Weshoot.com

The Official We Shoot Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • To Comment

Posts Tagged ‘megapixel’

We Shoot Photography Of The Day For 9/3/2018

Monday, September 3rd, 2018

Click on image to enlarge.  Click again to enlarge to full size. 

Click on back button to return to post.

Click the “Home” tab above to see earlier posts.

Seattle Product Photography by We Shoot

 

Seattle Product Photography by We Shoot

Nikon D7200 camera with Nikkor Zoom Lens. Seattle Product Photography by We Shoot.

Tags: 24, camera, glass, lens, megapixel, mpxl, Nikkor, Nikon, photographer, photography, zoom
Posted in Information, Lighting, Marketing, Photographs, Images | Comments Off on We Shoot Photography Of The Day For 9/3/2018

Why Doesn’t He Have Dust Spots?

Tuesday, October 18th, 2016

I have a friend (who shall remain nameless) who emphatically states that he never has dust spots on his camera sensor. I, on the other hand, seem to deal with them as a normal byproduct of my workflow.

Photographers have different ways of dealing with dust spots. One spot on a sensor can show up in the same place in hundreds of my images leading me to employ my Photoshop skills to touch them out.  Why doesn’t my friend have spots, and I do?

Most photographers with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have spots because their image-making versatility is enhanced by the ability to change from one lens to another on one camera body, with the attendant risk of foreign objects landing on the sensor by exposing the inner workings of the camera to the dusty, debris-filled environment.

Recently I got a peek at why my friend says he has no dust on his sensor. Each time he swaps his lenses he goes into the camera menu, chooses the setting that locks the mirror up, opens his camera to the air (usually outside) and blows his sensor clean with a bulb puffer.  Then he puts on a different lens.  Being in  surroundings dictated by my clients like landfills, manufacturing, and food-processing plants, I am surrounded by dust, dirt, shavings, and other particles that wreak havoc on my sensor if exposed to them for too long.  I change lenses quickly to limit the amount of spots on my sensor.

I just completed a job in a manufacturing plant with much dust in the air and had to clean several dust spots in many images with Photoshop, even though my assistant and I changed lenses in a quick, coordinated effort. Since my client selected a large number of images from this shoot, I had a lot of dust-spot cleaning to do.  So, for my next shoot, I’ve decided to try a different tactic for dealing with the spots.  A gel stick.

The long, drawn-out “wet” cleaning process can be a risk to the camera sensor, and the gel stick is advertised as a simpler more effective remedy, so I purchased one.

I asked my friend of his interest in a gel stick. He said his method works, and he has no need for a new method.  The problem for me is his method doesn’t make sense!

Why? First, sensors are electrostatically charged, attracting dust, and his puffer tool will not dislodge most of the dust from the sensor.  Second, he is just blowing outside dust into his camera and may put more dust on the sensor than it had before.  And third, his camera is exposed to dust in the air longer due to his “puffing” cleaning process.

So, naturally, I couldn’t fathom how his process didn’t result in more dust on his sensor than on mine.

He offered to send me raw image files of my choice from his Flickr page to prove his point. Dust spots mostly show up against brighter parts of images, so I chose one with lots of sky. Along with the sky image, he sent several images, and indeed he had no dust spots!  The images were raw and no changes were made.  It didn’t make sense.

Then I noticed in my Bridge program that none of his shots was taken with an aperture tighter than f5.6. I take most of my images at f11 or f16 as I shoot large assemblies that need an overall focus for my client.

So I asked for one of his images taken at f16 or smaller aperture. He balked, but finally went outside and photographed the sky at f4.5, f5.6, and at f20.

I put these images in Photoshop raw editor, tweaking them to look for spots. The result?  No spots at the lower f-stops, but the f20 image was loaded.  That’s why he has no visible dust spots!  He shoots toward the more wide open apertures and the spots are invisible as they are not visible in the depth of field.  My dust spots are always visible as I stop down to get maximum DOF to get my entire image sharp.

The moral to the story is while he has a sensor loaded with dust, it does not affect his wide-open images, but his bulb puffer actually does nothing to keep his sensor clean.

