blogable.eu

Since I just posted an article on what HDR is and the link to how it’s done, I thought it’d be a good addition to let you know how to set up your camera.

Every camera that supports different exposures can take photos which can be merged into HDR-pictures on the computer. Generally, you’d take a normally exposed photo (0), a slightly underexposed photo (-2) and a slightly overexposed photo (+2) to achieve a good HDR-image result. This can easily be altered manually, but why the effort? The settings for HDR photos with a Canon EOS 500D (for example) are very straight forward. A feature called AE Bracketing will increase the likelihood of getting the exact same photo. This is vital to get a good result. Having to set the exposures manually may end up in photos that vary: clouds that moved on in between shots, for example. Some even suggest a remote control to decrease the chance of accidentally moving the tripod. AE Bracketing helps you very easily to take three shots with different preset exposures, allowing to get photos that were taken in a short amount of time. If you would like to make a HDR-image with more than three photos though, you’re on your own again.

Page 86 of the user manual will help you with the settings.

AE Bracketing on a Canon EOS 500D:

HDR(I) stands for High Dynamic Range (Imaging) and describes ‘… a set of techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of luminance between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than standard digital imaging techniques …’. This may sound weird, but it isn’t. A photo that was taken, doesn’t always picture the scene as the eye has seen it. There will always be a part in a photo that is either too dark or too bright for the camera, never mind how well exposed it is. And this is where HDR kicks in.

HDR is based on a very simple idea: take three or more pictures of the exact same scene (two will do as well), varying from under- to overexposed and merge them on a computer. This way, a dark space on a photo will get enough detail because of the overexposed photo, while a really bright space will get more detail because of the underexposed photo. Merging the photos will therefore not only give you great color, but also detail. I might add though, that the result is a photo that depicts a mixture between substantiality and fiction. Depending on your settings, the result has the tendency to be the latter, with overly bright colors and extreme details.

A really nice read and how-to from Markus Urban is available at abuzeedo.com.

To achieve this, you have quite a few software alternatives to choose from. The one mentioned in the article: Photomatix Pro, if you don’t mind spending a few € or $ that is. I can’t promise great results, but this program is widely used and it even has a Lightroom plugin, so that you can just select the images, export them, create a HDR-image and re-import them directly. Another possibility is Photoshop. If you know your way around, this should serve you well. But there’s also a free program available, which is called Qtpfsgui and is waiting to be downloaded from here. One great thing about this software besides being free, it’s running on all platforms (Mac OS X, Linux, Windows).

Flickr offers various groups, where people may help you on how to get the perfect HDR-image done. This is an example from me:

Photos as taken:

Underexposed:

‘Normal’

Overexposed:

HDR-image result:

This and more photos from me are available at www.flickr.com/photos/blogable/.

Just recently I started to take pictures with a DSLR, namely the Canon EOS 500D. With such a camera, you can decide in which file format you would like to save your photos. While I don’t want to go into detail here, or even worse, start a flame war about which one is the best, I would like to tell you why I chose to work with RAW.

If you don’t know what these file types are, or you would like to find out more about them, I’d suggest you’d read about them on Wikipedia, for example.

So why am I using RAW? Firstly, my Canon saves files in it’s proprietary *.cr2 file type which means it’s already a RAW format and therefore needs no conversion. Secondly, RAW has all the benefits I like, such as editing a photo without the original file actually being changed. No reason to choose RAW+JPG or just JPG either. While the argument continues whether or not the camera-made conversion to JPG actually is good enough, I personally don’t mind the extra space the RAW photos take. Besides, when editing a JPG, the original file will be changed, which raises the need to save one photo several times. But what about DNG? I wasn’t sure. It sounded just too good to be true. Having all the positive aspects of the RAW format, no extra XMP files to drag around and also saving disk space are clear plus points for this format.

After thinking about it a while though, I decided against it because of the following reasons:

- I need to convert every photo I have and will have to do so in the future.
- Converting files may end up in corrupted files, which adds the need to re-check if all went well.
- Adding the RAW file to the DNG container, will double the space needed in comparison to just RAW.
- The question whether or not Adobe will continue supporting and pushing this format.
- All changes are written into the file directly.

All changes are written into the file… Believe it or not, that is the major reason for me to stick with RAW. Having an extra file to carry around sounds like lots of trouble, but since I’m using an online backup solution, I like that a lot.

