PHOTOGRAPHY

Where to Focus When Taking a Photo

Shovon Lal Saha

Link Author

Title: Where to Focus When Taking a Photo
Author: Shovon Lal Saha
Rating 5 of 5 Des:

Most beginner photographers don’t know where to focus when taking a photo, and worse still, they don’t seem to know why it’s a problem eit...

Most beginner photographers don’t know where to focus when taking a 
photo, and worse still, they don’t seem to know why it’s a problem 
either.<br />
<br />

You may think that because you’re shooting a landscape photo, and your horizon is miles away, it’s best to focus to infinity.<br />

<br />
Wrong.<br />
<br />

Let me show you the error of your ways.<br />

<h3>
Hyperfocal Distance</h3>
You don’t need to fully understand how the following works, but you do need to understand the concept.<br />
<br />

The depth of field is largely dependant on your aperture, as well as 
your distance from the subject. There’s also another factor called your 
hyperfocal distance. Without boring you, or going into too much detail 
(this subject is worthy of a post itself), your hyperfocal distance is 
the distance at which you focus, where everything after it (stretching 
to infinity distance) remains acceptably sharp.<br />
<br />

Half of the distance between the hyperfocal length and the lens will also remain acceptably sharp too.<br />

Working out your hyperfocal distance involves complicated maths which
 involves your distance from a subject, your f/stop, your focal length, 
and the size of your sensor. Don’t bother trying to work it out 
yourself, just download an app for your phone, or follow the general 
rules I’m going to teach you in this post.<br />
<br />

I’ll go into this in further detail in another post, but for now, this is what you need to know:<br />
<br />

If you focus at infinity, you lose lots of your depth of field, 
because there will be barely any focus infront of infinity, and nothing 
behind the focus (because you’re already focused to infinity).<br />
<br />

<strong>Don’t focus to infinity, unless you’re trying to focus on a single subject, located at infinity. </strong><br />

<h3>
Landscapes</h3>
So now with your new found knowledge on the hyperfocal distance, you 
will either be very confused as to where to focus in a landscape, or 
darn sure that you shouldn’t focus to infinity. But where do you focus?<br />
<br />

Lets say you’re shooting a landscape, and your aperture is f/11, and 
your focal length is 24mm. You’re also shooting on a Canon crop sensor 
(slightly smaller than Nikon). Your hyperfocal distance is roughly 9 
feet. If you focus here, your photo will be acceptable sharp from 
anywhere 4.5 feet in front of your camera, all the way to infinity.<br />
<br />

But that’s maybe a little bit too specific. And it changes every time
 you adjust your aperture, and focal length, so that’s no good.<br />
<br />

Here’s some real science right here… focus about a third of the way into the frame.<br />
<br />

As a rule, you can’t go too far wrong with this. If you’re shooting a
 landscape, then chances are your aperture is quite narrow, so you have a
 decent DoF to play with.<br />
<br />

Here’s the difference between a photo where I focus about a third of the way to infinity…<br />
<br />

<br />
… and one where I focused to infinity.<br />
<br />

<br />
Can you see the difference?<br />
<br />

You may notice that the focus on your camera only goes to about 15 
feet until it reaches infinity. If you’re in doubt, you can’t go too far
 wrong by focusing to infinity, and then pulling the focus back a little
 bit (so that you’re no longer at infinity).<br />

<h3>
Portraits & People</h3>
Lets start by talking about a single subject here.<br />
<br />

If you remember what I wrote about <a href="http://www.expertphotography.com/composition-visual-weight-influence-viewers" target="_blank">visual weight</a>,
 the strongest visual weight comes from a person’s eyes. We’re 
automatically drawn to a person’s eyes, so clearly, that is where we 
need to focus.<br />
<br />

I’d like to think that’s pretty obvious. Especially when you’re using a wide aperture with a shallow depth of field.<br />
<br />

Have a look at my photo below. It was shot at f/1.4, which produces 
an exceptionally shallow DoF, but because I focused on her eyes, you 
can’t really tell.<br />
<br />

<br />
How about a group of people though? Where do you focus then?<br />
<br />

Well, we’re back to hyperfocal distance here. The DoF always extends 
further into the distance, than it does in the foreground. What does 
this tell you about where you should focus?<br />

Think about it, I’ll wait…<br />

…<br />

You want to focus on the eyes of the person closest to the camera. 
This is where you’ll be drawn to first, and if it’s not in perfect fous,
 then everything else is going to seem out of focus.<br />

From here, the focus will gradually decrease naturally.<br />
<br />

<h3>
Focus and Recompose</h3>
This is something you’ve probably heard of before, in fact, you’ve 
probably even done it. You focus on a certain part of the frame, such as
 a person’s eyes, and then you recompose the photo how you want it. This
 ensures for good focus and composition.<br />
<br />

To do this, you need to use your <a href="http://www.expertphotography.com/how-to-use-focal-lock-find-perfect-focus" target="_blank">focal lock</a>,
 which means shooting on either One-Shot mode, or AF-S. When you click 
the shutter button down half way, it will focus, and then hold the focus
 until you’ve recomposed and taken the photo.<br />
<br />

I would also recommend using the center focus point, rather than all 
of them together, or any specific focus point. This is because it’s easy
 to select, and this is where you camera will meter from. 2 birds with 
one stone.<br />
<br />

Be careful about using this technique when you’re using a wide 
aperture with a very shallow DoF, because even the slightest movement 
can throw the photo out of focus.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">source : <a href="http://expertphotography.com/where-to-focus-when-taking-a-photo/">http://expertphotography.com/where-to-focus-when-taking-a-photo/</a></span>

Where to Focus When Taking a Photo

Most beginner photographers don’t know where to focus when taking a photo, and worse still, they don’t seem to know why it’s a problem eit...

How Big Can You Print with Your Camera’s Megapixels?

Shovon Lal Saha

Link Author

Title: How Big Can You Print with Your Camera’s Megapixels?
Author: Shovon Lal Saha
Rating 5 of 5 Des:

I’m frequently asked how big of a print a photographer can make given their camera’s 24, 16, 12, 18, 8 or whatever megapixel count they ...

