Shooting distance in LR 5

Hi,
How do I get the shooting distance to appear in the EXIF data as know the details are captured.
I use a canon 70d if this makes a difference.
thanks
john

What do you mean by shooting distance?
If you mean focal length such as 24mm, 50mm, 200mm it's shown below the histogram in the LR Library and Develop modules or in the Metadata tab - choosing EXIF from the drop-down list to the left of the word Metadata.

Similar Messages

Seeking profile for Nikon 14-24, D3 body

Hi all,
I'm trying to correct for some barrel distortion on a set of interior shots taken with the 14-24. I can do a fairly reasonable job using the grid and "straight-line" option in CS5's lens correction, but am hoping someone's already created and shared a profile for this very popular lens.
Also, CS5 doesn't list out a D3 or D3s body as an option, only a D3x. The chip size is the same (I believe), but it'd be nice to have the proper camera body show in the options...
Anyhow, does anyone have lens profiles for this lens? It seems like a vast waste of time to do my own profile(s) for a lens that's been on the market for some years now.
Thanks!
Jerry

Soren,
I shot my 14-24mm lens series this way:
Shoot 14mm focal length at f2.8, nine images(Top left, top center, top right; center left, center middle, center right; lower left, lower middle, lower right.) That constistutes one set of images for Lens profile creator software.
Next, shoot 19mm at f2.8, same nine images. (Move the tripod if you have to for a set, but not within a set. Move the head around for a given set, to get that chart in the right position in your viewfinder for a given desired image(chart on top left, chart on lower right, etc.). This is the second set.
Next, shoot 24mm at f2.8, same nine images. This is the third set.
Now change to different aperture, f8.
Shoot 14mm at f8, nine images, fourth set.
Shoot 19mm at f8, nine images, fifth set.
Shoot 24mm at f8, nine images, sixth set.
Now change to f14.
Shoot 14mm at f14, nine images.
Shoot 19mm at f14, nine images.
Shoot 24mm at f14, nine images.
Last, use f11.
Shoot 14mm at f11, nine images.
Shoost 19mm at f11, nine images.
Shoot 24mm at f11, nine images. Tenth and last set of nine.
You can shoot more sets, I vary the aperture and also the shooting distance. But you still want to have that chart covering about 1/4 of the frame area. I have three charts printed and mounted on boards which I use to do the images for the software. I shoot raw. Be sure you have the camera set to shoot raw if you want that.
Also, zero out all the sharpening, wide angle corrections, other things, in-camera before shooting. I save my projects(each set is a project) and I print out my lens profiles to look them over after I have finished. I use a tripod and easel with the chart board mounted on the easel taped to it. I shoot outside so tape it or the wind will blow it and you have to start all over. I also write out my chart of images and check them off as I go, for each aperture and focal length. I set it on aperture priority since you do not care what the shutter is, and use auto focus unless you need to manual focus, which I had to do on a few when my AF sensor didn't go where I wanted it on the chart.
I hope this helps.
Debra

Could Motion 4 replace Autodesk 3ds Max through Photoshop?

I need to draw a 3d depth map and save it as a BMP image file to be used with a Photoshop plug-in that creates a fake depth of field (DOF).
As you may know, in photography, DOF is governed by three factors: aperture, lens focal length and shooting distance. DOF PRO ( http://www.dofpro.com/overview.htm ) is probably the only plug-in that addresses them very well, because it uses a different approach instead of just a simple gaussian blur to reproduce a believable DOF effect.
Unfortunately DOF PRO is 32-bit windows only and requires the drawing of a depth map that contains information regarding the location of objects within a scene, through the use of such software as Autodesk 3ds Max 8. Is there such a 3ds tool in Mac OS? Could Motion 4 do the job? Could Motion 4 work seamlessly wth Photoshop CS5 (its Quick Seletion Tool) and create a still image and save the 3d scene as a BMP image file to be used with DOF PRO plug-in?

I don't know if Motion 4 has a defocusing plug-in or not and I only know that Motion 4 can create 3d animation videos.
A depth map should look like this in black and white (indicating the foreground and Bokeh area) with a grayscale as calculated by a 3ds-like software. The death map should be saved as a BMP image file.
http://www.dofpro.com/photogallery.htm

Best lens for a T3

I bought a T3 a few years ago. It has served it's purpose for basic pictures but I want to buy a better lense that will work for action shots, outdoors and low light settings. I realize I might have to buy more than one lense but I am starting to get into photography more and my budget is very tight right now.

