# Photography documentaries/tutorials



## fractionMan (Aug 15, 2011)

Are there any great videos for the amateur/noobish photographer?

I'm especially interested in ones that discuss what makes a photo 'good'.  It would be great to see Issues of composition, lighting and technique discussed.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 15, 2011)

I did not use turorials when I started, what I did was:

1) spend a lot of time in the forums of www.dpreview.com looking at what other people were doing, it is quite easy to spot the good photographers there, their images and galleries speak for themselves. And people there are very generous if you ask them how they created a particular image.

2) make a folder on my hard drive called "other-peoples" and put a copy of every web image I though was very good in there. I browse it on occassion looking for inspiration. I have 260 images in it at the moment. I add and delete images as I see fit. You might get some ideas if you asked people to post up links to galleries which they like.

3) shoot a lot of images - I shot many tens of thousands of images (of just about everything) when I started and I deleted loads because they were crap. In fact just last week I deleted another 7gb of images from the last few years because basically - they were crap


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> 3) shoot a lot of images - I shot many tens of thousands of images (of just about everything) when I started and I deleted loads because they were crap. In fact just last week I deleted another 7gb of images from the last few years because basically - they were crap



Yeah, I'm getting good at that bit 

I've also bought a hefty book called "photography" by John Freeman which is looking good. http://www.johnfreeman-photographer.com/

9.99 from the local bookstore!


----------



## weltweit (Aug 15, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Yeah, I'm getting good at that bit



Have you got an idea what kind of subjects you prefer? could be people, landscapes, black and white, nature etc etc ..

For example I was just looking at some black and white landscapes in this gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/annapagnacco/a_world_in_black_and_white but if you are not interested in landscapes they would be of little interest to you.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 15, 2011)

I think I'm interested in people at the moment so I'm going to focus on that. I've got a million old photos of landscapes/wildlife/nature/urban settings and it's not doing it for me at the moment.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 15, 2011)

I know I should probably walk before I run, but I've been playing about with this photo. I've messed with the levels etc which is a separate issue, but when cropping it I have no idea where to stop, or if I should even start 



On reflection I think the first cropping is best, but I have no idea why


----------



## weltweit (Aug 15, 2011)

I wish I was better at photographing people, I enjoy it but I know could be a lot better at it.

Here are some people galleries which I like:

Members of an Orchestra in black and white by Dirk Vermeirre
http://www.pbase.com/dievee/defilharmonie&page=all

On the streets of Antwerp. (Same photographer)
http://www.pbase.com/dievee/in_the_streets_of_antwerp&page=all

David ROBERTS formal portraits (some very famous people - if you are over 40  )
http://www.pbase.com/deewun/portraits

Martin Crespo - Patients in a mental asylum in Asunción Paraguay
http://www.pbase.com/crespoide/infierno


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 15, 2011)

cheers   I like that second gallery a lot.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 15, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I know I should probably walk before I run, but I've been playing about with this photo. I've messed with the levels etc which is a separate issue, but when cropping it I have no idea where to stop, or if I should even start
> 
> On reflection I think the first cropping is best, but I have no idea why



Do you mean the second from the left, then I agree except that the football is cut off halfway and it is not too clear what it is, if you could keep all the football in shot and the telegraph pole while excluding the other kid ... perhaps ..


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Do you mean the second from the left, then I agree except that the football is cut off halfway and it is not too clear what it is, if you could keep all the football in shot and the telegraph pole while excluding the other kid ... perhaps ..



But then he has a sort of floating left hand towards the bottom 



(also I have no idea how to re-create that effect I had on the others


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 15, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I know I should probably walk before I run, but I've been playing about with this photo. I've messed with the levels etc which is a separate issue, but when cropping it I have no idea where to stop, or if I should even start
> 
> View attachment 12795View attachment 12796View attachment 12797View attachment 12798
> 
> On reflection I think the first cropping is best, but I have no idea why


All are over saturated and need to pull back a little from the contrast. This will make the darkeness in the image stand out more not less.

The crops I'd remove the lad or have him fully in the shot but then I'm not the man to speak to about cropping I tend not to do it for the shots I take and unless it's for adverts etc tend to refuse to crop, to my mind if you need to crop you took the wrong shot, so bin it and take the right shot or forget it... but that's probably a little harsh for a beginner/novice/non pro tbh...

