Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
GeneralWhy are high quality photos not showing up except when logged in?
12th Jun 2019 11:31 UTCCharles D Young
I am in the process of replacing them with higher quality photos. What can I do to insure that they are now visible to the public?
Thanks
Charles
12th Jun 2019 11:38 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
12th Jun 2019 14:05 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
I looked at your photos, and it's obvious that you like radioactive minerals! Your latest photos show that you have the right light setting on the camera, as the background and minerals seem to show accurate colors. If I may, there are a couple of suggestions that should improve the aesthetics of the photos.
Crop the photo to get rid of the non-essential stuff. Choose a monochromatic color background. Since the dimensions are listed there isn't a need to show a grid or ruler. I've used a carnotite photo of yours as an example. I cropped it, and (rather crudely) edited it to show what just a white background would look like.
12th Jun 2019 21:31 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager
But that being said, there's a huge divide between those amazing professional photos, and some of the photo-like images some people try to pass off here. I've seen some photos on mindat (not among the set we're discussing in this thread, so this isn't directed at anyone in particular) where the images were so terrible, I thought the photographer should be arrested and sentenced to take an art appreciation class.
I get that 20 years ago or earlier, before the widespread availability of digital cameras when people were still using film, that it wasn't always practical or cost-effective to take dozens of shots of a sample (or of anything, for that matter) to ensure that at least one photo had the best combo of being framed well, sharply focused, properly white balanced, etc. But nowadays, where the only real limitation is time and effort, there's really little excuse for not being able to take decent photos, even with just one's cell phone camera. If all of one's photos are out of focus but the photographer thinks they're fine, it sounds like glasses or cataract surgery are in order. If colors are wildly unrealistic (and I have this problem sometimes), ask a non-colorblind friend/colleague for advice. If backgrounds are cluttered or the framing is weird, take a moment to remind yourself that you're not snapping a quick image of your smashed bumper for the insurance adjustor, but you're trying to show off to the envy of others your hard work (if you collected the sample yourself) or your shrewd purchase (if you bought it) to make the rest of us ooh and ahh. When one's hand is in the photo (as was discussed in a recent thread), we want to admire the specimen; we don't want to feel like we ought to be offering you advice on what moisturizer you should be using.
13th Jun 2019 00:40 UTCKevin Conroy Manager
-------------------------------------------------------
> The original image could definitely be cropped (two separate scale bars, both even in the same units, seems like overkill). But personally, I
> like Kevin's first crop better than than his second one with the background removed. Professional mineral photographers can make
> minerals look like they're floating in space while still maintaining a sense of depth. But in this case, the second image loses that depth and
> looks like a 2D painting (and that the original was slightly out of focus doesn't help). Most of us probably don't have the level of skill to make
> minerals look like those artsy museum photos or something out of the pages of Min Rec.
Frank, I agree! For the second cropped image I loaded the first one into Paint, and just "painted" everything except the specimen in white. I know some folks who could import a photo like this into Photoshop (or an equivalent) and add shadowing, and/or a color graduated background.
The vast majority of my photos are not very good. The backgrounds for most of the specimens are pieces of white printer paper, while the larger specimens are white, black or brown construction paper, definitely low-tech! I'm definitely more focused on the specimen than creating something for an art class. I sometimes wish I that had the equipment and skill to take a fantastic photo like so many others do. Then again, I wish I had more time to go collecting, travel to mineral shows, visit museums, etc, etc, etc..........
13th Jun 2019 01:27 UTCThomas Lühr Expert
The screenshot of the layers window shows a set of layers generated GIMP or PS.
The upper layer is the separated specimen (edges blurred) on a transsparent background.
The second layer contains only the (drawed) shaddows.
The 3rd layer adds a color to the background and is completely filled with the same color. Be careful with choosing that color, it should be in harmony with the specimen's color and be discreet, not dominating the image.
The 4th layer is filled with black and enables to adjust the brightness of the background.
The 5th layer is a transition from transparent to black and simulated the direction of the light. Note that there is not a discrepancy to the shaddow (like shown in C1.4) and that light from down to top gives not a natural impression (like shown in C1.3).
Finally the 6th and last layer is filled with white.
The adjustment of the opacity of layer #2 - layer #5 gives you the ability to change the apperiance of the image to many different looks.
C1.1 shows the composited image and C1.2 turned to landscape format.
13th Jun 2019 04:04 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager
13th Jun 2019 09:58 UTCBenjamin Oelkers
What I tend to do is to use a black background, which does routinely not give a completely black background colour in the photo - the camera's internal settings are made to avoid that. The photo would then be finalized in Lightroom, including using the brush-like tool to adjust the exposure (only) around the specimen so that is becomes pure black. That way, I don't need to cut out and smooth the edges of the specimen, which in my opinion is a major factor why depth perception can be lost when using monochromatic backgrounds. Basically, the specimen's edges should be sharper in some areas and more blurred in others (the ones further back), which is difficult to achieve by cutting and pasting.
Of course, using Photoshop, GIMP or something similar would allow for the same effect by using a rather soft (maybe partly transparent) brush with the desired background colour - just don't colour in the specimen as well while you're at it! ;-)
13th Jun 2019 16:01 UTCCharles D Young
David commented that I should do a better job with the white balance. I will definitely do my best going forward.
When I am done updating my photos I would still like them to show up when people do searches and look at my collection. I know there is an option to show them all but I would like them to appear by default. Or are my recent photos still not up to mindat standards?
