The Photography Thread

[funkydan]

Hi Al, as far as I can remember, the ISO was set at 1000 - so that is pretty high I guess (although it may have been 800; Flickr doesn't seem to hold my EXIF data any more, and it is supposed to show up as the settings are configured correctly ) Too much light and them leaping around like epileptic monkeys didn't help much either

Is your EXIF data showing up on Flickr? Is anyone else having the same problem? It always used to show up...I just don't get the more properties option any more?!

[Alastair]

On flickr use the You drop down, then the Your Account option. Select the Privacy & Permissions tab from that screen and the option Hide your photos' EXIF data should be set to NO.

[funkydan]

It is

I've messaged Flickr to ask them what's going on as it appears to have vanished from ALL my photos!

EDIT: Actually, some do and some don't!!:

has properties (from fairly recent set)

no properties (from most recent set)

Weird?!

[Gareth C]

Is the EXIF data missing from files that you know had the data showing previously?

You sure you haven't been saving them differently?


As for noise...

It seems to be the case that Canon is ahead of Nikon in the ISO battle. The 5D is generally heralded as the pack leader (by some way).
I have used the 5D and D200 quite a bit and can definetely see the difference even without 'pixel peeping'.

Having said that when I get a DSLR (probably next month) I think I am going to grab a D200. The noise is quite grainy in B&W so I could put up with it and I prefer the usability of the Nikon over the Canon.
Of course, a lot can change in a month and I have already changed my mind about 20 times!

Thats also why I love my M8. It is noisier than the Canon at high ISO but as its so grainy and I generally shoot B&W it has quite a film look to it. Colour can be a different story

[funkydan]

Is the EXIF data missing from files that you know had the data showing previously?

You sure you haven't been saving them differently?

I'm sure it was there before I don't think I save them differently. All my photos get cropped and played around with a little in Photoshop and then just saved. I'll have to check at home tonight that the photos on my laptop do actually hold the camera info etc.

Thanks for the answers guys

[MartyG]

It's probably the JPG export from photoshop that's stripping it out.

[Alastair]

Save As... always keeps the data for me, not sure if save for web strips it though?

[MartyG]

If you're copy/pasting crops into a new image and exporting it'll definitely lose the data, as it's a new pic.

[funkydan]

If you're copy/pasting crops into a new image and exporting it'll definitely lose the data, as it's a new pic.

Nah, nothing fancy like that (wouldn't know how! ) - just cropping and adjusting levels then saving that file (i.e. not save as). I'll check the photos tonight and see if they still hold the details. If they do, maybe it's something to do with the Flickr uploadr?

Thanks dudes

Dan

[Alastair]

I think it's your settings on Flickr somehow Dan as even your old shots don't have the option to see them, check again. EDIT, ignore that, missed your edit Dan.

Just been over the road and picked up my first 35mm B&W film since I've been digital (NEOPAN 400). Had a good chat with the lab guy too, this film malarkey is just as geeky and confusing as digital isn't it! Price to develop and scan isn't too bad either, £11.50 I think it was for a 36 roll scanned at 300dpi to A3 sort of sizes. They do a cheaper, smaller dimensions option but I'll stick with the bigger one for the first time I think as I may PS the files before printing.

He also suggested getting a 1600 film and pulling it to 800 to increase the contrast. I'm a little confused as to what to do with this film as Marty you said pushing it 1 stop would increase contrast also, may just leave it at 400 and see what comes out!

[MartyG]

Hmm - I'd get your prints done at another lab

If you pull a film down, you don't need to process it for as long - this means that less of the silver forms in the emulsion, so you get less contrast.

Pushing a film up, you have to process it for longer - this means that more of the silver forms in the emulsion, so you get more contrast.

[Alastair]

Hmmm, to be fair to him he was a lab rat rather than a photographer so I'll let him off this once for giving slightly iffy advice!

I'll def stick with 400 on the cam this time then as I don't want a load of underexposed crap first time out! If I don't like the 'natural' contrast from the film I'll try Ilford next time then move on to pushing them and learn from there.

Thanks again for the advice.

[MartyG]

Here you go, from Kodak itself: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/su....11.4.16&lc=en

What you're effectively doing when you push a film is under-exposing it. You're telling the camera the film is more light-reactive than it actually is. So you have to "push" the processing to compensate.

Oh, one other thing, you might find that you need to put a sticker over the barcode on the film canister when you do push the film speed. Not all cameras allow you to override the auto DXing.

You can do this with digital cameras too - try purposely under-exposing a shot and use photoshop to adjust the light levels - you'll get more grain and more contrast.

[funkydan]

I think it's your settings on Flickr somehow Dan as even your old shots don't have the option to see them, check again.

It says:

Hide your photos' EXIF data [?] No

Settings are configured correctly still, so I'll wait to see what Flickr says

Thanks

Dan

[Ish]

As for noise...

It seems to be the case that Canon is ahead of Nikon in the ISO battle. The 5D is generally heralded as the pack leader (by some way).
I have used the 5D and D200 quite a bit and can definetely see the difference even without 'pixel peeping'.

I'd add that the software you use to process raw files can make a big difference to noise. For example if I process the pictures from my D80 in Aperture the noise is quite digital and can be unpleasant while if I use Photoshop its far more "organic". Doesn't so much change the level of noise but the appearance of it.