Worn Down Soul
Well-known member
I REALLY appreciate that!!!
-
Maintenance has completed. Please post here any issues you experience. https://mrnice.nl/forum/forums/support-forum.92/
Tips on taking better photos
- Thread starter lozac123
- Start date
Uncle Jack
Well-known member
I heard an interesting point about post-processing the other day.
Sports photographers who use jpeg do no post processing.
I thought Paky's idea of taking a photo at lights out was a nice work around, and one that is very uncomplicated.
Obviously not a new idea but still a good one.
Taking the plants out and placing them in front of a black backdrop, using directional lighting and portrait settings would be the purists way of doing it.
Minimal post processing please.
I would rather look at images that represent reality, in preference to a dolled up image.
To each their own though.
I also prefer people without lipstick and makeup.
Nature boy.
Sports photographers who use jpeg do no post processing.
I thought Paky's idea of taking a photo at lights out was a nice work around, and one that is very uncomplicated.
Obviously not a new idea but still a good one.
Taking the plants out and placing them in front of a black backdrop, using directional lighting and portrait settings would be the purists way of doing it.
Minimal post processing please.
I would rather look at images that represent reality, in preference to a dolled up image.
To each their own though.
I also prefer people without lipstick and makeup.
Nature boy.
longball
'21, '23 COE Winner
Source? Most sports photographers shoot in RAW file format and post process that. Sports photographers shooting in jpeg format? No post processing? It would be very helpful if I could read the source article. And see some of those pictures.
Paky did use a light. On-camera flash, the worst, harshest light you can possibly use and one that is very uncomplicated. His picture was also out of focus and he asked what was wrong with out of focus pictures. I'd be very cautious about following his photographic methods. In the original post the OP mentioned that he was a perfectionist looking to learn how to take better pictures. I am confident he is quite capable of taking out of focus pictures in the dark already. Let's stay on track with the OP and give him good information.
There is a good reason why you rarely see these types of pictures in professional magazines. Would you mind posting up a couple of your pictures as an example, Uncle Jack? It is always a good idea to follow up comments with sources and pictures otherwise they are just personal opinions that......well, you know... Trust is good but Trust and Verify is even better. Let's stay on track with the OP and give him good sources of information.
Yes, minimal post processing at least. The need for post processing was realized to be needed about 5 minutes after the first picture was taken in 1816. Nicephore Niepce They had taken a picture(negative), but, how to get a photograph out of this for people to enjoy? They started using chemicals for post processing. This process is still used in August of 2024. I have a few professional photographer friends who use 35mm film SLR cameras. Film photographs are some of the most heavily post processed images you will ever see. The negative is useless until it is post processed(developed).
This rather 'simple' black and white photograph of Albert Schweitzer taken by W. Eugene Smith in 1954 for a Life magazine story took 5 days and nights of post processing to get the look desired. Source: Smith Post Processing. At the time, Smith and Ansel Adams produced some of the most heavily post processed pictures known to man. That is part of the reason why they were known as the best photographers. They did the best post processing. And yes, they were great photographers also. They used a post processing technique called dodging and burning. In 1950 Ansel Adams wrote a book - Basic Photo Book 3, The Print: Contact Printing and Enlarging which features dodging and burning prominently, in the context of his Zone System.
5 days and nights of post processing for this. I have to think Smith and Adams would love photo editing software. It could still take a couple days though - without chemicals!!!
As a camera does not see like a human eye it can't truly reflect reality. Post processing brings you a more realistic picture, closer to what your eye actually saw when you took the picture. My eyes see in 3D but the camera takes a 2D image. That is not reflecting the reality I see. Try as I might, I can only see in 3D. I can use some camera settings and some post processing to create a depth of field but it is not truly 3D. The bud in my hand is in 3D, the image I just took of it is not reflecting the reality of the subject. It is a nice image but in reality the bud does not look like that to my eyes.
Another huge problem with cameras(but a bit better with digital) is cameras seeing shadows as black. My eye can see everything clearly in a shadow or low light situation, but the camera sees black. The camera is not reflecting reality. You want reality here? Then post process your picture. Nowadays Photographers view a digital image as the new negative. It needs to be developed in photo editing software for best results. Many software packages have a page called 'developer'. That is the new darkroom. As a play on words it is called Lightroom.
