Com-Central.net

L.Delsing · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Feb 10, 2006 Posts: 960

Hello Vagabond,
Thanks for the info! I used indeed flash withhout diffuser and the fluorecent WB setting

Regards,
Lesley

vagabond

Massimo -
How long have you had your 7D? What did you upgrade from? Likes/Dislikes?

Thanks!

Massimo_Foti

I've got the 7D six months ago, upgrading from the 450D (Rebel XSi in North America and EOS Kiss X2 in Japan).

The AF with 19 points is just amazing. It handles high ISO much better, with the previous camera ISO 800 was pretty much the upper limit, now I can go up to ISO 1600 and even something more if the need arise. That's very handy for indoor with poor light. It has some edge in image quality, but not too huge. It does video too, but so far I barely tested it, I prefer still photography.

Massimo

Massimo_Foti

An interesting discussion on "camera pole". It's mostly focused on DSLR cameras, pretty heavy beasts. But I think some idea would be valuable even for lighter equipment:
photo.net/canon-eos-di...rum/00XeUr

Massimo

Massimo_Foti

- Massimo_Foti

A preview of the just announced Canon 60D:
photo.net/equipment/ca...n-preview/

Glad to finally see a tilt and swivel LCD. This is a really handy feature for AFVs. Sometimes I shot inside hatches and very often I shot over my head "blindly"; would love to have such a features. Hope it will become standard on newer Canon's DSLRs.

A full review is available here:
www.the-digital-pictur...eview.aspx

Massimo

TrevorLarkum

I've been thinking about a common photograph policy recently, partly because of the generosity of everyone on the forum in providing photos for PreservedTanks.com, partly from the discussions about the sharing of photos being part of the ethos of this forum, and partly because I've just put the 4000th picture up at PTC so I have gained some experience in the matter. My idea is to describe my approach to photographs to see if it's one that could be useful to other members of the forum, and so aid in photo sharing in a slightly more formal way, without making it a prerequisite or requirement.

Policy:

1. Aspect ratio: this is 1.5 to 1. This is a common format (e.g. even in 'metric' Britain, photographic prints are typically 6 inches x 4 inches) and is commonly selectable on digital cameras. It is particularly suitable for tanks, as other formats such as 4:3 can be too 'square' since tanks are typically much longer than they are high. For me it has the distinct advantage of allowing more pictures to fit on a book or web page (because they have a lower height for a given width).

2. Date: always included. Ideally this is recorded in a digital picture by the camera when the picture is taken, and so it is essential for the camera to have the correct date and time set. For other pictures, such as scans of old photographs, the date should ideally be included in the filename.

3. Resolution: each picture can be made available in multiple resolutions, including the original resolution. The minimum resolution is ideally no less than 1200x800, as this fits comfortably on a computer monitor without artefacts showing from zooming.

4. Naming convention: all picture filenames follow a common naming convention, this is described separately below.

Naming Convention:

1. Filename separator: Each picture contains four main parts separated by an underscore '_' character.

2. Unique identifier: All filenames begin with a unique identifier to distinguish them from other pictures of the same vehicle at the same place. Typically this is the identifier created by the camera (IMG_0065, DSC00355, etc.). However, for a scan it could be the date plus 'FrontLeft' / FL, 'RearView' / RV, etc.

2. Tank type: The second part of the filename is the vehicle type, e.g. M47, Sherman, Tiger, T34, etc.

3. Location: The third part of the filename is the location, e.g. PattonMuseum, Bovington, APG, Saumur, CampShelby, FortIrwin, etc.

4. Author: The fourth part of the filename is the author, either the author's name or nickname/avatar as they wish. This is so the authorship goes with the photo, as it gets passed around (and could end up with a third party). Also, it avoids the 'I've had this picture for a few years, I don't think I took it, but I don't know who did' situation.

5. Modifier: Once an original picture has been changed in any way (whether in resolution, digital enhancement, or just cropped) a simple modifier '_c' (for 'changed') is appended to the filename.

