Thread: Taking photos

Walter's a looker for sure.

I've been trying to get the hang of snapping the kitties and I found a couple of things.

I'm not any sort of photography expert, but I'll share my limited experience.

Generally, flash doesn't work all that well for cats. It annoys/scares the cats and gives the evil eye effect...

I have what was an entry level DSLR at the time Nikon D40.

One of the better investments I made for it as far as indoor photography was a fast prime lens.

This allows low light shots to be crisp and clear while minimizing the motion blur.

Here's a couple I took in low light without flash.



This one was with the room lights on, no flash or camera lighting,



Coco watching the sunrise with no other lighting.



Elvis in really dim light.

A UV filter helps too with some types of lighting.

The other necessity is a bit of post processing to even out minor lighting adjustments, crop, rotate, size, etc.

I use iPhoto that comes with Apple iLife and a shareware program called Graphic Converter...

There's equivalent programs for Windows. One doesn't need to spend hundreds for Photoshop...

It's also not necessary to spend tons of money on camera gear, either, but it can be necessary to experiment and see what the equipment on hand is capable of.

There's many sites dedicated to teaching the basics of photography...

Also, bits are cheap. One can snap hundreds of shots and throw all of them away except for the outstanding ones...

Good advice Claudel... I used to have a Nikon D70, excellent camra but it eventually gave up the ghost (we did event photography once-upon-a-time) so I got a point and shoot Olympus (tiny silver thing) it isn't very good at all far too much shutter delay etc... it rally is worth paying that bit more for a DSLR, look on ebay for some used bargains...

Beautiful photos....Claudel xx

I use DSLRs that give much more control over photo parameters and have much better quality lenses. As already noted, trying photos without flash has many advantages, but either the cat must be still or the light level high or you need a really expensive "fast lens." One of the great things about digital cameras for photographing pets is that you can take a hundred photos in a few minutes and just discard all but the good ten or so.

The glowing eyes from flash apparently has a name, eyeshine, and can be read about here:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum"]Tapetum lucidum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Man_and_dog.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Man_and_dog.jpg/220px-Man_and_dog.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/2/21/Man_and_dog.jpg/220px-Man_and_dog.jpg[/ame]

It is possible to use photo adjustment software to clean it up when it isn't too bad. Unfortunately, automated red-eye tools won't work, so you will have to read about how to do it manually. I have gotten pretty good at fixing this, but it can take 5-10 minutes per photo.

I will include one of the first photos I fixed. Would have been a shame to lose this to eyeshine:

Originally Posted by elismom

I struggle with eyeshine as well with Eli and red-eye with my blue-eyed kitten! On top of this unless the light is very bright and thereby I don't need the flash, Eli just looks like a shadow with eyeshine!
Thanks for the helpful tip about fixing eyeshine. You're right, it would have been sad to lose the picture above. Fantastic looking cats you have!

Photographing black cats is definitely the hardest. Pretty much have to use flash and have a lens that allows you to get close ups or you don't see much. I have tried with the neighbor's black cat that lives on our porch.

Here are zoomed crops showing what was done to Allie's eyes in the photos I posted:

Wow and thanks to all. I'm surprised to learn how many here also take a lot of pics to get a few good ones. That makes me feel a bit less useless!

A lot of terms here are new to me -- fortunately, there's Google!

Claudel, I am absolutely gobsmacked how bright those pics are without a flash -- and in low light, no less! I know the camera I use (my wife's, actually) couldn't do that.

Also, thanks for the kind comments about Walter. I do think he's handsome -- and I'm not at all prejudiced!

Originally Posted by Walter Coonkat

Claudel, I am absolutely gobsmacked how bright those pics are without a flash -- and in low light, no less! I know the camera I use (my wife's, actually) couldn't do that.

Also, thanks for the kind comments about Walter. I do think he's handsome -- and I'm not at all prejudiced!

