Author Topic: should "how to photograph your work" have its complete dedicated section? (Read 19099 times)

Matthew Schenker · « **Reply #60 on:** April 13, 2008, 05:49 PM »

nickao,
Sorry about that. I created your album, but the upload permissions were turned off!
I fixed that, and now you can upload photos easily to your album as described above.
Matthew

johne · « **Reply #61 on:** April 13, 2008, 05:53 PM »

Quote from: nickao on April 13, 2008, 04:28 PM

Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 13, 2008, 04:27 PM
Quote from: nickao on April 13, 2008, 04:22 PM

Yes I did that and then it says error, pick an album either before upload if using the java upload or it lets me upload on the old upload page but then gives the pick an album area. Some pm'd me and said they had a similar problem until Mathew did something.

Nickao

Come to think of it I actually haven't tried to upload to mine yet. I put a few pics in the temp album and Matthew moved them.

Nick, i uploaded a file to your album but i could only get it to work using the "upload file (using Java)" button

I think I will use the temporary. Once he moves them will it work okay?

Please anyone, if you can, post a pic to my album for me, of what ever you want. After that I think it will be okay.

Nickao

johne · « **Reply #62 on:** April 13, 2008, 05:55 PM »

Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 05:53 PM

Quote from: nickao on April 13, 2008, 04:28 PM
Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 13, 2008, 04:27 PM
Quote from: nickao on April 13, 2008, 04:22 PM

Yes I did that and then it says error, pick an album either before upload if using the java upload or it lets me upload on the old upload page but then gives the pick an album area. Some pm'd me and said they had a similar problem until Mathew did something.

Nickao

Come to think of it I actually haven't tried to upload to mine yet. I put a few pics in the temp album and Matthew moved them.

Nick, i uploaded a file to your album but i could only get it to work using the "upload file (using Java)" button

I think I will use the temporary. Once he moves them will it work okay?

Please anyone, if you can, post a pic to my album for me, of what ever you want. After that I think it will be okay.

Nickao

OOps messed up previous post

I uploaded to your album but it only worked with the "upload file using Java option"

johne · « **Reply #63 on:** April 13, 2008, 06:00 PM »

Sorry Dan Clark stole your pic for testing purposes

Michael Kellough · « **Reply #64 on:** April 13, 2008, 06:13 PM »

Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 05:37 PM

Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 12, 2008, 10:03 PM

.....full frame sensor is going to make it more difficult to get the depth of field you need, unless you have a really wide angle lens. On the other hand the full frame sensor means there is no sensor crop factor so you have lots of old manual focus lenses to choose from. With a smaller sensor camera like the 4/3 Olympus and Panasonic/Leica you have more depth of field at any given aperture but the effective angle of view is half what the lens would cover on a full frame sensor. There are trade offs with everything.

On a full frame dslr using for example a 16mm lens you will have more coverage of the location as with the same lens on a camera with an APS size sensor while still having the same depth of field. (16mm on an APS size camera=roughly 25mm,in other words narrower angle of view) Depth of field is a property of the lens with a given apperture. The difference between full frame and smaller sensors is just a cropped image. There is no difference in depth of field if both cameras use the same lens and the same aperture.

Thanks for the correction Johne.

If the smaller sensor camera has a lens of equal angle of coverage, then it would have more depth of field at the same aperture? For example, 4/3 sensor with 12mm lens compared to full frame with 24mm?

johne · « **Reply #65 on:** April 13, 2008, 06:24 PM »

Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 13, 2008, 06:13 PM

Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 05:37 PM
Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 12, 2008, 10:03 PM

.....full frame sensor is going to make it more difficult to get the depth of field you need, unless you have a really wide angle lens. On the other hand the full frame sensor means there is no sensor crop factor so you have lots of old manual focus lenses to choose from. With a smaller sensor camera like the 4/3 Olympus and Panasonic/Leica you have more depth of field at any given aperture but the effective angle of view is half what the lens would cover on a full frame sensor. There are trade offs with everything.

On a full frame dslr using for example a 16mm lens you will have more coverage of the location as with the same lens on a camera with an APS size sensor while still having the same depth of field. (16mm on an APS size camera=roughly 25mm,in other words narrower angle of view) Depth of field is a property of the lens with a given apperture. The difference between full frame and smaller sensors is just a cropped image. There is no difference in depth of field if both cameras use the same lens and the same aperture.

