Q about 'macro' camera settings
 

I imagine we all use digital cameras now (except Tom :D ) but to get a decent close-up I have to use the macro [close up] setting...

They don't look all that good... :(

How do you guys get the close-ups to not bend??? I drew a line above the sights on my 1902 Colt to illustrate...

(Not a phone-cam; Kodak EasyShare)...

You get a "fish-eye" effect with macro/closeup settings on a point and shoot camera. It allows the software to sharply focus at close range but the lens introduces spherical aberration because of the curvature of the lens. This usually can only be corrected by a seperate close-up lens that corrects for this condition. To get sharp photos without introducing a "curve" it is best to use a high resolution setting and shoot from a bit longer distance using the zoom function to get a close up effect. Also shooting at a high resolution then cropping the photo to the portion that you want to illustrate helps. Macro settings are only useful for a very close up photo of a small area, not the entire gun (for instance, you could us the macro setting to take a sharp photo of the rampant colt logo on the grip). It also is much less apparent for not-linear objects (you don't notice the bend).
Some higher end cameras have on board photo editing capabiliies that folks that know how to use them (not me) can manipulate fish-eye and correct for it.
Ron

Hi Rich, The problem you are experiencing is called spherical aberration. Macro lenses are corrected for this, but it's not usually a problem 99% of the time since so few close ups contain straight lines. You can get around this by placing your straight line, in this case the barrel, so that it passes through the center point of the frame, in other words, it's essentially a radius. I know this sounds complicated, but give it a try.
Regards, Norm

Thanks! :thumbup: I'll try that tomorrow, in morning light (those Renaissance painters were right about that).

I don't think my EasyShare has a higher res that 2304 x 1728, but I'll hold over the 28 inches for close-ups and shoot it with the zoom. :)

I'm also experimenting with background colors. The towel in my pic is actually blood red, not pink. :( I had to Gamma correct everything to get the dark colors [the gun] to differentiate.

I do get what you mean. I'll try that too. ;)

If I want really detailed close-ups of markings, I pop the pistol under my flatbed scanner. It can scan up to 2400 dpi, but usually 600dpi already does the trick.

I use a HP ScanJet G2710 at the moment. Works well for close-ups and quick scans of guns when there is no time to set up the light tent and camera :)

Back up, use a longer focal length, high resolution - then crop to enlarge.

For color, use a neutral grey, no red, green, blue, etc.

If the color still isn't right, try adjusting the "saturation".

red looks great for a bakcground, but as Don said, it leaves a 'residue' on the gun colors and / or makes the colors get darker.

So, although I prefer a robin egg blue background, probably a tan works well.

And the main thing with any pictures is plenty of natural light - subdued natural lighting.

Most of the time I take a quick picture, but I have found that many times the changing of the in the picture that the lighting or contrast seems to make the picture fuzzy, at least thats my experience...

Not to be a pedant, but--

The effect is called barrel distortion, straight lines bow outward. This is the result of cost compromises of lens design, most often seen in wide-angle lenses or the wide settings of inexpensive zoom lenses. This shows up in "macro" pictures because the "macro" setting almost always defaults to a lens's widest-angle focal length.

The opposite effect, with straight lines bowing inward, is called pincushion distortion and usually associated with long focal lengths.

As Norm notes, placing straight lines as closely as possible to the horizontal center of the fame is the only way to reduce the effect without investing in different photographic equipment.

Spherical aberration is seen as slight "fuzziness" surrounding sharp points of focus. This is the result of lens design which does not adequately focus off-axis light rays.

The color cast problem requires explanation of how light suffuses the interior of your camera. Proper remediation is not easily, and requires photographic techniques more sophisticated than simple gamma correction. If you really want to avoid it, the only solution is to photograph with a white background in the first place. You can add a color background later, but the techniques are far beyond explanation here. This very problem, and its ultimate solution, delayed publication of "Police Lugers" for almost a year.

--Dwight

There are several different ways to fix in software, but it is always easier and more satisfactory--and much less time consuming--to do it right in the first place.

Attachment 51387

--Dwight

I had to cancel my 'photo shoot' yesterday due to overcast & ground fog that didn't burn off until mid-morning. :(

Today was better. I took several telephoto lens shots from ~six feet, and a couple of macro shots using the top line of the slide as my focus center.

Best of each is below; neither is very good. :(

I don't have any light colored towels; my last wife was a nurse and all my bath towels are blood red... :eek:

I have to get some more R-30 insulation today; I'll stop at WallyWorld and get a white bath towel for shoots and use my red one for a superimposed backdrop...

