photography examples and learning [Archive] - SV650.org

Filipe M.

23-12-09, 12:47 AM

If thats the case then you might find your shutter speed is to slow due to lack of light / poor light conditions. You can tweak it or up the ISO setting which will mean you can use a faster shutter speed, which will mean less blur, the downside of this is that if you go to high with the shutter speed you may find you get a "grainy image"

The reason for the grainy images is the high ISO itself, it's nothing to do with the shutter speed on its own. The best analogy I can remember to explain this is recording a tape (for those who still remember how it was done), if your source was not loud enough you'd have to push the volume upon listening, which would make the music louder but at the same time bringing up the noise with it. Pushing the ISO is effectively amplifying the signal the sensor gets, but it makes the electronic and photon noise more apparent too. Actually this is one of the defining characteristics of the best digital cameras in the market, the ability to use high ISOs while still keeping the noise levels down enough to be usable. As a side note, Nikon is still wearing the crown with the D3 / D3s / D700 sensor, whose images are still quite "clean" at ISO 6400 (the D3s maxes out at 102400). For comparison with "real world budget" cameras, I would only use the D60 above ISO 400 when there was really no other way of getting the shot (it maxes out at ISO 1600), and the D90 is perfectly usable right up to ISO 800, maxing out at 3200. I can post some comparison pics later.

That said, image noise is usually more apparent in flat, same colour areas (like the sky), or shadows, and will be made worse by using careless use of sharpening, both in camera and in post-processing (photoshop or other).

With all this in mind, you should take care to always use the base ISO of the specific camera you're using, or the lowest ISO setting you can get away with. The base ISO is usually the cleanest one, putting out the best colour rendering and dynamic range. As a side note, some cameras base ISO is actually 200 (Nikon D5000 / D90 / D300), and they will have a "LO 1 / 0.7 / 0.3" setting which is supposed to mimic ISO 100 / 125 / 160. In this situation, ISO 200 is the way to go, unless you need to use the slower ones for specific slow shutter effects (and you will lose up to 1 stop dynamic range, so watch the highlights carefully).

That said, a good photo with a good exposure taken at a high ISO setting will always look better than a bad clean one, so don't let this stop you from taking the picture you want to take. As with everything, it's a limitation you just need to learn to live with and work around as necessary.

I still dont really understand what I'm doing with the aperture settings though...

The aperture setting will first and foremost control the amount of light your sensor / film gets at any given time, by increasing or decreasing the diaphragm opening inside the lens. To get a correct exposure for any given situation, you'll have to compensate with the shutter speed, e.g., for an aperture twice as small as another one, you'll need double the time. While this is actually easy to understand with the shutter speed scale (where 1/30s is twice as long as 1/60s but half as long as 1/15s), the aperture scale is measured in f-stops. I won't go into details here so as not to make this into a testament (I can in another post if someone wants me to), but the values go like this (each one being half the area of the previous one):
1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11.0, 16.0, 22.0, 32.0
So, as a quick example, if for a given situation your camera meter is reading say f/16, 1/125s, you can get the same exposure by using f/11, 1/250s or f/8, 1/500s, or even f/4, 1/2000s. Each step of the scale one way has to be compensated by a step the other way on the other scale.
The second thing your aperture control is giving you is the depth of field. Whole books have been written on the subject, and a quick google search will find you a shedload of links with explanations to what this is, but it is basically a distance where everything that falls within it will appear in focus, for a given focus distance and f-stop. Larger apertures (lower f-stop numbers, like f/2.8) will give you a shallower depth of field than a small aperture (say f/16) for any given situation, all other things being equal. This is how you can get the lovely blurred backgrounds on professional portraits ;)

next purchase is a mono pod :) the zoom lense needs one to steady my aim.

There is a trick to steady the hand in the mean time before you get a tripod and that is to hold camera with your right hand look over your left shoulder with the camera body resting on your left shoulder looking through view finder with the left eye. There is a place where you dont get the vibration from your own hearbeat and it helps steady the camera for you to take unblurry shots.

Fizz is right though Tripods are the way forwards to low light shots though.

Yup, this is where VR / IS / stabilisation-wotsit come in handy, and even then there are no miracles. As a rule of thumb, a "normal" person can hand hold a moderately sharp shot taken at a speed faster than 1/focal length in use (in 35 mm / full frame equivalent). As an example, if you're shooting with a 300 mm lens, you'd need to be shooting at 1/300s or faster. Careful here, most DSLRs on the market feature a so-called "crop ratio" of 1.5x or 1.6x, which makes the mentioned 300 mm lens have a 450 mm equiv field of view, so that would need a 1/450s speed or faster. VR / IS / wotsit come in play here, by allowing up to 3 stops of stabilisation, i.e., they'll increase the average joe's chances of getting a blur-free picture at slower speeds. In our example, a 3-stop advantage (and that's a lot or marketing right there...) would mean you could get a blur-free shot at 1/60 s and faster. Of course, proper hand-holding technique and very steady hands are still essential.

Sturdy tripods will allow virtually any kind of shutter speed, but when you don't have them at hand, the technique Anna described is one that can give you very good results when done right. Again, a quick Google search by "Joe McNally da grip" will show you the master himself demonstrating it!

Err... I think I should stop now, I'm getting some strange looks from the other side of the sofa... 8-[

Shout if you need anything else!

fizzwheel

23-12-09, 10:18 AM

Err... I think I should stop now, I'm getting some strange looks from the other side of the sofa... 8-[

Actually thats really helpful :D

Actually the other thing is to try not to be afraid to experiement and make mistakes. Sometimes a blurry photo works better than a pin sharp one.

Think about your composition to as said on the other thread. If your taking a picture of a bike, then sit down on the floor so you are looking up at it, rather than standing level or looking down at it. Makes for a much better pics

I'll dig out a few examples of what I am talking about...

fizzwheel

23-12-09, 10:42 AM

Righto this is what I was getting at, both of these pics are far from technically perfect. Both are blurred, the one of Tess is very blurred, but it evokes a feeling of speed and look at the expression of concentration on her face. Same with the one of Checca at Donnington, its all blured both foreground and background but it does convey a sensation of speed. Well to me anyway

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/puppies/DSC_0252.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/Donny%202007/CSC_0546.jpg

This is what I was getting at about kneeling down to take a picture of a bike

I knelt down to take the GSXR pic, but I was stood up when I took the pic of my SV. See the difference ? I much prefer the GSXR pic the angle is better and it shows of the bike nicely compared to the pic of the SV.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/DSC_0033.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/sv.jpg

Just take your time lining up the shots, dont rush it and take lots from different angles so you can see what does or doesnt work.

I'm not sure any of my pics are technically good, but to my eye I really like them and thats what I think the important thing is.

Filipe M.