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://improvephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/how-big-print-enlarge-megapixel.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://improvephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/how-big-print-enlarge-megapixel.png" width="413" /></a></div>
<br />
I’m frequently asked how big of a print a photographer can make given
 their camera’s 24, 16, 12, 18, 8 or whatever megapixel count they have 
on their camera.  I understand why it’s a confusing question, but the 
truth is that my answer is almost always “Go for it!  It’ll look just 
fine printed that big.”<br />
<b>When it comes right down to it, most cameras manufactured in 
the last few years (really anything 16 megapixels and up) are capable of
 printing billboard-size prints.  However, if you want the ultimate in 
print quality perfection, then there are limits to how big you can print
 before you start to lose a small amount of print quality.</b><br />
<h3>
Why Most Cameras Can Print HUGE Even if They Have a Lower Megapixel Count  </h3>
A very common resolution for printing an ad on a very large outdoor 
billboard is 1800 pixels on the long edge and 1200 pixels in height 
(about 15 dpi).  That equates to a mere 2.1 megapixels.  Sound crazy? 
 Well, it’s actually not.  And understanding this principle will help 
you to be able to print at much larger sizes than you think you probably
 can.<br />
<a href="http://ny-image3.etsy.com/il_570xN.225794231.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="http://ny-image3.etsy.com/il_570xN.225794231.jpg" width="320" /></a><b>The secret is that as print size increases, so to does viewing distance!</b>
  If you were to stand right up in front of a billboard, you’d clearly 
see that the resolution is AWEFUL and the print looks pixelated.  But 
nobody stands with their nose to a billboard.  We see them from far 
away.<br />
The same thing happens on a smaller scale with prints.  When you 
print an 8×10″ print, it’s likely that someone will hold it an arm’s 
length away from their face.  So we need a resolution that will be as 
fine as our eyes can resolve (and the printer can pull off) at that 
distance.  But when you print very large (like a 24×36″ print), no one 
would stand that close to it.  Since the viewing distance is further, 
the print resolution does not need to be as fine.<br />
So <b>the first question you have to ask yourself when determining how large you can print is, “What will the viewing distance be?”</b>
  But don’t worry, we don’t need any complicated math and you don’t need
 to measure anything.  Just realize that bigger prints mean longer 
viewing distance, and that’s why I said in the opening sentence that 
almost all modern cameras can produce a good quality print of any size.<br />
<h3>
What DPI Produces “Perfect” Print Quality? (Green Check Marks)</h3>
In the chart on this page, where I mark “Perfect” as the print 
quality, I mean 300dpi.  That isn’t to say that some printers can’t 
print at a higher resolution than 300 dpi, but that the difference 
becomes scientific after 300 dpi.  It takes an impressive eye to be able
 to tell the difference in a print between 300 and 400 dpi–and probably a
 loupe would be necessary.<br />
<b>The gold standard in printing is usually regarded as 300 dpi.  </b><br />
But that’s completely different in printing compared to viewing an 
image on screen.  When you’re saving a picture in Photoshop and it asks 
you the resolution, that box is COMPLETELY irrelevant if you’ll be 
showing the image on a screen (internet, Facebook, email, etc).  You 
could put 1 in that box or 2,000 in that box and it won’t make a lick of
 difference. <a href="http://improvephotography.com/ppi-test/" target="_blank">http://improvephotography.com/ppi-test/</a> 
 Why?  Because the screen’s resolution sets the resolution!  Put 
whatever number you want in that box and you’ll see the file size stays 
exactly the same.  All that matters when you’re putting an image on a 
screen or sharing it on the web is the overall pixels wide and high.<br />
In the chart, I show you how big you can enlarge your print to get 
perfect, 300dpi print quality.  300dpi print resolutions are marked with
 green check marks in the chart.<br />
However, remember what I mentioned previously, that this really only 
matters when you’re inspecting the print under a magnifying glass.  In 
reality, as the photo gets larger, the viewing distance scoots back. 
 But if you want the ULTIMATE print quality, this is a handy guide.<br />
But remember that the difference between a green and a yellow 
checkmark on the chart above is mostly scientific.  More on that below.<br />
<h3>
For Very Good Print Quality, Follow the Yellow Check Marks for Resolution</h3>
On the guide at the top of the page, I marked with a yellow check 
mark all of the print sizes that I’d feel completely confident in 
printing.  I’ve printed at all of these resolutions with cameras at most
 of these resolutions.<br />
You’ll be surprised at the quality and detail you’ll see in a “yellow
 check mark” print.  In fact, the difference between the yellow and 
green check mark sizes is so tiny that most photographers couldn’t dream
 of telling the difference with a naked eye at the proper viewing 
distance (without putting your nose up to the print and squinting 
through a magnifying glass, for example).<br />
<h3>
5 Tricks to Help You Print Big Even If You Don’t Have Enough Megapixels</h3>
Sometimes you want to print big, but you may not have a camera with 
enough megapixels.  In those instances, here are some handy tips that 
have helped me to print HUGE prints even on lower resolution cameras.<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Shoot a panorama</b> – When you shoot a panorama, you 
take multiple pictures and combine them together to produce a wider or 
taller image.  Since you’re combining resolution, you have a HUGE 
resulting file.  I use this frequently when shooting landscapes on my 16
 megapixel Fuji XT1.</li>
<li><b>If your camera has a high megapixel mode, use it! – </b>You
 may be lucky enough to shoot a camera that has a high megapixel mode. 
 For example, some of the Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras usually shoot 16 
megapixels, but can use sensor shift to make a true 40mp file.  There 
are limitations in using something like this when there is motion in the
 scene, but it produces a fantastic file.</li>
<li><b>Use higher-end programs to resize before uploading to the printer</b>
 – Whatever you do, don’t just upload a low resolution file to the 
printer.  Some printers handle this well, and others do not.  Take the 
time to up-res your lower resolution file in Photoshop and send that to 
the printer.  By doing the up-res yourself, you can add in some of the 
clarity and contrast that is usually lost when enlarging a photo.</li>
<li><b>Add a texture to the photo</b> – If it works with the 
artistic goal you have in mind for the picture, you may consider adding a
 texture to the photo.  That masks a lot of the loss of resolution and 
can be a creative effect.  A matte finish can do the same thing.</li>
<li><b>Print on metal, canvas, or matte paper.  Avoid glossy paper.</b>
 – Glossy paper is the most likely to show the lower resolution 
affecting the print.  If you print on metal, you can EASILY get away 
with a very resolution picture, because the inks smear on the metal. 
 Canvas and matte paper are just very slightly better for low resolution
 when compared to glossy, because the inks bleed just a tiny bit.</li>
</ul>
<h3>
Conclusion, and an Important Printing Resource!</h3>
Much more important than the number of megapixels in your camera is the quality of the printer you choose to do your printing.<br />
About a year ago I ordered the exact same 3 prints from about 12 
different printing companies to compare the prints and to see which 
company produced the highest quality and least expensive print.  I was <i>shocked</i>
 to find that the cheapest lab produced the best print, and one of the 
most expensive labs produced the worst print.  There’s actually a HUGE 
difference between the labs in terms of print quality.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">source : <a href="http://improvephotography.com/34880/how-big-print-with-megapixel-camera/">http://improvephotography.com/34880/how-big-print-with-megapixel-camera/</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">READ MORE :</span></span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="titlex" href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/rule-of-thirds.html">Everything You Need To Know About Rule Of Thirds !!!</a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="titlex" href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/astrophotography.html">How  To  Astrophotography</a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="titlex" href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/dreamy.html">How To Shoot Dreamy Backlit Portraits With Natural Light</a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><strong><strong><strong><a href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/100-tips.html" target="_blank"></a></strong></strong></strong><a href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/100-tips.html">100 Tips from a Professional Photographer</a></span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong><strong><strong> </strong> </strong> </strong> </span><br />
<br />

How Big Can You Print with Your Camera’s Megapixels?

