The DoMeBo Photography Class - Lesson #3

[NinetyWt]

I took all these neat photos while I was up at my dad's this weekend. I get back home and discover the camera didn't do what I thought it was going to. Grrrrrrr.

< ------- That's why I'm ridin' my broom. :evil:


I will try that SmarAleq, thanks.

[SmartAleq]

You might find this useful--it's all the modes on my camera, in order, with what the camera says the settings were at the time. All photos are of the same subject, same light, taken within minutes of each other. Disregard the "0850-" numbers, those are corresponding to frame numbers in the folder... It looks for all the world like the silly camera adjusts everything by exposure speed and ISO, not aperture. Oh yeah, the "flash" comment is denoting the settings where the flash wanted to go off...

text (bear) #0850--f/2/7, 1/4 sec exp, ISO 200
fireworks 0851--f/2.7, 1/13 sec, ISO 400
flower 0852--f/2/7, 1/8 sec, ISO 200
manner/museum 0853--f/2.7, 1/8 sec, ISO 800
self portrait flash 0854--f/2.7, 1/64 sec, ISO 80
children flash 0855--f/2.7, 1/512 sec, ISO 400
backlight flash 0856--f/2.7, 1/64 sec, ISO 200
sunset 0857--f/2.7, 1/8 sec, ISO 80
high iso flash 0858--f/2.7, 1/64 sec, ISO 800
portrait flash 0859--f/2.7. 1/64 sec, ISO 80
sport flash 0860--f/2.7, 1/512 sec, ISO 800
landscape 0861--f/2.7, 1/8 sec, ISO 200
night portrait flash 0862--f/2.7, 1/2 sec, ISO 200
night landscape 0863--f/2.7, 2 sec, ISO 80
snow flash 0864--f/2.7, 1/32 sec, ISO 200
beach flash 0865--f/2.7, 1/32 sec, ISO 200

[lobotomyboy63]

I suppose I can use these for my different apertures. The difference is too small to really be effective. I was trying to do the difference in shutter speeds (spinning pinwheel).

Clickable thumbnails:

Shutter 1/302, f4.80 ('sports' mode)

Shutter 1/138, f2.70 ('landscape' mode)

It's a good illustration of shutter speed...? Look at how much more blurry the pinwheel is in the second shot. If your camera would let you go down another shutter speed, it would be still more blurry. BTW I was looking at your Kodak's features on cnet, Ninety. My sympathies.

FWIW, I think as soon as you try to be creative---blurring something, for instance---you're going against the grain of automation. They strive to make cameras that don't allow for anything to be out of focus, blurred, and so on. Little do they know the artistry we're trying to unleash on the world!

But seriously, one definition of art that I heard is, "Breaking the rules and getting away with it." Simply put, your camera doesn't want to let you break them. So you need to lie to your camera.

My Canon will usually go along with my plans. I guess they acknowledge my ah, big fat manly head or something. My Olympus cost less and is less cooperative. There are ways to navigate around a few things but believe me, there are still plenty of stumbling blocks.

[lobotomyboy63]

You might find this useful--it's all the modes on my camera, in order, with what the camera says the settings were at the time. All photos are of the same subject, same light, taken within minutes of each other. Disregard the "0850-" numbers, those are corresponding to frame numbers in the folder... It looks for all the world like the silly camera adjusts everything by exposure speed and ISO, not aperture. Oh yeah, the "flash" comment is denoting the settings where the flash wanted to go off...

text (bear) #0850--f/2/7, 1/4 sec exp, ISO 200 f/2.7, 1/15 sec @ ISO 800
fireworks 0851--f/2.7, 1/13 sec, ISO 400 f/2.7, 1/30 sec at ISO 800
flower 0852--f/2/7, 1/8 sec, ISO 200 f/2.7, 1/30 sec at ISO 800
manner/museum 0853--f/2.7, 1/8 sec, ISO 800
self portrait flash 0854--f/2.7, 1/64 sec, ISO 80 f/5.6, 1/65 sec, ISO 320
children flash 0855--f/2.7, 1/512 sec, ISO 400 f/5.6, 1/125, ISO 400
backlight flash 0856--f/2.7, 1/64 sec, ISO 200 f/4, 1/64, ISO 400
sunset 0857--f/2.7, 1/8 sec, ISO 80 f/2.7, 1/30 sec, ISO 320
high iso flash 0858--f/2.7, 1/64 sec, ISO 800
portrait flash 0859--f/2.7. 1/64 sec, ISO 80
sport flash 0860--f/2.7, 1/512 sec, ISO 800
landscape 0861--f/2.7, 1/8 sec, ISO 200
night portrait flash 0862--f/2.7, 1/2 sec, ISO 200
night landscape 0863--f/2.7, 2 sec, ISO 80
snow flash 0864--f/2.7, 1/32 sec, ISO 200
beach flash 0865--f/2.7, 1/32 sec, ISO 200

