital noise and slightly lower dynamic range (you learn to work with it). Keep ISO low if you're using APS-C crop sensor cameras (ISO 400 and under is best for enlargements). I use an XTi/400D, and I don't print anything shot at ISO 800. Digital noise looks worse in prints than film grain.

A perfect shot from a 10-megapixel DSLR (low ISO, tripod and/or high shutter speed, good lighting, etc.) can probably look sharp up to 16x20 or so. I've seen big enlargements from 10-megapixel cameras that look as good as 35mm slide film and top line negative film like Reala and Portra. 10 megapixels was a pretty big milestone in DSLR's. I'd say that's when they matched what you could do with 35mm film. Since then, they've eclipsed 35mm.

Some of the newer full-frame cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II are competitive with medium format film, maybe even besting it. And keep in mind full-frame cameras can be handheld in remarkably bad lighting conditions. They look clean at insanely high ISO settings. Digital noise just isn't an issue with full-frame DSLR's.

So the bigger issue is not megapixels, it's digital noise. Also, remember it's not just the camera, but the lens in front of it. Invest good money in lenses. I'm not saying buy all Canon L glass or the Nikon equivalent, but don't cheap out either. Do your research and find lenses that are the best bang for your buck. For anything but extreme wide angle, buy lenses that are compatible with both crop sensor and full-frame cameras. That way if you upgrade in the future, your lenses are still useable. You won't have to worry about selling them off and starting over. Camera lenses are not like computers (or camera bodies for that matter). They can retain value and function for a very long time, even decades.

[Robert Pence]

Printing big is rare because big prints need big frames. Until digital it was virtually impossible to print beyond 20x24 without hiring a commercial printer or having access to a college darkroom with space for an enlarger to project on the wall.  Now with these digital printers 30x40 and larger can be printed much more easily by labs, but it still costs a ton to frame them.   

About 10 years ago I saw Yale University's 8x10 enlarger, which was in a room with a 15ft. ceiling and had a 10x10ft. block that sat one foot off the ground with holes drilled into it.  A vacuum kept huge sheets of photo paper sucked flat on the block and the enlarger itself was adjusted from a catwalk.  This is what was necessary in the past to print above 20x24.     

I'm not good at framing and I think the expense of having artwork professionally framed is worth it.  I've seen many attempt to frame their own stuff.  Some succeed, some fail.

One restraint when framing your own big prints is that retail mat board and mounting board come in 32x40 sheets. I've never found a way to seam a mat without it being conspicuous. And Nielsen-Bainbridge has discontinued their wood frame component kits. Their plain black gallery frame was my long-time favorite, and it was available in sizes up to 40" on a side at a local art-supply store.

In the sixties I got a peek inside the darkroom at Dover AFB where they printed aerial recon photos. Their 8x10 enlarger was horizontal, with a cast-iron frame and a head that rolled back and forth on rails. The machine was built to be vibration-resistant and and probably weighed around a ton.

[CorySnyder]

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

Alright, so I guess no one here has one.  Next question - the camera is 10.1 megapixels.  Is this good enough to be able to blow up pictures to sizes larger than 8 by 10?

10 megapixels is plenty for 8x10's and can produce high quality 11x14's. Technique is most important, though do understand crop sensor cameras have compromises besides megapixel count. The main issues are digital noise and slightly lower dynamic range (you learn to work with it). Keep ISO low if you're using APS-C crop sensor cameras (ISO 400 and under is best for enlargements). I use an XTi/400D, and I don't print anything shot at ISO 800. Digital noise looks worse in prints than film grain.

A perfect shot from a 10-megapixel DSLR (low ISO, tripod and/or high shutter speed, good lighting, etc.) can probably look sharp up to 16x20 or so. I've seen big enlargements from 10-megapixel cameras that look as good as 35mm slide film and top line negative film like Reala and Portra. 10 megapixels was a pretty big milestone in DSLR's. I'd say that's when they matched what you could do with 35mm film. Since then, they've eclipsed 35mm.