The point of a camera having a "removeable" lens is that no single lens is ever "best"... but you can swap in the lens which is most opimal for the situation at-hand.
I have an EF 135mm f/2L USM -- a fantastic lens, great for low-light and subjects at a moderate distance. It's also one of the least expensive of the L series lenses (the L series lenses are Canon's top-end glass). But as this is a prime (non-zoom) lens, it doesn't have the versatility if your subject shooting distance and framing need to keep changing... which is why just about everyone makes a 70-200mm zoom. Further, most manufacturers make that 70-200mm zoom in a version that can provide f/2.8 at any focal length in the range.
By using the lower focal ratio versions of the lens, the lens gathers more light while the shutter is open. The f-stop (focal ratio) is the ratio of the focal length divided by the diameter of the lens (clear aperture). The bigger that diameter, the more light it collects. The ratios happen to use even powers of the square root of 2. f/5.6, for example, is √2^5, f/4 is √2^4. f/2.8 is √2^3, f/2 is √2^2, and so on. Notice how each square root of 2 is being raised to one power less each time we move down to a lower stop. The reason the square root of 2 is the all-important base value is because each time you change the diameter of a circle by a factor of the square root of 2 (approximately 1.4) you will either DOUBLE or HALVE the area of that circle (depending on whether you are making the circle larger or smaller of course).
This means an f/4 lens litterally is collecting twice as much light as an f/5.6 lens (allowing you to either reduce the ISO or halve the amount of time that the shutter needs to remain open to capture the same exposure.) An f/2.8 lens is double the f/4 lens... or four times the f/5.6 lens. An f/2 lens is double again (or 8 times more light than the f/5.6 lens). A couple of stops makes a huge difference.
But there are two trade-offs... as the aperture increases in size, you also make the "depth of field" (the range of distances at which subjects nearer or farther than your intended focus distance will also appear to be in reasonable/acceptable focus. This means if you need subjects both near and far to be focused nicely then a low focal ratio is working against you (but these are laws of physics so we just have to put up with them. )
The second trade-off is physical and economic. When you increase the diameter of the glass so that you can collect more light, the glass also gets thicker and thus heavier. But also, the dispersion increases as well. Dispersion is the property that causes light to split into it's different wavelengths (like the rainbow that you get when you shine a "white" light through a prism.) This causes the images to go soft (especially near the edges). When you zoom in to the corners to inspect the image, you may notice that edges of objects have a "purple fringe" on one edge and a "red fringe" on the opposite edge. That's the light starting to split into a rainbow spectrum due to dispersion (the name for this is "chromatic aberration"). It turns out you can correct for this -- not perfectly, but mostly. To do this, you'd need to add more corrective elements of different shapes to reverse the dispersion problem. Different materials can be used to make the "glass" and some recipies with exotic substances (translation: expensive) will greatly improve the situation. Canon sometimes uses fluorite. Fluorite is a crystal that has low-dipsersion properties. It occurs in nature but only in small sizes and always cloudy/impure (not suitable for making a lens). So they "grow" their own fluorite crystals in a kiln. But to "grow" these crystals without impurities means it has to be grown slowly... it can take months to grow the crystals to a point where they are large enough to be ground into lenses.
This means you are using more expensive glass which is harder to produce and it also means you are adding even more glass (more weight) and of course this drives up the cost of the lens even further.
This is why you tend to not find lenses which are versatile, good in low light (low focal ratio), with high image quality, AND inexpensive. What you need to do to the lens to make it good in low light and still maintain a high image quality definitely drives up the price tag.
You can find budget lenses but you always have to ask... what compromises are being made in order to keep the costs low?
Lenses are always a game of trade-offs. There's a continuum of price ranges, capabilities, and qualities. The good stuff is also the expensive stuff. If it were possible to make a "good", "cheap", "low-light" zoom... then we'd all own it and manufacturers wouldn't even bother to make the expensive versions because there would be no market for it.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

Canon EF 28-300 L IS

Two questions:
* Can't find a list of supported lenses online. Can someone confirm if the Canon EF 28-300 L IS is already profiled or not?
* If not - any advice what kind of a monster combo of data would this lens need? I'm pretty sure doing just 3 focal distances is not enough, so I'm a bit scared of how much work profiling this lens would be if I had to do it myself...

