Fishing Forum

[size 4][font "Garamond"][#008000]Been fooling around with various shooting modes of my new camera. Taking indoor pictures in the macro mode finds that the white balance needs to be reset so that a white background doesn't show up as gray. e.g. FGD's BWO photo. I found that if I use the Indoor Mode it prevents camera shake and maintains the subject's true color when shooting under fluorescent or tungsten lighting. e.g. MacFly's GGnat[/#008000][/font][/size]
[font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Do you have any suggestions to offer on how to improve the quality of one's photos?[/size][/#008000][/font]
[signature]

I am by no stretch of the imagination good with a camera.. for the most part I am usually happy that all the things I want in the frame are in there and that it is not too blurry.. but.. one comment you mad about lighting brought a thought to mind..

we all know that certain types of lighting such a fluorescent lighting can be harsh and difficult to take photos with.. but what about using an ott-lite true color light such as those found at Michaels?? from what I have been told.. and seen... with my own light while tying.. it seems to be a softer.. more natural light.. here is a link to the light that I have.. I got it on sale at Michaels a year or so ago..

[url "http://www.michaels.com/art/online/displayProductPage?productNum=fa0264"]OTT LITE[/url]

MacFly [cool]
[signature]

[font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]That light would work. I do have a halogen desk lamp that I have next to my PC where I do all my tying. Since I can adjust the intensity it suits me just fine. When will you be picking up your new light? [/size][/#008000][/font]
[signature]

I already have that light I showed in that link.. what I have to do now is learn to tye flies and get a camera to take some pictures of my work.. LOL>.

MacFly [cool]
[signature]

[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Say cheese![/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][inline camera.gif]
[signature]

LOL...just be careful taking pictues of me.. you might break that new camera of yours..
[signature]

Dryrod, I know nothing about digital photography. But I do know about conventional picture taking. So maybe I can offer some suggestions.

I assume you understand that light sources are not all the same? That standard florescent bulbs, for instance, do not contain any red pigment? And that incandescent light is warm and daylight is cold?

One difference between standard cameras and digital is that with film you have to physically adjust for those light conditions. With better digital cameras, the camera does it for you, reading the light and adjusting automatically based on its white-scale reading.

And, of course, you can always massage things after you download the images---which is a whole lot easier than working magic in the darkroom.

Points one and two for digital.

Color depth perception is greater with film than digital, however. That's why if I take a photo of a fly, both it and the background card will show their true colors. But the card with a digital camera will go gray, unless you take steps. The closer you put the card to the subject, the less of a problem this will be. But there are other reasons not to do that.

Point one to film.

And, even with film, if you get too far back, you lose color definition.

The solution, in both cases, is to use a fill light on the background. Won't bore you with why this works with film, but with digital you are establishing a foreground and background with the same white-scale values.

One problem, always, is resolving true color. With film, you have to use a daylight-balanced light source for this, or you will get color shifts. With digital, because of its self-adjusting nature, you don't. So long as your white-scale is balanced, what you see is what you get.

The ultimate table-top macro work, with film, is to use a medical camera. With those, the lens, itself, is surrounded by a daylight-balanced ring light. But they are incredibly expensive.

Point three for digital.

Macrophotography is a whole nuther world, in many respects.

I'm assuming a digital works the same in this regard as a standard camera? On macro settings, your depth-of-field is very small. And the closer you get to the subject, the tighter the depth of field becomes---to the point where you can actually have the near wing of a streamer in focus and the far wing blurry. Or the front jaw of the vise will be blurry, but the fly in focus.

Sometimes that's an advantage. But, often enough, because of this, you might forego the macro setting. Instead, use a short zoom lens, and back off to where the fly fills the frame (or as much of it as you want). This increases the depth of field, and the entire fly will be in focus.

There are, too, physical reasons why the whole subject may or may not be in focus. With film, there is a depth of emulsion problem. With a very tight depth of field, the difference in the emulsion layers can actually affect final focus. Because digital is only a single layer of electrons, as it were, this is not a problem.

Point four for digital.

Wow! I'm really building a case for digital here. Maybe it's time I broke down and bought one.

