<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Jason Tomczak &#187; Photography</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jasontomczak.com/tag/photography/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jasontomczak.com</link>
	<description>Technology, Photography, Miscellanea</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:36:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Round Edges on Images. Not a Magnolia.</title>
		<link>http://jasontomczak.com/2008/05/29/round-edges-on-images-not-a-magnolia/</link>
		<comments>http://jasontomczak.com/2008/05/29/round-edges-on-images-not-a-magnolia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 01:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JasonTomczak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photos & Images]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flowers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magnolia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jasontomczak.com/?p=28</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I took a few photos this last weekend. I figured I&#8217;d run them through roundpic.com to see how they look with rounded edges. Here&#8217;s one sample &#8211; it&#8217;s a Kousa Dogwood. Square Edges: Rounded Edges: The rounded edges are pretty &#8230; <a href="http://jasontomczak.com/2008/05/29/round-edges-on-images-not-a-magnolia/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I took a few photos this last weekend.  I figured I&#8217;d run them through <a href="http://www.roundpic.com/">roundpic.com</a> to see how they look with rounded edges.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s one sample &#8211; it&#8217;s a  <b>Kousa Dogwood</b>.</p>
<p>Square Edges:<br />
<a href="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20080529/Not-a-Magnolia-IMG_8887.jpg"><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20080529/Not-a-Magnolia-IMG_8887-600-square-edges.jpg" class="reflex iopacity40 itiltnone iborder1 icolor000000 iheight18"></a></p>
<p>Rounded Edges:<br />
<a href="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20080529/Not-a-Magnolia-IMG_8887.jpg"><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20080529/Not-a-Magnolia-IMG_8887-600-round-edges.jpg" class="reflex iopacity40 itiltnone iborder0 icolor000000 iheight18"></a></p>
<p>The rounded edges are pretty cool.  It gives a different feel and adds more character. Check out <a href="http://www.roundpic.com/">roundpic.com</a> to test out your own image.  The only downside I noticed with using roundpic.com is that it can strip Adobe color profiles from images causing colors to be slightly different.  Check the two images above and you&#8217;ll see the correct color profile in the squared version (if your browser recognizes color profiles; Safari does), and stripped color profile in the rounded version.  Oh well. Maybe 2.0 will solve this little side-effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jasontomczak.com/2008/05/29/round-edges-on-images-not-a-magnolia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Renaming Images Based on EXIF Data</title>
		<link>http://jasontomczak.com/2008/02/13/renaming-images-based-on-exif-data/</link>
		<comments>http://jasontomczak.com/2008/02/13/renaming-images-based-on-exif-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JasonTomczak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mac Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EXIF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renaming photos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jasontomczak.com/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I take a lot of photographs. Thousands per year. I&#8217;ve been keeping them on DVD and on hard drives for years, but recently I noticed an odd thing &#8211; the &#8220;date created&#8221; and &#8220;date modified&#8221; reported in Finder have been &#8230; <a href="http://jasontomczak.com/2008/02/13/renaming-images-based-on-exif-data/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I take a lot of photographs.  Thousands per year.  I&#8217;ve been keeping them on DVD and on hard drives for years, but recently I noticed an odd thing &#8211; the &#8220;date created&#8221; and &#8220;date modified&#8221; reported in Finder have been wrong.  Not just a little wrong, like a day or two off, but upwards of four years off, sometimes with no logical correlation to the original shoot date.  I&#8217;ve pulled some images into Windows Explorer to see if it&#8217;d report proper &#8220;creation&#8221; dates, but it did not.</p>
<p>This creates a problem for me because I like to keep images sorted by date.  And unfortunately, my file naming practices have changed over the years.  I used to name files by event, like &#8220;Dallas BBQ &#8211; IMG 0001.JPG&#8221;.  Useless for sorting by date.  At one point, I added the date into the file name, but at the end.  Also useless.  Then I stopped renaming and left the file as named by the camera, like &#8220;IMG_7538.JPG&#8221;.  That&#8217;s great, but when I upgrade cameras, the file names often start over at IMG_0001, and I certainly don&#8217;t want my new images to replace my existing files!  Imagine 35,000 photos with inconsistent file names, then imagine them with <i>incorrect file data</i>.  When the file info is screwy, the sorting and organizing becomes a hellish nightmare.  Not even iPhoto can organize things properly.</p>
<p>Allow me to introduce the little application that saved my sanity &#8211; ExifRenamer.  It&#8217;s a simple app &#8211; terribly simple &#8211; but it solved all my image renaming problems in a matter of seconds.  ExifRenamer looks at the Exif data stored in your digital photos (date shot, for example) and renames the files based on that Exif data.  In my case, I wanted ExifRenamer to add the exact shoot date as a file name prefix, then use the existing file name as a suffix.  So &#8220;<b>IMG_8399.JPG</b>&#8221; instantly becomes &#8220;<b>20071108 14-21-06 &#8211; IMG_8399.JPG</b>&#8221; with down-to-the-second accuracy.</p>
<p>Check out this little video clip wherein I run some of my images through ExifRenamer.  You&#8217;ll see how fast it works, but pay particular attention to the &#8220;Date Modified&#8221; column.  Finder says these images were Created On and Modified On December 4, <i>2007</i>.  Bull-honkey.  Check the proper output from ExifRenamer.  <i>2003, 2004 and 200-frikin-5</i>!</p>