I don't think vignetting effectively stops above f11. My usage of the lens stops above f11, though And even if not, I am sure just as ACR/LR interpolates between the other f-values that you don't have, that it would extrapolate past the last f-stop in the set. Again, a non-issue for me.
Yes, I do have a profile, otherwise I wouldn't know how quick it was to make (I usually don't make statements about things that I don't have a clue about). The reason why I didn't upload it is that it would possibly not hold up to pixel peeping or scientific scrutiny, since it's only handheld, has only two shooting distances (which even aren't all that much different really), and so on. When I see how some people get a knot in their panties about some profile not meeting their standards I really don't want a part of any of that. It fixes 90% or more of the lens flaws for my use, and that's good enough for me.

Need help creating illusion of a long road going off into the distance...

I can't for the life of me seem to figure something as simple sounding as this out... I've spent 2 whole days now working with every different program in the CS4 Master Collection and am ready to shoot myself.
I'm trying to create a nice banner and in it is a street sign and the road it's naming going off into the distance as if you were standing on the road looking straight down it forever into the vanishing point.
For some stupid reason this is the hardest illusion of all. In PS CS4 I create a really long Road as a Smart object,and then try to turn it into a 3d postcard so I can rotate it, but only the part that is seen within the boundaries of the Banner renders in 3D, the rest of the layer that hangs outside the border is cropped.
I want to be able to put a light on it and texture it to make it look realistic, other wise I would have just drawn a triangle with lines on it. So I try using After effects to at least handle this part. I created a really long (20,000 px) road in Illustrator, ported it into AE, but AE kinda does the same thing, I am only able to see a piece of the road, the ends are invisible, so only the middle, say 5,000 px of the road are rendered when I rotate it into the plane I want!
Is there a tutorial or something that can help me achieve a realistic looking long road?
Thanks All
Aza

My advice is to use good old perspective transform, along with Scale and maybe distort to change the vanishing point. Edit/transform/perspective. These transform parameters are very easy to work with and will create a good visual perspective. Not a good idea to use Warp or Liquify because this will throw your perspective off. Best thing to do is light the image from above before transforming. This is an excellent use for Smart Objects.
Another slightly more complex way is to use the vanishing point filter. Copy your flat road and paste it into a carefully created vanishing point grid.
Getting into the 3D tools for a simple task like this, just creates more things that can go wrong, as you have discovered.

Lens correction help needed: Nikon 14-24 used in model shoot...

Hello,
I just finished a model shoot with 9 models standing in a horizontal line relative to the camera. Because of the very short working distance I had to use a Nikon 14-24mm lens to fit everyone in, resulting in the end girls being noticeably distorted (unpleasantly "wide"). They certainly won't like that!
I've opened the raw file in CR, but have not found settings for lens correction that fix this. CR has the correct lens profile, but no matter how I play with the settings manually or automatically, things just don't look right. Similarly, if I open corresponding TIFF in Filter -> Lens correction, I still run into the same issue.
I've enclosed a sample out-of-the-camera image so you can what I'm talking about. Hoping there's a way to correct the twp outermost girls w/o sacrificing those in the middle... They are much slimmer than in the shot.
Running PS CS 5.5 on Win7/64
Thanks!
Jerry

Hi Toasted
I've seen the adds for the DxO Viewpoint and thought they had a great idea on their hands providing it as a Plug-in. However, I've been using the full DxO Optics Pro as my Raw file editor for a couple of years now, and ran your shot through that, and not the plug-in.
Judging my my results, I think the full version is a more powerful tool; the "Volume Anamorphosis" correction in the full version is a semi-automated tool. Simply applying the correction at the initial automated setting still left me with some distortion in the models at either end, which was especially noticeable in the girl on the extreme right. However, I then manually tweaked the setting to the maximum available, to get the result above.
Now, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and you can't get something for nothing, and the same applies here. What's actually happening is that the Volume Anamorphosis is being "corrected" by re-introducing a set amount of Barrel Distortion into the image, oh, and the image has also been cropped, which is most noticeable in the bodywork of the cars on the left and right, but this is unavoidable. It isn't too obvious here, but if you were to have strong horizontals or verticals in the image, you'd see the curvature in them very easily.
Take a look at my own example below.
This was taken with a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, and in the original the guitarist on the left, and the keyboardist on the right, both had the dreaded "squished head" effect! As you can see that's been fixed, but if you look at the pipes above the lights at the back, the line of the monitor cabinet at the lead singers feet, and the microphone stands, you can plainly see the curves... which is still infinitely preferable to distorted heads!
Good luck
Paul

Should I shoot in HD or SD?