This picture was taken right at sunset. For the human eye it is still quite bright out and things are very clearly seen. A time called 'Civil Twilight'. Still bright enough to finish your game of soccer, or yard work, etc. A camera does not reflect this reality that my eyes see. Here is what a camera sees. The camera has captured much more light than you see in the image but the camera software does not allow you to see it. These bushes were not pitch black. My eyes could see every leaf. Hopefully no sports photographers shooting jpeg and not post processing were here waiting for surfers to come by.
Photo editing software is much better at reading the data that the camera captured. We should know that an image is stored as a file. Lets say a jpeg file. What does a file contain? Data! Not just the data image you see but data the camera's image did not reproduce. A jpeg file also has data such as the Mode you used, Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, focal length, size, camera, if flash was used, etc. The camera did capture all the data of leafs on the plants, the camera did not know how to process that data. The first picture reflects reality as the camera saw it. Doesn't a camera capture reality perfectly? No. Cameras lie!
This 'fake'(post processed) picture reflects the reality that my eyes actually saw. Like W. Eugene Smith and Ansel Adams before me, I'll take the 'fake' picture every time. I suspect that I could have brightened up the foreground a bit more but it was only the second picture I'd ever post processed. After 20 minutes I was tired of that shit! lol
This picture reflects the reality my eyes saw not the perfectly exact reality the camera saw. I don't like 'dolled up' pictures. I do like to see pictures reflecting a reality my eyes see. I see a lot of 'dolled up' pictures on this site. Some even win contests, so clearly our members enjoy 'dolled up' pictures because they vote for them.
Longball.
Last edited:
Worn Down Soul
Well-known member
I had a strong feeling that you would have some thoughts on that. I can appreciate the sentiment of liking things in the rawest format possible, but it certainly seems like there is a huge gulf between `the level of refinement demonstrated by the before and after of your beach shots and say... pictures of plants, that you are allegedly buying seeds for, as sold by Chinese companies on Ebay, that are obviously so edited that you might as well be hoping to grow a big mac. It seems like though the arrival of the ultra-artificial barrage of AI imagery will have a certain backlash in the form of devotees of the gritty, who want to know that they are savoring something real.
You know the source though LB; I'm a rank amateur at best. Just trying to conceptualize the perspective.
longball
'21, '23 COE Winner
Well, WDS, I certainly get the analogy of the seeds and Big Mac. You see a beautiful picture of what you think you will be buying. Pictures themselves have been altered and manipulated since the first picture. The famous Schweitzer picture was manipulated for 5 days. No way was it the reality of the second the picture was taken. Was that manipulation of reality artificial intelligence? Or just intelligence?
During the 25 year period I didn't take pictures, Photoshop came out. It immediately gave Photography a black eye. Take a picture of one of my buds and put it on Trump's body as a head and you know it's fake(I hope). But that is Art, not Photography. Take 2 pictures that are not yours, 'sew' them together using software, and you have Art! But it was called fake Photography. It is not Photography at all as a camera is not needed. Only a computer and Photoshop software. As a rule of thumb Photoshop is used to create Art, Lightroom is used by Photographers to fully develop photographic files. While you can use either software for either purpose, it is easier to use the right tool for the right job.
The beach picture's above, I could look at them and remember a vacation of blackness and wish I could of taken better pictures. Or I could develop the pictures in Lightroom and see the vacation pictures as I remember the vacation. It is a lot more fun looking at pictures of the things I had seen on my vacation than looking at things I did not see on my vacation and trying to remember. While photographs do not quite capture reality, over time they are more reliable than your memory! lol Hang on while I smoke some more dope.
I am certainly no Photography expert. I recently completed a 16 week DSLR Photography and Post Processing class. The important thing is that I am willing to share the good, accurate, knowledge that I am learning from Professional DSLR Photographers. I was asked to stay in touch with people and I have. Most know I'm a roadie and see me also setting up video equipment on stage and taking my own pics and so trust me to handle theirs. As I can't quite do all the roadie things I used to do because of a bad wing, I have offered up similar services to some Professional Photographers that I know. For the time being I have offered up my services for free in exchange for free photographic knowledge. 2 mostly do weddings, portraits, corporate headshots, and 2 do a lot of concerts and nature. Hannah Zel Photography. In post #39 is a picture of her daughter Hazel, missing two front teeth, that I took. As always, portraits are taken in 'Manual' mode.