I really have to think you're in Automatic ISO, SmartAleq. If you set it at ISO 400, you should see some aperture changes.

A rule of thumb from the 35mm days: use at least 1/focal length as your shutter speed to avoid shake. So if you're using a 50mm (normal) lens, you want at least 1/50 sec or else you may have blurring.

Cameras are much lighter now so even if you translate the focal lengths to 35mm equivalents, I don't think we need to be as careful. Still, I don't like shooting handheld under 1/30 of a second, especially in macro or telephoto. I don't like shooting at ISO 800 but if flash isn't an option, sometimes there may be no choice. In any event, I posted some equivalent combinations that the camera could have chosen (red=mine). Take away the camera's choice of ISO.

[SmartAleq]

WYSIWYG--this POS doesn't allow me to specify ISO, or aperture, or pretty much any goddamned thing. Dammit, I want a DSLR so bad I can taste it! My poor old Fuji SLR bit the bag and is literally not repairable, parts can not be found... Grr...

[lobotomyboy63]

WYSIWYG--this POS doesn't allow me to specify ISO, or aperture, or pretty much any goddamned thing. Dammit, I want a DSLR so bad I can taste it! My poor old Fuji SLR bit the bag and it literally not repairable, parts can not be found... Grr...

I think I found you both some help...it says this applies to the 713 and 813. Lemme know:

Press the Menu button.

Press to highlight a setting, then press OK.

Choose an option, then press OK.

(It goes self timer, then exposure compensation, then picture size, then white balance, then ISO.)

Choose a lower ISO setting in brightly lit scenes; use a higher ISO for low-light scenes. Choose Auto (default), 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1250.

NOTE: ISO returns to Auto when the camera is set to Portrait or SCN mode.


Unavailable in Video mode.


http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/ ... 1887/11889

[SmartAleq]

Nope, it's lying, those options are not part of any menu on this camera--if they were, I'd be all over it!

ETA: Whoops, hold the phone--that stuff does show up, but only when the dial is on certain settings... Huh, learn something new every day! Thanks!

[lobotomyboy63]

Nope, it's lying, those options are not part of any menu on this camera--if they were, I'd be all over it!

ETA: Whoops, hold the phone--that stuff does show up, but only when the dial is on certain settings... Huh, learn something new every day! Thanks!

Hey, no prob...I'm still finding features on my cameras as well

That setup is about bizarre though. So you can set ISO 400 but then if you switch to portrait or SCN, it goes back to Auto ISO? Sounds like when you leave portrait or SCN, you have to go back and reset ISO...every time. Drag.

I wonder what's so special about portrait and SCN that the camera doesn't trust you to select the ISO. Ah well, at least you can exercise some control in certain modes.

[SmartAleq]

Yeah, but what it's REALLY telling me is that I need a good camera...

[NinetyWt]

lobotomyboy, I have read all that, thanks, back when we were in Lesson #1. It's just so dang hard to keep it all straight. Thanks anyway.

[NinetyWt]

By setting the ISO at the extremes of 1250 and 80, I was able to get the aperture and shutter speeds to cooperate somewhat. Garygnu, I'd like to use these for my 'homework' because they were taken in the camera's black-and-white mode, whereas the pinwheels were changed to black-and-white by using the Kodak software.

Moving object:

shutter 1/84, f2.70, ISO 80

1/395, f4.80, ISO 1250

Stationary object:

shutter 1/407, f2.70, ISO 80


shutter 1/1401, f4.80, ISO 1250

I can see that the slower shutter speed gives more detail, and the faster speed can 'stop' the windchime's pendulum.

[lobotomyboy63]

lobotomyboy, I have read all that, thanks, back when we were in Lesson #1. It's just so dang hard to keep it all straight. Thanks anyway.

My bad!