23-12-09, 10:50 AM

Same with the one of Checca at Donnington, its all blured both foreground and background but it does convey a sensation of speed. Well to me anyway

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/Donny%202007/CSC_0546.jpg

Very good, me likey :D

Quedos

23-12-09, 02:00 PM

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e344/fizzwheel/Donny%202007/CSC_0546.jpg

Fizz thats good - in all sport the backgorund is best blurred as it gives a sense of speed

the main rules I remember - THe rule of thirds if you are going to place anything in the picture put it on a third not the centre
RPS - red point somewhere - can be anycolour but simething that will hold the eye and keep going back to it to retain the interest
the eye will scan a picture left to right and top to bottom. anything that bleeds out of the edges can take the eye out of the picture so really bright spots will hinder a picture - obviously this doesn't apply all the time due to certain scenarios
i'll try and dig some of my old ones out

kwak zzr

03-01-10, 05:52 PM

a few today piccys
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/wyrleycanal016.jpg
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/wyrleycanal011.jpg
same pic with sunset function on
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/wyrleycanal014.jpg

kwak zzr

03-01-10, 05:54 PM

new sony zoom lense 70 - 300mm examples of zoom-
at 70mm
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/wyrleycanal006.jpg
at 300mm
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/wyrleycanal005.jpg
cropped
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/chimney.jpg

Shellywoozle

03-01-10, 07:07 PM

Lense is good then :) you looking for santa in that chimney

kwak zzr

03-01-10, 07:10 PM

just seein how close it would go.

speedplay

03-01-10, 09:44 PM

I've been playing about with mine tonight too.

Didn't stay out long as its -3 out there at the moment and a broken hand is making it really hard to cope with the cold:(

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/nighttime/0312010011.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/nighttime/0312010015.jpg

speedplay

03-01-10, 10:42 PM

Thought I'd share these too.

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/311209016.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/311209022.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/311209075.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/311209063.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/311209347.jpg

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/311209342.jpg

boot

03-01-10, 11:15 PM

a few i took on monday using the sony a230 dslr, i dont think they are great but tips and advice on how to make them better would be good :)
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/essingtoncanal010.jpg
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/essingtoncanal031.jpg

The first shot here, would have benefit from the girl being included. Maybe quite some distance down the path. The 'leading lines' don;t draw your eyes to a focal object of interest, which she would add to the photo. Nice photo though.

The second picture above - decide what you want to capture, the canal or the girl. It's clear this is a protrait shot, and you used the portrait setting on the camera, which has given a wide aperture to throw the background out. So, as you're not looking to get the background in, maybe take the shot from further away and use your zoom - this will increase the blurriness of the background. Edit your shots and crop them for balance.

http://www.alpha30.com/images/SV650/ec031.jpg

I would re-think monopod for now, if you can carry a tripod, just use that with one leg down. For journeys out where a tripod is not feasible, an empty bean bag filled with dirt on location will often do, or bracing against a tree, post, whatever.

Don't rush, between the two pictures above you were averaging 1 shot every 30 seconds. Think about the shot, what you want it to 'say' to those that view it, what you want to capture etc.

embee

04-01-10, 12:07 AM

This has little technical merit, but it was a fun pic to get. Canon Ixus 400, fixed the focus at infinity and held it primed and simply shot when I glimpsed a bat go past (and hoped). A literal shot in the dark.

http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/9931/batcrop.th.jpg (http://img686.imageshack.us/i/batcrop.jpg/)

TheNinj1

04-01-10, 12:41 AM

If you have photo editing software you can fiddle about with your pictures.

This attached photo by Lotzig (deviantart.com) of two SV1000s, i think. But in his picture (left) he had the right mirror and handlebar intruding in to the picture, so i edited it out for fun (right).

I think it improves the photo by focusing on one subject - the SV. The background is pleasant without drawing the (eye) attention away from the subject. A planned out photo is possibly more worthwhile than a point-and-click photo.

Just a question, is a photograph a piece of art or is the art the object in the photograph? Photography is definitely a skilled art, as is painting and drawing...

GeneticBubble

04-01-10, 01:17 AM

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k120/kwak-zzr/essingtoncanal015.jpg

if this one had a small insect say an ant climbing the tree i would love it, now go back and take it again :thumleft:

TheNinj1

04-01-10, 09:42 AM

But the one thing I seem to still struggle with is sunsets. The pics of Domboshava certainly highlight the multitude of colours that were going on but not the strength or clarity of them. For example in the pics below, you can see the darker purple of the sun behind the cloud, the tinge of red, the blue of sky not yet touched by the sunset and the rays of light, but the reality was the colours were more vivid against each other than is in these pics. Not sure what settings I can use on my camera to improve that - its a Fuji Finepix btw. How can you get the beautiful colours without having to use photoshop balancing?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y219/lynw/Zimbabwe/Domboshava/DSCF0032.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y219/lynw/Zimbabwe/Domboshava/DSCF0041.jpg

I like the bottom photo as the horizon is horizontal, but the land lacks colour and would be more suitable even darker to have entire focus on the sun set colours in the sky.
GIMP is a free photo manipulating software although unfriendly to use (but it might be different now, it has been a few years since i yelled at it and deleted it) which should be able to freely edit your colours as desired.

I would just crop the picture to remove a lot or all of the land, leaving a beautiful sky -attached is an example of using windows photo gallery very quickly to increase the contrast, it's not brilliant but it sort of works. On second thoughts, it's a bit too much -would've come out better in photoshop. meh

Richie

04-01-10, 11:39 AM

I've tried to take nice photos, but someone allways comes along with better ones...
Cheers RodChester!!!

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/5031/031533x800.jpg

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2595/040800x533.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1556/050800x533.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3610/051800x533.jpg

BournemouthBen

04-01-10, 11:48 AM

'lens' not 'lense'

Some good snaps, wish I had some snow to play around with!!

BournemouthBen

04-01-10, 11:56 AM

Thought I'd add some pics too :)

My Dad, in Brecon last year.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/4015982009_9983c87f03.jpg

College project image.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/4172405049_7bac565e2b.jpg

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 01:28 PM

Looking at the pics Ive posted on my travels, Im stunned how many have come out pretty well imho considering I think my camera is really crap!

A lot of those have also been luck along with having an eye for what would make a good pic - the one of the 3 lions laying on the ground certainly falls into that because within about 2 seconds they moved and went running off.

The pics of the waterfalls again came out better than I thought they would. Again a bit of luck when the sun came out and the contrast was a lot better and my camera seemed to pick that up. Also the volume was probably sufficient that it picked up the detail of the flow.

But the one thing I seem to still struggle with is sunsets. The pics of Domboshava certainly highlight the multitude of colours that were going on but not the strength or clarity of them. For example in the pics below, you can see the darker purple of the sun behind the cloud, the tinge of red, the blue of sky not yet touched by the sunset and the rays of light, but the reality was the colours were more vivid against each other than is in these pics. Not sure what settings I can use on my camera to improve that - its a Fuji Finepix btw. How can you get the beautiful colours without having to use photoshop balancing?