Like other backup solutions, Backblaze or Mozy (for example) will regularly look for files that have changed and make a backup of them. Now, whenever changing a tag, the exposure or other settings, the backup software will think I changed the file and make a backup. Since even DNGs can easily have 15Mbyte/photo, this adds up quickly. With a tiny XMP in comparison though (around 8kbyte), I can change the photos as much as I want to, without having to fear my upload bandwith being blocked for days or even weeks, as the RAW files themselves never change.

Other thoughts or opinions on this matter are always welcome in the comments.

I take lots of pictures lately, due to my new camera, as well as my Project 365. Sorting these is a blast with Lightroom, but I’m missing a feature with my DSLR, that even my iPhone delivers: GPS positioning for the photos taken.

Basically, there are three different possibilities to add a location to your photos:

1) Geologging your route

2) Geotagging your photos as you take them

3) Typing your location in by yourself

So how does geologging (1) work? A device will track your route and later add your GPS location information to your photos. To achieve this, a software matches the date and time when the photo was taken, with the position saved on your geologger.

The upside: You’re logging your actual route, rather than just places where the photos were taken. As it is a separate device, you can use it for more than just adding a position to your photos.

The downside: The battery might not even last a day and depending on how often the device logs the position, it will stop doing so when either the battery is empty or the memory full. Due to the fact that it saves your position only every few seconds (depending on your setting), the position may not be that accurate.

A geotagger (2) in comparison, will only take the coordinates of the exact position where the photos were taken.

The upside: The battery will last ages, as the device (I’m referring to the Bilora GT-01) is only active when you push the trigger. This is also the reason why you get more positions saved, as every position is directly related to one defined picture. (A geologger may save 2000 points on your route, even if you take only 10 photos. This means it’s full before you have taken lots of photos, whereas a geotagger will save 2000 points, which equals 2000 pictures.)

The downside: You can’t log your route and the mentioned camera accessory blocks the hot shoe.

But let’s start with my impressions of the Bilora GT-01. (I’m not saying it’s the same as JOBO photoGPS, but it sure looks like it, as even the software works with both.)

I got the Bilora 118 GT-01 Geotagger yesterday and I’m quite impressed with the results so far. I bought it to add GPS data to my pictures. I’m not a professional photographer, but I just liked the idea. What I didn’t like, is the idea of geologging, as it would mean that I always have to carry a separate device around. This isn’t that much an issue, but having to charge quite often doesn’t work for me, as I don’t want to carry my laptop with me whenever I go on a journey. So I decided that the GT-01 is worth a try, especially because I have a Canon EOS 500D and unlike Nikon, Canon doesn’t seem to provide a device that would do what I have in mind (or at least not for the price I’m willing to pay).

The Bilora is placed on the hot shoe. This, apparently, doesn’t work equally well with all camera models. I read some comments that stated the geotagger wouldn’t fit onto the hot shoe at all, while others are complaining about how easily it can fall off. So I’m either lucky, or just not as demanding as others. The device has a snug fit, but can’t be locked onto the camera. Pushing it off the hot shoe should be difficult though, as it faces towards the photographer.

The GT-01 does sit on top of a little adapter, so that it can be pushed off, without the need to take it off the hot shoe completely. Dropping the geologger as a result of accidentally pushing it off the adapter doesn’t seem likely to me, but may occur. As mentioned earlier, it does block the hot shoe, but I don’t really mind. Worst case, I take it off and manually capture my position, which is also possible. The photo that is closest to that date and time will then be tagged with the GPS data. This will come in handy when taking pictures within buildings for example. Just capture the position and walk inside. The following photos should then be tagged with the location that is the closest match to the photos regarding date and time.

So it fits well on my camera and seems well-built, but how does it work and does it actually work at all?

The GT-01 saves the raw data of the GPS satellites and therefore needs no time for a GPS fix. A software will later define the exact position (internet needed). This way, you can just switch the camera on, take a photo and you’re done. Later, you simply tag the photos with the software. This may be a hassle to some, but I don’t mind the extra step before importing the pictures to Lightroom.

Having it only a day, I used it in buildings, outside and while driving. (Don’t worry, I just pushed the trigger without actually aiming the camera at something.) Safety first. It didn’t work too good inside. It did show me where I was about, but missed my precise location around 50-150 meters. Being outside, I had a total different experience. Even while driving (or just sitting in the car taking photos), I was placed +/- 10 meters away from my actual position. Some may find this a lot, but I think it’s pretty neat. The best about the software is the fact, that it actually adds details like the city, street name, POIs around you (if wanted) and more to your photos. That said, it doesn’t directly write it to your RAW files, but saves the changes in the XMP file.