Frankie Cavone of Mirth Films. Frankie has contracts with all the music venues to photograph and videograph performances. He also has a contracts with Cities and corporations in the area. Surprised no pics of him as I have been at his house the most. Usually we are too busy, but I have appeared in a few of his films.
Lance Luther Photography. I took this portrait of Lance on 'practice portraits' day. It was done using an effect called 'clamshell' lighting. If interested, click on the link. If you want to learn how to use your DSLR, get used to watching YT video's and clicking on links. There are dozens of lighting setups for portraits, all with different names so you know what to ask for. Different lighting setups are used for each type of portrait. Generally 2 lights are used for a clamshell portrait. Here I used one light, above and slightly in front of him. Lance is also holding a reflector(our 2nd 'light') and trying to aim the diffused light from above under his chin. It took us a few tries. Generally, clamshell lighting creates stronger chin and cheek bones. Light coming both ways also minimizes wrinkles. Clamshell lighting is also a good portrait choice for men. As it is a portrait, it was shot in manual mode, as all portraits are. Aperture was f/7.1. 7.1-8 produce the clearest photos which is what you want in portraits or corporate headshots. Shutter speed 1/200 of a second. And the ISO is? If you guessed 100, you rock!
Lance Luther portrait, clamshell lighting. The picture was run through Lightroom. The background had been a black sheet with a million wrinkles in it. You really saw them and they were really ugly so a smooth black background was put in it's place. Now you can focus on the subject which was not altered. Photo editing software can be a great help. This background looks much better than that sheet did. If I did not mention the black background would you have called this a 'fake' photo? Is it a 'fake' photo?
Also been doing some shooting with Dylan Mackenzie. Dylan is so knowledgeable, and so willing to share it freely. Here, I took a picture of Dylan taking a pic of the band Glass Pony. They play in my yard a lot. Dylan was not in my way, I wanted to shoot a shooter shooting. Afterwards, looking at the pics I remembered that Zak Raddick, a Professional Photographer was there. I should have asked him to take a pic of me shooting Dylan and have a picture of a shooter shooting a shooter shooting. The heat was killing Zak. He spent most of the time hiding in the shade.
As Greg did not fit in the photo we'll give him a freebie. As this was a practice run, this picture was shot in Shutter priority mode at 1/200th of a second. One of the most common shutter speeds. With that shutter setting and the ISO setting, the camera chose an aperture setting of f/10 with the 52mm prime lens. Part of this was due to the ISO setting of....any guesses? ISO - 800.
Hopefully I can provide some useful DSLR information through links, sources, photos with explanations to help someone understand how to take better photographs with their DSLR camera. About time to get back to @lozac123 original questions unless he has figured it out already. He already takes nice pictures but he is a perfectionist. I like that!
"I had a strong feeling that you would have some thoughts on that." Well, @Worn Down Soul, we chatted before so you knew I'm not about to let someone piss on my leg and tell me it's raining out! People do overdo it using editing software. On this site there is a lot of oversaturation of color to make buds look oh-so-pretty. They look like fake shit to me. Sometimes poor vision or a degree of color blindness causes this. Someone here really oversaturates the colors regularly (giving Lightroom a bad name lol) and they posted such a colorful bud I said, "boy that looks fake! Luckily this is a grow site so everyone who grows knows buds don't look like that". Sure enough the likes start coming in and comments, "Such a beautiful bud, I've never seen a bud like that , you are one hell of a grower"! I'm thinking, 'Of course you've never seen a bud like that ya dumb fuck because they don't grow like that'. And you're a grower? Yeah, the bud was entered in the contest. And won. The grower is one of worse growers on the site but he is damn good with software.
One last thing. I am learning from weddings, bridal showers, and other social events, that you can get a special Album for a few more bucks. You also get to pick your favorite pictures for the album. I have never seen anyone yet to pick a single unedited picture. Every picture run though Lightroom looks more realistic and lifelike than unedited pictures. Isn't that what people want? Realistic looking pictures of that special day? Pictures that help them to relive that day? Well, that is what they are choosing. Choosing realistic over real! Easy enough for you to try yourself. It is quite difficult to take a perfect picture. Editing corrects what you did wrong. Ansel Adams realized that at a very young age. One of the most masterful post processors in history. Without post processing you may have never heard of him. Fascinating!