Examples (AA is ArmourArchive):

IMG0240_M40GMC_Duxford_AA.jpg (so IMG0240_M40GMC_Duxford_AA_c.jpg etc. once changed)
Dsc08485_M1_Shelby_JDaneri.jpg
Dig012_M26_Brescello_FL_SScarletti.jpg
ScanFR_M60A1_Quantico_Toadman.jpg
PICT5596_M107_WarsawFort_Gucwa.JPG
IMG6276_Sherman_Bologna_MFoti.jpg

I'm not claiming this as an original idea for a photograph policy. In fact, the opposite is true - many people have sent me files that follow some or all of these conventions, or similar ones, to a greater or lesser degree. I'm just formalising it so, if anyone wants to, they can adopt it for their own use and for passing photographs between forum members. I'm not averse to modifying the policy if there are better suggestions. In fact, the pictures on PreservedTanks.com don't entirely match this policy because I have modified it for common use so it is a little simplified (but I intend to follow whatever one we agree on). Also, I have begun writing a small software program to automatically name files in this way, and I'm happy to change it to match whatever convention we agree, and to make it available to forum members for free, to save us all some trouble.

So, any thoughts? Would anyone find this useful as is, or could it be improved in some way?

L.Delsing · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Feb 10, 2006 Posts: 960

I agree with Trevor to have some form of standarisation.

At the moment I name my pictures as follows;
1. Type
2. Country
3. Name of location
4. Date
5. Sn or rn

example: Leopard 1A2(BE)_BEL_Leopoldsburg_20050410_54793

I use ''properties'' for info about the author, but if I understand it correctly it can also be written in the EXIF file.

Is a 1600 x 1039 not better for use in a book?

Do you mean putting the date in the picture itself? Personally I prefer to have the date not in the picture itself.

TrevorLarkum

Lesley, that's an interesting variation, but I can see we're trying to achieve a similar outcome. Some points:

1. Identifier: The first part of the name is, of course, the one that files get sorted on. I keep the original photograph identifier there so that it is easy to refer back and lay your hands on the original image. It is also essential for each image to have a unique identifier otherwise they can't be filed together in the same folder, and using the one provided by the camera is a quick and easy way to achieve this.

2. Tank type: Once all files are named appropriately, I file them by tank type. So M47s go in an M47 folder, Leopards in a Leopard folder, etc. There is therefore no benefit in starting the name with the tank type, since all files in that folder will be of that type.

3. Country: To keep the file name as short as possible I don't include a country name. It is superfluous most of the time (Bovington, Saumur, APG, etc.) but where there is potential confusion I would add a modifier, e.g. for London Ontario (_Leopard_LondonOnt_AA.jpg).

4. Date: This is important but again I only include it electronically where possible to keep the name shorter. For scanned images I include it as part of the location data, so I have _Tiger_Saumur1982_AA.jpg, _Tiger_Saumur1994_AA.jpg, etc.

5. SN/RN: I don't include SN or RN as a separate part of the filename because it is rarely known so only some files would have it. I am trying to achieve a consistent format (i.e. 4 parts separated by underscores) so that the name can be revised automatically later. For example, you could use software to update the name of all vehicles of a certain type or at a certain location and it can achieve that because it looks for the second part of the name (after the first underscore) or the third part of the name (after the second underscore) respectively. There must, of course, be no spaces in the name. Where SN or RN is known I just use it to modify the tank type, for example at Shelby I have _M60-786_CampShelby_JDaneri.jpg and _M60-879_CampShelby_JDaneri.jpg.

6. Author: I like the idea of including the author name in the properties and EXIF - I will look to see if I can adapt the software to do this. I think it should be in addition to the author's name being in the filename, then you can see its authorship without electronic interrogation, and if someone reuses a file on an Internet website it should be obvious who created it (but as a visitor you only get to see the filename).

7. Resolution: in a sense the bigger the better but there are practical limitations on passing around large file sizes so agreed lower resolutions are useful. Books are one of the more forgiving media, they are often only printed at 300dpi so a small photo in one of my books could be as small as 600x400, though for a picture across an A4 page 1800x1200 would be the minimum. In all cases I file a copy of the original file at full resolution, and at least one copy of a lower resolution, cropped and digitally enhanced version (with the '_c' modifier) so I can use them appropriately.