Thanks for the correction Johne.

If the smaller sensor camera has a lens of equal angle of coverage, then it would have more depth of field at the same aperture? For example, 4/3 sensor with 12mm lens compared to full frame with 24mm?

Yes in that case i believe it would but at the wide angle spectrum the depth of field is mostly huge an interesting site is http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
I like full frame camera's because you do not need to buy specific wide angle lenses targeted at APS sensor cameras. These lenses while working great on these cameras cant be used on the full frame ones. And i believe there are some tradeoffs in sharpeness and things like chromatic aberation etc in these ultra wide angles for APS size sensor cameras.

Dovetail65 · « **Reply #66 on:** April 13, 2008, 06:25 PM »

Thanks guys I have uploaded two pics thanks to everyones help.

I am going to upload pics of every new Festool I have not used yet so they will be seen as they are purchased new out of the box.
It may take a while, I'll try a few per day.

Nickao

johne · « **Reply #67 on:** April 13, 2008, 06:36 PM »

Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 06:24 PM

Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 13, 2008, 06:13 PM
Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 05:37 PM
Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 12, 2008, 10:03 PM

.....full frame sensor is going to make it more difficult to get the depth of field you need, unless you have a really wide angle lens. On the other hand the full frame sensor means there is no sensor crop factor so you have lots of old manual focus lenses to choose from. With a smaller sensor camera like the 4/3 Olympus and Panasonic/Leica you have more depth of field at any given aperture but the effective angle of view is half what the lens would cover on a full frame sensor. There are trade offs with everything.

On a full frame dslr using for example a 16mm lens you will have more coverage of the location as with the same lens on a camera with an APS size sensor while still having the same depth of field. (16mm on an APS size camera=roughly 25mm,in other words narrower angle of view) Depth of field is a property of the lens with a given apperture. The difference between full frame and smaller sensors is just a cropped image. There is no difference in depth of field if both cameras use the same lens and the same aperture.

Thanks for the correction Johne.

If the smaller sensor camera has a lens of equal angle of coverage, then it would have more depth of field at the same aperture? For example, 4/3 sensor with 12mm lens compared to full frame with 24mm?

Yes in that case i believe it would but at the wide angle spectrum the depth of field is mostly huge an interesting site is http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
I like full frame camera's because you do not need to buy specific wide angle lenses targeted at APS sensor cameras. These lenses while working great on these cameras cant be used on the full frame ones. And i believe there are some tradeoffs in sharpeness and things like chromatic aberation etc in these ultra wide angles for APS size sensor cameras.

Michael, BTW if you would move back with your APS size sensor camera to get the subject in the frame the same way as with your full frame sensor camera, then you would have more depth of field. If you are using the same lens on both camera's

Dave Ronyak · « **Reply #68 on:** April 13, 2008, 06:44 PM »

Quote from: Ned Young on April 12, 2008, 05:02 PM

In response to Nick's what should I buy question:

We really need a Product Photography board on the forum, so that we can run separate threads on photo stuff, including the inevitable "Canon vs. Nikon: I've never used your camera, but I'm sure mine is better" thread.

Ned

P.S. Nick, it's possible that a good digicam can do what you want, at least for starters. In fact, a thread entitled "Do I even need a DSLR?" would be a good one.

True, but the techniques that make for great photos are not much dependent on the brand of camera. Most all of them can do a good job. I recall Dan Clark teasing me with some photos he took with the camera in his cell phone.

I have yet to post a single photo on FOG and instead have struggled attempting to describe using only words some of my ideas for jigs and methods of work. I'd love to have a section on FOG to refer to for help in taking digital photos and reworking them prior to posting.

Dave R.

tvgordon · « **Reply #69 on:** April 13, 2008, 07:26 PM »

Can anyone recommend any digital photography forums? I looked at a few that came up on a google search, but I didn't find them very helpful or all that interesting.

Thanks,
Tom.

