Com-Central.net

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.

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?

- 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

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

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

Thanks!

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

Regards,
Lesley

Lesley,

Regarding the 'blue' Panther photo. The majority of the light hitting the tank appears to be natural light coming through the windows. Sunlight is around 5200K in temperature. If you used the fluorescent WB setting (that is usually around 4000K, a much 'bluer' or cooler temperature) it will give you a blueish result.

Did you also use flash? If so, the flash on your camera (without a diffuser or gel) will also tend to 'blue' the photo.

The fluorescent WB setting is designed to work well when the light is fully from fluorescent lights.

As smart as cameras WB settings are, we have had to learn a lot about light and light temperatures to be able to get the photos that we are looking for. Museums are particularly difficult in that the light is usually awful for photography.

Most of the books on photography deal with taking good photos under good conditions. We have had to adapt a lot of different techniques to be able to pull off getting good photos under the extremely adverse conditions of military museums.

Hope this helps!

Cheers!

Hi All,

Regarding issues of setting an accurate white balance in difficult lighting conditions, I swear by the Expodisc:

www.expoimaging.com/pr...s=ExpoDisc

In instances where setting a custom white balance with the Expodisc doesn't work, I will use the Kelvin Temp settings.

I have found the Auto White Balance setting on my Canon 50D to be a tad blue for my tastes. So, when I'm shooting outdoors in normal sunshine, I will set my white balance to 5500K and the photos look great.

I have had to learn in which direction to alter the Kelvin Temps depending on the results I want. The basic idea is that lower numbers are 'cooler' - bluer in color and higher temps 'hotter' - more yellow.

Sometimes under the most difficult lighting combinations (Natural light mixed with fluorescents or fluorescents of mixed colors) I will use the White Balance Shift setting in the Canon's menu. It allows me to shift the color balances by adding more red or green or violet and get a much more precise balance.

I don't like shooting in RAW. I don't want to have to spend the time at the computer tweaking the shots, I prefer to get the shots in camera. I shoot JPEG all the time and am very happy with the results.

I did have to tweak the JPEG settings on the camera to get the results that I like, though. The factory defaults were very soft and had a bit too much contrast for my tastes.

My camera setup is a Canon 50D with the Canon 17-55 EFS f2.8 lens (with the 1.6 crop factor it is a 27 – 88mm). Mrs. VB uses her Panasonic G1 with the 14-45mm (in 35mm equivalent a 28 – 90mm). Her Panasonic is terrific for overhead and ‘blind’ shooting as it has an articulated LCD screen. We are very happy to have both platforms to use as each has it’s own strengths and if one of us misses the shot, the other one gets it.

Cheers!

So far I limited myself to raising the camera above my head. But a combination of monopod/tripod, remote control and tilt and swivel LCD could do very well.

If you go with Canon ask first, I could give you some suggestions on lens

Massimo

- 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.

Massimo

That's interesting. I'm looking to get a new camera and I've been tending towards a Nikon for the tilt and swivel LCD, rather than Canon, but maybe now I'll hold off. The tilt and swivel LCD is the last bit missing from making my version of the 'JoeD Tank Stick' - raising the camera high up on a tripod - really effective.

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.

Massimo

- Michel_Krauss

The one you mean in about 90 euro

I will have an look around if I can find one near by

90 euro is okay for it. You may improve your results without breaking the bank (good lenses last for decades but cost a lot)
No need to say it's better to buy from a reputable seller, with a clear return policy. If you buy locally take the camera with you in order to quickly try the lens.

Massimo

There is yet another one, with "IS". It means it has image stabilization (see early posts):
www.the-digital-pictur...eview.aspx
www.dpreview.com/lensr...p6_is_c16/

Skip the "II" type and look for the "IS".

Massimo

good to know that it is something else
The one you mean in about 90 euro

I will have an look around if I can find one near by

Michel

oh, thank you. I might be looking for something that doesn't exist. Photobucket has bandwidth limits on the free accounts.