Some of the newer full-frame cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II are competitive with medium format film, maybe even besting it. And keep in mind full-frame cameras can be handheld in remarkably bad lighting conditions. They look clean at insanely high ISO settings. Digital noise just isn't an issue with full-frame DSLR's.

So the bigger issue is not megapixels, it's digital noise. Also, remember it's not just the camera, but the lens in front of it. Invest good money in lenses. I'm not saying buy all Canon L glass or the Nikon equivalent, but don't cheap out either. Do your research and find lenses that are the best bang for your buck. For anything but extreme wide angle, buy lenses that are compatible with both crop sensor and full-frame cameras. That way if you upgrade in the future, your lenses are still useable. You won't have to worry about selling them off and starting over. Camera lenses are not like computers (or camera bodies for that matter). They can retain value and function for a very long time, even decades.

As to your comment on buying quality lenses - anyone know anything about the Nikon 55-200 mm telephoto lens?

So what I think I might do is check out black friday at Best Buy - they have a package of the Nikon D3000, 18-55 mm lens, 55-200 mm lens, and camera bag for $599.  Seems like a good starter kit.

[DJ Orion]

I don't know how many photographers on the boards do their own printing, but I just got the Canon Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss, and it's pretty damn good.  I just made a print on my PIXMA MP520 and it looks amazing.  I know I could probably do better with a higher quality printer, but I am amazed how good the print looks. 

[Ram23]

I always use Epson (despite the fact that I have a Canon i9900 printer) papers.  Specifically, the 5 star Ultra Premium Photo Paper Glossy.  I print up to 13x19.  I love that paper..

[DJ Orion]

I wish I could print 13x19.  My canon printer doesn't print that large.  I have yet to try epson products, but I got the canon paper for my birthday and I love it.

[Robert Pence]

This year I replaced my Epson 2200 printer with an R2880. I always thought the 2200 was excellent, and it was; a lot of people crank out beautiful prints with it.

The R2880 with the Ultra-Chrome inks and Ultra Premium Lustre Paper really surprised me, though. I made a print of one of my favorite images with a bright-red caboose against a snowy background, and the difference from the print I had made on the 2200 was dramatic.

My system was already calibrated and profiled, and I used the downloaded Epson print profile for the paper. It was pretty near spot-on, and required very little tweaking to get a really gorgeous print. The R2880 prints up to 13x19. A friend bought the 3800, which I believe goes up to 17" wide. I rarely need anything that big, and when I do, there's a very good custom printer just six blocks away who can give me same-day turnaround if I take a disc first thing in the morning.

[C-Dawg Njaim]

I'm thinking about stepping up to the DSLR world and I am considering the Nikon D3000.  Anyone here have one?

Alright, so I guess no one here has one.  Next question - the camera is 10.1 megapixels.  Is this good enough to be able to blow up pictures to sizes larger than 8 by 10?

10 megapixels is plenty for 8x10's and can produce high quality 11x14's. Technique is most important, though do understand crop sensor cameras have compromises besides megapixel count. The main issues are digital noise and slightly lower dynamic range (you learn to work with it). Keep ISO low if you're using APS-C crop sensor cameras (ISO 400 and under is best for enlargements). I use an XTi/400D, and I don't print anything shot at ISO 800. Digital noise looks worse in prints than film grain.

A perfect shot from a 10-megapixel DSLR (low ISO, tripod and/or high shutter speed, good lighting, etc.) can probably look sharp up to 16x20 or so. I've seen big enlargements from 10-megapixel cameras that look as good as 35mm slide film and top line negative film like Reala and Portra. 10 megapixels was a pretty big milestone in DSLR's. I'd say that's when they matched what you could do with 35mm film. Since then, they've eclipsed 35mm.

Some of the newer full-frame cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II are competitive with medium format film, maybe even besting it. And keep in mind full-frame cameras can be handheld in remarkably bad lighting conditions. They look clean at insanely high ISO settings. Digital noise just isn't an issue with full-frame DSLR's.