<p>The best part about <a href="http://www.qdev.de/?location=mac/exifrenamer" target="_blank">ExifRenamer</a>&#8230; it&#8217;s free.  Check <a href="http://versiontracker.com" target="_blank">versiontracker.com</a> for the most up-to-date download.</p>
<p><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" width="600" height="440" id="flash_video" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /><param name="movie" value="http://jasontomczak.com/video/exif_renamer.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#aaaaaa" /><embed src="http://jasontomczak.com/video/exif_renamer.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#aaaaaa" width="600" height="440" name="flash_video" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jasontomczak.com/2008/02/13/renaming-images-based-on-exif-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Quick &amp; Easy White Box (Light Box) for Product Photography</title>
		<link>http://jasontomczak.com/2007/12/17/a-quick-easy-white-box-light-box-for-product-photography/</link>
		<comments>http://jasontomczak.com/2007/12/17/a-quick-easy-white-box-light-box-for-product-photography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JasonTomczak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Light Box]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Product Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White Box]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jasontomczak.com/2008/01/10/a-quick-easy-white-box-light-box-for-product-photography/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I thought I&#8217;d post a little photography-based tip for those who are interested. It&#8217;s how I built an inexpensive but very effective white box (or light box) for white-background photography. After searching numerous websites for suggestions on white boxes, I &#8230; <a href="http://jasontomczak.com/2007/12/17/a-quick-easy-white-box-light-box-for-product-photography/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought I&#8217;d post a little photography-based tip for those who are interested.  It&#8217;s how I built an inexpensive but very effective white box (or light box) for white-background photography. After searching numerous websites for suggestions on white boxes, I was left pretty disappointed.  The cardboard box suggestions were the worst.  They resulted in sloppy contraptions that gave awful color integrity.</p>
<p>At long last, I found a short mention of using white foamboard from Office Depot (Staples, whatever).  Desperate, I went with that suggestion and was very pleasantly surprised with the results.  I bought several 2&#8242; x 3&#8242; sheets of white foamboard &#8211; five in total.  The foamboard&#8217;s ultra-white surface has the wonderful ability to gently disperse light.  The foamboard is also very rigid and makes it easy to construct a 5 sided box that doesn&#8217;t get wobbly or weak.</p>
<p>I used a full-sized sheet of foamboard for the bottom surface.  I cut 2&#8242; x 2.5&#8242; squares from two foamboard sheets and used them for the left and right sides.  A 2&#8242; x 2&#8242; square was used for the back of the box and a 2&#8242; x 2.5&#8242; sheet for the top.  Standard masking tape was used to affix the boards together and create the standing box.   I would have preferred to use white duct tape or white masking tape, but neither Home Depot nor Office Depot had any in stock.</p>
<p>The slightly-longer bottom extends out from the box for a little more white runway in angled photos. I then used a razor knife to carefully cut several flaps in the top of the box for properly angled lights.  These flaps can be opened or closed, depending on what angle I want light to shine.  Cutting holes (and not flaps) is discouraged, because it causes a permanent light drain, inhibits internal reflection and, if you&#8217;re shooting anything highly-reflective (like glass, bottles, etc.), the dark hole will show up as an annoying artifact on your object. </p>
<p><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20071217/IMG_7504_light_box.jpg" border="1" /></p>
<p>To reduce the inevitable horizon line from the bottom joint of foamboard sheets, I used a couple sheets of ultra-white paper taped to the backboard of the box, with a sloping angle, then taped to the bottom foamboard sheet.</p>
<p><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20071217/drawing.jpg" border="1" /></p>
<p>As for lighting, I used three cheap articulating lamps from IKEA.  They cost $8 each.  They&#8217;re awesome because the insides of the lamps are coated in bright white paint.  <strong>The key element in this setup is the actual light bulbs.</strong>  Standard incandescent bulbs cast a terrible orange glow that can ruin shots.  I opted for bulbs that had near-perfect light.  They&#8217;re &#8220;daylight&#8221; CFL (compact florescent) bulbs that have a color temperature of about 5000 or 5500.  (Incandescent bulbs have color temps around 8000-9000 &#8211; way, way too orange for any decent photos.)</p>
<p><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20071217/IMG_7508_light_box.jpg" border="1" /></p>
<p>With the white box built and the bright white bulbs installed, I set up a tripod for some test shots.  Here are a few test results:</p>
<p><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20071217/IMG_7689_drill.jpg" border="1" /></p>
<p><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20071217/IMG_7694_bulb.jpg" border="1" /></p>
<p><img src="http://jasontomczak.com/images/20071217/IMG_7501_lens.jpg" border="1" /></p>
<p>Not too shabby.  Certainly better than white sheets, white felt, white linoleum or goofy cloth-style pop-up photo tents.</p>
<p>P.S.  I found that placing a thin sheet of clear plexiglas on the bottom of the white box helps create a neat reflection under certain objects, similar to the drop reflection common to Apple&#8217;s product photos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jasontomczak.com/2007/12/17/a-quick-easy-white-box-light-box-for-product-photography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