The fast lens is a big part of it, but any decent photo editor can make up for some light weirdness...

Here's one of your originals of Walter



Here, I balanced the light and shaded parts using iPhoto and sized it and adjusted the contrast and saturation with Graphic Converter...



I didn't try to fix the eyes, but others have made some good suggestions for that.

I have never had much luck with the red-eye reduction preflash with the cats, as it distracts them. Plus, even if their pupils are open only a bit you can still get eyeshine that wrecks the photo.

Another advantage of a good quality digital camera is the ability to crop photos and still end up with usable size. It is often quite hard to frame a shot optimally when rushing to shoot something cute. So definitely you should not consider a photo final until you have considered reframing it.

Most digital SLRs will also allow you to shoot in "raw mode" which effectively stores the raw sensor data. This provides the very best starting point for manipulating your photos. If you frequently manipulate exposure, etc. in your photos, you should store raw mode versions. The JPEG versions have already been manipulated in the camera, so there is a limit to how much you can change them without getting artifacts. I think most DSLRs will allow you to have the camera store both a JPEG and raw version. That is what I have my Canon set to do. That way, if I need to manipulate exposure or white balance, I am starting with maximum information.

I have advice and I have opinions. I am going to mix them up, so you choose which you want

If you are serious about getting shots of your furry kids then a fast reacting "proper" camera - typically a DSLR - is what you want. While I take lots of cute shots with my crappy camera phone, most of them are just blurred cause no one will stay still long enough for the shutter to react. A basic DSLR with a "kit" lens will set you back of the order of £400-£600. If it's a "bridge" camera - a DSLR type but with a fixed, unchangeable lens - then it's a great start but you will want to try more lenses later.

Like has been said, a fast prime lens for a DSLR is a good way to go. A basic 50mm f/1.8 for either Canon or Nikon is about £100 new and can be got for less. I spoilt myself and bought a lovely Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro for Xmas in anticipation of the boys arrival. The image stabiliser combined with the macro is wonderful. You need a macro if you want decent face shots - unless you shell out for a fast 200mm lens and if you can do that then you would have already

Add to the macro the potential with the macro ring flash (which I've had for years, was cheap once but is now £600! Ok, maybe not that then. I swear I only paid half that once.) However, ring flashes can make red/green eye worse as the flash is effectively in-line with the lens and so you get reflections from the back of the eyes.

The way to avoid green eye is to have the flash well of axis of the lens - so this means an external flash unit, typically mounted on the hotshoe. Again, these are going up in price because of the Yen vs everyone else. A Canon 580EXII is now not far off £400 - again probably twice what I paid 4 years ago for the 580EX original. I feel lucky I invested back then...

Then, I always shoot "RAW" plus JPEG. For those who haven't come across what raw files are think of them as a digital negative which can be reprocessed/reprinted from in different ways as opposed to a JPEG which is pretty much like a Polaroid or an old audio cassette. You can do stuff with them afterwards, but every additional change will degrade the resulting output file - like making mix tapes from other tapes.

The only changes I typically make are exposure and colour balance (the latter includes white balance, saturation etc.). I also use some of the lens-fixup tools in the software but they are not so critical. I never, for myself, crop images or remove red/green eye, but if I am preparing shots for others I will do so if they ask. I am one of those "old school" shooters that believes in what was there was there and should stay there

Personally, I have the top end Canon 1Ds MkIII but that's because one year I got a great bonus at work and I wanted to treat myself. It doesn't make me a great photographer, but it make life so much easier. Like many, we can indulge ourselves in difference ways - in my case my car is worth considerably less than my camera body, let alone the lenses.

PS Anyone near North London who wants their darlings shot - in the photography way onyl! - I am happy to entertain the idea in exchange for tea and biscuits. I don't make money out of photography, it's more a labour of love. I appear to have slots free sometime next year - now that my three boys are home and growing I have no social life and the only things I shoot are them