Lynn, do you know if your camera has an Exposure Compensation thingy? Something like a dedicated button or menu with a "EV" or "+/-" thingy written on it. If it does, then try using negative compensation (usually something like -0.7 to -1.0 EV will do). Everything will be darker, which means you'll lose detail on the foreground, but colours will come out a lot more saturated.

If it doesn't have said function, and assuming it will lock exposure and focus by half-pressing the shutter (post the model number and I'll try and find out), then you can make it "meter" off a lighter part of the sky: instead of composing the shot and then pressing the shutter, first point the camera at a lighter part of the sky (not the sun, otherwise it will darken everything too much), half press the shutter and hold, compose, and then press the shutter fully. It works, but needs a bit more practice then just dialing in some negative exposure compensation.

Warning to the DSRL crowd: not al DSLRs will lock exposure on half-press without setting a custom function somewhere. That's what the "AE-L" button is for. ;)

The Costa Rica pics were taken with a Canon - my exes. Am thinking of something similar for my next camera. Anyone any recommendations?

What kind of camera / budget do you have in mind? Compact camera and budget or DSLR camera and not so compact budget? ;)

BournemouthBen

04-01-10, 01:42 PM

The Costa Rica pics were taken with a Canon - my exes. Am thinking of something similar for my next camera. Anyone any recommendations?

Some options to look at...

SLR
Nikon D3000/D5000
Canon EOS 500D/1000D
an older Canon 40D if you want performance at a better price?

'Four thirds' system
Panasonic GH1
Olympus EP-1

'Bridge' cameras
Fuli s2000 EXR
Nikon P90

Compacts
Panasonic lumix TZ7
Fuji EXR stuff?
Canon G9/G11 (more expensive..)

SLR's will offer control, image quality, lens and accessory options. At a price.

Compacts have smaller sensors, so suffer from noise and image quality problems. You also have less control etc, but you pay less, have something that is much smaller and lighter. Many modern compacts offer 10-12MP which is plenty, with good image quality (despite having a smaller sensor). Plenty for those who use images for Facebook and DPF's.

Glass quality is really important on any camera you buy, bear this in mind. It may be worth buying something like a D5000 without the kit lens. You could then buy a separate lens with better glass. This will definitely be more expensive, but the contrast/sharpness of a better lens will be like adding megapixels to the sensor!

The kit lens you get as standard will not be glass, it may as well be cling-film. Not worth alot when you start to get interested in the quality of you images.

Bridge cameras are a good compromise.

4/3 are probably an even better compromise for size/quality, but still have the price tag (relative).

There is plenty out there. I suggest you head over to DP review (http://www.dpreview.com/) for a closer look at some of the SLR's etc.

Ben.

SuzukiNess

04-01-10, 01:58 PM

:shock: sooo much to learn...(thanks Filipe M for your tips ... gonna read them properly later). here one of my attempts with my new DSLR

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8966/dsc00330x.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/i/dsc00330x.jpg/)

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 02:28 PM

Glass quality is really important on any camera you buy, bear this in mind. It may be worth buying something like a D5000 without the kit lens. You could then buy a separate lens with better glass. This will definitely be more expensive, but the contrast/sharpness of a better lens will be like adding megapixels to the sensor!

The kit lens you get as standard will not be glass, it may as well be cling-film. Not worth alot when you start to get interested in the quality of you images.

Well, how shall I put this, it's kind of hard to take pictures with a DSLR without a lens. ;)
The "cling-film" kit (Nikkor 18-55 VR) that comes with the D5000 is perfectly acceptable for a beginner who's only just trying to understand what the DSLR world is all about, without making it even more complicated with lens choices from the start.
Yes it's a "slow"* lens, has some distortion, and it suffers from a bit of chroma aberration, which is easily - and automatically - corrected by the camera if you shoot .jpg, or by Lightroom / Photoshop / Aperture if you shoot raw and therefore know what you're doing. Even not being the sharpest lens around, it'll still kick the cr@p out of compact cameras if you know how to use it properly, so it doesn't make much sense to be telling someone that compact cameras have good image quality but DSLR kit lenses are made of cling-film... :confused:

Kit lenses are what they are. If you're new to DLSRs, use them to find out where you want to go in terms of photography. Then, when you outgrow them, flog them on eBay (or keep them as body caps) and get good glass. Just be prepared to spend a lot more on glass than you did on the camera itself. ;)

*slow in this case has nothing to do with speed in the traditional sense, it's just a measure of how much light the lens will let through when at its maximum aperture, therefore allowing you to shoot at faster shutter speeds.

boot

04-01-10, 02:29 PM

Lynn, do you know if your camera has an Exposure Compensation thingy? Something like a dedicated button or menu with a "EV" or "+/-" thingy written on it. If it does, then try using negative compensation (usually something like -0.7 to -1.0 EV will do). Everything will be darker, which means you'll lose detail on the foreground, but colours will come out a lot more saturated.

If it doesn't have said function, and assuming it will lock exposure and focus by half-pressing the shutter (post the model number and I'll try and find out), then you can make it "meter" off a lighter part of the sky: instead of composing the shot and then pressing the shutter, first point the camera at a lighter part of the sky (not the sun, otherwise it will darken everything too much), half press the shutter and hold, compose, and then press the shutter fully. It works, but needs a bit more practice then just dialing in some negative exposure compensation.

Warning to the DSRL crowd: not al DSLRs will lock exposure on half-press without setting a custom function somewhere. That's what the "AE-L" button is for. ;)

It's worth noting here, given the coverings of snow we have at the minute, that positive exposure compensation will get that white snow looking more like white snow, as if you go with 'standard' settings, your snow will look all grey and lifeless.

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 02:31 PM

It's worth noting here, given the coverings of snow we have at the minute, that positive exposure compensation will get that white snow looking more like white snow, as if you go with 'standard' settings, your snow will look all grey and lifeless.

True. :thumleft: I keep forgetting that bit, we don't get snow around these parts very often... :( ;)

BournemouthBen

04-01-10, 02:52 PM

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 03:00 PM

...Just my opinion. People don't have to listen. I think it might be an idea to get a cheaper body without the lens, then (at the same time) buy a better one separately and save yourself the money in the long run?

You don't have to get yourself any brand new 'L' glass from Canon to get better results. eBay is full of bargains, if you pace yourself and look around you can get some good kit.

For example a friend of mine brought 17-85USM Canon Lens (which isn't that fast) for around £180.

I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on! ;)

Don't get me wrong, it is a valid opinion, just one that didn't seem to make much sense for people who are just dipping their toes in the DSLR world. Kit lenses are supposed to make life simpler for people who want to try DSLRs without the grief of having to choose / buy separate lenses and the compatibility issues that may arise, because, let's face it, not every lens from a given manufacturer will work with every camera from that same manufacturer. ;)

boot

04-01-10, 04:15 PM

Expensive kit is great if you can afford it, but it won't make you take better pictures.