@SmartAleq: you need to work on your rationalizations.

1) If a small child in your family has always wanted a camera (or looks like he might have once *said* the word "camera"), you can pass along the Kodak. After all...
2) You're serious about photography and need a better tool for learning. Or maybe
3) you'll be keeping the Kodak as your
A) back up camera, in case the new one needs repair, or
B) your "bad conditions" camera, like for the beach where you wouldn't want to damage your new camera, or
C) the camera you carry in your car in case you need to photograph a traffic accident etc.

Hey, it isn't wasting money if the new camera is a good deal. If it's on sale, you'd practically be WASTING money not to buy it.

How'm I doing? :mrgreen:

[SmartAleq]

Dayum, dawg, you've done this before, haven't you? Nicely played, sir!

[garygnu]

Buy used on eBay. With research and patience, you should be able to get a good deal.

[Rigamarole]

I never "officially" signed up for the class but I participated in the first lesson so I plan on continuing.

Unfortunately like some others my less-than-amazing camera only allows me to go from f2.8 to f8.0. Not a huge range but I can clearly see the difference in these shots, particularly looking at the Starbucks logo on the building in the background, which is much clearer with the more narrow aperture.



This is at f2.8



And here it is at f8.0, the background is definitely sharper.



Passing traffic at 1/1000th of a second shutter speed



Traffic at 1/20th of a second shutter speed. Not only is it obviously blurry but way overexposed. Interesting!

[featherlou]

Okay, second half of assignment (I'm having trouble finding a moving subject - I'll see if Jim will run around for me when he gets home ) -
With flash - sport setting -


With flash - landscape setting -


No flash - sport setting -


No flash - landscape setting -


Someone who insisted on being part of the assignment -

[chacoguy]

I just got back from a trip to Chaco Canyon (Yay me!) While they are not shots for the assignment, I wanted to share these as a good example of Stops. Again, a stop is the doubling of the amount of light passing through the lens. The shots are of our fire and tent at night. They are all at ISO200 and f4.

Four seconds

Eight seconds

Fifteen seconds

Thirty seconds

[McNutty]

Good God, chacoguy the JPEG compression on those is horrendous. Is that really Photobucket's doing, as you implied in the "Look, up in the sky" thread? If so, you might want to find a different place to host your images for the photo class threads.

[chacoguy]

Good God, chacoguy the JPEG compression on those is horrendous. Is that really Photobucket's doing, as you implied in the "Look, up in the sky" thread? If so, you might want to find a different place to host your images for the photo class threads.

I've noticed that too. Do you have any suggestions? Please PM me with any ideas.

[McNutty]

Well, you could try Flickr. However, I now see that others here are using Photobucket without problem, so maybe it's your camera settings or something you're doing to the photos while resizing.

[Dragon]

I think that since the photos seem to be in the 25KB range that he is over compressing them or maybe copying a very small part of the image and blowing it up?????

If I have a picture that starts out about 300 to 700 KB from the camera and I reduce it to 400 X 300 pixels to post it online, I try to keep the KB's around 100.

Or it might be something totally different...

How are you post processing the pictures? With what? At what settings?

[featherlou]

Okay, the first half of my assignment.

My lovely assistant, moving his arms with regular flash and speed settings.


My lovely assistant, moving his arms with the sports setting.


I dunno; maybe he wasn't moving them fast enough? I don't see much difference.

[Biggirl]

feather, your lovely assistant seems so happy assisting you. If I asked my lovely assistant to wave his arms around while I took his picture, he'd roll his eyes at me. I'm sure I could get him to do it but he wouldn't look so content.

[pulykamell]

Okay, the first half of my assignment.

My lovely assistant, moving his arms with regular flash and speed settings.


My lovely assistant, moving his arms with the sports setting.


I dunno; maybe he wasn't moving them fast enough? I don't see much difference.

Looks like you're using flash. In that case, it's the flash that's freezing the motion, not the shutter speed.

If you're having trouble following, just do this thought experiment. Imagine a pitch black room. In this room, you have a fan with whirling blades or some other object. Since it's pitch black, you need to use flash to take a picture of this fan. So, think about it. If you set your shutter speed to five seconds or 1/250 second and use flash, will there be any difference in the exposure? No. Assuming a room with no other light, both exposures will be equal, as the only light will be provided by the flash, and the flash duration is something like, 1/5000 of second (it can be anywhere from 1/200 sec to 1/20,000 second). Whether your shutter is opened for 1/250 second or 5 seconds, it doesn't matter, since the light itself is 1/5000 second and both exposures capture the entirety of that light, and there is no additional light (the room being pitch black) that could affect your exposure.

