Topic: Digital Photo Manipulation

[Jeff Brislane]

I have noticed as many others no doubt have that when i'm scrolling through storm images on Stormtrack you see a few regular users who always seem to have punchier images that the majority. They were on the same storms and often with the same cameras as everyone else but sometimes the difference in images is like chalk and cheese. The favourite editing effect seems to be oversaturating, which a few practice with every image.

I'm not totally against manipualtion but where does the legitamacy of the image actually seen, begin or end? What did the storm actually look like? I have no problem with image manipulation for art purposes as you can see on my home page but not for storm reporting. Do people do it to try and stand out by saying my images look better than yours? Or by saying I got a better angle of the storm and hence the punchier looking images? Is it for ego?

Hopefully it's just a desire to show off the storms and not one catch compared to everyone elses. As we all know the USA is very competitive with many chasers bagging the same storms often and many identical images appearing ad-nausium with many chase days.

[Jimmy Deguara]

Hi Jeff,

In my case, I use a little contrast changes to try amd make the image realistic - I think the likes of some of the chasers making their images very sharp in most cases unreal is not ideal in my opinion. Perhaps they sell better? But you are correct - very competitive. One does it - so do others.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[nmoir]

hi , those who know me know i am a photog for the smh ,   this is an issue which has plagued the photographic community ever since photography was invented.   what a camera captures is not exaxtly what you think you see  , different film types produce different castes , same again with the paper you print on and everything is able to be changed with photoshop. your brain also remembers colours more vividly than they actually were depending on the light you are in and your brain also tends to think you are closer to an object than you actually are.   ethically what matters is what you claim your photographs are .  in my industry , the person who  goes too far  usually knows it themselves and ends up harming their reputation and ruining any good work done in the future and so being honest to yourself is very important or back up your work with a good arguement as to why you have done a certain thing.

i myself shoot storms for the art  , using a few strange techniques (jimmy got a bit annoyed at me back in 2001 as i had my lens almost up his nostril so my images are not great for real storm analysis but often capture the intensity and mood better than standard images.


in the end what matters is these discussions and healthy debate

nick moir

[sparky]

What sort of digital camera or camera is generally used or recommended? I have a cheap one that takes some good photoes - is about a 1 mp camera but would that be sufficient to take storm pictures?

[Jimmy Deguara]

Hi Sparky (can you please go to your profile and add your full name),

The answer depends on what you are setting out to achieve - prints or enlargements. You suggest 1mp camera, this would or should be sufficient for prints but in reality most storm chasers wanting quality for manipulation and features go for the range 6mp and up. We have to be careful of not relying on megapixel as a judge for quality. A few manufacturers were claiming 10mp but in reality were much lower given the magnification process.

I personally own a 8mp camera and it will do me for some time yet. It is a canon 8mp 350D and the quality including colour is excellent. I hear the 400D has been released and it contains improvements as well as being 10mp. I guess one cannot keep up with the Jones's.

From here I will leave it to the experts.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[Mike]

This is such a great discussion.  I've had my Canon 350D since it came out last year (and is now superseded!) but I sent a journo photographer my pics who when she tried to enlarge them from the size i sent from my own computer they actually started to 'fall apart.'

 Now we conversed about this and although i took the photos in L fine mode (which gives you more MB for your bucks but slightly less shots) which the manual recommended, she was not sure whether my settings were right and couldn't understand why they did fall apart.

We are banging our heads as to maybe the software that computers use to transfer and adopt the photos is diminishing the actual quality and resolution of the photos i sent?  Maybe a forum member can answer?

My camera is a 9mp, SLR digital - if i use either M or S fine or normal then my MB size drops a fair bit but my shot ratio allowed jumps up.

  I don't know what RAW is, but i can get 8.3 MB (which would be the best clarity by far!) and 58 shots - but you need special software to process the images - to which i do not have and would cost $ to do in photo shops.

So in L fine  mode i get the next highest file size of 3.3 and 145 shots allowable depending on subject and can print A3 or larger Go figure!?

Can anyone with photographic knowledge help me out?  I'm not complaining about the shots, i was just worried about when she tried to blow them up and they 'fell apart' - but when i have processed the same pics in 10 x 8 size photos, they turned out a treat.  Maybe it's just the computer Photoshop software used or just the computer 'reducing' its quality - a bit like when printing newspapers - it comes from computer to film to plate to press to paper...each time it is sent its quality goes down?

Mike :^

[Mike]

Just on the topic of manipulation too - I've only done it a couple of times to sharpen the edges of something i took that may look a bit fuzzy to the naked eye - but i agree wholly that shots are best left ala natural.  You can sometimes tell when they're doctored too much because they look 'grainy' or 'noisy'.