If a seasoned pro-photographer took a disposable camera out to shoot, and a complete novice with no photographic skill or knowledge took the best kit money could buy out to shoot, who do you think would take the most captivating images?

Learning how to use the kit you have and what makes a good photograph is the most part of the battle. Once you've mastered those, it may be worth spending more. But the more kit you have, the more you'll want to take with you, until you realise that travelling light can often (not always) offer more advantage.

mr.anderson

04-01-10, 04:25 PM

The exes camera Im fairly sure was a powershot model but not entirely sure which. I liked it - I think the pics I took were ok - the butterfly ones certainly came out better than I anticipated.

Do you know which shots you used his camera for?

This was taken with a Panasonis DMC-FZ15.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y219/lynw/Costa%20Rica/ArenalVolcanoe-1.jpg

And this was taken with a D70s.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y219/lynw/Costa%20Rica/Lavaflow.jpg

BournemouthBen

04-01-10, 04:28 PM

Don't get me wrong, it is a valid opinion, just one that didn't seem to make much sense for people who are just dipping their toes in the DSLR world. Kit lenses are supposed to make life simpler for people who want to try DSLRs without the grief of having to choose / buy separate lenses and the compatibility issues that may arise, because, let's face it, not every lens from a given manufacturer will work with every camera from that same manufacturer. ;)

Fair point! :)

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 04:29 PM

I would say no if I had some semblance of what you were talking about :oops: All I get is different modes: landscape, night, portrait etc. Ive tried messing about with different settings but in all honesty, the screen at the back is so small I dont really know how the pic has come out until I upload them on to the pc. :rolleyes: Did I mention Im totally clueless about this subject? :oops: I will try focusing on a lighter part of the sky and see how we go :D

Nothing wrong with being technically clueless at this stage, you're making up for it in the composition department ;)

The exes camera Im fairly sure was a powershot model but not entirely sure which. I liked it - I think the pics I took were ok - the butterfly ones certainly came out better than I anticipated.

Canon Powershots are usually okay, as are Panasonic Lumix. I'd say it's usually hard to find one that doesn't work as it should if you stick to those brands. I've been playing a bit with my dad's Panasonic TZ7 and it surprised me quite a lot, but then again it's a fairly expensive toy (for a compact, that is).

What I do want is a camera that takes 4 batteries - the finepix that is mine is so annoying that it eats batteries and I end up battling with it to take pics and cant easily change them (eg on horse back in the middle of a herd of zebra).

So Im guessing something along those lines. That said, has anyone seen whether the HD cameras are any good? saw those advertised in the States and wonder if they live up to the hype.

Are you using rechargeable batteries? They can be a pain, but they will usually give you more lifespan than normal alkaline batteries.
DSLRs will use proprietary batteries, which again can be a pain, but they'll give you more pics per charge than the average compact due to having much bigger batteries.

The "HD" thingy in the new generation cameras refers to the video capabilities only, it has nothing to do with the photo part of the equation. It simply means they are able to go beyond the average 320x240 / 640x480 video modes and will do something that can be classified as HD, either 720p or 1080i.

BournemouthBen

04-01-10, 04:29 PM

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 04:32 PM

What he said ^
I might just get me a disposable camera from Tesco this eve, if they still sell them of course?

Good luck finding one still inside the expiration date :smt005

But he really is right! ;)

Milky Bar Kid

04-01-10, 04:54 PM

I am tempted to get a DSLR to start learning. This thread is really interesting, well done to Kwak for starting it and thanks to Fillipe and the rest of the guys with the knowledge for an interesting read.

kwak zzr

04-01-10, 04:57 PM

personally i know naff all about taking good photos but was sick to death of attending superbike meets and coming away with disappointing shots :( the reason i got an a230 was that its a starter DSLR and i hope i can learn with it and get better.

kwak zzr

04-01-10, 04:58 PM

What MBK said :) its intresting to hear what people think and to pick up pointers :)

speedplay

04-01-10, 05:28 PM

I've found the help and pointers on here really helpful, cheers guys:thumleft:

I love playing with the DSLR I chose (Canon EOS 1000D).
Its opened up a new world and perspective on things in photography :)

Yes they are fairly costly to first set yourself up, but look at it as an investment for your memories :D

Milky Bar Kid

04-01-10, 05:33 PM

speedplay

04-01-10, 05:42 PM

If you don't mind me asking, how much was your camera?? Really tempted.

With what Jenn got for my birthday and the extras I bought the next day, £600 (bar a few pence) and still got a great deal:thumleft:

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 05:55 PM

If you don't mind me asking, how much was your camera?? Really tempted.

WARNING: Shameless Nikon Plug (http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/76137/show.html).

Brilliant camera for the price, getting some really good reviews from the pros (not only from camera "impartial review" websites who are actually owned by big sales corps).

Shop around, you might even find better deals.

speedplay

04-01-10, 06:02 PM

I had a fondle of some of the Nikon range and just didnt "gel" with it as well as the canon.

Go into any camera store and have a play before you decide what to get.*

*Great advice from Fizzwheel.

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 06:14 PM

Go into any camera store and have a play before you decide what to get.*

*Great advice from Fizzwheel.

And good advice it is, but I had to do the shameless plug thingy anyway! :oops: :thumleft:

lily

04-01-10, 06:20 PM

me ordered mine last night...... its my birthday present from drew, however my birthday is in may!

Ordered the Nikon D3000..... can't wait till it arrives :-D

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 06:23 PM

me ordered mine last night...... its my birthday present from drew, however my birthday is in may!

Ordered the Nikon D3000..... can't wait till it arrives :-D

Yay welcome to the Nikon club. :thumleft: (Jambo will probably tell you you smell of wee, but that's just jealousy!)

speedplay

04-01-10, 06:23 PM

And good advice it is, but I had to do the shameless plug thingy anyway! :oops: :thumleft:

Fair do's:thumleft:

This is the camera that I went with and added an extra lens, battery, uv filters, tripod etc etc.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/75886/show.html

I reccon I'll still be learning how to get the best from it in years to come:thumleft:

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 06:27 PM

Fair do's:thumleft:

This is the camera that I went with and added an extra lens, battery, uv filters, tripod etc etc.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/75886/show.html

I reccon I'll still be learning how to get the best from it in years to come:thumleft:

Nice bit of kit there, will keep your hands full for a while. And photography is a constant learning process, so your prediction will actually prove itself true. ;)

mr.anderson

04-01-10, 07:11 PM

Here are a couple of pics that I have taken - comments on how I could have improved them would be much appreciated!