This is similar to what's going on in your pictures. In essence, your flash is providing all the light in the image, thus, given a flash's short duration, it freezes the movement.

Now, you could combine flash and ambient light and get blurring and ghosting effects. If your camera has a setting for flash called "Slow sync" or "Rear-curtain sync" try the flash photos using those modes. Alternately, set your camera to manual, ISO 400, 1/8 of a second, f/4 and take the same photos as above with flash. You will see some blurring now (I'm making a complete guess as to the exposure. You might want to try a range of exposures from 1/2 to 1/30 of a second. I'm assuming a somewhat dim room.)

[troubleagain]

I didn't get to this until after the light was already fading, so there are no actual *good* photos in the bunch. But it was fun seeing what effects I got with the different aperature settings, and I learned how to set them, which I didn't know before! Yay!

Exposure: 0.8
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal Length: 26 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: +1 EV
Flash: Off

0.077 sec (1/13)
Aperture: f/4.5
Focal Length: 26 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: -1 EV
Flash: Off


Exposure: 0.2 sec (1/5)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 22 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: +1 EV
Flash: Off

Exposure: 0.6
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 26 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: +2 EV
Flash: Off






http://www.flickr.com/photos/troubleaga ... 193324316/

[garygnu]

The purpose of these assignments is to demonstrate what happens with different combinations of aperture and shutter speeds. It appears from some of the results that some cameras would rather fiddle with the ISO setting than change aperture or shutter speed, which kinda sucks.
Anyway...

I take a lot of pictures of jewelry and I'd like them look as nice as possible, so I'll be using my jewelry taking set up a lot for this class I think. Here's Assignment B...
[snip]
The really slow speed made even the stationary pendant look blurry. Looks like if I want absolutely no movement, I'm gonna need a lot more light.

Yes, more light. Smaller, less expensive point-and-shoot cameras are well known to be poor low-light performers. Gather some lamps or find a window.

Am I going to be a problem child? Crafty type project in progress using Av priority...

As was noted, the focus is in the background, so you may have been too close.
Good job overall.

[garygnu]

Finally got some sun... Pictures are thumbnails....
[snip]

Do you notice that the background looks sharper in the thumbnail? This is due to the smaller size of things.

[Dragon]

Finally got some sun... Pictures are thumbnails....
[snip]

Do you notice that the background looks sharper in the thumbnail? This is due to the smaller size of things.

Yepper, IMO, that is one reason to shoot at the highest Megapixel setting you have if it does not slow down the recycling speed too much. I have saved some pictures by taking them down to 400 pixels on the long side so that they are viewable on a computer monitor for sending to family etc.

I hate people who up load pictures that are over 700 - 800 on the long side for just internet computer viewing. Wastes everything including my time and are a PITA to try to view and just proves how lazy they are or unwilling to learn even the simplest things about what they are doing..... ::: Grump ::: And get off my lawn while you're at it !!! :::

[McNutty]

I hate people who up load pictures that are over 700 - 800 on the long side for just internet computer viewing. Wastes everything including my time and are a PITA to try to view and just proves how lazy they are or unwilling to learn even the simplest things about what they are doing.

It's pretty presumptuous to call them lazy or ignorant. Some people just prefer high quality pictures. A site like Flickr where you can choose what size to display but still offer others is ideal.

[pulykamell]

I hate people who up load pictures that are over 700 - 800 on the long side for just internet computer viewing. Wastes everything including my time and are a PITA to try to view and just proves how lazy they are or unwilling to learn even the simplest things about what they are doing..... ::: Grump ::: And get off my lawn while you're at it !!! :::

What resolution monitor do you have? The only way I can see it being a PITA is if you're at 800x600 or something. A majority of users these days are actually at resolutions higher than 1024x768. I'm at 1600x1200 and I consider anything under, say, 720 pixels on the long side to be small for my tastes. 400 pixels can be annoyingly small, especially when it comes to evaluating photos on a website. For a simple illustrative snapshot, though, 400 px is fine. For a thread like this, I'd say give 'em to me at 800 px, even 1024 on the long side.