MB and JD have given me tips using my camera because in auto mode the camera kept scanning and focussing on everything but the lightning! So i went to manual focussing and with top results.  I've only the 'kit' lens that came with the camera, the 75mm and 300mm but rarely use the 300mm for shots - better to get the broader area in focus too rather than try and scan the horizon for something that you have to crop to the max to get the subject.

Most modern SLR cameras these days will take shots actually better than what you see with the naked eye because that's just what they do! 

Jimmy and MB do you have any tips for daytime lightning shots and to what settings you use?  Do you use the remote shutter cable and in what mode and apperture settings?  I tried it one day but the screen filled up with too much light.  If you wanted to get the shutter to snap open and closed fast what setting do you use or do you just whack it into sport mode and get multiple frames at once and hope you capture the stroke?

Mike

[Jimmy Deguara]

Hi Mick,

I will leave it to people like Nick, Michael and Jeff who know more about photography than I do.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[Michael Bath]

Mike - I assume you sent the journalist the full sized image and not and email reduced one    Other than that, there is no reason I can think of why they should muck up if you have taken them at full size and the finest JPG mode.   

Also, didn't the camera come with some utilities to convert RAW to JPG ?   Jimmy uses the one that came with his 350: Digital Photo Professional

As for daytime lightning, you can use the multi-shot mode and just keep taking shots until you get lucky with the lightning. This means a lot of deleting of images, but you can also get some nice daytime CGs.

Another technique is to take the photo (with or without remote) after you see the lightning - this will work for pulsing lightning.  This was a recent success for me:



MB

[Mike]

Thanks for the Michael.  Yes, the camera came with some software and i do notice that when i download that the EOS software kicks in and shows me all the shots with resolution graph and the like - i guess that's what you are referring to? But as i said, i have not gotten into the RAW thing yet - if the software can convert it, i'll be using RAW from now on - but i want to get some pics developed into 8x10 or larger to see how they turn out resolution wise - i don't really think they'll be a problem.

As for emailing the shots ...Sorry - yes guilty as charged. I did send her the smaller versions - no wonder they fell apart!  Will send larger versions from now on.

As for repetetive shooting of CGs - and there's me standing in the middle of nowhere waiting for 'that' shot and all i had to do was try and get the strobe?!  Well, from looking at your attached photo it's good advice.

I appreciate your assistance MB.

[Michael Bath]

I've had 6mp (2000x3000 pixel) JPGs from my Nikon D70 printed to A3 (12 x 18"  30 x 45cm) size no probs at all, so you will have no issues with the size you want.

MB

[Jimmy Deguara]

Hi guys,

I have failed to impress upon Michael Bath to take RAW images - not sure if he has begun shooting in RAW since? I must insist that in digital manipulation alone, you are talking a fair few degrees of freedom. RAW from my understanding is 16 bit resolution as compared to JPG which is 8 bit resolution. If you insist on taking JPG images, then shoot both - JPG and RAW. Once I knew what RAW meant, I ceased taking any JPG images.

In my opinion, this is like taking photographs with film, developing the photographs and throwing away the negatives! RAW, correct me or not, is a digital negative.

Sorry to dob you in Michael:)

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara

[Michael Bath]

Ha ha It's not quite the same given you have a full sized digital image, not some crappy low res scan as in the past. But yeah - I have looked into it since.   The thing is, 2.5 years of using the D70 and I have not wanted to alter any of my images from what the JPG I took looks like.....

[Mike]

Sorry, Jimmy i'm with MB!   I looked at my photos last night with the photographer on her computer and even the mb file size that she takes photos is 3.3 and setting on L fine - and her camera is worth $8,000!!!  She does not use RAW either, she uses JPG.

 Anyway my pics are okay to blow up to A3 or larger - we tested it with Photoshop and blew them up to 400-500% without falling apart. She showed me her camera and by God it's awesome!  The pixel range was in the 30s!!!! - but she said unless your'e going to blow photos up to house size, cameras such as we use are most times better!

Mike

[Jimmy Deguara]

Hi Mike,

What you are suggesting here is RAW was delievered for no reason and that JPG is better? If you have a preference that is ok but misinformation to other readers is not the best. I never suggested that JPG is crap but to NOT take pictures in RAW is like throwing the digital negative opportunity away. I had a sale recently. I lost the raw images on the one day they chose five pictures from. They were not able to chieve high quality prints because of course I never had the hgihest quality JPG but you see the problem - if I had the RAW images, I could have created JPG at whatever resolution that was suggested.

Just remember, you can convert RAW to JPG which I do - vice versa forget about achieving the quality. Also remember, when touching up images, the degress of freedom you can achieve 16bit as compared to 8bit is significant. This is why I went this way. And I will not turn back.

When I take RAW images at night time, I download them to the laptop and empty the card. I have two cards which in the case of evening lightning and I am snapping away I can easily deal with taking 130 images whilst the other card is downloading.

Regards,

Jimmy Deguara