But I figger it like this in any given week I can spend upto 5 days shooting, if I need to then edit/post process these shots get them to a client and then have to as part of that process go through and crop each shot then I'm making work for myself.

Composition will always fix what a crop can't. So try and sort out your composition and then rely less on cropping would be my suggestion.

Speaking of which, you're currently using the rule of thrids which is a good place to start, but as with most fashion shoots you can get far more into a shot with a little angle on the composition.







for example.

Or






convention says I shoul dhave trimmed the tyre out of the other shot and the hand  out of this one, however both add to the images.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 15, 2011)

Cheers for that garf. V.useful.

(I had to look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds )

I definitely agree with you about "taking the wrong shot", having binned a ton.  The best ones required no crop.


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 15, 2011)

This is well worth getting. You can get a pdf of a lot of them on the torrent forums so you can have a gander beforehand.

pm sent.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 15, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Cheers for that garf. V.useful.
> 
> (I had to look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds )
> 
> I definitely agree with you about "taking the wrong shot", having binned a ton. The best ones required no crop.


rule of thirds is why some cameras have that noughts and crosses/tic-tac-toe board on their screens or view finders so that you can place your objects into this.

Technically you can never go wrong with a thirds rule shot (though you can very quickly get to be a very dull photographer if you live and die by it...).

The best rule is there aren't any rules to great shots.  The old Magnum motto which was attributed to Weegee /Arthur Fellig was F8 and be there.  When asked how do they get such shots.   Along with other sayings when responding to what's the best camera/lens/film set up was the one you have with you.

The basic understanding here is the camera you chose to take those shots on will be the best you have on you at that time and it's your eye not the mechanics of the machine which makes the photograph.    In a wider context this meant that in order to take great shots and have successful shoots you had to make it work.

In terms of shooting I'd say keep a shooting diary which can be used to say these are my settings I'm using this was the light conditions (even with out a light meter then over cast, sunny, raining, 5:30 mid summer 10 pm mid winter) can all be useful for knowing what you were shooting in what light and what settings for future effects.  Whilst these days it's entirely possible to never record these things as the Image stores this information for you as well in the exif data it's easier to find things in a note book than having to trawl through many many images looking for that pic you think you took about 4 months ago of that thing in those similar circumstances.

Set yourself a target to shoot x many things in a month, this will get you into the habit of shooting regularly, really this is a game were experience is everything, the more experience you can get the fewer bad shots you take and the more comfortable and confident you'll be with your shooting.

Join a camera / photography club, group encouragement is always good for pushing you to take new and interesting shots.

See if there are any urbans with free time to got for shoots with you, again this will get you used to shooting with others and can be invaluable as you'll swap different ideas for shoots/shots/settings/lighting conditions.

get on to as many as possible commercial shoots, even as a teaboy or bin monitor or something mundane, more time spent with photographers the more you'll pick up bits and bobs.

Basically shoot, shoot, shoot and then shoot.

work out which images are great and take more of them and work out which ones need binning and then take less of them.  The more familiar you are with your equipment the more it becomes an extension of your own sight, vision etc.

The more you take the better you'll get this is always true even when you've been selling your shots for years I'm sure the editor and Bosky and any of us who regularly sell our shots will tell you, our shooting has improved immeasurably in the last 6 months and this is a constant  through out our photography.

weltweit: portraits are about the eyes, get a good strong shot of their eyes the remaining image will fall into place quickly.


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 15, 2011)

^^^^word.

When i was getting back into it i put a hook on the back of the front door and always hung my camera on it so it was there to remind me every time i went out.  One of best things i did was to put a fixed lens on my dslr as well. It made me think more about what i was doing and stopped me pissing about with the zoom like i did with my bridge camera. The best thing that that did was it stopped me being nervous about shooting up close.

Have you got your camera yet fraction?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ... weltweit: portraits are about the eyes, get a good strong shot of their eyes the remaining image will fall into place quickly.



Yes I think that is probably right.