[garygnu]

I have some ideas for assignment B, but I have to coordinate with a couple of other people, first.


Shot using AV with super macro, holding the aperture at: f2.8
Camera set the shutter: 1/50
I also had to fight the camera to get it to focus on the foreground instead of the background


Shot using AV and super macro, holding the aperture at f2.8
Camera set the shutter: 1/40
Again with the convincing the camera to focus on the foreground
...
[snip]

I especially like the second picture. Did you try the same shots with a higher aperture number?
Your camera probably has an array of points within the frame it tries to get in focus. You may be able to select an individual point for it to calculate focus. However, most point-and-shoots use a range finder that can be tough to manually manipulate. One reason I like the SLR version, using sharpness and contrast to find focus, is that you can see the exact focus before snapping the picture.

[Dragon]

I hate people who up load pictures that are over 700 - 800 on the long side for just internet computer viewing. Wastes everything including my time and are a PITA to try to view and just proves how lazy they are or unwilling to learn even the simplest things about what they are doing.

It's pretty presumptuous to call them lazy or ignorant. Some people just prefer high quality pictures. A site like Flickr where you can choose what size to display but still offer others is ideal.

Yes, with Flickr if you link to the mid size, that is cool. Not exactly what I was talking about.... I disagree with what should be the normal thing to do on the net. Can we agree to disagree?

Sorry to all.

[Dragon]

Trying to live up to McNutty & pulykamell's picture quality desires.

It is not that great a picture and unless you have a pretty big DSL or Cable connection, or a lot of time, I don't recommend you bother looking at it....

[McNutty]

Trying to live up to McNutty & pulykamell's picture quality desires.

Easy, Tiger. If you think I was asking you to post higher quality pictures, you misread me. I'm just saying people have other reasons for posting large images besides being lazy or ignorant.

[sistercoyote]

I especially like the second picture. Did you try the same shots with a higher aperture number?
Your camera probably has an array of points within the frame it tries to get in focus. You may be able to select an individual point for it to calculate focus. However, most point-and-shoots use a range finder that can be tough to manually manipulate. One reason I like the SLR version, using sharpness and contrast to find focus, is that you can see the exact focus before snapping the picture.

The pictures with the Jackalope were the ones where I did the same shot with low and high apertures; these two were more seeing how aperture worked with macro and s-macro on.

There is, I have discovered, a way to choose the point for my camera to calculate focus, but I keep forgetting where it is. I really need to find the manual that came with the camera, since the PDF I've been using isn't exactly convenient to carry.

[pulykamell]

Trying to live up to McNutty & pulykamell's picture quality desires.

It is not that great a picture and unless you have a pretty big DSL or Cable connection, or a lot of time, I don't recommend you bother looking at it....

JPEGs, please. If you're coming across people uploading BMPs then, yes, I agree with you that they're being lazy. To be honest, though, I've never seen anyone upload a BMP from a digital photo. Cameras usually store their pictures as JPEGs, raw files, or possibly TIFFs. Most people just deal with JPEGs. Even a full res JPEG on your average camera is only going to be 2-3 megabytes, and when you compress that down to 800 pixels across, we're talking less than 200K.

[featherlou]

feather, your lovely assistant seems so happy assisting you. If I asked my lovely assistant to wave his arms around while I took his picture, he'd roll his eyes at me. I'm sure I could get him to do it but he wouldn't look so content.

Yes, there was eye-rolling. There was also cat-chasing in the hopes of getting a moving shot of one of them, but apparently shooting running cats is a learned skill. (I think the look of contentment comes from thinking of baseball movies or something.)

[pulykamell]

To add, my point is what McNutty said (that it's not just being "lazy"--people are purposely choosing 800 pixel dimensions, because it's not any "lazier" than picking 400 pixels. They both take the same amount of work--they both take going into a program and downsizing your original capture.) Second, it's difficult to judge the technical quality of photos at small sizes. You can hide a lot of technical sloppiness in a 300x200 picture that will be blindingly obvious at 1200x800, much less as an 8x12 print. It's easier to diagnose focusing issues when you have enough resolution to actually see where the camera focused on. Third, big pictures simply have more impact. a photo that looks kinda cool at a thumbnail size suddenly becomes AWESOME when viewed full screen. There are few photos that are not improved by viewing at larger sizes.