Longball
Worn Down Soul
Well-known member
Well written. To be clear though: I already agreed with the general sentiment. I'm just also willing to try to use other lenses from time to time, or maybe it is conceptual post processing? I know that there is a good photography pun in there somewhere. Thanks for being a conduit to good photographic information.
Just like punk rock or gonzo film making evolved in a reaction to what was seen as artifice. I could see people developing a taste for photographs with a more raw flavor.
I'm enjoying the hyperlinks. Keep them coming.
longball
'21, '23 COE Winner
Thank you, @Worn Down Soul! 
Be kind to your photographer because the power of editing is in their hands”
– Anonymous
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships”
– Ansel Adams
I sure wish I had thought of this tip when I was younger:
Be kind to your photographer because the power of editing is in their hands”
– Anonymous
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships”
– Ansel Adams
I sure wish I had thought of this tip when I was younger:
longball
'21, '23 COE Winner
Yes, learn how to use post production software to reproduce the 'picture' your eyes saw. Be it the free software from your camera manufacturer, Lightroom, or any other free/paid 3rd party photo editing software. You'll get what you pay for here. The camera is one of the biggest liars you will ever see and has no possibility of reproducing anything the way the eye sees it. Let's start with tonal imbalances, when part of the photo is lighter, part is darker, like your 3-D plant. The top of leaves will be brighter, underneath the leaves, shadows. Tonal imbalance. The camera will let you pick one to see clear. My eyes see the plant rather equally, my brain compensates for the difference of light and dark. I can see into shadows quite clearly. With the camera - pick one, expose for the brightness or expose for the shadows. The camera settings will not allow you to do both. This brings us to Ansel Adams - often considered one of the greatest photographers of all time partly due to his sense of tonal balance.
Ansel Adams and the 'Burning and Dodging Technique'. What is the Dodge and Burn Technique? The dodge and burn technique is used to lighten or darken areas of a photo. Dodging is used to lighten a spot on the photo, and burning is used to darken a particular area. You can use just about any shape or pattern for the specified area. Ansel Adams elevated dodging and burning to an art form. Many of his famous prints were manipulated in the darkroom with these two techniques. Adams wrote a comprehensive book on producing prints called The Print (Adams 1995), which features dodging and burning prominently, in the context of his Zone System.
Here is an original picture I took very recently. It was almost exactly one hour before sunset. The clouds are nice and white, the sky bright blue, and everything else is kinda pitch black according to what the camera is telling me. Do you really think with a sky that bright that my yard was pitch black? Do camera's lie? I could have exposed for the shadows but the sky would be a washed out white with no visible clouds.
A DSLR is a bit opposite of SLR when it comes to exposure. With a DSLR you expose for the brightness as it is easier to recover info from the shadows. Once something is overexposed/burned out, you can't recover it. At this point we are a little bit above my pay grade. The camera did record that the trees are green and that there is a garage in my yard. Somehow the software coders at the camera company don't retrieve the data the camera has stored. This is where photo editing software comes in. Those program coders know how to write a program to retrieve that data. I did not magically add a garage to the picture nor did I make the trees green. I did do some digital 'dodging and burning'. I believe the 'ground' things could be a little brighter but the sky is getting too bright. I don't have enough experience to perfect these things. Yet. The better you take a picture in camera then the less of this you have to do. This is the exact same photo shown above.
This is much closer to what I actually saw.
Dodging,burning...microwaving? A look inside Ansel Adams darkroom
This picture is a little too dark. Shutter speed set to 1/650th of a second. Not enough time for light to register.
Very easy fix. Learn photo editing software. Save your pictures! Don't let a simple mistake ruin your album.
I did cover all this in post #43 but it is important enough to repeat. @lozac123, any specific(one) question that you would like answered about how to take better pictures of your plants?
Afghan Haze #2
Longball
lozac123
Well-known member
So honestly longball, between yourself and the others that responded to my thread, most of my questions have been answered!
I am getting to the exciting part of my current grow, so I might take some photos over the next few weeks and maybe get some feedback/ comments for improving them.