This question comes up from time to time in this and other forums. Clearly, the answer would be to shoot in HD if the final result will be delivered in HD. But what if the final result will be delivered in SD, such as DVD? Does it still make sense to shoot in HD, or will the results not be worth the extra hassle? Here we enter a sort of gray area.
As a general rule, conversion introduces artifacts, whether you're converting from 35mm film to DVD, or from HD to Flash for the web, or even from DV to DVD, the process of converting introduces certain artifacts. This is just a fact of life we can't yet avoid. So the ideal scene is to convert as little as possible. If you shoot in SD for DVD delivery, there is at least the one conversion step that can't be avoided. After all, DVDs will only take MPEG video. But if you shoot in HD for DVD delivery, you need two conversions, one to go from the HD resolution down to the SD resolution, and another to the required MPEG video for DVD. (Whether or not this can be done in a single step is incidental, two conversions are taking place - the resolution change, and the MPEG encoding.)
This brings us to our question. If shooting in HD adds a second conversion step to the process, thus adding more opportunity for artifacts, is it's greater source resolution really worth it? Some say yes, other don't know, I'm not convinced.
So here I suggest a game of sorts, and here are the rules:
1) Same scene shot twice, once in SD, once in HD.
2) Same camera, same lens both times.
3) Both shot in the video norm of 30i. (24p and 30p might also make good tests, but would be separate tests.)
4) Both imported into an appropriate Premiere project. No editing or other manipulation should be done at this point, the idea is to keep things as pristine as possible. A second test after doing some editing would make for another good comparison.
5) Both exported out of Premiere as MPEG2-DVD 30i files which can be used for authoring a normal 30i DVD, uploaded to whatever file sharing site one prefers. I suggest
FlyUpload because you don't have to 'sign up' to use their service, but there are others as well. Files should be named without any indication of which was which, so testers have no preconceived bias.
5a) Those still working in CS3 may also add an hd2sd (script from Dan Issacs) version for comparison, but also as 30i with the same final encoding settings to keep things as level as possible.
6) Once the files are uploaded and links posted, readers in this forum can download the files, burn their own DVDs and watch on their own TVs. I recommend a variety of such tests, DVD on a CRT, DVD on an HD set, DVD played back on a Blu-ray, etc., then come back here and post our observations. Those who take the time to do the work of shooting, processing and uploading should wait a bit for several users to post observations before listing which version was which.
So there it is folks. Anyone care to play?

Dan,
>his love of the "film look"
And you are all the way innocent :)
Back to topic.
I may have misjudged what Bill showed in his link. For my excuse I could say, oh it was web format. The thing is though that I have several times seen the end product bringing something from the source, also when the end product is video for web. The overall look made in the camera (no matter SD or HD) is more important than pixels in most cases, unless of course one wants to use a BIG screen.
Even more back to topic.
I think Jim has a good question (wanted test). That's because the few times I have worked with HDV/AVCHD, I have been surprised seeing how little of the "extra pixels" in HD that makes a difference in the end product.
And, I have done one test myself that showed me pretty clearly that I should shoot in SD instead of HD. I filmed a mobile-phone (cellular, or whatever you call it) and the end product's (flash video) pixel-size was set. Trying to shoot HD and resize to the set pixel-size did NOT turn out well at all. I didn't try Dan/Jim/Jeff's method because deadline and budget didn't allow that.
Just to shoot SD, adjusting zoom/distance on the camera so that cropping to correct size didn't involve resize of the footage gave me the best and quickest results.
Anyone who has dealt with one pixel sized text will probably take my point here. Don't resize, shoot (or screen capture for that sake) at the size the end video is going to be!
Of course I could have zoomed the HD camera so I didn't need resizing (just cropping off everything I didn't need), but then I just don't see the point of having to deal with HDV.
Now, I know that filming displays may not be the "usual" thing to do, but still, that is one example where "biggest" (meaning pixels) not give anything extra, and rather make more problems.
I have seen a lot HDV/AVCHD footage that just don't have the same feel as my PD-150 (PS! I normally use low sharpness in the camera setting. That's one thing better adjusted in post). Then it's just don't matter for me how many pixels I look at.
The end product's quality, meaning what people are looking at, that's what going to be judged. And then again, Jim has a good question, is it always needed to "shoot big".
I would like to see the same test as Jim describes (and I regret I didn't have the time to do it myself last time I had a HDV camera in my hand (which could do both SD and HDV)).
Would it be bad for anybody to see that test coming through?
Dag

How do you shoot and record videos on iSight? Also, how to do multi screen?