I hope I managed to explain geologging / geotagging, why I decided to choose tagging my photos and how I achieve that with the mentioned device. Overall, I’m very happy with my purchase and can easily recommend it for photographers like me, that just want their location added to the photos they have taken. If you’re a professional, don’t want to block your hot shoe or simply want to log your route, the Bilora GT-01 may not suit your needs.

Annotations:

- The software works for Mac OS, Windows and an unofficial version for Linux is available.

- The process of adding the location to the files has to be made before importing them to your favorite photo software.

- The information about the lens will get ‘lost’, as it’s overwritten by a 2/3 digit number (e.g. 18 instead of 18-55 ….).

- Deleting pictures on the camera confuses the device and may result in bad or even no added locations.

- Photos taken without the device might get tagged with a location that was last known to the device, instead of staying untouched.

Update: Despite research, the only way to use the application with Linux appears to be virtualization software such as VMWare. If you would like to have a short How-to, please leave a comment and I’ll publish the article soon afterward.

Starting to work with a comprehensive software like Lightroom can be daunting at first, but it can also be annoying. I’m sure that a lot of people find it a good idea, that deleting a file will only remove it from the catalog, instead of completely wiping it off the disk. I beg to differ.

This example should show you, that Lightroom can’t do everything you may wish for and therefore keyboard shortcuts are a great alternative, if you – like me – can’t be bothered to press and click multiple buttons on order to get the result you aimed for.

Here you’ll find the shortcuts that may make your life easier – with Lightroom that is.

If you’d like a downloadable version for both Lightroom 1 and/or 2, visit this website.

While importing to Lightroom, I came across an issue that almost ruined my day: I imported files via the move button and got a failure message. After that, I could neither find the files in Lightroom nor in their old folder. Luckily, I realized that they actually were moved, but not added to Lightroom. From now on, I will only copy my photos and once they’re safely imported, delete the folder of origin.

Having made this mistake, if you want to call it that way, I found this website about other mistakes often made when working with Lightroom. Hope this will help you as well avoiding problems.

One more thing though: I don’t agree with the need for DNG files and prefer using RAW+XMP. Reasons for this will be posted here soon in a comparison of file types used for photography. My main reason for this decision though: having to backup a small XMP sidefile, rather than a multi-megabyte file when changes are made.

Checking my old blog entries, I couldn’t believe that I didn’t post a review of my Canon EOS 500D DSLR (Digital Single-Lens Reflex camera). But that’s not the topic of this post. My grandmother’s birthday is coming up and I will most likely have my camera with me to take lots of more or less staged pictures. Being interested in photography doesn’t stop at buying such a camera, setting it on Auto mode and taking photos though. It goes way beyond that. Well, I’m not a professional at all, but I like to know things about stuff I’m doing a lot (which you might have realized lately with my shaving posts ) and taking photos is one of these things.

Having a good camera or even a DSLR sure gives you an advantage, but isn’t a guarantee for nice photos. Instead, reading the manual, taking lots of pictures and playing with the settings will get you a lot closer to your goal. So back to the topic and on to the indoor photography.

At photo.net you’ll find a nice article about interior photography, but it has architecture as a focal point. Since I wouldn’t refer to my family as architecture, I went further and found this article by Darren Rowse. It describes nicely which settings you can use to achieve great photos with your DSLR (as I’d guess other cameras don’t have all these settings). I’m sure there are other settings that work great as well, but once you got a starting point, it’s easier to get somewhere from there, rather than trying, trying, trying…..

Since you left the Auto mode, I’d suggest using the histogram. It does look daunting at the beginning and maybe even scary, but I assure you it’s neither. Sure, if you just read this to find more ideas to get better pictures and aren’t taking photos without manually changing the settings anyway, you most likely make use of this nice little thing called histogram already. If you’re new to photography, like me, and want to learn more, reading these articles will help you understanding how to avoid clipping and over- / underexposure. The latter ones, though usually unwanted, are actually great tools if you’re looking for an artistic touch for your photos. The tones & contrast histograms are explained here, while the luminance & color histograms are available here.

Searching the web, you’ll most likely find lots of sites explaining your new buddy – the histogram – and once you got used to using it, I’m sure you can’t live without anymore. This knowledge will furthermore aid you when working with Lightroom, Aperture or editing programs such as Photoshop.