As always thank you for the help/ advice!
longball
'21, '23 COE Winner
Worn Down Soul
Well-known member
Thank you for taking the time.Great! There is a lot of good information in this thread.
longball
'21, '23 COE Winner
"Knowledge not shared is knowledge wasted" - Anonymous
lozac123
Well-known member
Right @longball I am totally going to take you up on this offer now as I am fit to throw my camera through the room. A family member has gifted me a lense, a sigma APO DG 70-300mm. I am trying to get it to focus on macro, but I cannot for love nor money get it to focus up close.
Shooting something down the bottom of the garden, absolutely in focus. The beautiful bud infront of me, not so much.
I've tried auto focus, manual focus, different light settings, with flash, without, dark room, grow room where it's light.
Is it just that this lens doesn't suit macro or close up photography? It does have a setting on it, so I am assuming I can use it for macro shots?? Thanks man!
Attachments
Uncle Jack
Well-known member
Sorry for butting in but a google search produced this @lozac123
A tele macro function on a camera lens combines the capabilities of both telephoto and macro lenses. This hybrid design allows photographers to capture high-magnification images of small subjects from a relatively farther distance than traditional macro lenses.
A tele macro function on a camera lens combines the capabilities of both telephoto and macro lenses. This hybrid design allows photographers to capture high-magnification images of small subjects from a relatively farther distance than traditional macro lenses.
- Comfortable Shooting Distance: The telephoto aspect of the lens enables photographers to maintain a comfortable shooting distance, eliminating the need to get extremely close to the subject, as required with traditional macro lenses.
Last edited:
Uncle Jack
Well-known member
Wait for the longer, drawn out explanation though, just to be sure.
Last edited:
longball
'21, '23 COE Winner
The Sigma APO DG 70-300mm is not a true Macro lens but a telephoto lens. Great for closing in on wildlife or sporting events. The word Macro is on there to sell more cameras. You need to know what the numbers on the lens and in the manual mean. Then you know what the lens is good for. The numbers are there to make a good choice for your application. That lens, when set to macro, needs to be a least 5 feet away from your macro subject. That pretty much tells you it is not a true macro lens. Like other products meant to do many things, it doesn't do any of them very good.
If you see a lens with a magnification ratio of 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1 etc… it's a macro lens. If the magnification ratio is 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 etc… it's not a macro lens. Your lens magnification at 200mm is 1:2.9, at 300mm it's 1:2.0, not macro.
Here are a few short informative articles to help you better understand the lens and macro photography. They sure helped me.
Is the Sigma 70-300 DG Macro APO really that bad?
Sigma APO DG 70-300mm Macro Review
Macro Photography: Understanding Magnification (excellent)
Magnification rate and how to choose what's best for you (awesome for what you need for great DSLR trichome pics)
If you’re looking to explore the world of macro (close-up) photography but don’t want to invest in a dedicated macro lens, the Raynox DCR-250 macro snap-on lens is a perfect solution.
Raynox DCR-250 Macro Lens Review
Happy Shooting,
Longball
lozac123
Well-known member
@Uncle Jack Looking for input from anyone, you arent disrupting and you were right!
This explains so much, thank you @longball .
So now I am in flowering, and the plants look pretty nice already, I would love to take up a more pragmatic approach. I'll be extremely honest- I took your advice from the previous posts after harvesting the shark shock, got some great shots, and relaxed a bit in terms of practice. I now realise I've gotten pretty rusty at taking some shots of indoor plants, so I have some examples now.
So this time the camera wouldn't let me take the photo itself. Read online a touch and it seems like it wont take a photo unless it thinks the subject is in focus. Im still not 100% sure on that, as I have plenty of blurry pictures! However, I did move slightly futher back and it finally took some photos. This one was from the lights being on the normal setting for growth, but I found they were a bit dark, despite using flash:
Moved a bit closer with the next one, and it came out a bit better:
I felt that perhaps the tent was a bit dark, increased and I increased the brightness from my led to get the other photos below. I've tried using some post production software, but I didnt really find any settings made them pop out anymore than they already were. What post production settings would you recommend first? My next question is, to get those super close up delicious trichome pics, outside of buying a specific macro lens, would the snap on lens that you had suggested do a similar job? And then I suppose my final question is your pics look so insanely clear, and that is my main goal. I feel the photos below the tops are slightly out of focus, any tips for that?