Thanks
Charles
13th Jun 2019 16:58 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager
So your photos may still be in this list.
13th Jun 2019 17:18 UTCCharles D Young
Thanks
Charles
13th Jun 2019 17:43 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
In general you are getting decent photos, but the color needs to be corrected before the photos go site wide.
13th Jun 2019 20:26 UTCCharles D Young
13th Jun 2019 21:17 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
13th Jun 2019 21:21 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
As you can see, there are some bluish tones in the shadows to the right of the specimen which indicate that at least one other light source is a different temperature.
13th Jun 2019 21:59 UTCCharles D Young
I see you color corrected the image with half the off-white card. Does that make a difference?
At any rate, I redid the photo with the blinds behind the specimen closed. Does that help? To my eye it seems to make it more like your color corrected version.
13th Jun 2019 22:54 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
Halogen light is a difficult light to use for photography, it is very strong in yellow. You would be much better to choose a broader spectrum light source, even modern daylight-rated (5000K) Compact LED bulbs (such as these) would be good:
https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Equivalent-Daylight-Non-Dimmable-6-Pack/dp/B01MSMKBG3/ref=sxin_0_ac_d_rm?keywords=daylight+led+bulb&pd_rd_i=B01MSMKBG3&pd_rd_r=dac7042c-59cd-4781-96c0-f53f4ccbb966&pd_rd_w=B6nmi&pd_rd_wg=12wWR&pf_rd_p=91b604bb-c371-4573-970f-bed68a552852&pf_rd_r=VJ0FM0XPQRB39H72BASK&qid=1560462825&s=gateway
13th Jun 2019 23:13 UTCCharles D Young
I really don't see the yellow tinge now that I am using a white background and I closed the window blind. If I could easily make the adjustment with the color slider then I would do it at the same time that I am cropping.
Thanks for your patience.
Charles
13th Jun 2019 23:22 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
https://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/56769/adjust-photo-color-windows-10/
13th Jun 2019 23:58 UTCCharles D Young
Thanks for your help and hopefully my photos will start to be approved now that I have made improvements to the white balance!
Charles
14th Jun 2019 08:35 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert
It's not in the eye of the beholder, it can be measured:
If you use a color picking tool you will find that in your screenshot the user interface is in neutral gray, the RGB values (red, green and blue) of the different grays are 34,34,34 and 43,43,43 and 85,85,85, and they look like a "boring" neutral gray on my monitor, just as they should.
Your white cardboard background has a strong reddish tint, you can read values like 151,125,97 or 228,203,147 or 252,237,211, so they are not properly white balanced.
14th Jun 2019 08:52 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
14th Jun 2019 21:02 UTCCharles D Young
I did find one of my photos that seems to blend with the mindat border in the lower right corner. I have tried adjusting the color in the Windows 10 editor and it just makes the specimen look bad. I'll continue to experiment.
14th Jun 2019 21:41 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert
If you take a photo of a spot light on a white background, the colors should grade from 255,255,255 (white) in the center to values like 55,55,55 (gray) and 20,20,20 (dark gray)
The values for the upper right corner of the mindat page are indicated in the next screenshot.
In your photo the white is correct, but everything else is still completely off, as if the photo had been taken with a daylight white balance setting.
14th Jun 2019 21:44 UTCCharles D Young
14th Jun 2019 21:45 UTCThomas Lühr Expert
Sorry to say, but the white color of the sheet (in the middle of the bottom) is only due to an oversatureation/overexposure (that is to avoid in general).
On a white sheet, the shaddows have to be a transition to grey and not yellow or brown like in your photo(s).
What was the white balance setting ("light setting") on your camera ? Normally you can choose 'sun', 'cloudy', 'fluorescent', 'tungsten/bulb'.
Make sure that this setting fits your actual light source. The photos should come out already almost correct, at least not so far off.
Some better cameras allow to enter the "color temperature". If you are able to do that then try to enter 2700 if you use tungsten light.
Edit:
While i was writing you already did what i suggested. The first photo of your recent set looks already quite good. You may change still to a bit lower values ...
14th Jun 2019 21:58 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert
The photos look much better now, but camera screens are rarely calibrated (they are only "o.k." on very expensive cameras).
You have to check on the computer if the photos are o.k. (by checking the actual color values with a color picker).
This means measure what works best.
The values will never be "perfect grays" (all numbers same), but that's o.k. and slight deviations look more natural.
14th Jun 2019 21:58 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
14th Jun 2019 23:19 UTCThomas Lühr Expert
You may also do a google search for images or videos with "DIY light box" and will get a lot of inspirations.
14th Jun 2019 23:42 UTCCharles D Young
Closing the blinds to avoid daylight was the first trick. After that adjusting the Kelvin to 3700 to produce the whitest background (which I have read corresponds to halogen) made a big difference.
I'll look at some sort of diffusion to soften the harsh shadows and highlights. The dual fiber goosenecks are cool to the touch. I may be able to tape gauze over them.
Charles
15th Jun 2019 13:34 UTCTimothy Greenland
Cheers
Tim
15th Jun 2019 20:17 UTCJeff Weissman Expert
15th Jun 2019 21:30 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder
16th Jun 2019 03:14 UTCCharles D Young
Charles
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: March 29, 2024 14:29:22
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: March 29, 2024 14:29:22