Travel Photography - Gear - Editing - Sharing

Hey Gary, great to get your input.
I must say though, that making a blog on ExplorOz is far easier than taking a photo and using editing software so you are more than capable. So here's a quick summary of how you can do a blog...

Go to the top left of the website, click menu, then click Blogs - then look on the screen for the orange button that says New Blog - press that. This will open the draft window of your first new blog. Simply type text into the box just like a Forum post - click the grey buttons below to add in stuff (eg. click the button that says Add Photos) and this will open a window showing the file structure on your computer so you locate your image as a jpg and then it will begin uploading to the blog page. It will put the photo whereever you have your cursor at the time of clicking the button. So if you want it between paragraphs press the button when your cursor is in between the 2 paragraphs of text you've written in the blog.

Also just like in the Forum, there is a preview button to allow you to check what it looks like before finished. And just like in the Forum there is the submit button which is what you press to publish your blog.

Note - blogs have a setting to allow you to keep the page invisible until you are ready. You still submit it (to save your work) but until you flag the page as visible you can keep it hidden from view. Shouldn't be too hard for a fella like you.

That's ok Garry, its amazing what we can talk ourselves out of - or what we can accomplish when we want to. Like most things, just don't over think it!

Depends where you are sending the image. If you are emailing an image you really have to keep the file small, yes around 2MB but if you are uploading to our website (eg. blogs, or Places) then just keep it at the full size jpg no compression required. Our system handles the resizing for you and at the other end people viewing the page are not downloading large images, so its all done for you. Times have changed. Same with instagram or facebook - any site that allows you to upload will usually now have a resize function built in making it easy for you. ie. the system can handle a 32MB image upload.

It really depends on the subject you are shooting and the available light that is hitting the processor (varies if you have different lenses/focal length etc).

There is no denying that the cameras in today's smartphones do a fantastic job but they just don't compare to the DSLR when light is low or when zoom is required or when the object is moving. For me, that is a lot of scenarios...

Like you, I have spent the past few years leaving my DSLR at home and using my phone for convenience, especially when capturing family or sporting moments. In the last 6 years or so, my youngest kiddo (now about to turn 15) has been horseriding a few times a week and I've filmed an extreme amount of photos and videos. All outdoors in all types of weather conditions. Most days I would take about 30 minutes worth of video (across perhaps 15 videos) and around 50 photos. Sometimes taking photo/video of other people and their horses too, which then need to be shared back to them. It's been a massive undertaking to work out the best way to:

1. play back the videos/display the photos on home tv to show others
2. move the images off the phone quickly to media storage as phone storage gets full quickly
3. ensure both of us have access to the shared storage location from our different devices/accounts
4. build clips/edit images from our separate accounts using different editing programs and different device platforms (kiddo on iPad, me on PC desktop and/or Android phone)
5. avoid clogging up our internet usage by too much file sharing/downloading
6. avoid duplication of images across the network

We've gone full circle in how we achieve this. Originally using my Samsung phone camera and using Dropbox for auto syncing to our home network when I walk through the door. However this was consuming far too much bandwidth and the video uploads would get stuck and after a week the files would still not appear. I was getting caught out not knowing if the files had all uploaded and if I could delete the images off the phone storage before the next outing and the internet was just getting slow.... The use of shared Dropbox folders for different network users meant that files were being duplicated across the user profiles to each device that was opened to access the files so this was very inefficient.

We eventually solved it by installing a NAS box and stopped using phone to capture images. Not only did that stop the use of Dropbox file transfer because I transfered the files directly off the SD card into the computer and into the selected file storage on the hard drives but this put the DSLR back in my hands so I started shooting in RAW and using Lightroom to make quick adjustments. The results were instantly obvious - like chalk and cheese. I simply don't bother using my phone camera at all now when I need to take photos.

Mind you, I have a very good quality DSLR. Canon6DMk2 but also have an older Canon 50D. I store all the files in an import folder in RAW then select some files to work on in Lightroom and export the adjusted jgps to a separate folder catalogued by month. I can access the edited JPG files from my phone using QFile, which allows me to directly share to Instagram etc. I have been building video clips with music etc using Windows Movie Maker and my kiddo uses their iPad and iMovie.

When translated to outback situations, if I want to take photos of animals they are usually a fair distance away or moving fast (roos, emus, birds, lizards) and the use of a long lens vs a phone camera with zoom is not going to be comparable. In low light situations such as sunrise, sunset and around the campfire you will get a better result using a DSLR if you know what you're doing. In all situations, you can get those magic creative shots that play on light, and capture the real essence of colours, and get more emotion in your photos by playing with depth of field settings. For many people you can also overcome the typical problem of arriving at a magical scene only to realise it doesn't look its best in the harsh midday light. With a DSLR you can certainly do a lot of adjustments either in camera if you know what you're doing, or post-production using Lightroom. (I don't bother with photoshop or anything too time consuming).

However, the phone camera is excellent for still life - especially close-up macro style of flowers, and does a lovely job with a bright day scene of vehicles and campsites and the landscape as a backdrop. It also does a wonderful job when taking photos of signboards, structures, landmarks and other static objects especially in very bright light which is typical for daytime in the outback.

.
My Lord, "15 videos and 50 photos per day"..... how do you get time to make the beds? LOL

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree that a full-blown camera, be it DSLR, mirrorless, or whatever, has it all over a phone camera. It is however a solid learning curve to get an SLR off the auto setting and produce consistent good results.

I guess why Roz can produce such good photos is that she is mostly shooting from the viewpoint of the human eye as she portrays the photobook pages to be as-seen by the eye. It is a selective process. Zoom is out. Even flower closeup is taken from the distance of human observation. It doesn't make the shots better, just realistic and simpler. And if we do need a rare shot demanding more, I come in with the Sony mirrorless.