I wanted to photograph a very charismatic man some time ago shortly before he was to undergo open heart surgery. His face was wonderfully charachterful with a big moustache and he had bright blue twinkly eyes. He refused to sit for me so the best opportunity I had was when I had him momentarily cornered against a background curtain with some overhead light source and he indicated I could take some shots then.

I banged off a couple of shots and that was that - I hoped his eyes would come out but when I reviewed the photos they had not, they were dark in the shadow of his eyebrows. What I should have done was pop a tiny bit of flash into his face to light his eyes but I didn't think at the time. Anyhow, that was the last and the best photo that exists of him as later that month he died on the operating table. I was glad that I did photograph him as his family like the photographs but I am annoyed I did not do as good a job as I should have.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> cheers  I like that second gallery a lot.



Hey fractionman I just found Dirk's (that photog) other site - he has a portraits section - I love it
http://www.dieveeschamf.com/


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

friedaweed said:


> This is well worth getting. You can get a pdf of a lot of them on the torrent forums so you can have a gander beforehand.
> 
> pm sent.



that looks ace


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> rule of thirds is why some cameras have that noughts and crosses/tic-tac-toe board on their screens or view finders so that you can place your objects into this.
> 
> Technically you can never go wrong with a thirds rule shot (though you can very quickly get to be a very dull photographer if you live and die by it...).
> 
> ...



Great post.


----------



## Cid (Aug 16, 2011)

Other than what garf said buy/borrow an SLR... Doesn't need to be a DSLR, in fact film SLRs are a pretty good idea since they force you to compose at the scene, learn about types of film, developing etc.

e2a: Obviously you can't take thousands of images on a film SLR, but that's a bad way to learn anyway.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

Cid said:


> Other than what garf said buy/borrow an SLR... Doesn't need to be a DSLR, in fact film SLRs are a pretty good idea since they force you to compose at the scene, learn about types of film, developing etc.
> 
> e2a: Obviously you can't take thousands of images on a film SLR, but that's a bad way to learn anyway.



I've been carrying my new dSLR everywhere since last friday and since yesterday I've been taking multiple shots of each subject in an effort to get the composition right without cropping. I've a long way to go but I feel like it's getting better already.  The dSLR is amazing compared to any compact I've ever used.

Even though they're far from brilliant out of twenty or so shots of this guy I managed two I liked:


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 16, 2011)

Love the first one You should be proud of that one


----------



## Cid (Aug 16, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I've been carrying my new dSLR everywhere since last friday and since yesterday I've been taking multiple shots of each subject in an effort to get the composition right without cropping. I've a long way to go but I feel like it's getting better already. The dSLR is amazing compared to any compact I've ever used.
> 
> Even though they're far from brilliant out of twenty or so shots of this guy I managed two I liked:
> 
> View attachment 12813 View attachment 12814



Ah, you got one in the end - good stuff... Obviously your main problem in those pics are the light conditions, direct sunlight on one side, incandescent on the other... Always read off the face, you should be able to set where your camera is taking measurements to different parts of the view. That will also get rid of the slight blur you have on that as you could get away with a faster shutter speed. The first looks like the reading is off the centre of the face (left overexposed, right under), but would be tricky to get right (unless perhaps you converted to B&W, dropped the overall exposure, upped the contrast and did one of those half in shadow things) the second I think is reading off the picture which makes it far too prominent (it's too prominent anyway, but not helped by it being the only bit that's properly exposed). Watch the angle of your backdrops too, the first is a bit wonky. Also remember that you can do a lot in post, so it's worth getting to grips with photoshop's RAW editor and techniques for layering up photos to create HDR (careful with this, but it is a useful tool when you have massive light ranges as in that shot).

On a positive note the subject looks great in the first which hopefully means you just need to get to grips with light and camera settings.


----------



## Cid (Aug 16, 2011)

So something like this:






Sorry, pretty crap editing but need to get back to work.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

Cid said:


> So something like this:




Cheers CID. I'll try and work out how to get it to measure lighting from different spots (pentax K-x). I'm guessing it uses wherever you centre the focus on. It's tricky for me but I really don't like the way my flash is hitting people so I'm trying to use the light that's available. Like your edit too 




friedaweed said:


> Love the first one You should be proud of that one


cheers!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 16, 2011)

quick hint is that unless it's massively underexposed then underexposure is always easier to sort out tin the dark room / potatoeshop afterwards than over exposure you can always add fill light you can never put back blown details.