I’m frequently asked how big of a print a photographer can make given their camera’s 24, 16, 12, 18, 8 or whatever megapixel count they ...

How To Astrophotography

Shovon Lal Saha

Link Author

Title: How To Astrophotography
Author: Shovon Lal Saha
Rating 5 of 5 Des:

Don't put that camera away when it gets dark, get outside and take pictures! A whole universe of wonderful images awaits you. O...

<h4>
Don't put that camera away when it gets dark, get outside and take pictures! A whole universe of wonderful images awaits you.</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/How-To-Astrophotography-101.jpg?itok=6lrCLWxa" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="390" src="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/How-To-Astrophotography-101.jpg?itok=6lrCLWxa" width="640" /></a></div>
<h4>
 </h4>
<div data-adafter="true">
Our cameras get most of their workouts during the
 daytime, when there's plenty of light from the sun to illuminate our 
subjects. If we shoot at night, it's usually with a flash attached to 
brighten things up, or with long exposures using man-made light from our
 streets or houses. That big dark sky above us at night seems to offer 
little that we can see or photograph... but that's not the case. There's
 not just a whole other world of things to take pictures of in that dark
 sky -- there's a whole universe of opportunity. This how-to article 
will provide the basics to let you start taking dramatic photos of the 
sky at night.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Astrophotography is the name given to the process
 of taking pictures of anything not on the Earth, but out in space. Most
 of us probably think of images from the Hubble Space Telescope when the
 word is mentioned, but making good astrophotos doesn't require billions
 of dollars or a ride in the Space Shuttle. This article will show you 
how to start making photos with equipment almost every photographer has 
on hand, progress to the next level with some simple equipment you can 
buy inexpensively or make yourself, and finish with what you can do if 
you decide to invest in some specialized (and sometimes expensive) 
equipment.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
The first thing to remember when getting into 
astrophotography is that the earth rotates on its axis once per day. 
Obvious? Sure, but what it means for astrophotography is that you're 
never trying to capture a "still" object. The earth's rotation makes the
 stars, planets, and the moon appear to move across the sky all night 
long. The moon and planets also have their own motions, which complicate
 matters. And since most of the things we'd like to take photos of are 
awfully dim compared to a typical subject in the sunlight, we're going 
to have to use long exposure times to gather enough light to see them, 
and they'll be moving (or appearing to) the whole time. There are only 
two ways around this constant movement: ignore it, or compensate for it.</div>
<h4 data-adafter="true">
Fixed-Position Astrophotography</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-The-California-Nebula-in-the.jpg?itok=rcbMOIjM" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="422" src="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-The-California-Nebula-in-the.jpg?itok=rcbMOIjM" width="640" /></a></div>
<h4 data-adafter="true">
 </h4>
<div data-adafter="true">
Let's start with what we can do by ignoring the 
earth's rotation. Shooting these kinds of photos only requires a camera 
capable of long exposures (a "B" or Bulb setting, or exposure settings 
from 30 seconds to several hours). The obvious example is "star trail" 
images.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
The earth rotates on its axis at about 1/2-degree
 per minute -- so the stars will appear to rotate that same amount 
overhead. If we set a camera on a fixed tripod, open the shutter, and 
let the earth rotate us under the stars, we get an image that shows the 
stars as "streaks" or trails as they appear to move across the sky. The 
longer we leave the shutter open, the longer the trails will be in our 
final image. The image shown here was exposed for about 60 minutes, 
giving 15-degrees of arc to each star trail. Notice in the image that 
near the center there appears to be almost no star-trailing, and as you 
move further out the star trails appear to get longer. That's because 
the camera was pointed right at the center of the earth's rotational 
axis: Polaris, or the North Star. Since this is the center of rotation, 
there's the least amount of apparent movement near this axis. As you 
move further away from this point, stars will appear to move more and 
more in a straight line until you reach the "celestial equator" 
(90-degrees from the North Star in the sky), where the trails are 
perfectly straight and will appear longer.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<b>Here's how to take star-trail photos:</b><br />
• Use a sturdy tripod, and secure it in place or weight it down if you 
can. Any movement of the tripod will show "squiggles" in your star 
trails.<br />
• Use a fairly wide-angle lens for best results, the 35mm equivalent of 20-50mm focal length is a good place to start.<br />
• Choose a medium-speed film or a digital-camera ISO of 400-800. That's 
high enough to record even fairly dim stars, but it shouldn't introduce 
too much grain or noise.<br />
• Set a medium aperture of f/5.6 to f/11. The stars won't change much in
 brightness no matter which aperture setting you use, but smaller 
apertures will reduce the brightness of "skyglow" from nearby towns or 
other light sources.<br />
• Select a dark location away from city lights if possible. Include 
something interesting in the foreground (such as the trees above) to 
give scale to the image and to help show the sky's apparent rotation 
against the earth.<br />
• Make sure you have new or freshly-charged batteries in your camera. 
Holding the shutter open for long periods drains batteries fast! If your
 camera has a DC car-power adapter, or a battery pack, use them.<br />
• Use a cable release or remote release, set manual focus, focus on 
infinity (put a small piece of masking tape on the lens' focus ring to 
hold it if you can), and open the camera's shutter. Leave it open as 
long as possible. Longer exposures mean longer star trails, but also 
pick up more "sky glow.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Star-trail images can be spectacular, but due to 
the motion of the stars, they can be somewhat "abstract." What if you 
want to take an image of the stars as we actually see them?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-Stars-appear-to-circle-the-s.jpg?itok=96ADaSU0" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="482" src="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-Stars-appear-to-circle-the-s.jpg?itok=96ADaSU0" width="640" /></a></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
As mentioned before, the stars appear to move at 
about 1/2-degree per minute across the sky. If we use a wide-angle lens 
(which has a wide field of view), you can leave the shutter open for a 
short while before that movement becomes visible in the image. The stars
 will still be "trails" in your picture, but the trails will be so small
 they're indistinguishable from single points. In the image above, I 
used a 14mm lens (with a field of view of 104-degrees horizontally and 
81-degrees vertically), and exposed for 30 seconds. In that time, the 
stars moved less than 1/4-degree, taking up less than 1/400th of the 
horizontal field of view. In the full-sized image you can see that 
they're little trails, but just barely. This kind of image shows the sky
 as we appear to see it with our eyes. Only the brightest stars will 
show up clearly this way, but as you can see from the image above you 
can clearly make out the constellation Orion, the Pleiades star cluster,
 and other constellations and stars.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<b>Here are some tips for shooting non-trailed fixed-position star images:</b><br />
• Use a very wide-angle lens -- the wider the better. At 28mm (35mm film
 equivalent) focal length, you can expose for about 20 seconds without 
significant trailing. At 50mm, you can only expose for about 10 seconds,
 which is only long enough to record the very brightest stars. At 14mm, 
you can shoot for 30 to 40 seconds, which should show more lower 
magnitude stars.<br />
• As with star-trail images, include something interesting in the 
foreground! The image above was shot on a night when the nearly-full 
moon was just rising in the east, and the camera was aimed west, away 
from the moon. The moon illuminated the foreground without washing out 