All theser pics have been taken vertically; I tried one horizontally on a white background...The sky/trees reflect from the flat surfaces... :(

Rich,

All these pics look washed out, as you mentioned. They appear over-exposed, a well as lacking in saturation, and incorrect hue. Try setting the brightness down a bit to help the subject to not come out so ghostly. The color shift towards blue might be the result of white balance set to tungsten instead of natural light.

Suggestion for backdrop would be to use light grey paper or card stock from Staples. Almost 20 yrs. ago I scored a free remnant roll of grey seamless from a photographer who did studio work, and it works very well. Even a piece of a clean cardboard box might be an improvement over the red towel. Rather than drag out and set up a piece of the paper, one time I used a similar towel, with similar results.

Just got bacl from WallyWorld; got a white & a beige bath towel. Really wanted a light blue but there were no pastel bath towels; most were garish mixed colors... :(

It wasn't until I got home that I thought I should have looked in the 'baby' section. I'll check that next time I go 'up town'. ;)

Which will be in a couple days; insulation prices seem to have skyrocketed, $52 for a bundle of faced R30 9 1/2" x 16" x 48"...I didn't have enough cash... :grr:

My Kodak EasyShare CX7430 is a dumbed-down digi-cam designed for brain dead soccer moms; not much in the way of adjustments. 4.0 mega pixels, Auto, Portrait, Sport, Night, Landscape, and Close Up are the only 'settings'. It does have a separate Video mode.

I had to 'lighten' the pics in PSP to bring out the detail in the handgun. I used the 'Gamma Correction' function.

I've never been a camera buff. :rolleyes: (IOW, I have no idea what you are all talking about).

Dwight mentioned software correcting. I may have that capability in Paint Shop Pro 10.2, which I use mostly for shrinking scanned magazine articles. I use Paint Shop Pro 4.12 for quick editing. Old but small footprint. And easy enough for a dummy like me. :)

This is a vertical shot; high noon, bright sunlit day, in shadow, using the beige towel. The towel looks white outside. I aimed about an inch over the top of the slide. 'Close Up' setting. I can still see reflections in the flat surfaces. Colors are still out of whack; my grips are brown. :(

But at least the slide doesn't look quite as warped/bent. :o

Second pic is scanned on my HP OfficeJet 7210 All-In-One, resized, and Gamma corrected (but not as much), again with the beige towel.

I think that your camera may be set to automatically correct for color temperature. It's reading the beige towel as white, and setting things that way.

Look for a feature like "automatic white balance" and turn it off, instead selecting "sunlight" "outdoors" or something that will balance for 5200K.

Marc

I had to look that up in the manual. It's there but only as long as you keep the same mode; it defaults to 'Auto' if you change mode or shut the camera off.

I'll try that tomorrow. :thumbup:

Edit: Checked Kodak Support site; firmware updates for camera and docking station, plus Users Manuals for both available. Got 'em! :)

More experimenting; morning shots, bright but cloudy, beige towel.

First is 'daylight' white balance setting; second is ISO 80 setting; third is daylight and ISO 80 settings.

Doesn't look all that different, still have to Gamma correct three times to see any detail. :(

The 'Auto' settings don't look any worse than the manual settings, so that idea was a bust (for this cheap camera anyway).

But at least now I know how to lessen the 'bent' effect. :)

Just as an example I didn't use macro lenses just a plain Nikon 28-300
I think the main thing is to avoid flashlight or bright sunlight. As a background I used a grey cardboard.
My 2 cents


Sergio

Sergio, what 'settings' did you use??? Is that a digital camera???

[QUOTE=sheepherder;276550]...still have to Gamma correct three times to see any detail...QUOTE]

Could you please post a picture as it comes directly from your camera, without any kind of correction applied?

--Dwight

Dwight -

I'll take another tomorrow as I've deleted all the 'raw' pics so far. :thumbup:

They come out of the camera at 2304 x 1728, btw. Pixels. Too big for here.

You can reduce the size by setting the camera so, would save an extra step.

Also do try the grey background, it does wonders; and a smooth
background will be less visible than a towel. JMHO.

So you are shooting in RAW?

--Dwight

Yes it's a digital camera, I went under a roof window of the attic, no sun, I shot jpeg shutter speed 1/125, f/3, W/B Auto, ISO Auto, straight from the camera no Photoshop.


Sergio

No, I meant unaltered, as it comes out off the memory card. ;)

The extra step allows me to crop the pics before shrinking them, or adding other smaller pics to the large one, like below. It's a lot easier to juggle the pics around while it's big and then crop it. (At least it's easier for me).