If you shoot in RAW as Cid says (you should shoot in RAW really if you can it's film for digital) then you can push the exposure or the light fill independently of each other which means you'll be able to recover an underexposued shot, and nearly always come back with something you're happy with.

weltweit: this might help you getting the eye detail out of the shot of your charismatic man.

You can also use the raw editor with JPGS in potatoeshop




			
				Adobe said:
			
		

> To process JPEG or TIFF images in Camera Raw, select one or more JPEG or TIFF files in Adobe Bridge, and then choose File > Open In Camera Raw or press Ctrl+R (Windows) or Command+R (Mac OS). When you finish making adjustments in the Camera Raw dialog box, click Done to accept changes and close the dialog box. You can specify whether JPEG or TIFF images with Camera Raw settings are always opened in Camera Raw in the JPEG and TIFF Handling section of the Camera Raw preferences. You can also specify that JPEG and TIFF images are opened in Camera Raw in the Thumbnail section of the Bridge preferences and the File Handling section of the Photoshop preferences.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> quick hint is that unless it's massively underexposed then underexposure is always easier to sort out tin the dark room / potatoeshop afterwards than over exposure you can always add fill light you can never put back blown details.
> 
> If you shoot in RAW as Cid says (you should shoot in RAW really if you can it's film for digital) then you can push the exposure or the light fill independently of each other which means you'll be able to recover an underexposued shot, and nearly always come back with something you're happy with.
> 
> ...



Just switched to raw  How much bigger are the files? 3x? Looks like I might need another card at some point.

(I also have the option of RAW+ which saves it in both formats)


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 16, 2011)

yeah a 4.5 MB image in JPG would be around 28.5 MB in raw.  H3 studio cameras will produce a 500+MB raw file...


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

Looking at these example shots I think shooting in raw will make a significant difference to image quality as well.  Less smoothing.











Source: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/pentax_kx_review/image_quality/


----------



## Cid (Aug 16, 2011)

On this AF area is p. 117.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/images/temp/63399407595779261272600manual_k-x_en_official.pdf

Oh, and make sure you set the diopter correctly (p.50)


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

Cid said:


> On a positive note the subject looks great in the first which hopefully means you just need to get to grips with light and camera settings.



Having now looked at the manual I've just realised how complicated my camera can be 

Found the 'lock exposure' thing.  You can also make it lock exposure when you lock focus.  Is that a good thing to turn on? Sounds better than locking focus, moving camera then it exposing against something else.


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 16, 2011)

Cid said:


> On this AF area is p. 117.
> 
> http://www.pentaximaging.com/images/temp/63399407595779261272600manual_k-x_en_official.pdf
> 
> Oh, and make sure you set the diopter correctly (p.50)



Heh.  Just downloaded that.  Turns out the diopter was correct for me out of the box!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 16, 2011)

locking focus is for say faster moving shots where it may not be possible to shoot the subject without losing the settings of the original composition.

This allows you to recompose a shot without changing the shooting settings within a given time frame button depress etc...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ... If you shoot in RAW as Cid says (you should shoot in RAW really if you can it's film for digital) then you can ....



I know raw is the ultimate, but it also has costs, memory requirements, processing times, write times etc.

I shoot 6mp jpeg, my camera outputs nice jpegs and until very recently my computer was simply not up to handling either raw or 12mp jpegs. I used to enter photographs at 10x15inches into club compeitions, no one ever said to me that an image could have been better if I had shot raw, they simply could not tell it was a jpeg.



GarfieldLeChat said:


> weltweit: this might help you getting the eye detail out of the shot of your charismatic man. You can also use the raw editor with JPGS in potatoeshop



Thanks for that, I might well have another try at it, I have just got a copy of elements which is a step up over my last editor so perhaps I can improve the image.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 16, 2011)

If you have the ablity to shoot in jpg and raw then do so then you've got your club jpgs and then you've got raws as well.

