Taking photographs

[e-richard]

Having spotted some thread-creep in a couple of recent discussions that moved into the realms of photography, I thought it worth starting a special topic on taking digital pictures for your rental website or listing ad.

Being dissatisfied with all of my own pictures, and seeing what great stuff many others had produced, I went out and spent a chunk of cash on a fancy new DSLR, multi-mega pixel, mucho-buttons, clever new camera. I then took similar pictures to those that I already had, and was very disappointed to see negligible difference.

After some further reading and research, I realised just how much more you can do on the computer after taking the pictures, and more recently, how important composition/angle and dressing of photographs are. Neither of these are related to the actual camera itself, but can improve the results enormously.

Anyway, one of the issues that has also arisen recently is the topic of wide angle lenses, and I am happy to share my views on why you need not rush out and spend money on one of these expensive gizmos.

See my own diatribe on who needs a wide angle lens ?

I'm sure there are many others far more qualified than I to add to this topic, so I look forward to more hints and helpful ideas.

[enid]

Great thread - I definitely need help

[Jimbo]

e-richard wrote:

See my own diatribe on who needs a wide angle lens ?

Hi Richard

Your example of your pretty Algarve Square demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of photo-stitching technology. If you have the patience, it's a terrific tool for static subject matter and avoids both the cost and the distortion that extreme wide-angle lenses are apt to induce. However, if you'd wanted to capture your description of the kids running around whilst the parents chatted and sipped their drinks, you'd almost certainly have needed to capture this scene in one hit - therefore you would need a wide lens. Some of the more sophisticated Photoshop versions do a fine job of correcting edge distortion with wide lenses too.

Don't feel bad about spending more than you needed on an 'all singing' camera - we've all been there in one form or another. My workshop's full of 'professional' tools but my DIY falls a bit short of perfection.

Jim

[Alan Knighting]

I haven't completely changed from my Canon AE-1 with tele-photo and wide angles lenses to my FujiFilm S5500. Overall, I remain to be convinced about digital photography for all purposes.

Putting aside convenience, I still prefer the end results when I digitalise pictures by using my high resolution scanner on 35mm prints.

I was taken aback at the price of a wide angle lens for the S5500.

Fluffy

[Rocket Rab]

There's always something to learn...thanks Richard and Jim for giving us some of the pros and cons of wide angle lenses. This was really interesting: I've never considered photo-stitching, but I can see how useful it's likely to be for a good beach/harbour shot.

I'm thinking of buying a new digital camera one of these days - a basic one is probably all I need. Should I only expect photo-stitching software with the more expensive models?

[e-richard]

Glad to see you here Jim.

I feel such a novice, but exceedingly keen to learn and experiment a lot more with stitching. I still get a lot of distortion even with stitched pictures, so am careful to avoid strong horizontal lines - they all to easily end up as curves. Any ideas how to avoid/minimize that ?

[Jimbo]

Alan Knighting wrote:

Overall, I remain to be convinced about digital photography for all purposes.

Hi Alan

Be convinced. Sell Joan, sell the burmese, sell your body - do whatever's necessary to get fully onto the digital bandwagon.

Four years ago, I had the camera outfit that went to the moon. I had thirty years of experience using film. Even more, I felt part of a tradition of using silver-based film going back to Fox Talbot and Daguerre, technology the principles of which had barely changed in two hundred years. But my clients insisted that I changed to digital capture. I really, really didn't want to go fully digital but they were right.

Digital capture is better than film. I never thought that I'd abandon film so completely but the truth will out in the end. The technological tiger charges ever onward, try to grab a handful of his tail as he races by and hang on for dear life. Don't let the kids have all the fun!

Jim

[Stu]

I have to agree with Jim there. I've ditched my collection of lenses and SLRs in favour of the Fujifilm S5100. Ok, it's not the most all-singing, all-dancing of the Fuji stable, but after 2 years (almost) of using it, it never fails to amaze me with the variety of shots I can take with it, and have the results visible just minutes later on the 'web!

I take it everywhere & anywhere with me. It has great battery life too. The only thing is that after having had 2 Fuji digi's in the past 5 years or so, I'm now looking to upgrade to a more 'serious' camera so's I can begin to enjoy my hobby in a more 'rounded' way again. Any advice Jim? Not too expensive though please, as Syb wants a range style oven....





