Standardizing Beamshots on CPF

just some food for thought, if not a whole new movement to get behind!

Why don't members on CPF standardize their beamshots?

like if everyone used the same settings on their camera, same distance up from the floor, same distance away from the wall, same-ish white wall... then theoretically you could compare different peoples beamshots against each other, right? at least to a good degree.

so what do people think about agreeing on settings and the beamshot pic method, and if you use it you can note "CPF Standard Beamshots" or something, then people will know you can compare to other standard shots. seems like itd be much more useful, without a lot more work for the generous people taking beamshots.

or maybe im missing somethin here.

:thinking:

p.s. also, what are the best references and tutorials on how to take beamshots?

Well... the no brainer reply is that not everyone has the same/identical camera setup.

Maybe I am in the minority, but I still find non-standard shots useful so long as beams are photographed with a reference (something fairly common) light source.

right, but i think with the right positioning, and f-stop and exposure and all that jazz, should turn out kinda the same? maybe not, im a total n00b on the camera front...

It might not give comparable beam shoots anyway, not all cameras process the picture in the same way and different shades of white walls will also affect the picture.

The most I ask for is that there's a fairly common frame of reference in the shots and that the camera settings/post processing try to match as closely as possible what is actually seen with the naked eye.

theres that 4 square image with the red blue green and white boxes, that seems pretty useful to include at the bottom corner of the frame when you take a pic...

You are right. You are a total n00b . Jokes aside, HKJ hit the nail on the head in that different cameras at the same settings will produce different results with the same subject. Key to what you are asking is a standard beamshot location or area, perhaps even a blackened room with dimensions called out. However, you lose the creative freedom you have when setting up a session. No way am I going to be pigeonholed into a haphazard standard when I feel my beamshots tell a story unique unto themselves. See my latest session in Beamshots: Aeon vs. Microlight II vs. H30-Q5 vs. 3SD Q5 vs. 1S R2.

Heh, I can barely press the photo capture button to take a photo. With regards to f-stop, exposure time, etc I'd be totally lost.

adamlau said:

You are right. You are a total n00b . Jokes aside, HKJ hit the nail on the head in that different cameras at the same settings will produce different results with the same subject. Key to what you are asking is a standard beamshot location or area, perhaps even a blackened room with dimensions called out. However, you lose the creative freedom you have when setting up a session. No way am I going to be pigeonholed into a haphazard standard when I feel my beamshots tell a story unique unto themselves. See my latest session in Beamshots: Aeon vs. Microlight II vs. H30-Q5 vs. 3SD Q5 vs. 1S R2.

Click to expand...

That is pure artwork buddy ! Very nice beamshots indeed :thumbsup:

what about just general guidelines then? what do people like and not like? what are great examples of beamshots?

i like the side-by-side and the 6 all together in a big rectangle and even the animated gif. i like the R/G/B/White pic. i like outdoor shots etc.

If you used the same camera settings for all flashlights, then beamshots of keychain lights would just be completely black, and shots of HID/spotlights would be completely white..

I think the best you can do is make sure you manually lock in your settings when you do your own comparative beamshots, but even this takes a well-above-average camera which not everyone has.

Ideally if you do a whitewall beam profile, then you should also do an outdoor profile. And where more than one flashlight is involved, also do ceiling bounce/area photos. I've considered doing color rendition/depth photos, but this gets tricky since there's no definitive way to do a baseline picture, and there's the whole lottery issue of the LED anyway.. I'm including a brief color rendition photo comparo in an upcoming review, we'll see how it goes..

You gotta remember here that we are flashlight freaks for the most part, not necessarily camera freaks. I don't even know how to work a camera. In fact, all i have is that silly camera phone.

You have good ideas here but i think that this will be a hard thing to standardize with the equipment that some may have.

problem is, not every one HAS a camera capable of manual settings, even if they can operate one.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/197358

i did that entirely on a 2mp cell phone camera.

I think, we should standardise by using some kind of super accesible light that every one can get very easily, internationally. That way, you can always do comparisons, and still have a great general idea on what the beam is like.