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0074_copy.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0044_copy.jpg

Bluefish

04-01-10, 07:24 PM

I can understand it if I were using rechargeables but these are normal batteries! For some reason that camera really drains them quickly. :( Ive missed a lot of pics where Ive gone to zoom and the thing has switched off :smt013 I didnt have that with the powershot and that had 4 batteries.

hi lynw, go for cameras that only take two aa batts, then you can carry loads of spares, but if you get decent rechargeable ones 2100mah or above they will last for hundreds of pics, and it works out way cheaper than to keep buying expensive duracell etc at £3 a time.
When you said the camera was turning itself off was this because of the time delay, ie going to auto shut off if not used for say 2mins. hth, andy.

speedplay

04-01-10, 07:53 PM

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0074_copy.jpg

If thas london then its damn near perfection.

Clean and nobody about, perfect :thumleft:

boot

04-01-10, 08:47 PM

Nice shot, the exposure is bob on, and you've captured a nice city centre shot.

What could you do to improve?

Getting level isn't always that easy - even with a tripod. For me, the eye is naturally drawn to two areas of this photo, the red and white building on the left and between the tree and lamp post to the white building. The red and white building shows the horizontal is very slightly off.

We have other issues here though - your camera is tipped slightly back (as you would have to, to obtain this shot), so we are getting converging verticals, as well as some lens distortion as your shooting at 18mm wide. Both of these are quite evident with the lamp post front-centre-right, and the one next to the source of the lens flare.

You can correct these in your digital lab, as you're using Gimp 2.6.7, you already have the right tools at your disposal. http://www.gimp.org/features/ - While this edit below isn't perfect, I'm sure you get the gist.

The only other thing I'd do if I were trying to repeat this shot, would be to ensure the light trails on the left, either go all the way up the road and disappear, or are not there at all. I'm unsure of the exposure time - the readout is 50/10 sec, if that's 10 seconds, you could have got trails up the road, and decreasing your aperture from 13 to 22 if possible with your lens, would extend your exposure time further, although I do not the bus does not appear to be moving?

Before:
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0074_copy.jpg
After:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f251/Ausfahrk/SV650/DSC_0074_edited.jpg

Hope that helps.

Filipe M.

04-01-10, 10:47 PM

Boot has pretty much said it all, but if he doesn't mind I'm just going to add a few comments of my own.

Nice shot, the exposure is bob on, and you've captured a nice city centre shot.

And the white balance is pretty much spot on, showing the actual colours instead of the yellow-ish tones people usually get from street lighting.

Getting level isn't always that easy - even with a tripod. For me, the eye is naturally drawn to two areas of this photo, the red and white building on the left and between the tree and lamp post to the white building. The red and white building shows the horizontal is very slightly off.Some tripods actually have small spirit levels built in to the heads and / or the camera plates. These will help with keeping the camera level. If yours doesn't, then you can get a 3 axis spirit level you can mount on the camera's hot shoe for less than a fiver off eBay. Of course you can always rotate the image in GIMP / Photoshop later, but that'll take away some of the image sharpness, so getting it right in the first place is the way to go.

The only other thing I'd do if I were trying to repeat this shot, would be to ensure the light trails on the left, either go all the way up the road and disappear, or are not there at all. I'm unsure of the exposure time - the readout is 50/10 sec, if that's 10 seconds, you could have got trails up the road, and decreasing your aperture from 13 to 22 if possible with your lens, would extend your exposure time further, although I do not the bus does not appear to be moving?

Hope that helps.That'd be a 5 second exposure time. I guess software and camera manufacturers are still some way from getting their metadata reading standards actually standard... then you get funny numbers like these :rolleyes:
Yup, getting the aperture down to f/22 would buy you some extra 7 or 8 seconds, which might make the trails longer (depending on passing cars!) and give some more continuity to the picture.

All in all, very nice try, keep them coming. :)

MrFish

05-01-10, 12:24 AM

I've had a brief dabble with photography. Never was very good but was quite pleased with some of my shots. Behold;

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2273/2105594299_042ce4f5d5_b.jpg

Owl taken whilst cruising around the Mississip'

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2106372002_9021f28171_b.jpg

Think I buggered the colour of this one up a little bit in PS. Thoughts?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2183/2118236218_b98cab53c1_b.jpg

Cruisin' the states in t'minivan. Also note that's not me in the front, i'm crouching on the back seat.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2190/2118239154_fe7776fa60_b.jpg

This was taken with only the light of the moon and the fire. Used a long exposure etc.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2414/2272531560_61776462a8_b.jpg

Sad looking parrot in a dingy British garden centre.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2301815661_dd85982483_b.jpg

Experimenting in creating lomo effects in PS.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2329392033_3c342b0c2b_b.jpg

Egrets looking the wrong way, but I like it anyway.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2208/2369256779_6941c3a873_b.jpg

A lovely wintery Robin to finish off. Got so close to this feller that I used my portrait lense and got a really shallow depth of field

-Peace

5hort5

05-01-10, 01:18 AM

nothing really interesting apart from it's snowing again :-)

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/5hort5/pic1.jpg

TheNinj1

05-01-10, 09:39 AM

There's a whole 2mm dusting of snow/ice here in Leicester... a mere crunch underfoot

rob13

05-01-10, 10:17 AM

Mr Fish, love the photographs. Not so keen on #1 but 2, 3 & 8 are superb. You should keep it up as you've captured some great shots there.

MrFish

05-01-10, 11:54 AM

Thanks a lot.

Looking back I think i've been going a bit mental in Photoshop, some of the colours are way off. The first photo's focus is way off, just felt it was an interesting pose. To be fair though I was sitting in a boat 30 odd yards away.

boot

05-01-10, 01:42 PM

cmsd2

05-01-10, 02:15 PM

The best cure for batteries that always run flat is to go back in time to a point when things were simpler, and get hold of one of these or similar:

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/cameras/2009/03/28/nikon-fm2-awesome-camera-and-no-batteries-required

Just remember to carry spare rolls of film :)

speedplay

05-01-10, 02:35 PM

Filipe M.

05-01-10, 03:29 PM

mr.anderson

05-01-10, 04:51 PM

Thanks for the pointers gents!

embee

05-01-10, 05:14 PM

On the battery business.

Alkaline (regular Duracell etc) are not suited to camera use, and as you've found will only give you a limited life. Digicams need either rechargeable NiMH (nickel metal hydride) or lithium ion (Li-ion) for successful life.
AA size are available cheaply in NiMH, most proprietary camera/phone type batteries are Li-ion which offer better charge/size performance, so I think all ultra-compacts use them.

I've used cheap (£3 ebay) generic Li-ion batteries in my Canon at a fraction of "genuine" price, and they have proved to be every bit as good. Before getting a camera, just check that cheap generic batteries are available for that camera, I believe some new digicams use batteries which are only (as yet) available from the manufacturer and are expensive.