All taken with the digital (although the moon one was taken through my telescope eyepiece). They all serve to show what a versatile unit the S5100 can be! But now I want something that'll do more, and hopefully with interchangeable lenses again!

[Alan Knighting]

Be convinced. Sell Joan, sell the burmese, sell your body - do whatever's necessary to get fully onto the digital bandwagon.

The conversion process is happening all the time. Less and less do I use my SLR. Whatever I might think of the two formats the sheer speed and convenience of digital is overwhelming.

Alan

[Jimbo]

Stu wrote:

I'm now looking to upgrade to a more 'serious' camera

Hi Stu

If you want a good quality SLR, there's only really Nikon or Canon to consider. I think Canon has the edge at present and you might take a hard look at the Canon 400D, which is a lot of camera for the money. If Syb isn't squeaking too much at this point, I'd be tempted to twin the body with one of Canon's upper range zoom lenses like the 24-105mm. Then, maybe, a dedicated flashgun and you should be able to handle pretty much anything. If this is too expensive, I'd look around for second-hand equipment - many owners tend to upgrade regularly as new gear appears. (Try to avoid ex-pro gear as it's likely to have been hammered).
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082 ... belxti.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082 ... lenses.asp

e-richard wrote:

... exceedingly keen to learn and experiment a lot more with stitching.

Hi Richard

If you're serious about photo stitching, there's plenty of info and dedicated software out there. For starters, take a look at:
http://www.panoguide.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor ... hing.shtml

You might also benefit from a special panoramic head for your tripod. The best supplier I know for such gear is an American company called Really Right Stuff: http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html

If you have the time, energy and imagination, really stunning images can be produced by stitching technology. I've seen some wonderful stuff. Good luck - looking forward to seeing more of your results.

Jim

[Overboard]

Interesting topic as I've actually been considering purchasing a wide angle lens for my Nikon D80. I just converted to digital this year and can't wait to get back to Edinburgh and snap better photos.

[Hells Bells]

One thing I am not sure about is copyrighting and/or watermarking our images. We have had a couple of occasions recently where others renting out property in our complex have used the pictures for their own listings or websites.

[Jimbo]

HelenB wrote:

I am not sure about copyrighting and/or watermarking our images

Hi Helen

If you shot the images yourself, the copyright belongs to you unless you give or sell it to somebody else. If you commissioned (or asked a friend to shoot for free) images for your website, the copyright will belong to that photographer (even if you've paid for the work) unless you've agreed otherwise in writing. If a third party uses your copyright pictures without your permission (and it's not through accidental confusion), you should go after them with all means at your disposal. Stealing your images is no different to stealing your purse - it's a criminal offense.

Watermarking is used by many picture libraries but it's of limited value. Unless the watermark is pretty complex, it can usually be removed quite easily. If it's complex, it probably obscures the picture and detracts from its value as a marketing tool. Better, I think, to clearly state on your website that all images are your copyright and cannot be used without prior written approval from you. Then go after anybody who infringes your rights.

For detailed info: http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm

Jim

[firstgreen]

HelenB wrote:

We have had a couple of occasions recently where others renting out property in our complex have used the pictures for their own listings or websites.

Hi Helen

I know exactly where you are coming from. This is a problem for those of us who are on a resort/complex. On numerous occasions I have contacted the rental listing sites I am on, where other owners on the resort have stolen our photos and text. The sites usually remove them straight away, but it still keeps happening. These same owners are usually the ones who then have the cheek to ask you for referrals….pah!


Jimbo wrote:

Watermarking is used by many picture libraries but it's of limited value. Unless the watermark is pretty complex, it can usually be removed quite easily. If it's complex, it probably obscures the picture and detracts from its value as a marketing tool.

Hi Jimbo,

I am about to use a photographer to update our photos. Due to our photos being stolen in the past I was going to watermark them, but you have changed my mind (plus it would be time consuming).

Better, I think, to clearly state on your website that all images are your copyright and cannot be used without prior written approval from you.

Where would you put this? In the page footer, in a privacy statement?

Thanks

Phil

[Topcat]

It is possible to disable the function that allows right click and copy. I have no idea how its done, but I know it exists. Perhaps one of our technical experts can explain?

Pauline