the sky.<br />
• The same setup rules apply as with star-trail images; use a sturdy tripod, a remote release, ISO 400-800, and f/5.6 to f/8.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
So far we've only looked at what we can do with a
 fixed tripod, with our camera still while the sky rotates above us. 
We're limited in what we can shoot that way. Most of the really 
interesting things in the sky are quite dim, so we need much longer 
exposure times in order to see them in our images... but longer exposure
 times mean the stars leave trails in our images.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
However, we can get longer exposure times without
 trails by mounting our camera to something that compensates for the 
Earth's rotation. If we could have some kind of rig that rotated around 
one axis (like the Earth does), align our rig's axis of rotation with 
the Earth's axis, and then rotate in the opposite direction the same 
speed as the earth rotates (about ½-degree per minute), then our camera 
would stay pointed at the same spot in the sky as the Earth rotated, and
 we could do longer exposures without having the stars trail.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Hmm, that sounds pretty complicated, though. How 
can we make such a rig? Actually it's very simple, and all you need are a
 couple of boards, a hinge, and a couple of bolts... it's called a "Barn
 Door" mount.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
A Barn Door is simply two pieces of wood mounted 
around a simple hinge. At the end of the boards opposite the hinge, you 
put a screw-bolt through the bottom board in a threaded nut, so that it 
pushes the top board when you turn it. Using a simple formula, you can 
calculate how many turns per minute you need to give the screw to match 
the earth's speed of rotation. Line the hinge (the Barn Door's axis of 
rotation) up with the North Star (the Earth's axis of rotation), and you
 can very closely counteract the movement of the stars across the sky 
for fairly long lengths of time. With a Barn Door mount, you can use 
longer focal lengths (up to around 135mm) and exposure times of up to 
about 15 minutes and not see any star trailing -- all for about $10-$20 
in materials.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Designs for Barn Doors vary from the ridiculously
 simple and inexpensive to deluxe versions with battery-operated drive 
motors (to save you from having to turn the screw manually). A simple 
single-arm version will track accurately for 10-15 minutes, while 
only-slightly-more-complex double-arm versions can track accurately for 
an hour or more! The Internet is rife with design possibilities; here 
are a few of the many that are worth looking at (I built the second one 
in the list below, and used it for the Milky Way photo above):</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Anthony Galvan III's Simple Barn Door Mount<br />
Dave Trott's Motorized Double-Arm Drive</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
The next step up in "tracking" mounts from a Barn
 Door is a German Equatorial Mount. A GEM (sometimes acronyms are very 
fitting) in its simplest form is a tripod head that has two axes that 
rotate 90-degrees from each other. When you align the main axis with the
 Earth's celestial pole, it can be driven to counteract the Earth's 
rotation. The other rotational axis lets you position the camera or 
telescope anywhere in the sky while still maintaining the first axis' 
alignment with the Earth. Commercial equatorial mounts vary greatly in 
size, quality, and price; a decent-quality mount with a drive motor (to 
keep you from having to turn it by hand) that will support a camera and 
short lens can be purchased for under $200, while a higher-quality mount
 that will support long lenses or telescopes (and often includes a 
computerized control that will automatically point it to specified 
celestial objects) can cost between $1,000 and $10,000.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Equatorial mounts can allow you to use longer 
focal lengths (using either camera lenses or telescopes) to "zoom in" on
 galaxies, star clusters, and nebulae. The image at left shows two 
telescopes mounted together on a mid-range (in both price and capacity) 
GEM, with the camera mounted on a 540mm FL telescope. Why two 
telescopes? Because once you start using focal lengths longer than 250mm
 or so, you must track the sky VERY accurately. Even a tracking error as
 little as a tenth of a degree can ruin an image, making stars look like
 little oblong streaks rather than nice, sharp points of light. Since 
even rather expensive GEM mounts are driven by mechanical gears, 
imperfect machining causes those gears to be slightly inaccurate, and 
produce tracking errors. To get a good image, these tracking errors have
 to be corrected. This is called "guiding."</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-Imaging-and-guiding-telescop.jpg?itok=LoJG3lxb" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-Imaging-and-guiding-telescop.jpg?itok=LoJG3lxb" width="480" /></a></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Guiding an exposure involves looking through a 
separate telescope from the telescope or lens being used to take the 
picture. A telescope eyepiece with crosshairs embedded in it is used -- 
the photographer centers a star on the crosshairs, starts an exposure, 
and then carefully watches the star through the guidescope. When 
mechanical errors begin to move the star off the center of the 
crosshairs, the mount's drive controls can be used to put it back dead 
center. Keeping the guide star on the crosshairs during the exposure 
will ensure that tracking errors are minimized, and long exposures (up 
to several hours) can be made very accurately. Obviously, this can get 
quite tedious -- you must keep your eye glued to the guidescope for the 
entire exposure, and delaying too long in making corrections will ruin 
an image. Technology has offered a solution to manual guiding tedium -- a
 CCD guide camera. Commercial guide cameras are available, but even 
inexpensive digital Web cams can be easily modified to act as guide 
cameras. Attached to a computer, the camera takes an initial exposure, 
and notes the pixel position of a guide star (specified by the user). 
Then the shutter is opened on the imaging camera, and the guiding 
sequence started through the computer. It takes a new image every few 
seconds, and again notes the pixel position of the guide star. If it's 
moved from its original location, the computer sends signals to the 
equatorial mount to move it back to where it was, just as you would do 
manually. This "auto-guiding" can easily be more accurate than manual 
guiding, and doesn't require the photographer to sit at the guidescope 
for hours on end. The links section at the end of this article has 
resources for making your own auto-guider from an inexpensive Web cam.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
With a good-quality GEM mount, even fairly short 
focal lengths can provide stunning "close-ups" of many celestial 
objects. The image at right is of the Andromeda Galaxy, taken with a 
540mm telescope. While Andromeda (also known as M31) is one of the 
brightest galaxies we can see from earth, it's still very dim by 
photography standards. To make this image, the total exposure time was 
12 hours!</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-Quarter-Moon-shot-with-a-Can.jpg?itok=7Mhz_BmN" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="438" src="http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2008/files/_images/Astrophotography-101-Quarter-Moon-shot-with-a-Can.jpg?itok=7Mhz_BmN" width="640" /></a></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Once you start using longer focal lengths, a 
whole universe of celestial objects become potential targets. But those 
longer focal lengths, while magnifying those smaller celestial objects, 
also magnify tracking errors -- making it more and more difficult to get
 good images of them. Taking "deep-sky" multiple-hour exposures of tiny,
 dim objects at long focal lengths will require investment in a 
high-quality GEM mount (which is expensive!), sophisticated tracking 
methods and equipment, and lots of practice. The details of this kind of
 work are beyond the scope of this beginning article. If you start with 
star trails or perhaps build a Barn Door mount, you can make wonderful 
night-sky images without investing a lot of money in equipment. But 
beware -- astrophotography can be addictive! Once you start getting 
beautiful night-sky pictures, it's quite likely you'll want to move up 
to higher levels, which means a significant investment of time and 