Also, looking for some feedback on these pics too, if you have any comments/ feedback, please let me know, I won't take offence.
As always everyone, thank you for your advice and time!
Attachments
Like the polaroid lens that you might add to your existing lens, they do make magnifying versions of these tho the clarity is in question at the picture edges. Another option to consider are extension tubes. They get you closer to the subject and can provide clearer pictures when cropping. A dedicated macro lens is your best option and can be a good investment. Look for at least a 80mm so that you can maintain distance between you and the subject. A 100mm is best overall. For serious macro buffs a 200mm macro lens is the shitz but they are very costly. Like @longball sez, look for lenses that are closest to 1:1.
Your other questions have to do with depth of field and ISO. Your choice of focus can make a good or better photo. Flash and lighting is another important subject. Photostacking is a concept worth understanding. More learning! And as @longball also suggested earlier, photo editing software is a must for the serious photographer.
mu
Your other questions have to do with depth of field and ISO. Your choice of focus can make a good or better photo. Flash and lighting is another important subject. Photostacking is a concept worth understanding. More learning! And as @longball also suggested earlier, photo editing software is a must for the serious photographer.
mu
grow_fetishist
Member
Hello everyone 
I've been lurking for a while on and off but don't really have much to contribute to growing so never joined. Also had a very long break... recent change in law...
...saw this thread...
@lozac123 DCR-250 should be great with you 70-300mm.
Aside from how data from a sensor is converted to an image, a photo is the entire scene at any given moment, whereas what you see (sharp and in focus) is only about the size of your thumbnail with your arm stretched. The rest of the scene is then made up by your brain based on what you saw before and the blanks are filled in with what it knows (then there's the dominant and supporting eye...).
Plenty to read on the subject but I recommend this article for starters (ton of footnotes to dive deeper):
https://www.neuroscienceof.com/human-nature-blog/neuroscience-photography-cameras-vision-perception (and the two preceding ones)
For free RAW processing tools I recommend darktable or RawTherapee
For focus stacking I've not been able to find any free tool that does what I want and ended up buying Helicon Focus. However Affinity Photo delivers pretty good results too and it has pretty good RAW processing capability and other editing tools - so a good all-rounder.
When taking photos I think we also need to differentiate between creating a technically accurate documentation or an image conveying something that we felt or perceived. Also keep in mind that two people walking away from a scene might describe two totally different pictures (witness accounts are probably the most unreliable evidence).
Happy growing and taking photos!
I've been lurking for a while on and off but don't really have much to contribute to growing so never joined. Also had a very long break... recent change in law...
...saw this thread...
This is a really good way of getting macro shots with a tele-zoom for example (I use one on a 50-200mm). Only downside is you have a very small range to focus in. With my combo, anything that's not approximately 10-12cm from the lens is blur (any closer or further and it looks like Vaseline on the lens). Hadn't noticed this in any reviews I'd read and I was nearly ready to give up on it because it took me a while to notice. I also ended up using an adapter ring rather than the clip. Aside from being less bulky, with the clip you need to take care to center it properly. I'm still saving for something like a 100mm macro lens though.
@lozac123 DCR-250 should be great with you 70-300mm.
You likely mean the other way around. But yes, most of the time the photo it is different from the scene perceived by the person behind the camera.
Aside from how data from a sensor is converted to an image, a photo is the entire scene at any given moment, whereas what you see (sharp and in focus) is only about the size of your thumbnail with your arm stretched. The rest of the scene is then made up by your brain based on what you saw before and the blanks are filled in with what it knows (then there's the dominant and supporting eye...).
Plenty to read on the subject but I recommend this article for starters (ton of footnotes to dive deeper):
https://www.neuroscienceof.com/human-nature-blog/neuroscience-photography-cameras-vision-perception (and the two preceding ones)
For free RAW processing tools I recommend darktable or RawTherapee
For focus stacking I've not been able to find any free tool that does what I want and ended up buying Helicon Focus. However Affinity Photo delivers pretty good results too and it has pretty good RAW processing capability and other editing tools - so a good all-rounder.
When taking photos I think we also need to differentiate between creating a technically accurate documentation or an image conveying something that we felt or perceived. Also keep in mind that two people walking away from a scene might describe two totally different pictures (witness accounts are probably the most unreliable evidence).
Happy growing and taking photos!