And some cameras have automatic bracketing -- but those tend to be the more expensive ones.
"Or equivalent" should inclued "the GIMP" -- especially for your linux boxen. I believe that gimp is also available compiled for Windows, and is certainly a *lot* more affordable than PhotoShop is.
*Most* camera tripod sockets are 1/4-20. However some (including view cameras -- not being used here, of course) have something metric which is close to 3/8". There are even step-down adaptors for the larger sockets to the 1/4-20.
Or -- at least with some digital cameras (Nikon D-70 and D-300s in my personal experience) you can set a menu item and then shoot an 18% gray card in the same lighting, and use that as a color balance setting in the camera so you don't have to do much in the post-processing.
And for really small subjects (bugs, small components, screws, etc), you can drape a hankerchief over a wire frame (bent up from a couple of coathangers), put two or three lights outside it, and get very smooth and even lighting. Use the in-camera white balance to adjust for light color -- with the 18% gray card if you need it. Usually the automatic white balance will be pretty good -- unless your subject is predomently a single color and a large percentage of the frame.
This works fine with film -- but keeping the shutter open on digital keeps the sensor active, and thermal noise builds up with long exposures. Some have a noise reduction system which matches the exposure time with shutter open with an equivalent exposure time with shutter closed, and subtracts the latter from the former. This cancels some of the thermal effects of long exposures, but also slows down the shot rate. I turn that feature off when doing things like capturing town fireworks on the 4th, so I can go to the next shot more quickly.
[ ... ]
So you have not depended on the results from the digital, except as a rough guide -- so you may not have seen the effects of the long open shutter time, since you probably did not bother blowing up the image on your computer monitor.
Well, I don't own a good digital camera. When I'm in Chicago, where I do most of my photography, I borrow my nephew's Nikons.
I thought that some of them will take multiple exposures? Again, I don't own a good one, so I don't know.
With film, I try to do it with one of my two cameras (Calumet 4 x 5, and a Yashicamat 6 x 6) that allow it without moving the film. My F2 won't allow it; they started that with the F3.
However, I did a series of nightime architectural shots, for a portfolio, with my F2 and a 28mm shift lens. I left the shutter open in the dark and just had my assistant cover the whole camera with the dark cloth (from my Calumet) between flashes. One of those involved 13 different flash shots on one frame of film.
It really is a good technique where you can use it. With a good flashmeter, you can plan the shot very precisely.
BTW, I used to work with a guy who specialized in making still photos of theater sets, without the cast present. He "painted" with a single photoflood. One light, but it looked like a dozen when he was done. Very impressive.
Actually, for that Amada brochure, I wound up using the digital shot from a Nikon D5000. Not having used the camera before, I didn't trust it for a one-day shoot that cost me $1,000 in travel costs. You don't want to go home from one of those without good photos. I previewed it on my laptop, but I wanted to see how it stacked up against film.
So I used three cameras; one each for the slide and the negative film, and the digital. They were all useable but the negative shot was quite a bit grainier than either the digital or the transparency. I shot the negative film in case the daylight fluorescents required some color correction. They did not.
Otherwise, except for a Web publication (Fab Shop Magazine Direct), I use my wife's very good, but smallish Fuji pocket camera to check composition and light balance. For the Web, I use that camera for my final shots.
I'll buy a good digital some time, but I haven't had enough need to justify it. I don't shoot for fun like I used to, and I haven't shot a magazine cover for around a decade now. I rent when I need to.
I assume you have heard of..or are using Irfanview
formatting link
HIGHLY recommended..and it will indeed sort out and save in any format/file size etc etc you want as well as doing all the editing functions you might need.
A common technique for digital astrophotography is to average many frames instead of or in addition to using long exposures. There are several software packages that automatically register the images and combine them.
The same technique can be used for multiple positions of the flash. Take several images and overlay them in photoshop. I believe the Nikon D-SLRs allow you to take multiple exposures and combine them in the camera.
Vibration is one of the big issues that can be helped with this technique. You use short exposures, but average many frames that are automatically registered. A lot of folks just use a video camera and average hundreds or even thousands of frames. Here is some free software that does this
formatting link
I have to say, though, that I do not do this stuff myself even though I have a nice telescope and I design optics. I realized long ago I much prefer the impact of looking at an amazing thing first hand rather than a photo of an amazing thing. There is always someone else taking a much better photo than you, and they have spent so much effort capturing a great photo that they have not really seen the thing.
Gunner Asch fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
tri-x at 1200 ... I could live with the grain problems in 2-1/4 and up.
I, too, had the Mamiya TLR, the Press Grafix 4x5 with pak-bak, and several Pentax SLRs, which were my go-to snap-shot camera. (yeah, I know... but when you get comfortable with a brand and its features...)
Dad taught photography for several years. As his only son, he practiced his lessons on me. Before he took his lessons to work. That was memorable.
I've been shooting black and white since about first grade. With the usual learning curve, and pictures that didn't come out, and all that.
As for being the son of a photog, that doesn't qualify you. Did you do it for years as a serious all-engrossing hobby or for pay -- or both? I'm the son of an Army Lt. Colonel tank commander. I've never driven an Abrahms, and probably never will.
"Low F-Stop" has ALWAYS meant a 'low f-number', meaning a LARGE aperture. Depth of field has always decreased with F-number (or changed inversely to aperture size). Pinhole cameras have the deepest depth-of-field.
Richard had all the relationships correct... he just mistook what the term "low F-stop" meant.
I know, and Richard knows, what's right concerning apertures and depth- of-field.
I never brought up exposure, except to disagree with the comment that "exposure isn't related to aperture". Would you also agree that it's not?
You, on the other hand, didn't read very carefully. You attributed to me something I never said.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.