money. The results are very satisfying and beautiful -- but when your 
spouse starts asking why you need to spend $5,000 on some fancy tripod, 
don't say I didn't warn you!</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
There's one night-sky target we haven't covered 
yet. I saved it until last because it's one of the easiest to take 
pictures of... our Moon. While the moon appears to move across the sky 
at nearly the same rate as the stars, it's very bright -- about the same
 brightness as a daylight scene on Earth (since the light we see from 
the Moon is just reflected sunlight, that makes sense!). Since it's so 
bright, it doesn't require the long exposure times that are needed for 
stars, galaxies, etc. But the Moon can be a great target to photograph.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
The issue with taking pictures of the Moon is 
really focal length of the lens you're going to use. On 35mm film or 
full-frame digital cameras, it takes a focal length of about 2000mm to 
fill the frame with the Moon. APS-C DSLRs need about 1200mm to do the 
same. While you can get satisfactory Moon pictures with shorter focal 
lengths, the closer you can come to those frame-filling ideals, the 
better.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Proper exposure values for the Moon are easy to 
figure out -- just use the "sunny 16" rule. At f/16, use a shutter speed
 that is the reciprocal of your film or sensor's ISO value; at ISO 200, 
you'd use 1/200th sec. at f/16. Adjust the shutter speed up or down 
according to how many f-stops above or below f/16 your lens is operating
 at. Use a sturdy tripod, use your camera's mirror lock-up function (if 
it has one), and use a remote or cable release. Focus at infinity, and 
shoot away. It's best NOT to use your camera's auto-exposure modes; most
 camera exposure meters see all that black surrounding the Moon, and add
 exposure time to compensate, which over-exposes the Moon itself.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
If your goal is to shoot frame-filling photos of 
the Moon showing lots of detail, the best time to shoot isn't when it's 
full: at full Moon, the Sun is lighting the Moon face-on. Just as with 
your on-camera flash, straight-on lighting is flat, boring, and doesn't 
provide any shadow details. Try taking Moon pictures at first or third 
quarter (when the Moon appears half-lit, as above). At these times, the 
Sun provides side-lighting, showing relief on lunar surfaces and 
providing interesting shadows. Try not to shoot Moon pictures when it's 
low on the horizon. At those positions you're shooting through the 
thickest part of Earth's atmosphere, and the turbulent, moving 
atmosphere makes it difficult to see fine details on the lunar surface. 
Wait until the Moon is high in the sky, where the atmosphere is 
thinnest, even if that means getting up at 2AM to shoot!</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
Another way to shoot pictures of the Moon is to 
include it in landscape shots for dramatic impact. You can use much 
shorter focal lengths than for the frame-filling detail shots, but stay 
on the longer side (100mm or above) or the Moon will look very small in 
the image. The same "sunny 16" exposure guide applies, with a caveat: 
when the Moon is near the horizon, the thick layer of atmosphere you're 
looking through to see it will dim its light, sometimes dramatically. 
When it's near the horizon, start with about two stops more exposure 
than when it's high in the sky, and bracket your exposures if you can. 
For the moonrise image above I used about three stops more than the 
"sunny 16" guideline. A full Moon will rise in the east about the same 
time the Sun is setting in the west; a crescent Moon will rise just 
before sunrise in the east or set just after sunset in the west. 
Balancing the near-daylight exposure for the Moon with twilight can be 
tricky, making sunrise and sunset the best times to shoot. Just be 
careful not to over-expose the Moon or you'll wind up with a white blob 
that shows no detail.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
I hope this How-To has piqued your interest in 
the possibilities of astrophotography. Don't put that camera away when 
it gets dark, get outside and take pictures! A whole universe of 
wonderful images awaits you.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<span style="color: #38761d;">Resources and Links</span></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
To do astrophotography well, you need to get to 
know the night sky -- when and where the Sun and Moon will rise and set,
 which constellations are in the sky at different times of the year, and
 which celestial objects are visible. Here are some internet resources 
to help get you up to speed:</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<b>NASA/JPL's Ephemeris</b><br />
An ephemeris gives the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets. The 
NASA/JPL site lets you enter your position on earth to get specific 
information for your location, at any time in the present, future, or 
past.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<b>Jim Kaler's Constellation Maps</b><br />
Provides maps of the constellations and their brightest stars, with different maps for the different seasons of the year.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<b>Sky and Telescope's Interactive Star Charts</b><br />
An on-line star chart customizable for your specific location and time.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
The sky is full of interesting objects to 
photograph besides stars -- galaxies, nebulae, clusters, and more. 
French astronomer Charles Messier catalogued 110 of the brightest of 
these objects in the late 1700's, and his Messier List is a good 
starting point to find targets of interest. The Andromeda Galaxy above, 
for example, is also known as Messier 31 (M31). You can get a list of 
all 110 objects, along with information about where to find them in the 
sky, at: SEDS Messier Catalog.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
If you start going for long exposures at long 
focal lengths on an equatorial mount, you're going to need to guide your
 shots -- as mentioned in the text, a simple Web cam can be easily 
modified to be used as an "autoguider." Ash's Astro Pages has several 
articles and tips for using Web cams for guiding and astro-imaging.</div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
If you're using a DSLR to do your 
astrophotography, Michael Covington offers a comprehensive Web page with
 lots of tips to help you get started: Michael Covington's DSLR 
Astrophotography.</div>
<div data-adafter="false">
Paul LeFevre is a photographer, writer, and 
astronomer living near San Diego, California. He can be reached at 
plefevre@hughes.net.</div>
<div data-adafter="false">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="false">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">source : <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2008/12/how-to-astrophotography-101?image=4">http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2008/12/how-to-astrophotography-101?image=4</a></span></div>
<div data-adafter="false">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="false">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: #3d85c6;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> READ MORE  </span></span></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: magenta;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="titlex" href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/moon.html">How To  Photograph The Moon</a><b> </b></span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: magenta;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="titlex" href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/wedding-day.html">Plan Out a Picture Perfect Wedding Day With These Handy Photography Tips (INFOGRAPHIC</a></span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: magenta;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a class="titlex" href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/dreamy.html">How To Shoot Dreamy Backlit Portraits With Natural Light</a></span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: magenta;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/100-tips.html">100 Tips from a Professional Photographer</a><b><b><b> </b></b></b></span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: magenta;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://photoobest.blogspot.com/2015/09/september.html">9 creative photo ideas to try in September</a><b><b><b> </b> </b></b></span></span> </li>
</ul>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>
<div data-adafter="true">
<br /></div>