Brook
[url "http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com"]http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com[/url]
[signature]

[font "Times New Roman"][/font][font "Garamond"][size 4][#008000]Hey Brooks you said a mouth full. Too much for me to comment on but I will take issue to with this statement: [/#008000][/size][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]"[/font]One difference between standard cameras and digital is that with film you have to physically adjust for those light conditions. With better digital cameras, the camera does it for you, reading the light and adjusting automatically based on its white-scale reading."[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Previously to owning several digital cameras my last film camera was a Canon T90. A professional model that cost $900 in 1986. One of the features included a multipoint metering system and numerous shooting modes. The camera would automatically take into account its surroundings and adjust its settings accordingly. Anyhow under certain conditions there were times that I had to adjust the white balance. The same holds turn with my Digital SLR Canon. With the less expensive digitals such as the Canon Power Shot I just purchased you cannot do incremental adjustment to the white balance only mode changes e.g. indoor mode. [/size][/#008000][/font]
[signature]

ya'll are talking way over my head.. whatever happen to the days where you pointed the lens at your subject and then pushed a button.. or. .were there ever really days like that.. [:p]

MacFly [cool]
[signature]

[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Oh you mean the old Kodak Brownie Box camera. No on or off switch - just point and push the lever. No hi tech stuff here.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4][inline BrownieB-sct.jpg]

[/size][/#008000][/font]
[signature]

well .. I have seen those in places other than museums but never used one.. but advanced cameras from that.. or the instant photo ones.. now those I remember.. lol..

I do envy someone who understands all the ins and outs of using a camera properly.. Im just not one of them.. I like things simple and easy.. turn it on. .point.. let it focus.. push the button.. LOL..

MacFly [cool]
[signature]

[center][font "Garamond"][#000000][size 4][#008000]Pray tell and what do you say to get your fishy to ? C&R?[/#008000][/size][/#000000][/font]
[inline laughing-fish.jpg]
[signature]

noooooooooooo

CHEEEEEESSSSSEEEEEYYYYY

FFFLLLLIIIIIEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!

MacFly [cool]
[signature]

Do ya'll know that the original Kodak was a wooden camera?

It came pre-loaded with a roll of film that was good for 100 round pix. When you shot the last one you shipped the whole shebang back to Kodak. They developed the film, reloaded the camera, and shipped it back to you.

Camera sold for 25 bucks (which was a lot of money in the late 1800s), and processing/reloading was $10.

Kodak marketed it with the slogan "You push the button and we do the rest" (right up McFly's ally, eh, whot).

A hundred years later Kodak had advanced the state of the art all the way to the Instamatic---where you pushed the button and they did the rest.

Ain't technology grand!

Not to show my age, but my first camera was a Baby Brownie, a smaller version of the one shown above. Had a plastic body, instead of the leatherette-coated one of the real Brownie, and used 127 film. The last camera I bought was a $900 Nikon, which, when all is said and done, doesn't take pictures particularly better than the Baby Brownie.

Brook
http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com
[signature]

[font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]The original baby Brownie came out in 1934 and was made of a plastic type of material called Bakelite. Believe the Kodak Box Brownie [my parents had one, I think my brother now owns it] was first marketed in the 1888's. Their camera was a 1920 vintage model. Roll size 120. In those years my dad use to develop his own film. I still have a couple of his developing trays which BTW are made of Bakelite. That stuff would crack if dropped on a hard surface.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[signature]

[font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Have attached two photo illustrating how a photograph of a green piece of paper taken under a halogen lamp does not show it's true color even using the Indoor light setting.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Note that the papers color is green and a small portion of my desk top [upper left] has a pink cast instead of a very light grey color. The bottom photo was adjusted using Adobe PhotoShop Elements 4.0.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][inline "test paper.jpg"]
[signature]

[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Using the same paper here is a before and after photo of S_F Orange Asher. I wasn't able to obtain the true color of the green paper without distorting the fly's color.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][inline "before after..2.jpg"]
[signature]

[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Here are a few photos using a different back ground. This is FGD's BWO. [/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Used a red towel for the back ground with the fly mounted in a vice. Rather hard to get a good detailed shot as the camera [even in macro mode] will focus in on the vice jaws even though I have centered on the fly.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][inline "red towel.jpg"]

[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Background is a white sheet of paper. No adjustments made.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4][inline "white paper.jpg"]
Here I laid the fly directly on the paper. I found that using this procedure the camera has no problem bringing the object into proper focus.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]Adjustment in color was made.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][inline "Geen paper.jpg"]
[center][font "Garamond"][#008000][size 4]In this photo I just magnified the shot. This will bring the grain of the paper into play. But more detail is available for the viewer.[/size][/#008000][/font]
[center][inline "Green paper x.jpg"]
[center][signature]
[center]

awesome illustrations.. but do have one question..

what happens if you are color blind?? [laugh]

MacFly [cool]
[signature]

Then you hope the fish are too.[]
[signature]