Crenshaw

I would consider myself an amateur photographer, and I shoot with a $1500 camera body and about $3000 in different lenses. So its expensive to get into. The main problem is that there is such a wide range in output, from .3 lumens to 4000 plus. We could make brackets for lights, like 0-50 lumens, 50-200, 200-500, 500-2000, and up. but that takes a lot of time to figure out what a median exposure would be for each group. we'd have to set up each shot the same, f stop, aperture, white balance, and ISO would all have to be the same for each bracket. Not all cameras have control over all these variables. The theres distance from a wall. 10' might be pushing it for a microlight, but and HID would have no problem. Its a really good idea in theory, but in practice it would be hard to do. Thats why beamshots on a certain Chinese website all look almost the same. So for now, comparison beamshots are almost always best.

Crenshaw said:

[P]roblem is, not every one HAS a camera capable of manual settings...

Click to expand...

It is not all in the camera, folks. I am of the notion that the post-processing of images is where the art in revealing beamshots lies.

StarHalo said:

I'm including a brief color rendition photo comparo..

Click to expand...

Just snap a control shot including an X-Rite ColorChecker. For the record, my monitors are calibrated with an i1Display 2. Want to see the effects of a calibrated monitor? If you have any of the following systems, you can download and give these standardized (6500 K, gamma 2.2, 120 (LCD), or 90 (laptop) luminescence) ICC profiles a try. Although specific to the conditions of my systems (test your system for ICC v4 compliance), they can be useful in giving you a general idea of how a calibrated monitor looks and feels:

iMac7,1 (20"): X-RiteiMac71LUTv4.icc | X-RiteiMac71Matrixv4.icc
ThinkPad T42 (15"): X-RiteT42LUTv4.icc | X-RiteT42Matrixv4.icc
ThinkPad T60 (15.4"): X-RiteT60LUTv4.icc | X-RiteT60Matrixv4.icc
Samsung 906cw (19"): X-Rite906cwLUTv4.icc | X-Rite906cwMatrixv4.icc | X-Rite906cwMatrixv2.icc
Gateway M-1617 (15.4"): X-RiteM1617Matrixv4.icc | X-RiteM1617Matrixv2.icc
ViewSonic P225f (21"): X-RiteP225fLUTv4.icc
Dell 2407WFP (24"): X-Rite2407WFPLUTv4.icc - Coming Soon

The reasons have already been outlined as to why standardization can't really work in the real world but I don't think we're lacking because of those limitations either.

If beamshots are done correctly and with several examples, all of the comparison needed will exist within that set of shots. We only need to capture relative performance and nothing else. I've rarely been left feeling like I don't have a grasp of relative beam performance after viewing a spread of well thought out beamshots.

Patriot36 said:

The reasons have already been outlined as to why standardization can't really work in the real world but I don't think we're lacking because of those limitations either.

If beamshots are done correctly and with several examples, all of the comparison needed will exist within that set of shots. We only need to capture relative performance and nothing else. I've rarely been left feeling like I don't have a grasp of relative beam performance after viewing a spread of well thought out beamshots.

Click to expand...

x2... relative performance (A / B comparison) is the key for me.

It is actually possible to have standardized beam shots to some extent as long as a few parameters are kept same. Example
1) The White Wall - Should be as white as possible
2) Distance of flashlight from the White Wall - 1 Meter (Like the known norm to take Lux @ 1 M)
3) Camera Settings (does not matter which camera you have) as long as it can shoot in manual mode, things should be fine. We can collectively standardize this as F/2.8, ISO 100 and Shutter speed to be varying (say from 1/1000 to 1 sec) white balance set to none (NOT AUTO) or FL with Lens set at 35 mm Shooting in RAW would be best (without any post processing)

Please note that given same settings of two different cameras the images will highly depend on the camera sensor. But at the same time, manufacturers (typically high end cameras) try to ensure that for a given Aperture and Shutter speed, your pictures will look almost the same.

In short, it's possible but to some extent.

Commenting on beam shots,.........I my case, I find very little value or usefulness in those white wall shots where you see a bright circle compared to another bright circle. I learn very little from these. I need to see how lights compare under normal use and this means using your own environment as a backdrop.....as a result it is hard to standardize this process. For me, the best beam shots on here are those that show lights in the real world being used as you would expect them to be.

Althought I can appreciate how much hard work it can be to do these white wall beamshots..................Personally I dont find them useful........The only beamshots that mean anything to me are ones that may represent a situation where a flashlight is being used other than to inspect the paint.


Edit: Ok what I have found useful is the really stepped down exposures that make the lights look dim, and easy to compare for throw.......