How To Astrophotography

Don't put that camera away when it gets dark, get outside and take pictures! A whole universe of wonderful images awaits you. O...

The 11 most important questions you should ask before taking any Photography Workshop, Seminar or Bootcamp

Shovon Lal Saha

Link Author

Title: The 11 most important questions you should ask before taking any Photography Workshop, Seminar or Bootcamp
Author: Shovon Lal Saha
Rating 5 of 5 Des:

Ever since I was a child I have loved photography. I used to say to myself that it was the dream profession…I just knew you couldn’...

<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/_Media/dollarphotoclub_77719034-2_med.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="368" src="http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/_Media/dollarphotoclub_77719034-2_med.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">Ever 
since I was a child I have loved photography.   I used to say to myself 
that it was the dream profession…I just knew you couldn’t make money at 
it, or that’s what I thought at the time.   As a result I did 
photography part-time and construction technology full time.  </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">In
 the late 80’s however I attended a 1 day program given by Gary SIlber 
in Partnership with Alfa Color.    I’m not sure Gary even knows who I 
am, or the influence he had on me, but his one day program absolutely 
changed the direction of my life forever.  No other program I have taken
 ever had a greater influence on me than that one day program.  I left 
inspired, and changed my whole style and approach to photography.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">In
 past blogs, I talk about the habit that successful photographers have 
in spending more money on education than on photography equipment. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">  </span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">The
 right seminar or workshop can change your life and have a greater 
influence on you than an entire college education.   With many workshops
 being offered for early 2016, I thought I would list 11 questions every
 photographer should ask themselves to help assess which is the best 
program for them as well as two questions that shouldn’t matter.  As I 
teach the business side of photography, these questions are specifically
 geared to workshops which teach how to make money in photography. </span><br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-size: 16px;">
<u><b><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 21px;">Questions to Ask Before Signing Up For a Photography Business Workshop.</span></span></b></u></h3>
<strong><span style="color: #0433ff; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><em>Questions that Matter</em>: </span></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><em><strong>1.  How many attendees will there be?</strong> </em>
 Having a good number of photographers can be a huge source of 
networking and many times learning from fellow attendees can be as 
valuable as the program itself.  Too many attendees however can limit 
opportunities for specific questions and individual attention.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>2.  Does the teacher have the lifestyle I want?</em></strong> 
 Early on in my career, there was someone who made a lot of money as a 
portrait photographer, and also offered very high priced workshops.   I 
really wanted to attend until I realized how many hours a week this 
photographer worked to achieve their income.  It was not the kind of 
lifestyle I wanted.   Thankfully I passed.   In the last five years, I 
have made well over 10 million dollars in my studio, yet I only go to my
 studio 7 days a month.   As I grow older, I have learned to value time 
more than money.   Picking a program where one can learn success 
strategies that take them to the next level by working smarter not 
harder should be an important element.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>3.  How much money will the teacher make from the workshop?</em></strong> 
 If the teacher is making less money a day from the workshop than he/she
 teaches that you can make from photography in a day, that is a red 
flag.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>4.  What will the teacher teach?</em></strong>
   This seems so obvious.  Yet in 2004 I advertised my seminar as 
teaching how to massively make more money in portraits so you can stop 
doing weddings.   At the end of the seminar, I received a note from one 
of the attendees saying they loved weddings, and was offended that I 
kept talking about how to be able to stop doing weddings so you could 
make more money in portraits…It was clear that this person signed up 
because others she knew were attending.  But it was also clear she had 
not read anything about what the seminar was going to teach.   I 
promptly refunded her money and was sorry for her disappointment.  </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>5.  How successful is the teacher at what he/she is teaching?</em></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>6.
  Question to the Teacher:   If I sign up for the class and apply the 
principles you teach, what would you say a reasonable R.O.I. (return on 
investment) would be?</em></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>7.  Is the teacher being sponsored by anyone?</em></strong>
   I am a capitalist, so I am fine with teachers being sponsored.   Just
 make sure that the teacher has their first loyalty to you and not to 
the company that could be paying the photographer to push their agenda. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><em><strong>8.  Question to the Teacher:</strong>  <strong>Are the teachings scalable for my area?</strong></em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>9.  What percentage of the teacher’s income comes from doing vs. teaching?</em></strong>  </span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>10.  How much money does the teacher make from the principles they teach?</em></strong> 
 If the workshop is expensive, and the teacher is is touting a certain 
level of personal success as credentials, don’t be afraid to ask for 
some sort of proof of that success including proof of income.   You are 
investing a lot of money, and you have the right to verify.  </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>11.  What is the track record of success from people who have attended past seminars from the teacher?</em></strong>
   To me, this is more important than any other question on the list.   
The fruit of what the teacher teaches should be seen in past attendees. 
 Prior to a seminar I gave in July, I had only given 2 seminars in 27 
years; the last being in 2004 at the Ritz-Carlton Chicago with 20 
attendees.  I feel very grateful that among the small handful (3-4) of 
attendees I still keep in contact with, no less than 50 million dollars 
has been made by them as a direct result of  the teachings they learned 
with me during those two days.  </span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: #0433ff; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">Questions that </span><span style="color: #0433ff; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px; text-decoration: underline;">Don’t</span><span style="color: #0433ff; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"> Matter:</span></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>12.  How long has the teacher been in Business?</em></strong> 
 I remember the first program I did for Burrell.   I got a written note 
from someone saying that I was too inexperienced and hadn’t been in 
business long enough to be teaching.  This person closed their mind 
because they didn’t think they could learn something from someone young 
and new.  It reminds me when Tony Robbins first started out.   People 
didn’t like someone new and young bursting on to the personal 
achievement scene…People asked, “What degree do you have that gives you 
the right to teach?   Tony’s reply:  I have a Ph.D. in Results!   </span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">Just
 because someone is new in our field doesn’t mean they can’t offer 
something of value.   Pay much more attention to items 1-11.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>13.  What if the teacher has failed in the past?</em></strong> 
 Many successful people have had failures in their life.   How 
successful would you say Walt Disney, Abraham Lincoln or Henry Ford was 
in their life?   Yet all three of these people failed miserably at some 
point and went through an embarrassing bankruptcy.   </span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">I
 too have failed, and even went through an embarrassing bankruptcy at 
the beginning of my career.  More recently (in the last 10 years)  I was
 involved in a personal (nothing to do with the photography business) 
real estate deal that I was unable to get out of and left me paying 
close to $30,000. a month over a significant period of time which 
severely damaged me.   </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">Some
 people don’t like my message of hope in the industry.  They don’t 
believe it is possible to make good money today, so they go after the 
messenger.   I have had people use past failures in my life to try 
discredit what I teach.   But sometimes, the harder we fall, the more we
 succeed.   While many people say the glory days of our industry are 
over, I have gone on to make the majority of the, money I have made over
 the last 27 years  (from photography not teaching) during just the last
 five years.  Failure has been a great schoolmaster to me, and I bring 
the lessons of failure into what I teach as well as the lessons of 
success.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0433ff; font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><strong>One Final Thought...</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">Don’t
 become a workshop junkie!   Too many times learning can feel like 
doing.   There comes a time when we know what we need to do.   That’s 
when we need to get out of the classroom and into the world of action.  
 Don’t get me wrong, investing in business education is perhaps the 
single most important things you can do as a photographer.   But 
learning from too many sources can be confusing and counter productive. 
 Instead, tone down the noise in your brain to learning from just one or
 two great mentors you know to be really successful.   Implement what 
you learn and dare to to be successful!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">If you liked this article, please like our Facebook page by </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/milliondollarphotographer" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">clicking here</a><span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">.    If you found this helpful, please share it on Facebook so others can benefit.  </span><span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 17px;"> </span><span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;">To sign up for future articles from Bradford and be notified as soon as they are posted, please <a href="http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/free-newsletter-sign-up.html">sign up here</a>.   Only individuals who <a href="http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/free-newsletter-sign-up.html">sign up</a> have access to all articles.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">About the Author : </span></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/_Media/screen-shot-2015-05-09-at_med-3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/_Media/screen-shot-2015-05-09-at_med-3.png" /></a><span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica-LightOblique;">Bradford is perhaps 
the most expensive portrait photographer in the United States with an 
impressive list of prominent clientele.  He operates studios in New 
York, California and on world famous Worth Avenue in Palm Beach.  He has
 made over 20 million dollars from selling portraits, with more than 
half of that being made in the last five years. He has taught 
photographers from more than 80 countries.   He currently resides in 
Connecticut with his angel wife.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: HelveticaNeue-Thin; font-size: 18px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica-LightOblique;">source : <a href="http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/the-11-most-important-quest.html">http://www.milliondollarphotographer.com/the-11-most-important-quest.html</a> </span></span> </span>

