bambooweb.info

Most of us have automatic digital cameras, and most of the time point and shoot gives reasonable results. However, Bamboo shoots are not average camera fodder, and require more than just average settings to turn out well. I'm using a Olympus C-770 Ultra Zoom, and a Kodak DX 7590. Both have a wide range of auto/manual setting capabilites, but on this photo safari I decided to use the DX 7590 in auto only, and see if I could improve upon the typical average results.

These are two of my best attempts, certianly not thujamikelike but better than average.

<img src="http://www.bambooweb.info/images/bamboo ... Small).JPG" alt="PHYLLOSTACHYS vivax ">

<img src="http://www.bambooweb.info/images/bamboo ... Small).JPG" alt="PHYLLOSTACHYS vivax ">

Here's what I did:

Used a tripod or the ground to support the camera, and with shutter speeds less than 1/125sec I used the self timer.

Set the focus on spot, and single focus (not continuous focus).

Set the exposure meter to spot meter.

Focused on the base of the culm or something about the same distance, and approximately the same color and light characteristics, held the focus with 1/2 travel shutter release button, composed the subject, and took the shot. Most auto dig cameras will lock the focus by pressing the shutter release 1/2 way down. That way you can focus on an object approximately the same distance as your subject and use that focus for your subject. Shoots, and culms are really hard for auto focus to lock in on because they are usually narrow, and the camera usually focuses on the background.

Try with auto flash, no flash, and forced flash.

Most auto cameras will let you bracket your shots by either changing the shutter speed, or exposure over a series of 3-5 shoots. Yes you will have to read the book! Try it. One shot will usually be better than the others.

Shoot lots of pics there is no substitute for lots of choices.

Buy the biggest sd or whatever type extended memory card your camera uses, that you can afford!

Shoot at the highest resolution that your camera is capable of, and shrink pics prior to loading to the web. ( I just learned this from Mike)

Well. That's a few of the things that I tried this time. I'm sure you can come up with other ideas, and I hope you will share them with everyone.

David

I don't know, David those are lookin' pretty good to me. Also with that size I don't think you'll need a macro lens!

Image stabilization is another option if the light is good. E.g., here is the photo property sheet for a picture I took freehand just before sunset.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/ ... erties.png" border="0" alt="Harbin-Inversa photo properties">
Here's the photo...
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/ ... ot_tip.jpg" border="0" alt="Harbin-Inversa Shoot">
The aperture was set manually at F/5 & shutter speed 1/79 sec. Auto settings made the shoot overexposed. Amazingly, with image stabilization I can oftentimes get clear photos handheld down to 1/30th sec or so.

Wow. That's an unbelievable shot.

It made a lot of sense with film to spend a lot of time on f/stop and exposure, but such tight control of params at point of exposure is not so critical with digital images where sophisticated post-processing is so easy.

I never accept that an image as delivered from the digital camera is the best image that insists that in not be touched.

So I concentrate on precise focus + depth of field, stay with auto-white-balance, focal length, framing, and then leave the fine tuning to Paint Shop Pro

Nice job editing the vivax shoot. Yours looks a lot more as it really looked. Thanks for the info.

Satx, that looks good. I'm curious about what processing/filters you applied to get those results. The most I've ever applied so far has been unsharp mask and gamma correction.

I use PSP9

My usual tactics are using only PSP photo correction tools rather than the manual tools.

1. darken 10% by 1 - 3 times

2. PSP's "clarify", which isn't quit the same as simply increasing contrast.

3. Increase saturation. This of course makes screwed up color balance more obvious. The most common color screwup in outdoor photos is blue tint from skylight and in shade.

When I re-size down, there is an unavoidable softness, so I also sharpen the smaller image.

If the color is obviously weird or tinted, I use PSP color balance. But some photos are so way off that color balance won't fix them. I've not been very successful using PSP's manaul color correction tools to fix horribly off color photos.

The photo below is not a very good color rendition originally. Even removing the blue tint and warming it a bit, there is still too much blue in the leaves, and I'm pretty sure the ground isn't that red. But I think my "quick fix of cheap tricks" is better than the original.








btw, I never think or argue my photo corrections are "the way it should be", since how I do it is an artistic decision, but I always start with the assumption that what comes out of a camera or scan is never untouchably accurate or anywhere near the most pleasing image.

My own touch-ups are not engraved in stone. I often come back to an corrected image later and say "What was I thinking?"

.

satx78218 wrote:..snip..

btw, I never think or argue my photo corrections are "the way it should be", since how I do it is an artistic decision, but I always start with the assumption that what comes out of a camera or scan is never untouchably accurate or anywhere near the most pleasing image.

...snip...

.

I'm kind of like you in this matter. Rarely does the photo look exactly like what I saw when I took the image. My photo corrections are to make the image look like what I saw when I took the image.

If I'm making photo corrections on images I didn't take, then I try to make the image look as best as possilbe since I did not see the original plant and I have no idea what it actually looked like when the image was taken.

"what I saw when I took the image."

Silly old man! You trust your visual memory?

I don't even try to remember. I try to please myself within bounds of nearly realistic color. I like spicy ethnic foods with pronounced taste. I like my images pronounced with deeply saturated color, highly contrasted images (rather than less).

Saturated color and good contrast are almost never present from digital cameras unless the light is very bright and white, and the exposure is slightly under, conditions I hardly ever have.

If I can get the camera to give me tight focus, appropriate depth of field, focal length, and I'm consciously framing, then I'll handle the rest in PSP.

And lets not even talk about PSP showing the image differently from a browser, or rendering variations between CRT, LCD, plasma, TV, "photo printers".

satx78218 wrote:"what I saw when I took the image."

Silly old man! You trust your visual memory?

I don't even try to remember. I try to please myself within bounds of nearly realistic color. I like spicy ethnic foods with pronounced taste. I like my images pronounced with deeply saturated color, highly contrasted images (rather than less).

Saturated color and good contrast are almost never present from digital cameras unless the light is very bright and white, and the exposure is slightly under, conditions I hardly ever have.

If I can get the camera to give me tight focus, appropriate depth of field, focal length, and I'm consciously framing, then I'll handle the rest in PSP.

And lets not even talk about PSP showing the image differently from a browser, or rendering variations between CRT, LCD, plasma, TV, "photo printers".

As far as images of bamboo, what I try to accomplish is to present an image that looks similiar to what I remember seeing. Then some one who has a bamboo they are trying to ID, the image would look somewhat similiar to plant they are looking at; being that the plant and the image are of the same bamboo species, cultivar........

In a photo editing program, you can put a bluish hue or pink, but if a bamboo doesn't normally appear with a blue or pink blush, then then it is not of any value as far as ID-ing a bamboo.