So the bigger issue is not megapixels, it's digital noise. Also, remember it's not just the camera, but the lens in front of it. Invest good money in lenses. I'm not saying buy all Canon L glass or the Nikon equivalent, but don't cheap out either. Do your research and find lenses that are the best bang for your buck. For anything but extreme wide angle, buy lenses that are compatible with both crop sensor and full-frame cameras. That way if you upgrade in the future, your lenses are still useable. You won't have to worry about selling them off and starting over. Camera lenses are not like computers (or camera bodies for that matter). They can retain value and function for a very long time, even decades.

As to your comment on buying quality lenses - anyone know anything about the Nikon 55-200 mm telephoto lens?

So what I think I might do is check out black friday at Best Buy - they have a package of the Nikon D3000, 18-55 mm lens, 55-200 mm lens, and camera bag for $599.  Seems like a good starter kit.

The 18-55mm is the Nikon crop sensor kit lens. These usually are good "walk-around" lenses, but have four obvious weaknesses:

A. Barrel distortion at the wide end. This can actually be fixed in Photoshop (CS2 and up), or sometimes zooming in slightly will get rid of it. You can figure out how to work with it, but keep in mind this takes up extra time. To get a legit wide angle lens for a crop sensor camera without barrel distortion, you are going to spend $500-$1000 (adios any plans for marriage and first born child). There is absolutely no middle ground here. Wide angle on crop sensor cameras is either "fix it in post" or "drop a grand in a depression." These days, if you're not a public schoolteacher, engineer, or work at a bailout bank (or have 100% job security), I say choose the "fix it in post" option. So, in closing, hold on to that kit lens. Once you learn how to deal with its shortcomings, you can produce excellent work.

B. Sh!tty focus ring, and I mean really sh!tty (might as well not be there). Forget manual focus on kit lenses. There won't be distance markers, and the ring itself is a flimsy joke. Luckily, you can set focus points with the camera and figure out a way to get reliable auto focus. Focus points really do work. Instead of letting the camera "decide" what part of the frame to focus, you make that decision. 99% of the time, this will give results as good or better than manual focus with these types of lenses on crop sensor cameras.

C. Slow lens. Kit lenses don't gather much light. A maximum aperture of 5.6 limits you when hand-holding in low light conditions. This also limits shallow focus and bokeh you might want for artistic effect.

D. Kits Lenses are usually soft wide open and/or soft in the corners. To work around this you might have to stop down 1 or 2 f-stops to extract all the sharpness from the lens. Though I believe Nikon's kit lenses are considered better with this than Canon's.

BTW, most of these kit lenses are now available with image stabilization. I believe the Nikon has a VR feature for little or no extra money. This VR will make up for it being a slow lens, and would make it an incredible value. This feature can give you three or four extra f-stops of light in which you can shoot handheld!

In terms of the 55-200mm, keep in mind it's a DX lens, so not useable on full-frames. It also appears to lack a legit focus ring with distance markers. I'd stay away from it unless it's an excellent deal. Though if it has VR, I might consider it if it's cheaper than a full-frame telephoto without VR. One positive thing about the crop sensor lenses is that they tend to have image stabilization features at cheaper prices than full-frame lenses do.

So in terms of whether or not to take that Black Friday deal, I'd say do it in a hearbeat if the 18-55mm and 55-200mm are VR lenses. If they are older versions of the lenses without VR, I wouldn't rush.

[jmecklenborg]

You can't really completely rid the image of that barrel distortion for two reasons:

1. it's not simply barrel distortion.  It has a more complicated character than simply bending evenly at the corners.  Sometimes it's called moustache distortion, and it's really bad with the super-wide zooms like the 12-24. 
2. it's compounded by the camera being hand-held and therefore not perfectly level. For architectural shots day or night, use a tripod and a bubble level.  A significantly croppsed stopped down image from a perfectly leveled camera will often have better overall image quality than one that's corrected for perspective. 

[C-Dawg Njaim]

^It's true you can't completely fix barrel distortion, but you can make it look better. That Photoshop feature is better than nothing when you're using kit lenses.