Modern compact digicams will give you upwards of 200-250 shots on a battery charge, carrying one spare battery for a days shooting of maybe 500 shots is no big deal. You do of course need access to charging facilities, either car or mains, at some time. Useful tips are things like turning down the screen brightness to reduce power consumption, it doesn't affect the shot.

For travelling/touring, I find camera size is critical, so use a compact (Canon Ixus range). While control is limited, unless you want to do "real" photography, they are perfectly adequate and if you read the reviews then some are actually very good at producing decent shots.

Great camera review sites are Steve's digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/) and dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/)

Filipe M.

05-01-10, 05:26 PM

On the battery business.

Alkaline (regular Duracell etc) are not suited to camera use, and as you've found will only give you a limited life. Digicams need either rechargeable NiMH (nickel metal hydride) or lithium ion (Li-ion) for successful life.
AA size are available cheaply in NiMH, most proprietary camera/phone type batteries are Li-ion which offer better charge/size performance, so I think all ultra-compacts use them.

As you're on the subject, and risking a minor derail, do you recommend any specific brand for NiMH AA batteries and chargers? I think my UniRoss stuff is giving up the ghost, my 2500 mAh batteries are not charging properly anymore, and they haven't been run through more than 50 charge cycles. I suspect one (or two) of them might be dead, but right now I don't know what (not) to trust, batteries or charger.

Great camera review sites are Steve's digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/) and dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/)

Be careful about corporation-owned review sites, though. Reading about real user experiences can be very enlightening sometimes. ;) It's harder to sort out through all the posted garbage, but nevertheless essential if you're committing to an expensive purchase. ;)

speedplay

05-01-10, 10:02 PM

I took this yesterday morning before work.

Im still playing with the settings, taking the same picture over and over with a slight change to settings each time to see what happens etc.

Any pointers?

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt282/speedplay/0412010037.jpg

embee

06-01-10, 12:14 AM

... do you recommend any specific brand for NiMH AA batteries and chargers? ;)

I only have Li-ions so can't really offer any personal experience. I do recall reading some reviews and I'm pretty sure Panasonics came out well, I think they're reasonably readily found. I'm sure there'll be a review site for batteries somewhere (there's a specialist forum for everything, I reckon) :)

rob13

06-01-10, 01:24 AM

Speedplay are you specifically looking for the moon in shot? Personally, and dont take offence on this but it doesnt really do anything for me. If I could offer advice, I would say that I'm thinking about what is beneath that statue but to be honest the picture is taken from the wrong place. What ISO are you using as it looks a bit noisy on my screen? You could always cheat if you wanted the moon, take the shot when there's a bit more going on with the sky and photoshop a separate moon in later, maybe something zoomed right in taken at F/11 with a longer exposure.

rob13

06-01-10, 01:26 AM

I'll just add that this is a great thread. Please keep posting your examples as long as you dont mind critique as it helps me see where people are going right or wrong in their shots (and ultimately mine). I will also post a few up for critique in the coming days.

boot

06-01-10, 11:09 AM

maybe something zoomed right in taken at F/11 with a longer exposure.

But, beware, moon exposures do not need an excessively long exposure - when zoomed right in to take a photo of the moon, the moon is the light source, and you need to bear in mind, that although it does not appear to move to the naked eye on the ground, it will quickly move across your composition with a long lens.

Woz

06-01-10, 11:19 AM

Speedplay, I agree with what robchester says about the composition of the statue shot... the moon doesn't help. As an alternative, here's a statue shot from a slightly different angle but with a cleaner background (other than some wispy cloud...

Taken with a Fuji S6500fd a couple of years ago. No editing, cropping or anything and deliberately composed to use a s a Windows wallpaper :p

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u285/woz70/DSCF0390-1.jpg

Filipe M.

06-01-10, 02:19 PM

I only have Li-ions so can't really offer any personal experience. I do recall reading some reviews and I'm pretty sure Panasonics came out well, I think they're reasonably readily found. I'm sure there'll be a review site for batteries somewhere (there's a specialist forum for everything, I reckon) :)

Thanks :) I found a discussion on the dpreview forums, but I'm having a hard time finding the chargers they recommend around here (american brands...), specifically Maha PowerEx and LaCrosse. I found something on Amazon, but apparently the stupid "this item cannot be shipped to Portugal" restrictions are still in place. Must be karma or something, but at least it's still sunny outside! ;)

(...)You could always cheat if you wanted the moon, take the shot when there's a bit more going on with the sky and photoshop a separate moon in later, maybe something zoomed right in taken at F/11 with a longer exposure.

Tip: in shots like these, and unless you specifically need the wide angle (to show some distortion, or to get environment in the picture), if you're looking to make the moon (or other distant object) as big as possible without going photoshop on it, shoot with the longest lens you have. The telephoto "compression" effect will make the distant objects look bigger in relation to nearby ones. Obviously you'll need to be shooting from much further away to get the nearby objects in the frame, and eventually need a tripod if there's not enough light to shoot at really fast shutter speeds. Conversely, if you want to make the background objects "shrink", shoot wide and close to your main subject.

But, beware, moon exposures do not need an excessively long exposure - when zoomed right in to take a photo of the moon, the moon is the light source, and you need to bear in mind, that although it does not appear to move to the naked eye on the ground, it will quickly move across your composition with a long lens.

(boot, you're right on the money again, so if you don't mind I'm just going to pick up again where you left off :) )
"Solitary" moon exposures are similar to shooting an object that's still being lit by full sunlight. Even though it may be dark down here, the moon is still getting it's light from the big shiny thing up there, but surrounded by lots or blackness, which will fool the metering computer thingy in the camera into "ignoring" the white spot in the sky if not dealt with correctly, giving you a stupidly long exposure time to try and bring the pitch black sky back to middle grey where camera meters feel comfortable. This will just blow the moon into an oval shaped white blob (due to the movement boot was referring to). There are two quick solutions around this, and both need some tweaking to get the result just right, so it's up to the individual to try which one feels better:

1 (basic) - Set your camera on a tripod, in A mode (Aperture Priority, not AUTO!), select something along the lines of f/8 to f/11 (eventually f/16 if your camera doesn't have more than 10 - 12 MP), and base ISO (the lowest real number you can get like 100 or 200, not something like LO1). Then RTFM for your specific camera and find out how to put it into Spot Metering mode. All modern DLSRs should have one (I've yet to come across one that doesn't). What this does is tell the camera to ignore anything that's not bang in the middle of the frame, so just point the camera at the moon (use the center focus mark to help align it), zoom right in, and you'll get a decent exposure starting point. Take a test shot, then use your Exposure Compensation to get it darker or lighter to suit your taste. (btw, and since you're there, try aiming the camera at the darkness and watch the shutter speed go bonkers!).

