Keyboard photography

[Acanthophis]

Ah, now I can post things here, too

[Nask]

It'll be great to have a how-to made by Ripster : "How to make beautiful pictures of your favorites keyboards"

[ripster]

First rule is a big frigging watermark.

I should delete all the GH wiki images, especially the pre-watermark 2009 ones and make the watermark bigger.

[TexasFlood]

And Canon HFS200, Nikon D60, D200, Canon S90, Panasonic Lumix LX3, Gitzo carbon tripod, Really Right Stuff ball head, Nikon close-up speedlight, and a number of nice lens...

I think good equipment, and knowing how to use it of course, are needed for the best results. Probably 90% of us aren't going to spend that kind money on camera gear though, but maybe enough to get one decent camera.

[ripster]

Why not?

And can you tell those Geekhackers to post some interesting keyboard pics. Getting boring lurking over there and other than Matias posts it's like noob city.

[TexasFlood]

Well, in my case I'm cheap as hell. Maybe my Scottish ancestry, blame Sir William Wallace...

[ripster]

If you are cheap why would you ever have more than one keyboard?

[TexasFlood]

If you are cheap why would you ever have more than one keyboard?

Cause they were all cheap. Oh I get it, I should add it all up? Nawww.....

[ripster]

Well, you're more of a GH moderator rules guy than a William Wallace anyway.

No really, a ClickClack key if you spy for me!

[TexasFlood]

Well, you're more of a GH moderator rules guy than a William Wallace anyway.!

You just say that based on the William Wallace in the movie, not very historically accurate.

Well, he was hung, released while still alive, castrated, eviscerated and his bowels burnt before him, beheaded, then cut into four parts. His preserved head (dipped in tar) was placed on a pike atop London Bridge, his limbs were displayed, separately, in Newcastle upon Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Stirling, and Perth.

That part is accurate, which is kind of a bummer, and painful. He must have REALLY pissed the English off.

[Acanthophis]

Oh, and found a good example on reddit why you (7bit ) indeed should shoot in RAW instead of JPEG.
Click

[RC-1140]

yay, just discovered, where our posts went to... I look into the workshop section too seldom.

And these before/after raw pictures are really good examples of the possibilities of RAW photography.

And maybe I can find some time in the next weeks to go outside and take some photos (non keyboard...), so I can check the possibilities of my equipment. Holidays!

[ripster]

Good examples of poorly exposed JPEGs.

Photography forums are FULL of the McRip Effect.

PING!

[TexasFlood]

So guess raw is more forgiving. Although better to not need the forgiveness, has me wondering if I should set the camera to raw when my wife uses it. She simply won't listen to advise on appropriate camera settings and expects magic, raw might increase the odds of that magic happening.

[ripster]

First you listen to Geekhack Teenage Moderators and NOW your wife won't listen to you?

Baaaaaa
Baaaaaa
Ba

[TexasFlood]

My wife often won't listen to anyone, her opinion is truth after all!

I'm tired of telling her that often pictures are better with the flash off, she won't listen and seems to irritate her.

[Icarium]

Well, when you're not doing something right because you've decided the effort isn't worth it you still don't want to be reminded about it all the time. I understand her perfectly.

[TexasFlood]

Well, when you're not doing something right because you've decided the effort isn't worth it you still don't want to be reminded about it all the time. I understand her perfectly.

Well I would agree except she wants the pictures to turn out perfectly without taking the advice needed for that result.

[ripster]

I don't believe TexasFlood ever posts pics so it's a bit moot anyway.

MEANWHILE mine dominate the InterToobs.

Shoulda watermarked this one.

http://plope.com/Members/chrism/25_years_of_the_model_m

[TexasFlood]

I don't believe TexasFlood ever posts pics so it's a bit moot anyway.

I've posted a few but could do more although I'll never approach your quantity or quality. Probably done more pixel art than you though

[captain]

I guess you lossy guys don't edit your photos, or do you just really like jpeg blocks? ;-P

If you edit your photos, you'll introduce artifacts when you compress for distribution. It's better to start with a lossless image and only compress once. That, and more leeway in the dynamic range, and complete leeway in color balance, are the best reasons to shoot RAW.

[ripster]

PING!

Whoops, I mean PNG! For lossless AND transparency.

[Mrinterface]

First Bokeh. Not bad for a canon S100. ( I always believed in small portable cameras I can carry with me as opposed to the HUGE DSLR combo's... )

First_Bokeh.jpg (261.08 KiB) Viewed 6782 times

[7bit]

Nice camera, but the key caps look lasered!

[Oafmeal]

Shooting in RAW also allows you to avoid the image processing your camera will do... Your camera will inevitably alter what is captured in some way if you're shooting JPEG. RAW allows you to choose how to get from sensor to JPEG rather than letting the camera do it for you. There WILL be processing done, and shooting RAW allows you to have a hand in it.

The sensor is literally equivalent to the film in the role of capturing light, and the end format (JPEG?) is the print. Once you snap a shot on film, the process isn't over until you're out of the darkroom. Similarly in the digital world, it's not so much about forgiveness as it is about having actual control of the image once the shutter closes. RAW does indeed allow for a whole lot more in the way of fixing mistakes, and nifty editing, but it also lets you tweak the little things that would otherwise be done by machine.

It's not necessary, but if you like to spend the time, it's quite rewarding. All depends what you want out of the hobby.

[7bit]

Shooting in JPG also allows you to let the camera processing the image, so you don't need to do it yourself afterwards. I want images readily done. Also, I look at the display and know if I like it or not. If not I can tweak it such that it fits.

Just one question: Which camera are you shooting RAW data with?

[Acanthophis]

Instagram, duh!

[7bit]

I guess you lossy guys don't edit your photos, or do you just really like jpeg blocks? ;-P

If you edit your photos, you'll introduce artifacts when you compress for distribution. It's better to start with a lossless image and only compress once. That, and more leeway in the dynamic range, and complete leeway in color balance, are the best reasons to shoot RAW.

Just do what you think is right for you. If you like to tweak afterwards, then just do it.

If your camera makes shitty, blocky, lossy JPEGs then use RAW and have all the work be done afterwards.

[GeorgeStorm]

I always shoot in RAW now, even though sometimes all I'll do is open it up in Lightroom (trying it out at the moment since ufraw died on me), possibly have a quick play with exposure etc, see if I like it better, then resize, nothing extensive.

[nntnam]

Any advice