From what I gather, the way it works with extreme wide angle lenses for crop sensor cameras (like the 12-24mm for Nikons and 10-22mm for Canons) is that they have barrel distortion at their wide ends, but by their middle range, it's gone. Thus a Nikon 12-24mm lens will look better at 18mm than the 18-55mm lens would. But honestly, I don't have personal experience with extreme wide angle lenses in the crop sensor format. I'm too broke. But usually with Canon and Nikon lenses, you seem to get what you pay for.

it's compounded by the camera being hand-held and therefore not perfectly level.

It's true that any shot that's not perfectly level and has barrel distortion will be much tougher to fix in Photoshop. One side of the photo might look right after some distortion correction, but the other won't. And if you overdo distortion correction, you can lose some sharpness. As with most things in Photoshop, less is more.

[DJ Orion]

So I'm pretty sure I'm getting the EF 50mm f/1.8 II for xmas. C-Dawg or any other canon users; have you ever used this lens?  I know the image quality is superb for a lens with such a low price tag.  But what about the quality?  I'm really excited to get this lens, I just hope it doesn't fall apart within a year.

[C-Dawg Njaim]

Second best website ever:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

This guy has pretty accurate reviews of just about every Canon lens made in the last 20 years! He also does tests for resolution, distortion, and chromatic aberrations.

I personally have not used the 50mm f/1.8 II lens, but for that price, you can't go wrong. It is considered very high resolution for the price. The only thing I wish it had was a dedicated focus ring like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, but I'm sure you have to pay a pretty penny for the f/1.4 lens (larger aperture, dedicated focus ring, metal mount, etc.). The f/1.8 II lens is about $100 while the f/1.4 USM lens is about $400. Overall image quality is probably the same between these lenses, so there's no way to justify that high price tag just for a USM focusing ring and metal mount.

[Ram23]

The 50mm f/1.8 is basically 100% plastic.  You get what you pay for in terms of build quality, but it's definitely worth it and in the 6 months I've had mine I've never had any problems with it.  It's a great lens for indoor or low-light situations because of the speed.  I wouldn't leave the house without that lens!  Can't go wrong for $100. 

[CorySnyder]

So I picked up the Nikon D3000 last week from Dodd (they also gave me a Nikon S210 for free).  I have been happily snapping some pics - but still definitely learning the camera.  I do have a question - My pictures are all about 2MB in size, should I change the settings on my camera to make them smaller?  Also, I tried emailing some pics via gmail and they were absolutely huge when viewed in the email, how can I shrink the size of pics I have already taken.

This is my favorite picture taken so far, not sure if it is a "good" picture, but I think it looks pretty cool.

[eastvillagedon]

^looks good. Is that the American wing at the Met?

[MayDay]

Pfft! The Met. That's the CMA, son!

[eastvillagedon]

sheesh! okay!! But at least those are American paintings, right? Whistler, maybe--or someone like that...

[MayDay]

Survey says?!?


http://www.clevelandart.org/explore/work.asp?accNo=&keywordid%2D3=&keywordid%2D1=4409&startYear=1700&title=&recordtype=2&department=2&showImageOnly=on&endYear=1900&showOnDisplayOnly=on&advsearch=y&searchText=&recNo=64&tab=2&display=

http://www.clevelandart.org/explore/work.asp?accNo=&keywordid%2D3=&keywordid%2D1=4409&startYear=1700&title=&recordtype=2&department=2&showImageOnly=on&endYear=1900&showOnDisplayOnly=on&advsearch=y&searchText=&recNo=93&tab=2&display=

http://www.clevelandart.org/explore/work.asp?accNo=&keywordid%2D3=&keywordid%2D1=4409&startYear=1700&title=&recordtype=2&department=2&showImageOnly=on&endYear=1900&showOnDisplayOnly=on&advsearch=y&searchText=&recNo=94&tab=2&display=

[eastvillagedon]

^Sorry, I guess my confusion/wild guess was based on Whistler’s earlier influence in France by the better known artists of the era, which is why I failed to identify the CMA works 

http://nga.gov.au/WHISTLER/janess.cfm

"In Paris Whistler met the artist Henri Fantin-Latour, who introduced him to the bohemian haunts of Paris, most notably the Café Voltaire, where the young American befriended some of the emerging artists including Edouard Manet, Felix Braquemond and Alphonse Legros, who later became key players in the French art scene. It is likely that Whistler would have been aware of the art of the leading French Realist, Gustave Courbet, who was a controversial figure in French art circles owing to his choice of contemporary settings that dispense with the reliance on historical, classical or allegorical themes. The influence of French Realism is apparent in Whistler’s first major exercise in printmaking, Twelve etchings from nature 1858, also known as the ‘French set’, that consist of a series of views of Paris and the surrounding countryside.
 