In the proposed scheme your example would look like:

Your preference:

Leopard 2\IMG0371_Leopard1A2(BE)-54793_Leopoldsburg20050410_LDelsing.jpg
Leopard 2\IMG0372_Leopard1A2(BE)-54793_Leopoldsburg20050410_LDelsing.jpg
Leopard 2\IMG0373_Leopard1A2(BE)-54793_Leopoldsburg20050410_LDelsing.jpg
etc.

My preference (for electronic images):

Leopard 2\IMG0371_Leo1A2(BE)-54793_Leopoldsburg_LDelsing.jpg
Leopard 2\IMG0372_Leo1A2(BE)-54793_Leopoldsburg_LDelsing.jpg
Leopard 2\IMG0373_Leo1A2(BE)-54793_Leopoldsburg_LDelsing.jpg
etc.

with the date included electronically in both cases (and the author too if I can use the software to inject it). The important thing is that both versions fit the scheme, however, so they are just personal variations. Either could be created and edited automatically. Could it work for you this way, or would it be too much of a disruption from what you already use?

vagabond

Hi Gang,

Wanted to share a few of our recent adventures in challenging photography!!

When we went to shoot at the Pine Level, NC VFW this is the lighting situation we faced.

What contrasty light?!!

Mrs VB did well to balance the difference by using her flash unit on a remote cable and holding it off to the side.

Her shot:

My shot:

As you can see, she did a better job of balancing than I did.

In the end, we managed to get some good photos - even under less than optimum circumstances. We hung around and waited for the sun to go down and shot some more images in more balanced light. Fortunately we had the time to hang out. Usually it's just shoot and run - no matter WHAT the conditions. LOL!

Also, the following examples are a study in using flash outdoors.

The first is the Sandy ridge, NC M1113A2 shot WITHOUT flash.

Same shot but WITH flash.

Mrs VB has been using an external flash unit for a couple of years and I have been gradually learning to use one as well. The flash makes a HUGE difference both indoors and outdoors! It has taken a while for me to learn how to use flash. Not only the amount to use, but how to expose and color balance. However, it has been such a tremendous asset to our photography that I am using flash more and more. I find myself looking at old photos and wishing I’d used flash when I took them.

I really wish that I’d started using flash a long time ago!

Happy Shooting!!

vagabond

Hi All,

In posting our photos from Calhoun, GA I came across this interesting study in the effect of telephoto compression on an image.

The first shot was taken using my 17-55mm f2.8 lens set at a focal length of 21mm.

This shot was taken at a focal length of 33mm.

The shot @ 33mm has compressed the image. The treads are narrowed, the fenders shortened, and the entire depth of the tank flattened.

Thought you might be interested!

Cheers,
VB

Massimo_Foti

Wikipedia covers the topic:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ography%29

33 mm on a Canon 50d (APS-C sensor) is usually considered "normal":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

Anything wider can give you distortion. Wider lenses lend more easily to that, especially at certain angles. I like the dramatic effect that you can achieve that way; then the scale modeller in me prefer to have pictures where it's easier to see dimensions and proper proportions Smile

BTW Have you tried something wider than 17-55? I remember you were talking about a Tokina 12-24 (I have Tokina 11-16).

Massimo

vagabond

Massimo -

I haven't had a chance (Read $$$) to check out any new glass. Still shooting my EFS 17-55 f2.8.

Massimo_Foti

Well, Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 is a first-class lens. For outdoor shots 17 mm is wide enough, indoor, with less space, something wider is handy.

Massimo

Massimo_Foti

Canon Rebel T3i / EOS 600D announced:
www.dpreview.com/news/...os600d.asp

As expected, it has tilt/swivel screen. In terms of image quality nothing new, same sensor as 7D, 60D and 550D, same AF system as 550D.

Massimo

Michel_Krauss

Nice camera

However I will stick to my "old" EOS 350 for at least another year, perhaps a couple of years
They are a little to expensive to buy another every 2 or 3 years

Michel

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big