The reason for shooting in RAW as opposed to JPG is the reason you take film photos rather than polariods.  In a film photo you've got the negative which you can make many more prints from, it's the definitive image and bar any damage/scrathing etc then this is a lossless image from the original source each time IE it's as it was intended when took, non of the details blur or become lost.  JPG isn't a good format, long term it's data retention becomes unstable and so jpgs corrupt losing image definition or the image entirely.  As a lossy format each time the new amended image is saved then it will reduce the over all quality of that image.  This is why some of your original shots posted in this thread are over contrasty, a higher definition image would be less so.

The second great reason for doing so is that your images will be more detailed.

don't get me wrong RAW is no substitute for a decent shot.  But as you progress and the learning curve is steep but quick then you will return to shots and say if only I had the RAW of that shot, once you've figgered out how to use it... I guarantee it...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 16, 2011)

@ Garf re raw.. I have heard all those arguments - If I was making a living from photography then sure - but as an amateur I am happy shooting jpeg. I get 2.5mb size 6mp jpegs from my camera which are good for printing at 10x15, I write protect them and treat them like negatives. If/when I do any work in post I use a non lossey format. My my memory cards are not big enough, my hard disks not big enough for shooting raw and also the in camera write times are too slow. Anyhow one of the reasons I bought this specific camera was because its jpegs are very nice.


----------



## Tankus (Aug 17, 2011)

I like doing panos (20 or 30 shot ones )...RAW frustrates me too... waiting for the write.....  plus the file sizes for the final stitch would be mental ..

Charity shops are worth a punt ... I've picked some interesting books for a quid a pop .... not just on technique , but also examples  ... particularly landscape stuff


----------



## Cid (Aug 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> @ Garf re raw.. I have heard all those arguments - If I was making a living from photography then sure - but as an amateur I am happy shooting jpeg. I get 2.5mb size 6mp jpegs from my camera which are good for printing at 10x15, I write protect them and treat them like negatives. If/when I do any work in post I use a non lossey format. My my memory cards are not big enough, my hard disks not big enough for shooting raw and also the in camera write times are too slow. Anyhow one of the reasons I bought this specific camera was because its jpegs are very nice.



I'd never go back to jpeg after RAW, it's just so better in post before you even get to the lossless factor... Most DSLRs aren't going to have write speed issues (fm's, for example, is rated at 5fps continuous), every fucker's doing 20mb/s cards these days anyway. Also get 358 6mp images on a 2gb card and 16gb cards are dirt cheap these days.

Have a play with adobe camera raw (may not come with elements by default, but should be a free download) and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Cid (Aug 17, 2011)

Tankus said:


> I like doing panos (20 or 30 shot ones )...RAW frustrates me too... waiting for the write..... plus the file sizes for the final stitch would be mental ..



You can always make smaller files once you've edited them... I'd have thought the lossless qualities would be especially appealing for panoramas.

One thing I don't use RAW for; time lapse...


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 17, 2011)

Just going by the example shots on a review I'll be shooting raw from now on.  They're so much sharper and have more scope to play with afterwards.  I really like my camera's abillity to save in both formats at once.  Meaning I have a quick upload file for snaps _and_ the raw image if I manage a decent shot.

Oh, and I've got the exposure lock working now.  So cheers, cos it's ace!


----------



## Tankus (Aug 17, 2011)

heh ....Most of my stitch errors come from being hand held .........I still flip to RAW for singles if I get the urge or a feel its a good setting
I couldn't have done this in RAW for example







> don't get me wrong RAW is no substitute for a decent shot. But as you progress and the learning curve is steep but quick then you will return to shots and say if only I had the RAW of that shot, once you've figgered out how to use it... I guarantee it...



that is good advice though​


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

Cid said:


> I'd never go back to jpeg after RAW, it's just so better in post before you even get to the lossless factor...



The lossless factor isn't a factor for me. The camera writes a high quality jpeg for me and I treat that like the negative, it gets write protected and if I want to work on it and save it during work then I save it in a lossless format. I am used to working in jpeg I make websites with jpeg and gif images all the time, you only lose information if you save it as a lossey file with compression. I don't.



Cid said:


> Most DSLRs aren't going to have write speed issues (fm's, for example, is rated at 5fps continuous), every fucker's doing 20mb/s cards these days anyway. Also get 358 6mp images on a 2gb card and 16gb cards are dirt cheap these days.