During 1858, eager to see more of Rembrandt’s art, Whistler set off with the artist Ernest Delannoy on a trip to Amsterdam. But the journey was cut short because Whistler ran out of funds. His intention was to tour northern France, Luxembourg and the Rhineland taking sketchbooks and copper plates to etch with him. Though he failed to reach the Dutch capital, a selection of rural views drawn in situ in the careful and unglamorous manner of the French Barbizon artists also formed part of the ‘French set’. These were in contrast to the figure studies of urban Paris drawn from life. In this way the ‘French set’ conformed to the influential poet and critic Charles Baudelaire’s call for ‘modern’ subject-matter — a demand that increasingly gained support among younger artists."

[CBC]

So I picked up the Nikon D3000 last week from Dodd (they also gave me a Nikon S210 for free).  I have been happily snapping some pics - but still definitely learning the camera.  I do have a question - My pictures are all about 2MB in size, should I change the settings on my camera to make them smaller?  Also, I tried emailing some pics via gmail and they were absolutely huge when viewed in the email, how can I shrink the size of pics I have already taken.

This is my favorite picture taken so far, not sure if it is a "good" picture, but I think it looks pretty cool.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

Corey if you still have XP the Power Toy image resizer  is the easiest tool to resize pictures to use as attachments in e-mail and for blogs. You just right click on a file and the resizing options are right in the drop down menu. If you have vista or windows 7 google it because I know some people have recoded it to work in those OSes. If you have a mac, no clue/


BTW, I know this an open ended question and there is a lot of discussion in the thread above but the wife and I are looking at getting a starter DSLR, any brands or models that we should stay away from? Especially some that would be on clearance right now and would have a tempting price tag. Currently we have a "hybrid" point and shoot Kodak that has most of the adjustment features of a DSLR but it is showning it's age and the shutter lag is horrible.

[C-Dawg Njaim]

^Any of the current Canon or Nikon DSLR's are very capable of high quality enlargements. Just make sure if you buy a kit package (meaning camera body + lens/lenses) that you are getting the latest version of that lens. Sometimes deals are "too good to be true" and include older versions of the lenses which tend to be lacking in comparison to the newest kit lenses. The newest kit lenses have image stabilization for little or no extra cost and tend to be better optical quality than the previous generation (same sh!tty build quality though). Image stabilization in low-priced lenses is a huge innovation and something you will want to have due to the slow nature of lenses under $500. Don't be hoodwinked. Make sure if you're buying a kit lens that you get this feature (called "IS" for Canons, "VR" for Nikons).

[Robert Pence]

... Sometimes deals are "too good to be true" and include older versions of the lenses which tend to be lacking in comparison to the newest kit lenses ...

True. There may be exceptions, but I think a manufacturer's kit from a local retailer is more likely to have current versions than a dealer-bundled "kit" offered by an on-line vendor. That's especially true if, as you note, the on-line deal is "too good to be true." Local retailers need to turn their inventory frequently and don't maintain a warehouse full of stuff, so your purchase is more likely to be current-version.

I'm possibly repeating myself (I do that; chalk it up to senioritis) but I've found little advantage in buying Nikon on-line instead of from the local shop, because most sellers' prices closely follow the MSRP. I'd guess it's pretty much the same with Canon or any other major name brand.

On-line vendors' shipping & handling sometimes nearly offsets any savings I might get from avoiding sales tax, and it's worth it to me to spend a little extra to support a local merchant whose profits go back into local wages, property taxes, etc. I know the local shop is honest, and they've gone beyond what they had to to help me out with a problem in the past.

[CBC]

Thanks for the tips guys.