Dovetail65 · « **Reply #70 on:** April 13, 2008, 07:46 PM »

Quote from: tvgordon on April 13, 2008, 07:26 PM

Can anyone recommend any digital photography forums? I looked at a few that came up on a google search, but I didn't find them very helpful or all that interesting.

Thanks,
Tom.

Thats one of the reasons I want to have a discussion here for pictures. Anything that gets to technical for this forum then can be passed to a different forum or link that someone here knows and recommends. Thanks for the links you guys have already given out in this and other threads dealing with photography.

I would like to see this forum be able to: "provide a beginner craftsman with all the information they may need to take respectable pictures of their projects". Made with Festools of course!

It is so much nicer for me(hopefully you too) if I could deal with the same people in the this forum. Some people in this forum may have an innate feel for the woodworking we are taking a picture of. That has to give them an edge in my mind as to giving advise on taking pictures of woodworking items, remodeling or any building project.

Nickao

Michael Kellough · « **Reply #71 on:** April 13, 2008, 08:32 PM »

Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 06:36 PM

Michael, BTW if you would move back with your APS size sensor camera to get the subject in the frame the same way as with your full frame sensor camera, then you would have more depth of field. If you are using the same lens on both camera's

Okay, but if you've already backed yourself into a corner trying to shoot some kitchen cabinets... then what?

Dan Clark · « **Reply #72 on:** April 13, 2008, 08:40 PM »

Quote from: nickao on April 13, 2008, 06:25 PM

Thanks guys I have uploaded two pics thanks to everyones help.

I am going to upload pics of every new Festool I have not used yet so they will be seen as they are purchased new out of the box.
It may take a while, I'll try a few per day.

Nickao

Nick,

What's nice about the gallery is that you can easily use your pics over and over in posts. The code looks like this:

Code: [Select]

[img]http://www.festoolownersgroup.com/CoppermineMain/albums/userpics/RS_2_E.jpg[/img]
And the image shows up like this:

Regards,

Dan.

p.s for your pics, you now have the Oh ficial seal of approval:

Dovetail65 · « **Reply #73 on:** April 13, 2008, 08:52 PM »

Thanks for the tip and the thumbs up! I'll try to get less glare on the next set of pics.

Michael Kellough · « **Reply #74 on:** April 13, 2008, 10:21 PM »

Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 13, 2008, 08:32 PM

Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 06:36 PM

Michael, BTW if you would move back with your APS size sensor camera to get the subject in the frame the same way as with your full frame sensor camera, then you would have more depth of field. If you are using the same lens on both camera's

Okay, but if you've already backed yourself into a corner trying to shoot some kitchen cabinets... then what?

I was looking for pictures to upload to my now fully functional album and discovered I don't really have many picutes of woodworking projects. I'm too slow and when it's done it's past time to be delivered so I seldom get photos. But I did find an example of the kind of DOF I get with my tiny camera that I can't get with my 4/3 sensor camera.

This is also a test of this suggestion,
"A third way is to upload pics to the FOG Gallery and then just reference them with the "IMG" button."

Ned · « **Reply #75 on:** April 13, 2008, 11:35 PM »

This is a test of posting other people's pics from the Gallery.

This is the URL displayed in the gallery underneath the pic I want:

Code: [Select]

http://festoolownersgroup.com/CoppermineMain//displayimage.php?pos=-1334
That won't work.

I got this URL by right-clicking on the pic in the gallery and choosing Properties, then copying the URL displayed there.

Code: [Select]

http://www.festoolownersgroup.com/CoppermineMain/albums/userpics/normal_Broadway.jpg
And the result:

Dan Clark · « **Reply #76 on:** April 14, 2008, 12:01 AM »

Ned,

Hi. Do NOT use the URL info below the pic. I haven't a clue what that is for.

If you are using FF2, I found a great way of getting the image address. In the Gallery, click on the image until you get the largest image. Then right-click in that window and select "Copy Image Location". Then paste in you post as normal. Works great and faster.

Regards,

Dan.

Ned · « **Reply #77 on:** April 14, 2008, 12:11 AM »

Quote from: Dan Clark on April 14, 2008, 12:01 AM

Do NOT use the URL info below the pic. I haven't a clue what that is for.

I guess I don't either. Seemed obvious that it was the one to use, but no no no.