I just didn't want the iPhone discounted completely. Within their limits they do a brilliant job. And are always at hand.

Yes in principle that is quite true - but its not the focal length but the f-stop, as I'm sure you know, that determines a good lens. It's all about the light - we have some f/1.8 and f/2.8 lenses and they make an incredible difference in using available light compared to the f/3.8 and f/4.5 lens. BUT those low f/stops come at a massive price!

On the flip side, the modern cameras have come a long way. And the other way of dealing with light is ISO. You can buy a camera now with such high ISO you don't need to use a tripod in low light (no flash). Our Canon6DMk2 has a max ISO of 40,000 (but of course I have never used it). ISO can cause too much grain but if used in conjunction with a great lens you can get brilliant results in really tricky light. The 6D was bought for our son who is a freelance photographer and creative media student, but I've been using it with the horses as mentioned above. His usage is often at rock concerts indoor where no flash or tripod can be used but where the light changes rapidly from pitch black to glaring flashing white or coloured lights and smoke. For him, the combination of low f/stop and long lens as well as higher ISO is simply tools of the trade.

Photography has always been and will always be all about light.

DSLR cameras allow you to select the file format of the captured picture. If you select RAW you can utilise the image information as seen by the camera's digital sensor before it has been compressed into an image format where it some of this information is lost.

In RAW format you can use image editing tools that allow you to modify parts of the image that are lost after jpg compression. I am no expert but here is a link to an article that seems to outline it rather well, 10 reasons why you should shoot in RAW

Thanks Michelle.

More importantly, RAW files are not changed in any way by the sensor/camera before being stored. There is zero compression, there is zero loss of detail.
I have revisited old RAW files taken some years ago, and with the newer Photoshop program, recovered detail that was not visible in earlier attempts. The less you "muck around" with an image in the first place, the more likely it is that you can get the detail out of it.

As for jpg - this is a "lossy compression" file manipulation that, if you use it in camera reduces the size of the file to be stored. While that can be an advantage sometimes, it does ensure that you'll never get the detail back.
Also, every time you save a jpg file, regardless of whether you have changed anything or not, the process reduces the detail in the file. JPEG (originally devised by the Japan Photographic Expert Group, hence the initials) uses a process to reduce the file size by looking at each pixel, and then comparing it with the surrounding ones to come up with a sort of average for all sorts of measures (including rgb, luminosity etc) and storing that. This process is carried out for every pixel in the image. If you open a jpg file, and then save it again, the process is repeated for each pixel. Repeating this process every time a file is saved results in a halo effect on the edges of sections of the image - known as JPEG artifacts. They mean that enlarging the image, or even viewing it at magnification, you can see the "blurriness" of the outline.

RAW does not change anything in the image, hence most photographers shoot RAW, and edit later.

.

If a .jpg file is simply opened to view with no manipulation then simply closing it causes no file change. However, some Image Editors may incur loss, even following no image manipulation, if the command 'Save' or 'Save As' is used after viewing in the Editor. That includes even when simply renaming the file. Better to rename in a File Manager than in an Editor.
If the file is manipulated in any way in an image editor then yes, upon saving the edited image, some losses are incurred.

Some camera users may not be aware that their camera may offer higher resolution .jpg settings. Raising the setting to a higher resolution from the default is beneficial although at the expense of larger file size thus limiting the number of stored exposures.

This JPG Myths and Facts link may be useful to some.

Hey Paul, please share some of your YouTube videos here then! Take a look at the original post I put up at the bottom with various methods/options.

Ok I will - when I get some time
Thanks,
Paul

ABSOLUTELY!
Can't imagine the stress you went through with the LR update :(

Nacho...

You do know that isn’t what they mean by “flashing” don’t you?

Cheers

Anthony

Ron don't forget Mirrorless Cameras and Sony are the best with those. If I had my time over again I would have bought a Mirrorless camera rather than my Cannon DSLR. I'm now a prisoner to the multiple Cannon lenses I have and can't justify starting again.
Unless you are going to go the whole hog and get a Full Frame DSLR and use it regularly (like a professional?), Mirrorless cameras are as good,. So tell me numerous people I respect, they are a whole lot more versatile due to their size which mans you are more likely to have them with you and lower number of moving parts

A Walkley Award winning professional photographer I know says the best camera is the one you have in your hand. By that he mans no point in having "the best camera" if you don't use it often.

.
Ron,

The Sony SLT-A55V that you have is a good camera. Its ultimate performance will somewhat depend on what lenses you use with it. But moving to a Canon or Nikon DSLR will not necessarily improve your photos.

If you do make a change I suggest that the future lies with mirrorless cameras as Mark has said. I could never understand why the camera industry continued with mirrors when film was displaced by digital sensors. My Nikon D80 was dumped when the Sony RX10 mirrorless became available. With its 24-200mm F 2.8 lens it will handle anything I need. (current model even better)
My RX10 lens is non-interchangeable..... no need to carry extra lenses and simpler with reduced weight.

Sure, professionals may still carry heavy DSLR's but mirrorless is the future standard and many do have interchangeable lenses.

Baz, Your blog entry is very good, but omits one very important matter.
If someone else gets you to take a pic for them, and pays you to do it, the copyright belongs to THEM, not the photographer.

Hi Johnat

Thanks, and yes.

An exception of the copyright law also relates to the press/media, who can use your image providing it is not the focal point of the story.

This is why you will often see images taken from Facebook and the like and used by media outlets...

Cheers, Baz