Since my commercial shooting can require me to use a full range of f-stops, I will have to occasionally clean my sensor. So, my new Eyelead Gel Stick will do the job with less time and bother than wet cleaning.  It isn’t perfect, but it definitely reduces the marks to clean up in post-production.  See the images below.  The first was shot at f5.6 just to show why, when testing, to shoot at the tightest apertures.  The next two were shot at f36.  The first of those was shot before cleaning, and the last was shot after only one pass with the gel stick.  You be the judge.  While I am not recommending you use any gel stick, or even clean your own sensor, I purchased the gel stick I used from this website:  https://photographylife.com/product/sensor-gel-stick.

Click on the images to enlarge.

 

– Gary Silverstein

Seattle Commercial Photography

This image shot At f5.6 before cleaning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seattle Commercial Photography

This image was shot at f36 before cleaning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seattle Commercial Photography

This image was shot at f36 after cleaning with gel stick.

Tags: camera, clean, cleaned, cleaner, cleaning, debris, digital, DSLR, dust, foreign, gel, gel stick, lint, material, megapixel, mirrorless, mote, sensor, spot, spots, spotted, spotty, stick
Posted in Information, Learning, Photographs, Images, Tips | Comments Off on Why Doesn’t He Have Dust Spots?

Megapixel madness . . .

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

First, let me say that I have nothing against technology.  I, as a professional photographer, use it every day.  The problem with the newest and greatest technology is determining what you really need, and secure that for your business.

New cameras have come out with incredible capabilities.  These include the Nikon D800 (in two forms) and the Canon 5D Mk III.  The former has 36.6 megapixels, and the latter has around 22.3.  Both shoot HD video.

Let’s look at what is needed.  I have been a photographer for a long time.  I currently shoot for various companies on assignments that include food, products, services, architecture, and lifestyle images.  I cut my teeth on event and consumer photography.  One thing I can tell you is that it is folly to show up with only one camera to a professional shoot, especially if reshooting it is difficult or downright impossible.  Let’s take a wedding photographer, for example.  Let’s say he has $3K-$3.5K to spend on a camera or cameras.  Should he buy one new Nikon D800 or Canon 5D Mk III to shoot weddings, or should he buy two Nikon D300s or Canon 7Ds?

I would say he should buy 2 of either of the latter 2 cameras.  First we usually buy the brand that will accept our older lenses.  That usually dictates the brand.  For weddings these days, how many people will be buying or making anything larger than an 8X10?

You don’t need over 12 megapixels for anything under 30X40 (and you might even be able to push it to 40X60).  Most images are printed smaller, and even wind up on the web, where a sub- one-megabyte image has sufficient size.  The only photographers who need such a large megapixel camera are those who produce images in excess of 30X40, or severely crop an image from the original size.  An 8X10 from a D800 won’t necessarily be better-looking than one from a D300!

Let’s also look at logistics.  A 12.2-megapixel D300 Nikon produces a tiff file around 35-megabytes (8-bit).  A D800 is said to produce a tiff image at around 76-megabytes (8-bit).  In Photoshop, professional photographers regularly make layers to enhance their images.  Each layer adds multiples to the size of that file, and unless you have a pretty robust 64-bit computer system, it may create delays in workflow, or even give you dreaded “out of memory” messages.

The second argument for buying two of the same camera is that you have a backup for the first camera.  The lenses are interchangeable.  A wedding couple and their families don’t want to hear that your camera failed during their wedding and you didn’t get the pictures.  When we did weddings during the days of film, we used to show up with no less that 3 medium-format camera bodies, 3 lenses, and multiple film inserts or backs.  We also had two shooters, and this allowed broader coverage.  If you are hired to shoot, and you do not deliver, you may be in breach of contract, will possibly get sued, and will definitely generate bad will.  This is very bad in this modern age, what with Facebook and Yelp.

My advice is if you are considering going pro, buy affordable cameras in pairs, or even use an older camera to back up your newer one.  Never turn up for a pro shoot with just one camera.  It can be a recipe for disaster.

– Gary Silverstein

We Shoot

Tags: Canon 5D Mk III, commercial photography, enlargement, megapixel, Nikon D300, Nikon D800, weshoot.com
Posted in Tips | Comments Off on Megapixel madness . . .

  • Categories

    • How To (18)
    • Information (377)
    • Learning (27)
    • Lighting (60)
    • Marketing (170)
    • Photographs, Images (376)
    • Tips (35)
    • video (9)
  • Archives

    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • September 2013
    • June 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • October 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • December 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • March 2011
    • December 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
  • Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2019 - weshoot.com | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)

WordPress theme designed by web design