That thing is just a pothole waiting for the next guy to fall into. We need to correct it or get rid of it.

Ned

Michael Kellough · « **Reply #78 on:** April 14, 2008, 12:31 AM »

Quote from: Ned Young on April 14, 2008, 12:11 AM

Quote from: Dan Clark on April 14, 2008, 12:01 AM
Do NOT use the URL info below the pic. I haven't a clue what that is for.

I guess I don't either. Seemed obvious that it was the one to use, but no no no.

That thing is just a pothole waiting for the next guy to fall into. We need to correct it or get rid of it.

Ned

Well, at least now I know I'm not supposed to be IN this pothole

Michael Kellough · « **Reply #79 on:** April 14, 2008, 12:39 AM »

Quote from: Ned Young on April 13, 2008, 11:35 PM

This is a test of posting other people's pics from the Gallery.

This is the URL displayed in the gallery underneath the pic I want:
Code: [Select]
http://festoolownersgroup.com/CoppermineMain//displayimage.php?pos=-1334
That won't work.

I got this URL by right-clicking on the pic in the gallery and choosing Properties, then copying the URL displayed there.

Code: [Select]
http://www.festoolownersgroup.com/CoppermineMain/albums/userpics/normal_Broadway.jpg
And the result:

Attempting a workaround by pasting in the url Ned provided and changing the file name

Okay, this works even in preview, so now I understand preview a little better too.

Another attempt by Control clicking (Mac) on the image to copy image address

Okay, thanks Ned and Dan

johne · « **Reply #80 on:** April 14, 2008, 07:27 AM »

Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 13, 2008, 08:32 PM

Quote from: johne on April 13, 2008, 06:36 PM

Michael, BTW if you would move back with your APS size sensor camera to get the subject in the frame the same way as with your full frame sensor camera, then you would have more depth of field. If you are using the same lens on both camera's

Okay, but if you've already backed yourself into a corner trying to shoot some kitchen cabinets... then what?

well.... 3 options
1. Tear down a wall

2. Buy full frame camera
3. You could take a few shots with the camera on a tripod (as if doing a panorama) and stitch them together in photoshop for example. This might give you the wide
angle view you're looking for

Ned · « **Reply #81 on:** April 14, 2008, 08:08 AM »

Quote from: johne on April 14, 2008, 07:27 AM

Quote from: Michael Kellough on April 13, 2008, 08:32 PM
Okay, but if you've already backed yourself into a corner trying to shoot some kitchen cabinets... then what?

...
1. Tear down a wall
...

No, no, too much. Just make sure you have a hole saw in your kit that's a little bigger than your lens, and...

Ned

Dave Ronyak · « **Reply #82 on:** April 14, 2008, 02:21 PM »

Quote from: Dan Clark on April 14, 2008, 12:01 AM

Ned,

Hi. Do NOT use the URL info below the pic. I haven't a clue what that is for.

If you are using FF2, I found a great way of getting the image address. In the Gallery, click on the image until you get the largest image. Then right-click in that window and select "Copy Image Location". Then paste in you post as normal. Works great and faster.

Regards,

Dan.

Dan,

As you well know, this digital photo stuff is still mostly beyond my knowledge level. But I thought you might want to know that when I open posts by you with photos, the photos typically run off the margins of the display of either of my two PCs and I have to scroll left-to-right in each image in order to view the entire image you have posted. This is a bit cumbersome when reading through a photo essay post containing several pictures and for me, detracts from what is otherwise a consistently excellent post. So, are you certain that selecting the largest size available is the best choice? I don't know what controls the size (width) of a photo when it is displayed. My work PC is equipped with am using MS Office Professional; my home PC is running VISTA Home Premium Edition.

P.S. I'd be delighted to know how to take and post any digital photos. (I'll get there eventually. I Need to buy some equipment.)

Dave R.

Dovetail65 · « **Reply #83 on:** April 14, 2008, 02:28 PM »

Quote from: Dave Ronyak on April 14, 2008, 02:21 PM

Quote from: Dan Clark on April 14, 2008, 12:01 AM
Ned,

Hi. Do NOT use the URL info below the pic. I haven't a clue what that is for.