The 11 most important questions you should ask before taking any Photography Workshop, Seminar or Bootcamp

Ever since I was a child I have loved photography. I used to say to myself that it was the dream profession…I just knew you couldn’...

Did Motorola finally deliver a great camera in the Moto X Pure Edition?

Shovon Lal Saha

Link Author

Title: Did Motorola finally deliver a great camera in the Moto X Pure Edition?
Author: Shovon Lal Saha
Rating 5 of 5 Des:

A good camera has always been the missing ingredient in the Moto X series. Motorola promised to fix it for good with this year’s Moto ...

<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto-x-camera-100615881-primary.idge.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="moto x camera" border="0" height="213" itemprop="contentUrl" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto-x-camera-100615881-primary.idge.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<section class="bodee"><div style="text-align: justify;">
A good camera has always been the missing ingredient in the Moto X series.
</div>
<div id="drr-container" itemprop="articleBody">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Motorola promised to fix it for good with this year’s <a href="http://www.greenbot.com/article/2953482/smartphones/motorola-unveils-the-moto-x-style-moto-x-play-and-moto-g.html">Moto X Pure Edition</a>.
 Along with bumping up the screen to 5.7 inches and Quad HD resolution, 
Motorola paid a lot of attention to the camera, packing in a 21MP 
shooter with an f/2.0 aperture. It’s a good bump from the 2014 model, 
which had a 13-megapixel camera with an f/2.2 aperture.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, specs never tell the whole story. Consider that the iPhone 6, with its 8 megapixel f/2.2 camera, takes <em>stunning</em>
 photos, far superior to those of the 2014 Moto X. Given that the 
lackluster camera on the 2014 Moto X was a sore spot holding back an 
otherwise fantastic phone, we decided to pay special attention to the 
camera on this year's model.
</div>
<h2>
The test parameters</h2>
For comparison we're using three phones: a freshly-arrived Moto X Pure 
Edition, 2014 Verizon-branded Moto X, and a Galaxy Note 5 (arguably the 
best camera on an Android phone today). 
<br />
<aside class="nativo-promo smartphone" id=""> </aside>
While there is a certain amount of subjectivity in what makes for a 
great photo, there are some common principles we can use to determine 
picture quality. A good camera is able to balance out the light, 
reproduce the color accurately, and work well in a variety of 
situations.
<br />

The following were all taken with each phone’s default settings, with no
 post-production editing. Certainly the right tweaks may improve your 
experience, but for comparison purposes we wanted a flat line to start 
with.
<br />
<h2>
Cat pictures</h2>
It wouldn’t be a true photo test without a cat picture. I was able to 
get my cat, Sherlock, to (mostly) stay in one place for a series of 
pictures with all three phones. These were taken from my home office, 
which has a lot of light and neutral, beige walls.
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_camera_test_kitty-100615975-orig.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="

In this case the Moto X Pure Edtion held up rather well in comparison to the Note 5 and 2014 Moto X.

"><img alt="moto x camera test kitty" height="376" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_camera_test_kitty-100615975-large.idge.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In this case the Moto X Pure Edtion held up rather well in comparison to the Note 5 and 2014 Moto X.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<figure class="large "> <figcaption>

</figcaption></figure></div>
</section><div id="drr-mod-0">
<div class="promo apart newsletter" data-placement-id="drr-mod-0">
<form action="/newsletters/index">
 
 </form>
</div>
</div>
With the Moto X Pure Edition, you get a good picture that captures most 
of the color in the room accurately. It’s much better than the 2014 Moto
 X, which loses too many details in the shadows, especially on 
Sherlock’s body.
<br />
<aside class="nativo-promo tablet desktop" id=""> </aside>
However, I still found the Galaxy Note 5 to be the top choice here. 
Notice Sherlock’s fur - it’s an accurate gray that looks just as he does
 in real life. The Note also balances the rest of the light well on the 
lower portions of the cat tree, and provides more detail in all the fur 
and carpet. The Pure Edition does a respectable job, but the Note 5 is 
still tops.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />

Here’s another comparison of the three with indoor shots and less stark 
lighting. It makes for a good chance to compare how the cameras perform 
in a setting that shouldn’t be too challenging for any decent camera. 
<br />

The Moto X Pure Edition performed rather well, producing a great shot of the fall critters sitting atop the table.  
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_pure_critters-100616367-orig.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="

The Moto X Pure Edition camera reproduces the color well and provides good detail in a well-lit room.

"><img alt="moto x pure critters" height="360" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_pure_critters-100616367-large.idge.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Moto X Pure Edition camera reproduces the color well and provides good detail in a well-lit room. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<figure class="large "> <figcaption>

<br />

</figcaption></figure>
The<span style="line-height: 1.75em;"> light is balanced well and you 
can clearly see all the colors on the friendly animals. Even though the 
light is coming in from an angle, it’s not bleeding over to other parts 
of the photo. </span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/moto-x-fall-criters-100616369-orig.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="

Even in good conditions, the Moto X (2014) still would produce a photo with a weird filter.

"><img alt="moto x fall criters" height="349" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto-x-fall-criters-100616369-large.idge.jpg" width="620" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Even in good conditions, the Moto X (2014) still would produce a photo with a weird filter.
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<figure class="large "> <figcaption>

</figcaption></figure>
<span style="line-height: 1.75em;">The</span><span style="line-height: 1.75em;"> 2014
 Moto X looks like it has a filter over it—notice the beak of the crow. 
It’s washed out. Also, at the sides of the table the darkness kinds of 
bleeds over, and there's considerable noise in the tabletop.</span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/note-5-fall-100616271-orig.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="

The Galaxy Note 5 delivers crisp photos with good lighting in conditions like this.