I've never tried using the camera. Just didn't have a need for it, but I'm gonna start making videos. How do I do this? I'm stupid=(

For one thing, please post ONE question per thread.
In answer to your question, the iSight wasn't really built for shooting video (it's low resolution and the built-in ones are fixed-distance, so they won't work well for anything more than a few feet away. Nevertheless, you can use something like iVeZeen by Boinx Software to acquire video from the iSight.
As to your second question, what do you mean multi-screen? Multi-screen what?

How to shoot fixed focal length lenses?

Hi,
I wonder how I am supposed to best shoot fixed focal length lenses.
Currently I just shoot one set of 9 images, just because it is a fixed focal length lens and if I want it to be good, I shoot the same set again with different apertures.
But the documentation says: "For prime lenses, shoot at (1 × minimum focus distance) and (5 × minimum focus distance) focus distance positions with a fixed f/11 aperture."
My problem here is to understand how I am supposed to shoot with different focus distances while using a fixed focal length lens?
As far as I have understood until now, I have to put the test chart fully on the picture so it fills something about 1/2 to 1/3 of the picture, leaving room everywhere. I also input the type of chart I used in the software.
If I do this, then moving the camera to say 5 times the first distance makes the second set of picture agaisnt the rules since obviously the test chart will show only much to small.
If I do it the other way around (first 5x then 1x min) then the second set will only show fractions of the chart.
As added difficulty I wonder how to handle macro lenses... the minimum focus distance there usually allows for a 1:1 magnification. That would either require a test chart total size (!) of less than 1/2 an inch (fun printing) or you would only get to see a fraction of a test-chart-square.
So how do I do it?

No, I am not confunsing these terms. I thought of it exactly as you described, but that seems not in sync with reality or guidance given - for the following reasons:
1. I do actually own a 35mm macro lens with minimal focus distance which I want to create a profile for. Minimum focus distance is 13cm with magnification 1:1. The latter means that the picture is completely filled by any object that is as big as the sensor. --> The full test chart needs to be less than 2cm small.
In that regard your example of a 400mm lens is the easy thing because of the 12 feet distance. Anything is easy to shoot from 4m aways as you can use normal charts.
2. As I described the guide says that the chart should fill about 50% of the picture and you should use one chart. Even in your example obviously the size of the chart on the picture will vary in a real big way if you shoot the same chart with a 400mm lens from 12 feet and from 60 feet. I just wonder if that is what is correct or one should choose a different chart for each distance (I dont believe that).

Subject Distance in EXIF Data

Now that LR 2.6 reads EXIF Subject Distance into the catalogue, does anyone know how this information can be added for images that have been imported using previous versions of LR?
Tony

Thanks Ian,
Read Metadata from File isn't the answer since doing this obliterates everything that has been added to the metadata since the original import, but does add the Subject Distance. I'm using RAW (NEF) files without xmp sidecars. If I save to xmp and then Read Metadata from File, it works. I just hoped there might be a simpler way to get the Subject Distance into the catalogue. I also have many jpg images in my catalogue (before I started shooting raw) and the xmp solution can't be applied to those, although I could save the metadata to the jpg files (I don't really want to do that either). I originally started with a Nikon D50 and those images have Subject Distance in their Exif data, so the information is there for all my images, I just need an easy way to get it into the catalogue.