If you are using FF2, I found a great way of getting the image address. In the Gallery, click on the image until you get the largest image. Then right-click in that window and select "Copy Image Location". Then paste in you post as normal. Works great and faster.

Regards,

Dan.

Dan,

As you well know, this digital photo stuff is still mostly beyond my knowledge level. But I thought you might want to know that when I open posts by you with photos, the photos typically run off the margins of the display of either of my two PCs and I have to scroll left-to-right in each image in order to view the entire image you have posted. This is a bit cumbersome when reading through a photo essay post containing several pictures and for me, detracts from what is otherwise a consistently excellent post. So, are you certain that selecting the largest size available is the best choice? I don't know what controls the size (width) of a photo when it is displayed. My work PC is equipped with am using MS Office Professional; my home PC is running VISTA Home Premium Edition.

P.S. I'd be delighted to know how to take and post any digital photos. (I'll get there eventually. I Need to buy some equipment.)

Dave R.

That never happens to me. What resolution is your monitor set at?

Dan Clark · « **Reply #84 on:** April 14, 2008, 02:32 PM »

Quote from: Dave Ronyak on April 14, 2008, 02:21 PM

Quote from: Dan Clark on April 14, 2008, 12:01 AM
Ned,

Hi. Do NOT use the URL info below the pic. I haven't a clue what that is for.

If you are using FF2, I found a great way of getting the image address. In the Gallery, click on the image until you get the largest image. Then right-click in that window and select "Copy Image Location". Then paste in you post as normal. Works great and faster.

Regards,

Dan.

Dan,

As you well know, this digital photo stuff is still mostly beyond my knowledge level. But I thought you might want to know that when I open posts by you with photos, the photos typically run off the margins of the display of either of my two PCs and I have to scroll left-to-right in each image in order to view the entire image you have posted. This is a bit cumbersome when reading through a photo essay post containing several pictures and for me, detracts from what is otherwise a consistently excellent post. So, are you certain that selecting the largest size available is the best choice? I don't know what controls the size (width) of a photo when it is displayed. My work PC is equipped with am using MS Office Professional; my home PC is running VISTA Home Premium Edition.

P.S. I'd be delighted to know how to take and post any digital photos. (I'll get there eventually. I Need to buy some equipment.)

Dave R.

Dave,

This is a very good question. ALL of my images are downsized from the original. My originals are typically something like 3000X2000 pixels. What resolution are your monitors set to?

Regarfds,

Dan.

Dave Ronyak · « **Reply #85 on:** April 14, 2008, 02:34 PM »

The high defaults in each case. The photo display quality is excellent. My work PC is set at 1024 x 768 pixels, 32 bit color, and is a 14 inch diagonal screen. I cannot give you my home PC settings at this time.

Modified 12/12/2008 -- My home PC (Dell Inspiron E1505) is running VISTA Home Premium OS which states that it automatically controls the monitor. It is currently indicating 1200 x 800 pixels, 32 bit color, both of which are the highest settings possible on this PC's display.

Dave R.

Dovetail65 · « **Reply #86 on:** April 14, 2008, 03:17 PM »

Quote from: Dave Ronyak on April 14, 2008, 02:34 PM

The high defaults in each case. The photo display quality is excellent. My work PC is set at 1024 x 768 pixels, 32 bit color, and is a 14 inch diagonal screen. I cannot give you my home PC settings at this time.

Dave R.

You will never see all his big pictures with that resolution. I had to bump my monitor to 1280 x 720 to see it without having to pan. I have been keeping everything at 1920 x 1200 so I never noticed until you mentioned it.

It uses to be the web sites were designed 800x 600 those days are long gone. A lot of web sites are being designed 1280 x 720 now. A real good portion of all monitor sales are LCD with resolutions of 1600 x 1200 and even 1920 x 1080 and up, I fear your monitor may be a little outdated for a lot of web content, especially in the next year or two.

Nickao

Ned · « **Reply #87 on:** April 14, 2008, 03:57 PM »

Though my primary monitor is 20", 1600x1200, I always resize photos I post to not more than 600 pixels wide. No one's complained about lack of detail, and Mr. S. S., who's still running on dialup, hasn't complained about speed.

Ned