"><img alt="note 5 fall" height="326" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/note-5-fall-100616271-large.jpg" width="580" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Galaxy Note 5 delivers crisp photos with good lighting in conditions like this. </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<figure class="large "> <figcaption>

</figcaption></figure>
Again, I still feel the best picture here belongs to the Galaxy Note 5. 
The beak and the feet tell the tale—this has the best “pop” and creates a
 brighter all-around photo. But it’s only a smidgen better than the Moto
 X Pure Edition.
<br />
<h2>
Improved outdoor performance</h2>
The Moto X camera shines best when it comes to outdoor performance. Even
 last year’s phone would struggle at times, but I found the images from 
the new model to be of great quality.
<br />
<figure class="large "><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/moto-x-pure-flowers-100616330-orig.jpg" title="

The Moto X Pure Edition does a good job at realistic outdoor photos.

"><img alt="moto x pure flowers" height="1031" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto-x-pure-flowers-100616330-large.jpg" width="580" /></a> <figcaption>

The Moto X Pure Edition does a good job at realistic outdoor photos.
<br />

</figcaption></figure>
If you look at the flowers you’ll see their color is reproduced well. 
You can also distinguish the different colors on the pot, porch, leaves,
 and wood chips without problems.
<br />
<figure class="large "><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_2014_flowers-100616281-orig.jpg" title="

Even in good light, the Moto X (2014) just doesn’t get a lot of colors right.

"><img alt="moto x 2014 flowers" height="1031" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_2014_flowers-100616281-large.jpg" width="580" /></a> <figcaption>

Even in good light, the Moto X (2014) just doesn’t get a lot of colors right.
<br />

</figcaption></figure>
<span style="line-height: 1.75em;">Again, the previous Moto X looks like
 it’s washed out with a bad Instagram filter. The leaves are not as 
realistically green, though the flowers turn out decent enough.</span>
<br />
<figure class="large "><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/note-5-flowers-100616329-orig.jpg" title="

The Galaxy Note 5 really captures the true-to-life colors of the plant and other elements in the photo.

"><img alt="note 5 flowers" height="1031" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/note-5-flowers-100616329-large.jpg" width="580" /></a> <figcaption>

The Galaxy Note 5 really captures the true-to-life colors of the plant and other elements in the photo.
<br />

</figcaption></figure>
I found the Note 5 marginally better at reproducing the details of the 
flowers. There’s an ever-so-slight focus problem with the Moto X Pure 
Edition, but none here with the Note 5. It could be a case where the 
Optical Image Stabilization, something absent in the new Moto X, really 
pays off, but in bright outdoor light the shutter speed should be so 
fast it shouldn't make a difference.
<br />
<h2>
A low-light test with a snake on a chair</h2>
The Achilles’ heel of the 2014 Moto X was the camera’s underperformance 
in low light settings. The situation has vastly improved with the Moto X
 Pure Edition. But as you’ll see, you’re still more than likely not 
going to turn out with a great picture.  
<br />

The Moto X Pure Edition still struggles in a moderately dark room.  
<br />
<figure class="large "><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_pure_snake_on_a_chair-100616370-orig.jpg" title="

Check out how noisy the wall is behind the chair.

"><img alt="moto x pure snake on a chair" height="300" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_pure_snake_on_a_chair-100616370-large.idge.jpg" width="400" /></a> <figcaption>

Check out how noisy the wall is behind the chair.
<br />

</figcaption></figure>
T<span style="line-height: 1.75em;">he background is entirely too noisy,
 and the camera doesn't replicate the color well. Unfortunately, you'll 
have to rely on flash or super powered editing skills to improve a photo
 like this </span>
<br />
<figure class="large "><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_2014_snake_in_a_chair-100616372-orig.jpg" title="

The Moto X (2014) just isn't any good in low light.

"><img alt="moto x 2014 snake in a chair" height="349" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/moto_x_2014_snake_in_a_chair-100616372-large.idge.jpg" width="620" /></a> <figcaption>

The Moto X (2014) just isn't any good in low light.
<br />

</figcaption></figure>
<span style="line-height: 1.75em;">However, last year's phone is even <em>worse</em>. It's dark, lacks detail, and is so full of digital noise that it looks like its covered in ants.</span>
<br />
<figure class="large "><a class="zoom article-gallery cboxElement" href="https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/article/2015/09/note_5_snake_on_a_chair-100616371-orig.jpg" title="

The back wall isn't nearly as busy with the Galaxy Note 5. The chair and snake also pop much better.

"><img alt="note 5 snake on a chair" height="349" src="http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2015/09/note_5_snake_on_a_chair-100616371-large.idge.jpg" width="620" /></a> <figcaption>

The back wall isn't nearly as busy with the Galaxy Note 5. The chair and snake also pop much better.
<br />

</figcaption></figure>
<span style="line-height: 1.75em;">It's no contest: the Note 5 actually 
pulls off a decent photo in a less-than-ideal setting. The snake 
actually pops thanks to how well the camera catches the different color 
schemes, and there's drastically less noise throughout. </span>
<br />
<h2>
The verdict</h2>
The Moto X Pure Edition has the best camera Motorola’s ever produced. It
 should suffice for most situations, save for very low light settings. 
As the photos indicate it’s also a substantial improvement over 2014’s 
Moto X. If you want to explore a few more pictures from the Moto X Pure 
Edition, <a href="https://goo.gl/photos/gNkPfk56Laump4yD7">here’s a gallery</a> of some that I took during a recent weekend in San Francisco. 
<br />

If you want the absolutely best Android camera available you’re still 
best to go with one of the flagship Galaxy phones (Note 5, S6, S6 Edge, 
or S6 Edge+) or the <a href="http://www.greenbot.com/article/2920803/lg-g4-review-killer-camera-killer-display-but-not-a-revolutionary-smartphone.html">LG G4</a>. The optical image stabilization and years of smartphone camera know-how still put them at the top.
<br />

Yet for a phone that costs $300 less than Samsung’s devices, Motorola is
 punching above its weight. You won’t get the number one camera, but 
you’ll get a rather good one in a highly customizable package without 
any bloatware.<br />
<br />
<br />
SOURCE : <a href="http://www.greenbot.com/article/2985011/smartphones/tested-did-motorola-finally-fix-its-camera-with-the-moto-x-pure-edition.html">http://www.greenbot.com/article/2985011/smartphones/tested-did-motorola-finally-fix-its-camera-with-the-moto-x-pure-edition.html</a>

Did Motorola finally deliver a great camera in the Moto X Pure Edition?

A good camera has always been the missing ingredient in the Moto X series. Motorola promised to fix it for good with this year’s Moto ...

Where to Focus When Taking a Photo

How Big Can You Print with Your Camera’s Megapixels?

How To Astrophotography

The 11 most important questions you should ask before taking any Photography Workshop, Seminar or Bootcamp

Did Motorola finally deliver a great camera in the Moto X Pure Edition?

Contact Form