Display subject distance in Lightroom metadata

The EXIF data in the Lightroom database includes SubjectDistance but this does not appear in the Metadata windows. It would be very handy if it was.
(forgive me if I have overlooked it).
(note: SubjectDistance is not recorded for all camera/lens combinations, eg 7D and Tamron does not)
As a further and natural extension, you could then easily calculate and display Depth of Field estimates (Near/Far limits and total DOF)

Digging deeper ...
The Lightroom database has a table called AgHarvestedEXIFData, which has columns for aperture, focal length etc but not subject distance.
There is also a table called agAdditionalMetadata. This has a column XMP which is xml format EXIF data etc, including <SubjectDistance>
So the data is in the database but not in the table which is used by the MetaData tab in the Default view option.
So why does it sometimes show for you?
The clue is the heading Shooting Info on your screenshot. I don't get that. However if I switch though to the EXIF option instead of Default the list of EXIF data fields changes, enough to make me think it is using different code. I think in some circumstances it is clever enough to extract the data from the XMP field and push it into this form. I picked up a few 'Shooting Info' threads in the forums, bemoaning the loss of this data too. Why sometimes and not others? It might be your camera model/lens/focus mode, but possibly did you shoot tethered?
Here is a sample of some of the XMP data - as you can see there is a lot of useful shooting information available but not accessible!
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2-c020 1.124078, Tue Sep 11 2007 23:21:40        ">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
   <tiff:Make>Canon</tiff:Make>
   <tiff:Model>Canon EOS 7D</tiff:Model>
   <tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
   <tiff:ImageWidth>5184</tiff:ImageWidth>
   <tiff:ImageLength>3456</tiff:ImageLength>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
   <exif:ExifVersion>0221</exif:ExifVersion>
   <exif:ExposureTime>1/160</exif:ExposureTime>
   <exif:ShutterSpeedValue>7321928/1000000</exif:ShutterSpeedValue>
   <exif:FNumber>5/1</exif:FNumber>
   <exif:ApertureValue>4643856/1000000</exif:ApertureValue>
   <exif:ExposureProgram>3</exif:ExposureProgram>
   <exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>100</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
   <exif:DateTimeOriginal>2010-12-30T15:56:15.83+13:00</exif:DateTimeOriginal>
   <exif:DateTimeDigitized>2010-12-30T15:56:15.83+13:00</exif:DateTimeDigitized>
   <exif:ExposureBiasValue>0/1</exif:ExposureBiasValue>
   <exif:MaxApertureValue>4625/1000</exif:MaxApertureValue>
   <exif:SubjectDistance>317/100</exif:SubjectDistance>
   <exif:MeteringMode>5</exif:MeteringMode>
   <exif:Flash rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <exif:Fired>False</exif:Fired>
    <exif:Return>0</exif:Return>
    <exif:Mode>2</exif:Mode>
    <exif:Function>False</exif:Function>
    <exif:RedEyeMode>False</exif:RedEyeMode>
   </exif:Flash>
   <exif:FocalLength>70/1</exif:FocalLength>
   <exif:CustomRendered>0</exif:CustomRendered>
   <exif:ExposureMode>0</exif:ExposureMode>
   <exif:WhiteBalance>0</exif:WhiteBalance>
   <exif:SceneCaptureType>0</exif:SceneCaptureType>
   <exif:FocalPlaneXResolution>5184000/907</exif:FocalPlaneXResolution>
   <exif:FocalPlaneYResolution>3456000/595</exif:FocalPlaneYResolution>
   <exif:FocalPlaneResolutionUnit>2</exif:FocalPlaneResolutionUnit>
   <exif:PixelXDimension>5184</exif:PixelXDimension>
   <exif:PixelYDimension>3456</exif:PixelYDimension>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
   <xap:ModifyDate>2010-12-30T15:56:15.83+13:00</xap:ModifyDate>
   <xap:CreateDate>2010-12-30T15:56:15.83+13:00</xap:CreateDate>
   <xap:MetadataDate>2010-12-30T19:48:23.959-13:00</xap:MetadataDate>
   <xap:Rating>2</xap:Rating>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
   <dc:creator>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>Paul Willyams</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </dc:creator>
   <dc:rights>
    <rdf:Alt>
     <rdf:li xml:lang="x-default">Copyright Paul Willyams</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Alt>
   </dc:rights>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/">
   <aux:SerialNumber>670502410</aux:SerialNumber>
   <aux:LensInfo>28/1 135/1 0/0 0/0</aux:LensInfo>
   <aux:Lens>EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM</aux:Lens>
   <aux:LensID>178</aux:LensID>
   <aux:ImageNumber>0</aux:ImageNumber>
<aux:ApproximateFocusDistance>317/100</aux:ApproximateFocusDistance>
   <aux:FlashCompensation>0/1</aux:FlashCompensation>
   <aux:Firmware>1.1.0</aux:Firmware>
</rdf:Description>
etc

CS6 Bridge "Not Displaying Subject Distance Information in Exif Data"

In Bridge CS5 the "Subject Distance" information is displayed for Zoom lenses which report distance information, under the Camera Data (Exif) panel.
In Bridge CS6 either 64 or 32 bit, no "Subject Distance" information is displayed for the same files, which report this information under CS5 bridge.
I have checked that the "Subject Distance" is checked and turned on under the preferences section. Not sure if the data is either not being read or just not being displayed.