[Dragon]

JPEGs, please. If you're coming across people uploading BMPs then, yes, I agree with you that they're being lazy. To be honest, though, I've never seen anyone upload a BMP from a digital photo. Cameras usually store their pictures as JPEGs, raw files, or possibly TIFFs. Most people just deal with JPEGs. Even a full res JPEG on your average camera is only going to be 2-3 megabytes, and when you compress that down to 800 pixels across, we're talking less than 200K.

Oh, average cameras, ( I think your idea of average cameras is a bit behind the times) and compress them down too. Doing that is not being lazy or ignorant, ( ignorance = lack of knowledge, stupidity = incurable condition) that is going to the effort to make them usable for others and you know that was not who I am talking about.

I am referencing those with a point & shoot who just upload directly from their camera set on the highest settings which their un changed from default browser resizes for them when viewing and their high dollar fiber to the house connection allows them to up load and down load in an instant type people. Those that will not be bothered to learn nor take the time to resize or compress using an application or some such....

There are many people out there with first cameras that go to 10 - 14 mega pixels and they have them and also have no clue nor will even try to get a clue. Those are who I was talking about and I think you know it.

We disagree and that is cool.

[Dragon]

General comment. I think it is ________ to just blow off those who only can have dial-up which it seems that some here don't mind doing. For this thread, yeah, sure, bigger is better ( up to a point) but no matter how you do it, you are making an effort, trying to learn or show someone something helpful, I hope. Not just showing off.

Paper prints, sure, you need a lot more to start with... (Is that what we are trying to learn here?) Your elderly aunt Ethel on dial-up does not need straight from the camera 3200 X 2600 at 700K pictures embeded in her email..... Well maybe your's does but I would not do that to my relatives or to others on a message board in the general run of the mill doings....

YMMV

[pulykamell]

Oh, average cameras, ( I think your idea of average cameras is a bit behind the times)

I sincerely doubt it. (Both my 12MP cameras make JPEGs in the 2-3 MB range under normal settings.)

I am referencing those with a point & shoot who just upload directly from their camera set on the highest settings which their un changed from default browser resizes for them when viewing and their high dollar fiber to the house connection allows them to up load and down load in an instant type people. Those that will not be bothered to learn nor take the time to resize or compress using an application or some such....

Except that's explicitly NOT what you said. You were complaining about people uploading at 700-800 pixels across. Your average P&S these days is about 3500 or so pixels on the long side.

There are many people out there with first cameras that go to 10 - 14 mega pixels and they have them and also have no clue nor will even try to get a clue. Those are who I was talking about and I think you know it.

Well, that's not whom I thought you were addressing. Your post said those who upload at 800 pixels on the long side, and I thought you meant exactly that.

We disagree and that is cool.

I actually don't think we disagree. People who upload straight-from-camera images without downsizing are annoying. But that's not at all what I got from your posts before this one.

[pulykamell]

General comment. I think it is ________ to just blow off those who only can have dial-up which it seems that some want. for this thread, yeah, sure, bigger is better but no matter how you do it, you are making an effort and trying to learn.

Dude, really, it's okay to upload small photos. I don't care, I'm not one of the instructors here. I'm just trying to explain why some of us like slightly bigger photos, since you called it being "lazy," and I disagreed with that assessment.

edit: This is better handled in the side conversations thread, so let's not continue it here if you want to continue.

[Dragon]

Yeah, this is done.....

Lets go take pictures...... :mrgreen:

[garygnu]

The idea I had didn't pan out, so instead I used a clock on a spring I have around the office:


Using TV mode, shutter speed set to .4
Camera set aperture at f4.6


Using TV mode, shutter speed set to 1/125
Camera set aperture at f4.0
ISO of 80, Exposure Bias +2 EV, and I still had to bump the contrast in Photoshop

Excellent example of shutter speed. If you can, try going in between those two speeds and try to get the clock at the right extreme of its swing with just a little bit of blur. This would make a dramatic photo.
Something like this:

Which I ’shopped to get a similar effect.


Dragon, the standard for “large” images I upload is usually 1000 pixels wide, which shows up on my monitor at full size. I get to those dimensions in Photoshop because the scaling in Photobucket isn’t as clean.
I get that some people shoot at a large size and post the pictures however they come out of the camera, but I hope you’re not having problems with my images.

In any case, go takes some pictures, dammit.