I have 5 128mb smartmedia cards and shooting 6mp 2.5mb I get about 52 shots per card. My last computer only had a 20gb hdd and it was permanently full. Now I have just upgraded computers - I now have 3gb ram and a 1tb hdd so finally it could be possible for me to shoot raw from my computers viewpoint but not from my memory cards!

My dslr is getting on for 7 years old, it writes raws in 12mp size and 1) they are massive and my old computer just would not open them, heck it struggled with 12mp jpegs! 2) write times are very slow.


----------



## Cid (Aug 17, 2011)

Oh, right, smartmedia... You have to admit that won't apply to many people though...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

Cid said:


> Oh, right, smartmedia... You have to admit that won't apply to many people though...





Don't get me wrong, I think I understand the reasons why people chose raw. If I was shooting landscapes and wanted later to tone down a sky and tone up the land, raw would permit me to create two images from the one exposure which I could then blend in with greater ease than jpeg permits.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> @ Garf re raw.. I have heard all those arguments - If I was making a living from photography then sure - but as an amateur I am happy shooting jpeg. I get 2.5mb size 6mp jpegs from my camera which are good for printing at 10x15, I write protect them and treat them like negatives. If/when I do any work in post I use a non lossey format. My my memory cards are not big enough, my hard disks not big enough for shooting raw and also the in camera write times are too slow. Anyhow one of the reasons I bought this specific camera was because its jpegs are very nice.


Whilst I would never knock anothers kit, unless it's to rib the Editor some, 1.5 TB harddrives can be purchased for under £50 that's you're space solved on the pc for (well 3 months for me for most of yers) about 2 years.  Flash memory cards are enormous and cheap   it's about £6 for a 2 gb sd card and around £25 for a 16 (or £44 for a 32) all with the highest write factors around try http://memoryforless.co.uk/ which is where I tend to get my cards from.

I shoot on compact flash rather than SD (although the Mark1 DS markIII will support both) which is a little more expensive but not by much.  So then you have unlimited shots (ie your batteries will die before the card does) in raw and jpg.

just for reference tho you cannot at all under any situation make a lossy format JPG into a non Lossy format.  Each save will even if you turn the JPG into a TIFF etc will at the point of save lose data the TIFF won't degrade further but it will have degraded to save it as a TIFF.

In regards to the write speed the higher cap cards with decent buffers (again you're looking at around £14 for 8 gb hispeed card) will be fine for what you need, this might still limit you to a burst of say 10 shots but really when in reality are you going to want to burst for longer than this?

I'm sure that chosing the image quality of the camera is a good starting point but if you want to move forward with your photography these are areas where in effect your learning curve is not as steep as you're not having to change the way you shoot just what format of film you're using (like going from 110 to 35 mm or med format).

Back in the day shooters were always pissing around with different films to see what effects they got hence you ended up with Lomo and other techniques which are now fairly standard.  The difference between someone who shots and someone who snaps is to my mind the way they chose to push their own knowledge to get a better shot each time.    One is to say I want a photo of that, the other is to say I want to take the best photo of that I can.  Also it's that spirit of experiment which makes you more in tune with your equipment, I did this and this with my camera and that produced this result.   I like shots which look like this and they did this and this, if I do those things I get this, what's different how do I make it work better etc.

I'm not trying to get you to convert or being all preachy or nowt just think it really is the way to improve your photography in leaps and bounds for minimal additional input.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 17, 2011)

BTW Smart media has been out of use since 1998 so it might be time to invest in a newer camera   Tho dependent on it's age it might also be compatible with XD cards...



> Ranging in MB from 2Mb - 128Mb - (2mb, 4mb, 8mb, 16mb, 32mb, 64mb, 128mb)
> 
> Smart Media was popular in digital cameras, and reached its peak in about 2001 when it garnered nearly half of the digital camera market. It was backed especially by Fujifilm and Olympus and several other Camera manufactures, industrial users and keyboard manufactures (Music keyboards). Though the format started to exhibit problems as camera resolutions increased and so was replaced by XD by these manufactures. Cards larger than 128 MB were not available and they ceased production of the Smart Media card in 1998. Those cards in the market now are the last cards available.
> 
> A Smart Media card consists of a single NAND flash chip embedded in a thin plastic card,[3] although some higher capacity cards contain multiple, linked chips. It was one of the smallest and thinnest of the early memory cards, only 0.76mm thick, and managed to maintain a favourable cost ratio as compared to the others.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ... I'm not trying to get you to convert or being all preachy or nowt just think it really is the way to improve your photography in leaps and bounds for minimal additional input.