Thanks Ian,
Read Metadata from File isn't the answer since doing this obliterates everything that has been added to the metadata since the original import, but does add the Subject Distance. I'm using RAW (NEF) files without xmp sidecars. If I save to xmp and then Read Metadata from File, it works. I just hoped there might be a simpler way to get the Subject Distance into the catalogue. I also have many jpg images in my catalogue (before I started shooting raw) and the xmp solution can't be applied to those, although I could save the metadata to the jpg files (I don't really want to do that either). I originally started with a Nikon D50 and those images have Subject Distance in their Exif data, so the information is there for all my images, I just need an easy way to get it into the catalogue.

My shooting setup

Hi all
Well after reading through this forum it seems there is a lot of information about how many images should be shot etc. so I thought I would share my setup as I seem to be embarking on a bit of a mission. I need to be really accurate, as the images will be used in photogrammetry, so I am being as scientific as I can be. The camera is a Canon 1ds Mark II, and I have these lenses:
28mm
50mm
85mm
24-105mm
24-85mm
70-200mm
8mm fisheye
I have a small studio of approx 16ft in length.
Primes:
close-up focus distance: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
mid focus distance: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
far focus distance: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
Zooms:
close-up focus distance, widest zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
close-up focus distance, mid zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
close-up focus distance, tele zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
mid focus distance, widest zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
mid focus distance, mid zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
mid focus distance, tele zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
far focus distance, widest zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
far focus distance, mid zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
far focus distance, tele zoom: 9 x chart positions, 1 stop aperture increments
Now, not only do I have my work cut out for me, but I doubt I have the space needed. What I would like to know is are all the focus distances really needed? I guess giving how exact we need our profiles to be it is in fact a requirement? Also I thing getting smaller grids will be needed for some of the telephoto and close-up shots seeing as I dont have a huge amount of room?
Any thoughts will be appreciated.
Elliot

Hi Elliot, the first potential big timesaver is to check if the Adobe-supplied profiles work well on your system. For example, with the public Camera Raw 6.2 Release Candidate and Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate (posted last night), Adobe has Canon lens profiles for all 50 mm lenses except the f/2.5 compact macro, both 85 mm lenses, the 24-105 zoom, and all 70-200 lenses. If these do work well for you, then that takes care of 4 of your 7 listed lenses, including two zooms (which are more time consuming to profile).
Regarding focus distance: yes, it does matter, but only if you shoot in those conditions. For example, if you never use your 28 mm at minimum focus distance, then it's not worth profiling it at that distance. Consider doing just 2, or maybe even just 1 focus distance.
When we build profiles internally at Adobe for broad distribution, we really can't assume how a lens will be used (i.e., we can't go around saying, "don't use this lens at minimum focus distance ... !"), so we need to cover the bases and build thorough profiles that will work well under a broad range of field & studio conditions. But for profiles that you're building for your own use, this is not necessarily the case.

Is it possible to view photos on a computer screen immediately after while I'm shooting.

Is it possible to view photos on a computer screen immediately after while I'm shooting? I have the cord to attach camera to laptop, but have not been able to view until I do a download. My camera is a Rebel XT 350D.
Thanks Terri

It is possible. I do it at every shoot I do that involves big groups because the bigger screen (17" laptop) shows whether everyone is in a good pose.
It is called "tethered capture". I use Adobe Light Room 5. Attach a USB cable, start LR and select Tethered Capture. From there it is automatic and everything the camera sees, your laptop does. This method, which may not be the only way, also saves a copy to my laptop.
There are also powered USB cables which allow you to move the laptop up to 70 feet away. If that was needed of course but active USB cable are good for shorter distances because they are more error free and very fast.
BTW, LR5 is a pretty nice post processing, professional level, program for the rest of your image requirements.
EOS 1Ds Mk III, EOS 1D Mk IV EF 50mm f1.2 L, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L,
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO
Photoshop CS6, ACR 8.7, Lightroom 5.7

Shooting distance in LR 5

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for