I don't know where to find a large gray sheet of anything, but I'll look.

Nobody praised the last three rounds of pics I took, but nobody complained, either. (Commemorative SS 1900, 1917/20 DWM, M1900 DWM Commercial)

They were taken with my phone camera, full bore res, auto mode all around. (Tripod, 3 sec. shutter delay, outdoors with bright overcast, yada, yada). Site-resized when posted.

It was the sudden rash of 1900 pics that motivated me to take my pics outdoors, with backdrop, etc. I only noticed the curvature with the Colt but the 1900 shows it also. I like the 3/4 view rather than straight on. :D

Your phone camera is probably better quality than this 10 yr old Kodak...

There are no sophisticated settings; this is a dumb cam...Best, Better, Bestest type of settings. No shutter speeds, no f stop, only 4 ISO settings, and I'm still trying to find the setting for what export file type and size...a 2304 x 1728 .JPG seems to be the default...Possibly the only export size/type... :(

You can get sheets of colored paperboard at Walmart fairly inexpensively.

White, black, grey and colors...

Marc

I use a grey sheet I bought at W-M. cut it up for large picts as rifles,
smaller for pistols. Get a lot of mileage out of one twin sheet!

Even matte paper board seems to be pretty reflective.

You are ahead of me on the collages, I have not fiddled with that as yet.

:cheers:

Seems like you don't have many options, but you could try the highest ISO and then experiment with the light options. I struggled with a pocket camera for many years, and I found that the best way to control an uncontrollable camera is to use a photo tent and experiment with the lighting, instead of struggling with the limited range of settings.

I finally broke down and bought a Canon Power Shot G3, and it has all the settings you need to take good pictures. This model is a few years old now, so you can find them used and dirt cheap on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANON-POWERS...item35ecf0a813 . This particular model is said to be the back-up camera of choice for many professional reporters and other photographers, and I have been very happy with mine.

I know that you're a tinkerer by heart, but you would save yourself a lot of headache and time by getting a better camera. A camera is just a tool, and cheap tools do have their limitations. ;)

I took a dozen or more pics today, using various 'settings' on this camera. It is quite dumb; only icons for settings [no proper names]; some settings remain, others change back to default when switching modes/power on/off; values are Best/Better/etc.

Anyway, I found that 'Exposure Compensation' plus values get a lighter pic without losing detail, minus values turn darker. 'Exposure Metering' Center-Weight setting is same as default; Center Spot gives a much better pic [lighter]. 'Focus Zone' Center Zone gives what seems to be the best picture for my morning vertical beige/cream background shots (pic below).

I was only interested today in lightening the picture, not concerned with the 'bends'.

Olle, if I spend time & money on cameras & picture taking, then that takes time & money away from activities that I am really interested in. Maybe I'll be more interested in photography in the years to come, but for now this is about the best I'll get.

I'll look for some gray pasteboard next time I go out.

You're already spending a lot of time on what seems to be a fruitless effort. It's all a matter of how much time you want to spend and what kind of result you want. Struggling with that pocket camera is like threading with a Chinese carbon steel die: It takes time, it's very aggravating and the end result will be mediocre at best, no matter how hard you try :D

It's time I usually spend standing around with a shovel & bag waiting for Bonnie Blue to find a good spot... ;)

What's this turquoise square on the top???

It seems to be an LCD display. I don't have one on mine so I don't know what it's for. I think there's a few different generations of this camera, so you may want to do a little homework before you buy.

Edit: I just looked at my camera, and it's actually a G11 (my previous "good camera" was a G3). Same difference, they can still be had for next to nothing on eBay.

Bwahahahahahaha!!! :roflmao:

That's a good one!!! You're extolling the virtues of a camera and you forgot it's not the one you have!!! :banghead:

I guess that pretty much wraps this thread up. Anyone think of any reason not to delete this thread??? Anyone??? :D

OK! Going once...Going twice... ;)

Ok, I'm an idiot then, but my point is still the same: You're trying to play Call of Duty on a 486 that doesn't even have a mouse.

Mary Lou hasn't told you that??? :D :roflmao: :cheers:

And I do still have a Compaq Contura 410C laptop; I read the Walkthroughs on it while I play Quake 4 and Doom 3 on my PIII 1.4GhZ 'game' PC...with a trackball... ;)

No, don't delete!
Someone else may want to learn how to do better photos and what camera(s) are cheap and good!;)