2 (advanced) - as per above, set the camera on a tripod, but instead of A, set your camera on M (Manual!) mode. Don't run for the hills just yet, it's really simple. Set your ISO to the base value (either 100 or 200), dial your aperture to f/11 and your shutter speed to the nearest value you can find that matches 1/ISO, i.e., if you're at ISO 100, your shutter speed should be 1/100 or 1/125. If 200, then 1/200 or 1/250. Take a test shot and see what happens, this should give you a good starting point for a full moon. Tweak your shutter speed to darken (faster speeds) or lighten (slower speeds) to taste.

The "good" reason for using "small" apertures like f/11 or f/16 is to give you a bit of leeway with focusing. Smaller apertures (big numbers) will give you more depth of field, hence more chances of capturing the moon details without too much blurring (tripod is essential here). The "bad" reason for not going above f/11 if your camera has more than 10 - 12 MP is diffraction of light going through small apertures, which will blur the details you were trying to capture in the first place. ;)

As a side note, if your camera has a mirror lock-up function, or a delayed shutter, now would be a good time to learn how to use it. And so would be taking the photos with a remote, or with the timer function (2 to 5 seconds should be enough for all vibration to go away before the camera actually fires).

Hope this helps!

Richie

06-01-10, 09:38 PM

Had another go today, as I had a snow day.
yes most of these are of a snowy day...

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4665/penshaw1.jpg

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2236/penshaw2.jpg

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/681/penshaw22.jpg

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2360/penshaw25.jpg

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1350/penshaw3.jpg

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2255/penshaw4.jpg

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/7167/penshaw5.jpg

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7162/penshaw6.jpg

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2931/penshaw7.jpg

speedplay

06-01-10, 10:51 PM

Richie, where is this?

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7162/penshaw6.jpg

rob13

06-01-10, 10:51 PM

Richie, I really like no.1, and was really drawn to the 2 ducks at the top in no.6 How about a crop of those 2 birds? They seem really sharp so should be ok to crop? Also like the Pano of Penshaw. Kids look like theyre having plenty fun!

From pic 1 though, it looks like you need your sensor cleaning!

Richie

06-01-10, 11:07 PM

Richie, where is this?

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7162/penshaw6.jpg

Its called Penshaw monument (http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=penshaw+monument&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=8RdFS9OiGqL80wTbubySBQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQsAQwAA) or Penshaw Hill, Nr Sunderland just by the A19.

Richie, I really like no.1, and was really drawn to the 2 ducks at the top in no.6 How about a crop of those 2 birds? They seem really sharp so should be ok to crop? Also like the Pano of Penshaw. Kids look like theyre having plenty fun!

From pic 1 though, it looks like you need your sensor cleaning!

I think that is a bad Heal brush mark bud in photoshop. top left. ;-)

and the Pano is a cropped single photo.

Still not bad for a standard EFS 18-55mm lens

Filipe M.

06-01-10, 11:08 PM

Richie, I really like no.1, (...)

From pic 1 though, it looks like you need your sensor cleaning!

That'd be ISO 400 on a Canon EOS 400D, then. ;) But the shot is way cool! :thumleft:

What I might have tried from a technical point of view: open up the aperture from f/14 to something like f/8. That would have allowed to lower the ISO while keeping the shutter speed where it is, getting you a "cleaner" image. On the other hand, the noise on this pic is not completely unlike film grain, which gives a nice "warm" feeling. The other side-effect from the wider aperture would have been an even more out of focus foreground, that might have worked even better, or just made the branches unrecognisable, screwing it up completely. Artistic decision vs. technical decision there, and you got a very good balance between both.

Shellywoozle

06-01-10, 11:12 PM

I didnt take this but was with a dslr

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs147.snc3/17433_263780372802_624342802_4335252_2210684_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3185927&id=624342802)

my fav piccy of sam too

Kwak you will have to practice on Sam with ya new lens .... take him away LOL

mr.anderson

07-01-10, 06:13 PM

Right - this is one of Hyde Park Corner taken this evening.

f/22, 25s, ISO 200,18mm.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0277_copy.jpg

The clouds seem quite noisy, not 100% certain why that is.

It was also seriously windy up on the roof, so the was a little movement on the camera - in other shots it was more apparent, but this one seems better. I have sharpened the image by 20 in GIMP.

Not cropped.

mr.anderson

07-01-10, 06:18 PM

This is the wind effect seen in other photos taken:

This is pixel for pixel, no scaling - cropped, obviously.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/windeffect.jpg

cmsd2

07-01-10, 06:25 PM

Right - this is one of Hyde Park Corner taken this evening.

f/22, 25s, ISO 200,18mm.

(snip)

The clouds seem quite noisy, not 100% certain why that is.

It was also seriously windy up on the roof, so the was a little movement on the camera - in other shots it was more apparent, but this one seems better. I have sharpened the image by 20 in GIMP.

Not cropped.

Nice. It seems sharp enough.

The sky's not particularly photogenic as it is though. Shame. You might be able to get a bit of contrast out of it in Gimp, to make it more dramatic. Or that might just make it look even more noisy.

If not I think I'd move the horizon up the picture in the viewfinder to get less of the sky and background, and more of the road. The real interest in the picture is the sense of depth the road gives you as it sweeps into the bottom edge and leaps out of the picture.
Everything else is pretty incidental, so I don't think there's any need to devote over half the picture to what is just background context.

anna

07-01-10, 06:32 PM

cmsd2, not sure I agree there, I think compositional wise the photo is following the rule of thirds and draws the eye nicely to the busy roads.

The clouds are a bit noisy IMHO I think perhaps you might have afforded to go down to ISO 100 and see if you could get away with that. The clouds obviously wont be in complete focus as you have a 25s exposure and they are obviously moving fast.

Although I am sure someone with more knowledge will be along shortly to give better advice...

EDIT :

opps I am sorry I have just been informed that your D90 base ISO is 200 my D60 base ISO is 100.

Filipe M.

07-01-10, 06:39 PM

Right - this is one of Hyde Park Corner taken this evening.

f/22, 25s, ISO 200,18mm.

The clouds seem quite noisy, not 100% certain why that is.

It was also seriously windy up on the roof, so the was a little movement on the camera - in other shots it was more apparent, but this one seems better. I have sharpened the image by 20 in GIMP.

Not cropped.

The noise comes from the 25 second long exposure (which are noisier by themselves - hence the "long exposure NR" option in your camera - have you used it?), and then using sharpening. I rarely use GIMP, and never used sharpening there, does it have a "threshold" or "mask" slider in the sharpening thingy? If it does, raise it so it'll ignore the smaller tone transitions (noise and such) and only work on the big ones. Another option is to use two layers, sharpen one, and mask the sky off that one so it comes out as it was.

The camera movement can only be solved by bracing the camera as hard as possible, and that includes a good tripod + head combination (read: heavy or expensive), and adding even more weight to it, while taking off everything the wind might catch on and induce vibration. Oh, and turn off VR if your lens has it! ;) If the vibration isn't there in the first place, the lens will hunt for it and put some in for you. ;)

The other thing I'd do to the picture would be to set the white balance to tungsten lighting, or even colder than that (on camera if you shot jpeg, in software if you shot raw). Human eyes easily adapt to light colour changes, cameras don't, hence the yellow-ish tint and grey skies. Dial the white balance back to tungsten and everything starts falling into place...