Thanks. Well I may have a play with it. I am using 128mb smart media cards in my camera at the moment but it does have a larger slot which may take compact flash I will have to check the manual. But it does have write speed issues, you may be able to do 10 shot bursts on your camera Garf but I am sure with mine set to raw I will not be able to do that on mine (FujiFilm S2) - well I can't recall how big the buffer is tbh .. but raws RAF files are way bigger than anything I have been playing with.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

This is my camera
http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/slrs/fuji_s2
From 2002



 Storage types SmartMedia, Compact Flash Type I or II


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 17, 2011)

if it takes compact flash go for this it's Dirt cheap and has infinitely better write speeds...

4gb CF under £20... http://memoryforless.co.uk/4gb-cf-compact-flash-flash-memory-card-x100-speed.html


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> This is my camera
> http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/slrs/fuji_s2
> From 2002
> 
> Storage types SmartMedia, Compact Flash Type I or II


looking at that and I might be wrong here but... the SmartMedia would have been to store settings on originally and the CF would have been intended for shots.  That way you could have saved your settings set up.  Obviously if you only have one type of card in there then this would have become both but you could switch fairly cheaply to CF and have a world of difference within your capacity.

See what you get out of the camera with some test shots and then decide if it's worth buy a big old HDD and a new CF card...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

I think for the time being I will probably not change but when I get my next job I probably will try it then. I do have a 1tb drive right now, wonder how fast I would fill that up shooting raw  (but also new is that I have a DVD writer great!! ) in camera write times concern me, just shooting in 12mp mode slows the camera down a lot. When dpreview.com reviewed it back in 2002 they did say that most users would end up using 6mp fine jpeg mode which is what I have been using ever since.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 17, 2011)

I think that you'd find the write times were increased with CF.  As much as anything it's the buffer within the memory and SmartMedia ( i think I might have a 128 mb smartmedia card you can have somewhere) is slow to write.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

Actually there may be another issue. The camera produces raw files in a format called filename.raf I think I may have to get a special raw editor for them.


----------



## Cid (Aug 17, 2011)

Camera raw will read .raf. The write time on smart media is a hilarious 2mb/s, so that's definitely where your write trouble lies. Even the shittest CF cards should be at least 12mb/s.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

Cid said:


> Camera raw will read .raf. The write time on smart media is a hilarious 2mb/s, so that's definitely where your write trouble lies. Even the shittest CF cards should be at least 12mb/s.



Hi Cid, what is Camera raw and will it work with photoshop elements? .. and that is interesting about smart media write times. I may in the meantime get a big CF card just so I can forget about changing out cards as I go along.


----------



## Cid (Aug 17, 2011)

Camera raw is Adobe's RAW editing plug-in, yes it will work with elements...

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5107


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 17, 2011)

Camera raw  http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-Plugins/Adobe-Camera-Raw.shtml download it, use it love it understand it, get bibble...  is the basic process you'll need for shooting in raw and post.

It's a stand alone program which allows you to edit raw files which come in a variety of different file extensions as like the browser wars manufactures thought that they should all have their own proprietary formats which were entirely incompatible with each other (or in Canons case itself) ... .raf is one such format of what is a multitude of sins in this regard...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2011)

I just did some test shots in highest quality format

My normal 6mp format : 2.7mb
Raw fomat .RAF : 12.9mb
TIFF 12mp : 35.5mb


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 19, 2011)

can you save the 12mp as .raf?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> can you save the 12mp as .raf?



Yes, it is already created as a .raf ...

But garf I am really not sure I want to invest 12mb in every snapshot !!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 19, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, it is already created as a .raf ...
> 
> But garf I am really not sure I want to invest 12mb in every snapshot !!


seriously get a CF card, then it'll not matter...


----------