Filipe M.

07-01-10, 06:59 PM

Here's a sample of what could be done with the white balance setting (the .jpg file doesn't allow as much tweaking latitude as a .nef file straight from the camera, hence the funny banding that can be seen in some colour transitions). This is slightly exaggerated just to show you the very different mood you can get just by tweaking the white balance setting:

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1442/dsc0277copywb.jpg

fizzwheel

07-01-10, 07:10 PM

Filipe M.

07-01-10, 07:27 PM

Mr Philly Pie, can you explain what white balance does / is. Tis another setting on the DSLR I dont really "Get"...

is it something I can use to try and get rid of that organgey glow effect you get in snow from the street lights at night ?

That's exactly the setting you should use to get rid of it. I'll come back to that one later tonight from the comfort of the sofa (and undoubtedly get some strange looks from the other half when I realise I've been writing for a couple of hours)! ;) As a quick tip, go into the white balance menu, put it in the light bulb setting, go to the window and shoot a couple of test frames. ;)

fizzwheel

07-01-10, 07:33 PM

Cool thankyou. Dont go to to much trouble I dont want a mega shin kicking off of Anna next time I see her :D

anna

07-01-10, 08:51 PM

White balance basically allows you to adjust your camera to ensure that it has the correct settings for the light that you are shooting in ;) Simples!

mr.anderson

08-01-10, 12:03 AM

Ah, now I see what white balance does... thanks.

I have also learnt a lesson about shooting in RAW and processint the image in PS (or whatever) in case one doesn't get it right on the camera.

For this shot, I turned the Long Exposure Noise Reduction ON (added 20s to the processing time).

The first one is the JPEG that the camera produced on shooting, the second is the RAW image that I adjusted in gimp.

The white balance on the camera was set to tungsten, although, for this shot I dont think it was as critical as the one posted above.

And yes, I realise I havent got he blue quite correct for the raw one - it's a bit sharp, but it is such a contrasting color in the shot.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0277jpeg_edited.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0277raw_edited.jpg

EDIT:

This is the RAW image that I processed on the Camera - looks quite good to me.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z164/ptanderson/DSC_0283_edited.jpg

Filipe M.

08-01-10, 12:17 AM

White balance basically allows you to adjust your camera to ensure that it has the correct settings for the light that you are shooting in ;) Simples!

Wot she sed! :cool:

Okay, boring explanation coming up. 8-[

As everybody has probably heard sometime before in a boring class or TV show (before falling asleep, that is), different light sources have different colour temperatures. Googling a bit on light colour temperature should come out with a shedload of links about the subject, I'm not even going to try and explain colour theory, that would be a thread on its own. What I will try is to quickly explain how this affects photographers.

Light a candle, for instance, and observe a piece of white paper lit under that light. Your brain knows it's white (because you've seen it before in daylight, our "reference"), but in reality your eyes are seeing it as yellow / orange-ish, colours perceived by the human brains as being warm.
Now take the same piece of paper, go outside (when it stops snowing, that is!, a sunny day would be ideal for this ;) ), find a shady spot and look at the paper again. Once again, you'll know it's still white, but your eyes will see it as a very pale blue-ish. The link between your eyes and your brains is making the colour conversion for you.

Well, the camera lacks this "automatic" colour conversion ability, and will record the white paper as yellow under candle-light, or blue in a shady spot. Unless the person pushing the buttons tells it what light source it's shooting under, that is. Hence the "White Balance" setting. It's what will allow the neutral colours to show up as neutral, without any colour casts.
In the days of old, a.k.a. film, you'd do this by putting colour correction/conversion filters in front of the lens (or using films balanced for different light temperatures). With digital cameras it's much easier to just tell the camera to use different presets for the different light sources.

Of course the nice gentlemen at the camera factories are always trying to make our lives easier, so they include an "Automatic White Balance" (AWB) setting, that'll do its best to try and compensate for the different light sources. But just like automatic exposure, it's a "blind" guess by judging the colours of the scene and averaging them out. If your scene is varied, close to daylight and includes a white object, it might work. If it's mainly cool or warm colours, it will warm it up or cool it down. If it's fluorescent lighting, all bets are off!
Sunsets are one of the best examples for this: the camera will see bold warm colours all around and will compensate for this by cooling everything down. Then you get home and go "where have my beautiful colours gone?!" (tip: shade white balance and a smidge of underexposure here are your friends, just -0.7 to -1.0 stops. Just don't expect to see anything in the shadows afterwards!).
The one exception where AWB might be your best friend is under multiple light sources with different temperatures: its guess might be better than yours.

As usual, try it. Set the camera on the sunlight white balance (you'll have to be any in one of the PSAM exposure modes or it might not allow you to get out of AWB) and shoot a piece of paper by candle light, sunlight and shade. Compare the 3 pics and you'll see the difference. Repeat the experience, this time with the camera on tungsten white balance (bulb symbol) for the candle, sunlight (for sunlight, obviously) and shade white balance (the house with the shaded area symbol) for the shade. Even with the tungsten white balance still being "colder" than the candle, the paper will look a lot less yellow now.

Okay, by now you should realise the importance of setting the right white balance before shooting. This is even more important if you're shooting straight to jpg, because this kind of file doesn't allow you a lot of adjustment range after the fact before starting to break up the colours.
If you're shooting raw (.nef for Nikon, .crw for canon), you can freely adjust your white balance after shooting, when opening the pics in the conversion software.

Filipe M.

08-01-10, 12:26 AM

Ah, now I see what white balance does... thanks.

I have also learnt a lesson about shooting in RAW and processint the image in PS (or whatever) in case one doesn't get it right on the camera.

IMO, this is one of the best reasons to shoot RAW. ;)

For this shot, I turned the Long Exposure Noise Reduction ON (added 20s to the processing time).

Long Exposure Noise Reduction will capture a "dark" shot with the same exposure duration as the original one, but with a closed shutter, to try and replicate the sensor noise the first original shot might have picked up, and then subtract it from the original. It does this at the time of shooting because sensor noise will vary with temperature conditions, amongst other variables, hence taking a second shot right after the fact is the closest way of getting it as accurate as possible. So what the camera was doing during those 20 secs was exactly this, taking a second "black" exposure.

The first one is the JPEG that the camera produced on shooting, the second is the RAW image that I adjusted in gimp.

The white balance on the camera was set to tungsten, although, for this shot I dont think it was as critical as the one posted above.

And yes, I realise I havent got he blue quite correct for the raw one - it's a bit sharp, but it is such a contrasting color in the shot.

And already looking much better than your first try. :thumleft: