Photography / Camera chat thread. [Archive] - Page 2 - SV650.org

keith_d

08-02-11, 11:13 PM

Sorry, this is going to be a bit academic....

The odd values for shutter speed all start because the amount of light collected by a lens depends on the area of the lens and it's focal length. It's rather tricky to measure the area of a lens, but it's fairly easy to measure the diameter of an opening. This led to photographers used something called the f-stop.

f-stop = aperture (diameter) / focal length

So, f/4 indicates that the effective aperture is a quarter of the focal length, and f/8 means that the aperture is one eighth of the focal length. Photographers soon discovered that changing the aperture by 41% doubled or halved the amount of light reaching their film. So we end up with a series of f-stop values like this:

f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
f/11

Each of them halving the amount of light reaching the film/sensor.

To avoid masses of tedious calculations we use a similar scale for the shutter speed. On old cameras one step on the shutter dial either doubled or halved the time the shutter was open. So you would see speeds like 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500 etc. representing the fraction of a second the shutter was open. Once you had taken a lightmeter reading you could select from several sets of values, each of which would expose the film to the same amount of light. For example all of the following would give the same exposure.

1/60 at f/16 (less light from lens, shutter open for longer)
1/125 at f/11
1/250 at f/8
1/500 at f/5.6 (more light passing through lens, shutter open for less time)

Modern cameras can be more precise and have several steps in between each of these shutter speeds. On your camera each of these steps is split into three smaller steps (one third of a stop). Since they follow the same rule as the larger steps, each must increase the shutter speed by 26%.

1.26 * 1.26 * 1.26 = 2.00

This leads to values like this:

1/250
1/320 (250 * 1.26 rounded)
1/400 (320 * 1.26 rounded)
1/500

This is all a bit academic when it comes to taking pictures. So I wouldn't worry too much about the rather odd numbers.

Keith.

Filipe M.

08-02-11, 11:37 PM

Couldn't have said it better myself! :D

Bluefish

09-02-11, 12:16 AM

ok thanks for that keith.
In what situation would you have to be to use 4000 of a sec? pics of the sun?

Filipe M.

09-02-11, 02:17 AM

ok thanks for that keith.
In what situation would you have to be to use 4000 of a sec? pics of the sun?

Not really, it's actually quite easy to get there in normal situations.
Let's take the old "sunny 16" rule, which states that in a sunny cloudless day when you're shooting something in full sunlight (with the sun to your back), your shutter speed will be close to 1/ISO (rounded to full stops).

So you take your D90 at base ISO, which is 200, and the rule tells you that at f/16, your shutter speed should be 1/250s (try it out when you get a sunny day, set your camera to manual, plug in these numbers and shoot a pic).
Now when you start opening up your aperture to, let's say, f/5.6, if you do the maths you get 1/2000s (this is the close cousin to the "sunny 16" rule, some call it the "fast f/5.6" rule: for the same conditions, sunny day, full frontal light, an aperture of f/5.6 will give you a shutter speed of 1/(ISO x 10), for when you need to stop action). Open up another stop for f/4 and you get your 1/4000s, on a pretty normal picture.

That will be as wide open as you can go with the 18-105 kit lens (okay, f/3.5 on the wide end, but that doesn't really count), but if you take into account that most pro zoom lenses will go to f/2.8, then you're already at 1/8000s which the D90 doesn't even do. Grab a fast f/1.4 prime lens and you'd need 1/32000s in the same conditions! :shock:

Fast shutter speeds of 1/1000s and faster are very useful to stop action, and the faster the speed, the sharper the shot can be. With fast moving stuff, it doesn't really matter how steady you can hold your camera or if your lens has VR: it's all about shutter speed*.

*or flash, but that's a whole another chapter :lol:

mr.anderson

09-02-11, 09:44 AM

OK, so as we're heading toward flashes now - how does the Nikon Guide Number system work?

And how does this change things with a variable zoom flash like the SB-600 which ranges from 14-85mm?

Filipe M.

09-02-11, 11:15 AM

OK, so as we're heading toward flashes now - how does the Nikon Guide Number system work?

And how does this change things with a variable zoom flash like the SB-600 which ranges from 14-85mm?

You had to go and open that can of worms, didn't you? ;)

Well here we go, I'll try to keep it simple:

The Guide Number is a single number measure of a flash's maximum power output, expressed either in meters or feet for a given film speed. A flash with GN36 @ISO100 is more powerful than another one with GN19 @ISO100, for instance (as long as you're comparing the same units). It's derived from this expression:

GN = distance x aperture

What this means is that for a distance of, say, 4 meters and a flash with GN36 @ISO100, a full power pop will give you a correct exposure at f/8 and ISO100. The same way, at 8 meters you need to be at f/4 to obtain the same exposure. In essence it's as simple as this.

And then you get the other variables thrown in...

... like ISO. Just like available light, flash exposure is also affected by ISO. This means that our imaginary flash with GN36 @ISO100 now has a GN50 @ISO200 (the 41% increase Keith was talking about, or multiplying the number by the square root of 2 = approx 1.41)). At ISO400, the GN doubles and is now GN72 (another 41% increase from ISO200). If you plug figures into the above formula you now get 4 meters @ f/16 @ ISO400, for instance.

... and zoom head position. Most add-on flashes come equipped with a fresnel head that allow you to disperse or concentrate the light in a wider or narrower pattern* to match your lenses field of view. What this means is on a wider zoom setting (like 24mm) it'll have to spread the available power to a wider area than on a narrower beam setting like 85 mm. This translates to an effective GN variation, becoming lower at wider settings and higher at narrower beam settings. For instance, our example GN36 @ISO100 flash is only rated for GN36 at the 50mm beam setting. If you go to 24mm, the GN drops to GN26, and at 85mm it'll go up to GN40. Usually 24mm is the wider it'll go on it's own. When you need to go wider, some flashes have a built-in panel you pull over the flash lens to help disperse light even further. Of course having another element in the light path will knock the output down even further, so in our example flash the GN will drop to 14. If you take our example 4 meter distance, we're now talking f/3.5 @ISO100 to get the correct exposure. Go to 8 meters and you'll need f/1.8... or an ISO bump!

Manufacturers usually provide a table with the GN for every zoom setting and power level, and in the films days before TTL became rule and manual was all you had, photographers used to carry these printed tables around and had to refer to them in the field to make sure their exposures were right. TTL kind of negates the need for the tables because the camera will do all the calculations for you, but it's still useful to at least know the standard GN number of your flash so you know if it'll have enough power for any given situation.

Be careful when you compare different flashes though, as manufacturers will try and make their flashes look good in all sorts of ways. With GN it's all too easy to do, and sometimes you need to look at the full GN table to make sure you are comparing the same values. As an example, take these 2 GNs:

GN30 @ ISO100 @ 35mm.
GN50 @ ISO200 @ 50mm.

Which one is the most powerful flash?
While you can convert the ISO rating to match (just multiply / divide by 1.41) you can't do anything about the zoom head position but check the manufacturers table, as they all vary a bit.

And btw, that's the same flash. :D All values used in this example were taken from the Nikon SB600 manual. ;)

*look at your flash head while you play with the zoom setting and you'll see the bulb come forward at the wide setting and start pulling back into the head as you zoom to narrower beam settings. This is the reason why the Nikon SB900 is a behemoth of a flash: it'll narrow it's pattern to a 200mm coverage, so it really needs a long tube to be able to achieve this.

Filipe M.

09-02-11, 11:28 AM

... and as if the above wasn't enough, this is only valid for straight flash. The moment you bounce it or use diffusers, all bets are off.

If you have a perfect reflecting surface (without any kind of light loss whatsoever) to bounce it off, the GN expression is still valid, you just need to use the bounce distance instead of the straight line distance to your subject (I hope your math / trig skills are up to scratch ;) ). So if you're bouncing off a perfectly reflecting ceiling at a 45º degree angle while standing at the same height as your subject, a simple Phytagoras theorem will tell you your distance has now increased by, oh look!, 1.41x, so instead of using the 4 meters we were using in the previous example, you now plug 5.6 into the formula and get:

GN36 = 5.6 meters x aperture <==> aperture = f/6.4

Of course the real world is a funny place and there's no such thing as a perfectly polished metal reflecting ceiling, so you can count on losing a lot more light than that...

Slap a diffusing surface between your flash head and your subject and you lose even more light. If you use standard products like softboxes most manufacturers will tell you what the light loss is (measured in stops). Take a softbox with a 2 stop light loss, and the same (straight flash) example will now be:

GN36 = 4 meters x aperture - 2 stops <==> aperture = f/8 - 2 stops = f/4

HTH :lol:

If you really want to go into the world of flash, go here (http://strobist.blogspot.com) and here (http://www.joemcnally.com/blog). Be prepared to say goodbye to all your disposable income, though...

TC3

09-02-11, 12:49 PM

One of the main reasons i went with Nikon was the CLS flash system i heard so much about. Has served me well and has been a whole lot of fun learning (still on going).
Just had to get a small flash for my Canon G12.....bouncing to avoid hars shadows and spreading light evenly makes all the difference :)

Filipe M.

09-02-11, 01:08 PM

mr.anderson

09-02-11, 03:01 PM

Thanks Filipe, but I was actually hoping for a bit more than that. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

So basically the upshot is that it's good to have an understanding of the Guide Number system, but modern cameras and flashes using (i)TTL do all that for you?

On the Nikon CLS, I really like the simplicity of the whole system. I use my SB-600 off the camera more often than on the camera. That doesn't mean I'm any good at it, but it is a lot of fun. I do now need another two flashes and a whole lot of gels for proper experimentation, but that will have to wait a little while.

In the pic of the Nikon F, above (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2476171&postcount=81), the flash was off to the right facing the lens of the subject. Some of my other CLS attempts here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4546450970/), here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4845542039/) and here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4650190224/). And my very first attempt here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4547291209/).

Filipe M.

09-02-11, 06:28 PM

Thanks Filipe, but I was actually hoping for a bit more than that. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

So basically the upshot is that it's good to have an understanding of the Guide Number system, but modern cameras and flashes using (i)TTL do all that for you?

Pretty much, yes. :) As I said above, it's always good to know the GN, that way when the automatic stuff doesn't do what you want it to you'll have a better chance of knowing what's going on, or even using manual settings. :lol:

On the Nikon CLS, I really like the simplicity of the whole system. I use my SB-600 off the camera more often than on the camera. That doesn't mean I'm any good at it, but it is a lot of fun. I do now need another two flashes and a whole lot of gels for proper experimentation, but that will have to wait a little while.

In the pic of the Nikon F, above (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2476171&postcount=81), the flash was off to the right facing the lens of the subject. Some of my other CLS attempts here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4546450970/), here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4845542039/) and here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4650190224/). And my very first attempt here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46442504@N02/4547291209/).

Pretty good stuff there :cool:
And yes, a couple more SB600/700/800/900 would be extremely welcome, but right now I'd settle for a a couple of cheap manual jobbies I could trigger with optical / radio slaves, but even those will have to wait a bit.

Btw, if you want to pick up a really good book on the subject of light, try this one (http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9780240808192/Light---Science-and-Magic?selectCurrency=GBP). It's not exactly cheap, and it's not specific to flash, but it's one of the best books ever on lighting for photography.

keith_d

10-02-11, 09:00 AM

Excellent explanation from Filipe. Now, here's the condensed version...

1) The aperture controls how much light the lens allow through, with each stop halving or doubling the amount of light. It also controls depth of field

1.4) The shutter controls how long the sensor is exposed to the light from the lens in fractions of a second. So 1/60 is a sixtieth of a second. The steps double or halve the time the shutter is open.

2) The sensitivity of you sensor can be varied by changing the ISO rating. The steps either halve or double the sensitivity. (are we seeing a pattern here?)

2.8) The sensor can only handle a limited range of brightness. Too much light and you get pure white, too little and you get black. The items above allow you to adjust how much light the sensor receives.

4) Flashes produce a very short burst of light, which diminishes with distance. An approximate aperture can be given by Guide Number / Distance.

5.6) Try it for yourself. Put your camera on a tripod and try changing aperture and shutter speed.

Keith.

Filipe M.

10-02-11, 10:19 AM

And once again Keith demonstrates how to condense my drivel into 6 line posts :lol: :lol:

It also brought to my attention that I left out an important bit, which is related to shutter speed while using flash. And the reason why I forgot to talk about it is...

... because shutter speed, within a given set of conditions, has no effect on flash exposure. That means you can shoot at 1/30s or 1/200s and still get the same exposure from the flash. The only exposure controls (besides flash power) that affect the flash exposure are aperture and ISO.

So what's the catch? This is only valid for the flash part of the exposure. Imagine you're in a completely dark room, and all your light will come from a flash that will fire at the moment of exposure: shoot at 1/2s or at 1/200s and you get exactly the same exposure.
Now turn on a couple of lights in the room and those will contribute to the exposure, in addition to the flash: shoot at 1/200s and you won't notice their effect (they're just too dim to register), shoot at 1/2s and you'll most probably see their effect in addition to the flash itself.

This in itself is a wonderful tool to explore, as it allows you to balance your ambient light with flash to your taste, with at least one independent control over each part:

Ambient light: shutter speed / aperture / ISO
Flash: flash power / aperture / ISO

This bit is also the reason why cameras will default to a minimum shutter speed when people turn the flash on (either built-in or add-on) in dark conditions, and it's usually 1/60s. The camera, with default settings, knows it's exposure will depend mainly on the flash pop, so it can safely ignore everything else. Everyone has probably seen those failed attempts at night time group portraits in front of a dimly lit fountain or monument, where the result you get is a bunch of people standing in the middle of a black hole without the feature behind them, right? That would be the camera using nothing but flash to light them, at said default minimum shutter speed, which is still way too short to allow the feature to be registered in the sensor. If you tried that same photo without the flash, the camera would probably tell you you'd need a much longer shutter speed to get a correct exposure for that background, so 1/60s isn't going to take you anywhere...

... cue Slow Sync flash. This will allow the camera to ignore the minimum shutter speed and use whatever it feels necessary to get the correct ambient exposure, in addition to the flash itself. Now if this exposure is too long, you might start getting blurred results, and if you're panning and tracking motion, since your flash will fire at the beginning of the exposure, you'll definitely get a funny looking streak in front of the object you're moving with. You'll get a very strong notion of motion, because of the streaks, but unfortunately on the wrong side of the object:
Imagine you're tracking and shooting a bike; what you get is a flash "frozen" image of the bike and then the streaks in front of it as it moves forward and you're panning with it. Result? A bike that looks like it's going backwards.

... cue Rear Sync flash. The camera will move the flash exposure to the end of the shutter opening time, allowing you to "freeze" the object on the right side of the image. Now as you press the shutter and pan, you get the ambient light first (creating the blurry streaks), and the flash "frozen" image right at the end of the streaks.

Whew. Right, there's still a few more points to cover (like the given set of conditions I mentioned earlier, balancing with daylight and colour), so I'll come back later for that! :lol:

mr.anderson

10-02-11, 10:34 AM

Filipe M.

10-02-11, 11:03 AM

This is a heck of a lot of information to digest and understand. I'm still working through your earlier posts.

I find this this is a good supplement to what you're saying, Filipe:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/sync-speed_v2.gif
(from here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm))

Yup, there's where I was going to go with the next post, flash max sync speed (the "given set of conditions" I mentioned at the beginning of the post) and how it makes everyone's lives miserable! ;) I'll come back to it as soon as I get a few mins to do it!

keith_d

10-02-11, 12:47 PM

One final piece is the maximum flash sync speed.

The light output from a flash can last anything from 1/10000 of a second to 1/1000 of a second depending on the power and design.

But, most film cameras will give odd results if you set the shutter speed to 1/1000. This is because the shutter is made up of two parts (like roller blinds). The first blind uncovers the film to expose it to light, and the second follows behind it to block the light again. So effectively you have a moving slit passing across the film. To get a 1/1000 of a second exposure, the second curtain will start covering up the film before the first has reached the other side. So whenever the flash fires part of the film will be covered by one of the blinds.

With modern digital cameras things are a little different because they use electronics to activate the sensor instead of moving blinds. But at high shutter speeds you still get poor overlap between the sensor activation and when the flash is producing maximum light. This tends to mean rather erratic exposure.

Nikon does have a workaround for this, which means firing the flash for a longer period to ensure better overlap. But I'm not a big fan since it means reducing the amount of light from the flash.

As a general rule, I avoid shutter speeds above 1/250 when shooting with a flash and usually keep to 1/125 or slower.

keith_d

10-02-11, 01:17 PM

The maximum sync speed is a bit of a problem in very bright conditions where you want to mix natural light and flash. Typically you're up against three constraints:

1) You want a shallow depth of field to isolate your subject from the background. This means a wide open lens with lots of light coming in.

2) You need a fast shutter speed to control the amount of light that reaches the sensor from the wide open lens

3) You need a slower shutter speed to sync with the flash

Even with the ISO turned right down to 100 (least sensitivity) you might not be able to satisfy all three requirements.

Sometimes an ND8 filter can help. This is a plain grey filter that blocks 87% of the light reaching the camera, for both the flash and natural light. This will allow you to reduce the shutter speed by three stops, providing the flash is powerful enough.

Filipe M.

10-02-11, 06:31 PM

And this is exactly where I was going. Allow me to add just a few bits of drivel :lol:

One final piece is the maximum flash sync speed.

The light output from a flash can last anything from 1/10000 of a second to 1/1000 of a second depending on the power and design.

But, most film cameras will give odd results if you set the shutter speed to 1/1000. This is because the shutter is made up of two parts (like roller blinds). The first blind uncovers the film to expose it to light, and the second follows behind it to block the light again. So effectively you have a moving slit passing across the film. To get a 1/1000 of a second exposure, the second curtain will start covering up the film before the first has reached the other side. So whenever the flash fires part of the film will be covered by one of the blinds.

With modern digital cameras things are a little different because they use electronics to activate the sensor instead of moving blinds. But at high shutter speeds you still get poor overlap between the sensor activation and when the flash is producing maximum light. This tends to mean rather erratic exposure.

There is a distinction to be made here between the DLSR cameras with "normal" mechanical shutter, "hybrid" mechanical / electronic shutter and the other digital cameras without a mechanical shutter.

Normal mechanical shutter DSLRs will behave pretty much like the old film SLRs, where the mechanical shutter is the main factor contributing to the exposure timing. In this case, the shutter behaves just like Keith described: a curtain exposes the sensor, another one follows it and covers the sensor. At "slow" speeds, one curtain will be fully open before the other one starts to move; if you fire a flash during this period of time, all of the sensor will get the same quantity of light. At fast speeds, the second curtain will start to move before the first one reaches the end of it's travel. Fire a flash sometime in the middle of this and only a bit of the sensor gets to see the light.

Non-SLR digital cameras have a purely electronic sensor, that is constantly exposed to light coming through the lens (that's why you get to see the image in the LCD while framing, whereas in a DSLR you can't when you use it as such). What the camera does when taking a photo is turn off the sensor, switch from "live view" to picture taking mode, activate it for the amount of time dictated by the shutter speed, then go back to live view mode. This means the whole area of the sensor is exposed to the light at the same time.

Hybrid shutter DSLRs have a mixed way of doing things: the mechanical shutter will work up to a given speed, usually the one that allows the whole sensor area exposed at any given time, and at faster speeds than that the sensor activation will control the exposure time in between mechanical shutter opening and closing.

The maximum speed the shutter can operate at while still keeping the whole area of the sensor exposed at the same time is called the Maximum Sync Speed, and for purely mechanical shutter DSLRs it's usually around 1/200s for the D60 / D80 / D90 and 1/250s for the higher spec models D7000 / D300 / D700 / D3. Anything above this and you start getting progressively bigger bands without flash exposure, unless you use the trick Keith mentioned on his other post.

For hybrid shutter cameras, this changes quite a lot. For instance, for the Nikon D40 / D70, the manufacturer recommended sync speed is 1/500s, but you can sync at even higher speeds than that, and as long as your flash pulse is shorter than the duration of the exposure and assuming your camera / flash system are able to communicate successfully in such a short amount of time, you can theoretically sync up to the maximum shutter speed. This is one of the reasons that make these (now) old and inexpensive DSLRs so sought after by strobists all over the world, even though they are "only" 6 MP. ;)

Nikon does have a workaround for this, which means firing the flash for a longer period to ensure better overlap. But I'm not a big fan since it means reducing the amount of light from the flash.

As a general rule, I avoid shutter speeds above 1/250 when shooting with a flash and usually keep to 1/125 or slower.

The workaround is called "Focal Plane Shutter" in Nikon speak (high speed sync for mere mortals :lol: ), and basically turns the flash into a pulsing light source. It does reduce the amount of available power, because now instead of being dumped all in one go, it has to be distributed over a slightly longer period of time, and as contradictory as it may sound, the faster the shutter speed, the lower the available power from the flash. People who have tested it say it pretty much behaves like ambient light at high speeds, losing 1 stop of power for each stop of shutter speed increase.

The maximum sync speed is a bit of a problem in very bright conditions where you want to mix natural light and flash. Typically you're up against three constraints:

1) You want a shallow depth of field to isolate your subject from the background. This means a wide open lens with lots of light coming in.

2) You need a fast shutter speed to control the amount of light that reaches the sensor from the wide open lens

3) You need a slower shutter speed to sync with the flash

Even with the ISO turned right down to 100 (least sensitivity) you might not be able to satisfy all three requirements.

Sometimes an ND8 filter can help. This is a plain grey filter that blocks 87% of the light reaching the camera, for both the flash and natural light. This will allow you to reduce the shutter speed by three stops, providing the flash is powerful enough.

Bingo, and this is why serious strobists are always on the look for cheap D40 / D70 bodies. As an example, let's go back to our sunny 16 rule and a daylight portrait: starting with the standard rule values, at ISO 100 we get 1/125s @ f/16. This gives us way too much depth of field, so we would like to bring this down to f/4 or less. To accomplish this, we'd need a shutter speed of 1/2000s, but we've just seen our shutter speed is now limited by the max sync speed. Let's assume we're shooting with a D300, which has a sync speed of 1/250s. That's f/11. Still way too much depth of field... Bring a D40 and at 1/500s you're already down to f/8. Sync it at 1/1000s and you can still go down to f/5.6, and you're still not using FP sync, it's purely based on different camera characteristics.

The ND8 filter method is used by a lot of people to counteract this, but it also has it's drawbacks like making it harder to focus properly, and most FP users also say that if you're going to lose power anyway (that's what the ND filter does, basically), you might as well lose it on the flash instead of putting something else in front of your lens. Personally I'll use FP over an ND8 most of the time, but that's because I'm too lazy to screw the filter on the lens and then take it back again for the next shot :lol:

Bri w

10-02-11, 11:18 PM

Bluefish

10-02-11, 11:18 PM

learning lots here, you keeping up northern lass :D

Bluefish

10-02-11, 11:21 PM

Help!

Was out yesterday with the new lens, 70-300 Tamron on a Nikon D5000. In the main the results were poor. For example, one taken from about 20feet with a low sun behind me. 180mm - Auto(ISO400) 1/1600 @ F/5. Set the focus on the mrs. The tree next to her is crystal clear but she is out of focus.

The vast majority of what I took, all on Auto, were out of focus. Its driving me nuts.

The question is what is the depth of field with those settings - I would have thought that the 6" she was back from the front of the tree would still have had her in focus.

Seriously thinking of switching Auto off and doing it the old fashioned way just like when I had a SLR.

bri instead of using auto, have you tried using shutter speed or aperture for the priority, you set either of those and the camera auto's the rest, one move on from auto.

Bri w

10-02-11, 11:27 PM

bri instead of using auto, have you tried using shutter speed or aperture for the priority, you set either of those and the camera auto's the rest, one move on from auto.

spent the evening fiddling about with the damned thing.

The annoying thing is I used to be damned good with my old Olympus OM10 & OM 1. These new fangled stuff with loads of electrickery is doing my head in.

Filipe M.

11-02-11, 12:31 AM

Help!

Was out yesterday with the new lens, 70-300 Tamron on a Nikon D5000. In the main the results were poor. For example, one taken from about 20feet with a low sun behind me. 180mm - Auto(ISO400) 1/1600 @ F/5. Set the focus on the mrs. The tree next to her is crystal clear but she is out of focus.

The vast majority of what I took, all on Auto, were out of focus. Its driving me nuts.

The question is what is the depth of field with those settings - I would have thought that the 6" she was back from the front of the tree would still have had her in focus.

Seriously thinking of switching Auto off and doing it the old fashioned way just like when I had a SLR.

Shooting at 180mm, f/5, focusing 20 feet away will give you a depth of field close to 4 inches, so nowhere near the 6 feet you were hoping for. Even f/32 would only give you 10 to 12 inches of DoF at that distance.

When you're shooting on Auto, focus control is taken away from you, and the camera will pretty much focus on whatever it pleases. Move it to A or P, set it in Single Point Autofocus, AF-S, and try again by focusing and recomposing. That should do the trick for now. :)

Filipe M.

11-02-11, 12:40 AM

spent the evening fiddling about with the damned thing.

The annoying thing is I used to be damned good with my old Olympus OM10 & OM 1. These new fangled stuff with loads of electrickery is doing my head in.

Then why don't you try and do it the way you used to do it? Use the manual settings like you used to, with the added bonus that you don't have to wait for your results to come back from the lab to check what you're doing.

My advice to someone who is coming back to photography with a new DSLR after using film would be exactly that: try and set up the camera to behave as close as possible to what you were used to with film, even if it means turning off every auto thingy. Use manual / semi-auto exposure, spot or center metering, fixed ISO, use manual focus, set it to jpg with fixed white balance (daylight or tungsten, just like you used to select with film). Shoot like that, find your feet with something you know, and then turn the the auto features back on one at a time. If you do it like this, you'll have more of a chance of understanding what is doing what, instead of the camera messing you around doing whatever it feels like doing. :)

keith_d

11-02-11, 06:06 AM

Help!

Was out yesterday with the new lens, 70-300 Tamron on a Nikon D5000. In the main the results were poor. For example, one taken from about 20feet with a low sun behind me. 180mm - Auto(ISO400) 1/1600 @ F/5. Set the focus on the mrs. The tree next to her is crystal clear but she is out of focus.

Hi Bri,

I can think of a couple of reasons why you might be getting out of focus pictures. Can I suggest a simple test.

a) Find a nice high brick wall and stand about 2m from it.
b) Switch to aperture priority and select a wide aperture (like f/4).
c) Manually select the center AF point
d) Auto-focus on an obvious point (a broken brick, graffiti etc) about 2m further along the wall.
e) Take a couple of frames
f) Examine what's in focus
g) Repeat with another lens and at different zoom settings

This should show whether the AF is focussing where you expect.

Regards,

Keith.

P.S. Excellent suggestion from Filipe

TC3

11-02-11, 07:18 AM

I would like to point out that if you try a focus test using a brick wall or even a focus test you down load from the web be aware that the centre focus point you use may be slightly of centre. In my Pentax DSLR it was quite a bit below where the centre focus point light was. Only way to find out is testing with different lenses and using a focus test chart you can print off from google. You will need to use a tripod though.

Milky Bar Kid

11-02-11, 10:23 AM

learning lots here, you keeping up northern lass :D

No. Faaaaar too many numbers being bandied about for me!!! It's ok though, Filipe knows when I ask a question to answer in MBK speak!

keith_d

11-02-11, 10:31 AM

No. Faaaaar too many numbers being bandied about for me!!! It's ok though, Filipe knows when I ask a question to answer in MBK speak!

You looks froo da ole, an presses da buttun wen it looks nise. Den da pixies inside paints a pitcher for ya. Too dark or too lite an dey can't paint so good.

OK??

Milky Bar Kid

11-02-11, 10:44 AM

LOL! Keith, I am not completely thick!!!

allantheboss

11-02-11, 11:53 AM

New camera n00b!

This summer I plan on touring with my bro around Europe, and I'm going to be studying abroad in Sydney over the whole of next year. I don't know how to use SLR funky-style functions so don't want to get ahead of myself and don't have a large budget, and will be packing light, so this leads me towards compacts. I expect to be taking many scenic landscape pics in plenty of sun.

My budget is roughly £150-250. More than happy to buy used.

Sorry to de-rail slightly; Any new recommendations, other than the Panasonic Lumix TZ range?
This Canon comes highly rated (but the colour?!)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Digital-IXUS-200-Camera/dp/B002LSI1KA/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Filipe M.

11-02-11, 12:54 PM

Sorry to de-rail slightly; Any new recommendations, other than the Panasonic Lumix TZ range?
This Canon comes highly rated (but the colour?!)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Digital-IXUS-200-Camera/dp/B002LSI1KA/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I don't have first hand experience with that particular model, but I have to say all Canon compacts I've tried have been decent enough to the point I bough one for my mom (@Ed: you'd never think you'd live to hear me say this... ;) )

That said, high ratings on Amazon don't always translate to high ratings on specialist websites :lol: Take a lookey here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?prodkey=canon_sd980is). SD980is and IXUS 200is are only different model designations for different markets, as are the Panny ZS3 and TZ7, etc.

Of course you'll have as many different opinions as there are owners, and the latest TZ models aren't doing as well on the user ratings as the TZ7 did. My recommendation for the TZ7 came from some hands-on experience with it, and TC3 also backed it up with his own opinion.

Talking about specs only, I really like the fact that Canon comes with a 24mm equivalent lens, but then it tops out at 120mm, which for me would be a bit too short for a "travel camera". In comparison, the Panny does 25mm at the wide end (not too much of a difference there), but goes all the way to 300mm at the tele end. That's proper Telephoto territory.
Also be aware that even though the Canon lens allows for a larger aperture at the wide end (f/2.8 vs. the Panny's f/3.3), it rapidly loses that advantage at the tele end, being f/5.9 @ 120mm. In comparison, the Panny is f/4.9 @ 300mm, so at 120 it'll probably be at least 1 full stop faster than the Canon. Translated to real world performance, this means the Panny has the ability to use lower ISOs or faster shutter speeds for the same conditions, which result in potentially cleaner and sharper images, while allowing you a bit more depth of field control at the tele end (not that you'll ever be able to have razor thin depth of field, but you'll have a bit more subject separation capability if you so wish).
Moreover, lens diffraction is a serious problem in small cameras, and the bigger the lens aperture the more wiggle room you have before it sets in and destroys image detail (most compact cameras won't even allow you to set an aperture smaller than f/8 or f/9 for that reason).

Too many tradeoffs if you ask me :lol: and it's a Canon! *hides from Ed* :lol:

stewie

11-02-11, 02:01 PM

Milky Bar Kid

11-02-11, 02:03 PM

Why is everyone so hung up on the the technology ? its all about the image isnt it ? that was one of the things using film taught you, if you are actually having to pay for buying film and developing you think more about the image, with digital it seems to be more about blasting as many shots as poss cos you're bound to get one thats ok, 'spray and pray' its called, its one of the reasons why so many photographers are going back to film.
Just my opinion :)

I may have read that wrong but you seem to be slightly contradicting yourself there...

Surely if people are trying to teach themselves the technology behind it in order to take shots and prevent the "spray and pray" thing you're talking about then it is similar to learning how to take good shots to save film???

Filipe M.

11-02-11, 02:04 PM

Why is everyone so hung up on the the technology ? its all about the image isnt it ? that was one of the things using film taught you, if you are actually having to pay for buying film and developing you think more about the image, with digital it seems to be more about blasting as many shots as poss cos you're bound to get one thats ok, 'spray and pray' its called, its one of the reasons why so many photographers are going back to film.
Just my opinion :)

And it's a perfectly valid opinion, but not everyone does spray and pray ;) I just like knowing what's going on inside the camera / lens to make sure I increase my chances of getting something decent every time I press the shutter.

That and I'm a geek... ;)

stewie

11-02-11, 02:14 PM

Ok,fair points, Im not having a go at anyone, not at all,and I'm no great photographer myself btw, maybe cos I'm a bit older than most of you but I see it in a lot of the photo mags that it seems to be all about the tech side and less about just going out and playing with the settings and having fun, I still use film and slide, I'm even comtemplating getting another film camera for black and white only, I guess what I'm saying is when Robert Capa or David Bailey or Henri carteon Besson took photographt to the next level no one talked about the tech they just marvelled at the image they produced.:)

Filipe M.

11-02-11, 02:30 PM

Milky Bar Kid

11-02-11, 02:33 PM

At the end of the day, it's like any other technology, it needs the user input to get results...

stewie

11-02-11, 02:46 PM

At the end of the day, it's like any other technology, it needs the user input to get results...
Spot on :)

Milky Bar Kid

11-02-11, 02:50 PM

Yay!!!!!!! I got something right in this thread! Whoooo!

Filipe M.

11-02-11, 03:04 PM

Yay!!!!!!! I got something right in this thread! Whoooo!

Shall I start throwing numbers back at you? :lol:

Milky Bar Kid

11-02-11, 03:07 PM

No!!! It hurts my brain!

Bluefish

11-02-11, 07:30 PM

You looks froo da ole, an presses da buttun wen it looks nise. Den da pixies inside paints a pitcher for ya. Too dark or too lite an dey can't paint so good.

OK??

peeing myself :D

Milky Bar Kid

11-02-11, 07:33 PM

peeing myself :D

:smt019

There's a treatment for that you know...

keith_d

12-02-11, 05:39 AM

At the end of the day, it's like any other technology, it needs the user input to get results...

Yep - I've heard it said that you could give a top photographer a compact camera and they would still produce awesome pictures. Conversely you can give me a posh camera in an underwater housing and I'll still produce pictures of fish tails.

A lot of serious photographers are into pre-visualisation, where they first decide what their image will look like. Then arrange their equipment to take the picture they visualised. So, for them technology is just a tool to express their vision more efficiently.

I think I've got a long way to go before I reach that point.

Keith.

Filipe M.

12-02-11, 01:08 PM

I think I've got a long way to go before I reach that point.

+1, but as they also say, it's not about getting there, it's the journey that counts!

... or so I try to convince myself... ;) :lol:

Bluefish

13-02-11, 11:36 AM

Seeing as it's been so quiet in here lately, i have a question. Filters what's the score do you need one/ten, what do they do, how much are they, when to use?, you get the picture ;)

13-02-11, 11:52 AM

Do we really need 11 sticky threads in the photo section?

Richie

13-02-11, 12:00 PM

yes, as they will get lost in the mists of interweb :0)

down to 8 :0) is that better?

keith_d

13-02-11, 12:31 PM

Seeing as it's been so quiet in here lately, i have a question. Filters what's the score do you need one/ten, what do they do, how much are they, when to use?, you get the picture ;)

I could cut my filter collection down to maybe five:

1,2 & 3) Graduated grey filters in different strengths for landscape photography. These are used because the sky is usually much brighter than the land and would otherwise be overexposed. The standard one is 3 stops which only allows 1/8 of the light through the darkest part. But this can be a bit heavy and make cloudy skies look artificially stormy. So have 1 and 2 stop filters too.

4) Circular polariser. This has the same visual effect as a regular polariser, but doesn't mess up the clever optics in modern cameras. It's used to cut down reflections on water & leaves, adjust the brightness of blue skies and boost colour saturation for sunny landscapes.

5) 81A weak warmup filter. This can be used for portrait photography to reduce the cool blue tones of studio flash, and also for sunset photos which might otherwise end up with rather blue shadows. I've chosen a very weak warm-up filter because the stronger 81C just looks completely artificial.

In terms of what to buy, I've gone for Cokin P series filters. The A series aren't big enough for modern zoom lenses where the filters are sometimes 77mm diameter. I guess you'd be looking at around £20 per filter, more for the polariser. But I haven't bought any for a long while.

I also leave a plain UV filter on almost all my lenses to protect the front element. I'd rather bin a £20 UV filter than a £500 lens, and yes I have done that one time when my bag wasn't closed properly.

I'd be interested to hear what other people have in their bags,

Keith.

Filipe M.

13-02-11, 01:07 PM

Seeing as it's been so quiet in here lately, i have a question. Filters what's the score do you need one/ten, what do they do, how much are they, when to use?, you get the picture ;)

And here we go for another can of worms...

Filters fall into different categories according to their function, and consequently their necessity. Most of them are now a thing of the past, as when shooting film there's only so much you can do on post processing (unless you scan your film, of course) so you absolutely had to get it right on camera. That said, there still are a few that even though they aren't indispensable for an amateur, a serious photographer will have them in their bag:

Polariser: this one will help cut the non-polarised light (scattered light) before it reaches the lens. This will help deepen the colours especially in nature, like trees and sky. It will also allow you to increase or decrease glass and water reflections, depending on the angle you shoot at, effectively enabling you to see through them or turn them into mirrors. It's effect cannot be simulated in a computer, and it's one of the most important tools for nature photographers, so it deserve a place in everyone's bag. Good ones will be stupid expensive, though, and when using it with a DSLR you will need a Circular Polariser (nothing to do with the shape, only the way the light is polarised inside it).

Neutral Density: this is basically a neutral grey piece of glass that will cut down some of the light that reaches the lens. They come in different densities, like ND2 (cuts down 1 stop), ND4 (2 stops), ND8 (3 stops), etc., and will enable you to shoot with a much longer shutter speed than you would without it. They can be used to achieve that ghosting effect with people walking in front of a sharply defined architecture feature, or dreamlike water in streams of beaches. Keith also mentioned them in a previous post as a way to cut available light down to fall into flash sync speed territory when doing wide aperture portraiture. Their effect is pretty much impossible to simulate in post, so they are still necessary if you're looking for those particular kinds of effects. As a curiosity, Singh-Ray makes a Vari-ND that goes down to 8 stops by slapping two polarisers back to back and rotating one relative to the other, but they'll probably be more expensive than your lenses. :lol:

There is a variant of the ND, which is the Graduated Neutral Density. These feature a clear piece of glass on the bottom of the filter that becomes gradually darker as you reach the top edge. They allow you to tame high contrast situations like sunsets. Without it, you'd be fighting to keep the sky from blowing out to white while keeping the foreground from going pitch black. Put a graduated ND on the camera, adjust the transition to match the horizon, and now you have a fighting chance because the filter makes the sky naturally darker. They come in several densities and transitions, like hard edge (goes quickly from clear to dark) or soft edge (goes smoothly from clear to dark).
Their effect is hard to simulate in post without using HDR or layering multiple shots taken at different shutter speeds, so they still find their place in a serious photographer's bag.

UV filters: not needed with today's DSLRs. They were created to keep UV rays from reaching the film, which would degrade image quality, but DSLR sensors are filtered to protect this, so UV filters are largely unnecessary. This said, some people use them to protect the lens' front element from bumping into stuff, especially with the more expensive lenses. It's a lot cheaper to replace a filter than it is to replace a lens front element. On the other hand, it can be argued that you're spending shedloads of money on a lens and they putting a cheap piece of glass in front of it, therefore negating some of the reasons why you bought the lens in the first place, like sharpness and better protection against flare...

Skylight: not needed.

Colored filters: if you shoot black and white jpgs, you'll find a use for them (increasing contrast in some colours). If you shoot raw, you can ignore them as you can simulate their effect in post.

Special effect filters, like soft focus, etc: just do it in post.

IMHO, it's almost always better to avoid using filters unless you really need to (like polarisers and NDs) and shoot raw, as this will give you the best possible image quality to start with. Then you can learn how to apply the effects you want in post, but always leaving you with a way out, whereas if you apply the filter at shooting time you're locked yourself into a corner.

Another thing has to be said for filter prices: avoid the cheap ones. Just like lenses, good filters will be expensive, but they won't degrade your image quality as much when shooting.

Filipe M.

13-02-11, 01:09 PM

I could cut my filter collection down to maybe five:

1,2 & 3) Graduated grey filters in different strengths for landscape photography. These are used because the sky is usually much brighter than the land and would otherwise be overexposed. The standard one is 3 stops which only allows 1/8 of the light through the darkest part. But this can be a bit heavy and make cloudy skies look artificially stormy. So have 1 and 2 stop filters too.

4) Circular polariser. This has the same visual effect as a regular polariser, but doesn't mess up the clever optics in modern cameras. It's used to cut down reflections on water & leaves, adjust the brightness of blue skies and boost colour saturation for sunny landscapes.

5) 81A weak warmup filter. This can be used for portrait photography to reduce the cool blue tones of studio flash, and also for sunset photos which might otherwise end up with rather blue shadows. I've chosen a very weak warm-up filter because the stronger 81C just looks completely artificial.

In terms of what to buy, I've gone for Cokin P series filters. The A series aren't big enough for modern zoom lenses where the filters are sometimes 77mm diameter. I guess you'd be looking at around £20 per filter, more for the polariser. But I haven't bought any for a long while.

I also leave a plain UV filter on almost all my lenses to protect the front element. I'd rather bin a £20 UV filter than a £500 lens, and yes I have done that one time when my bag wasn't closed properly.

I'd be interested to hear what other people have in their bags,

Keith.

What he said, in condensed version. I really need to work on my condensed writing skills. :lol:

Bluefish

13-02-11, 02:38 PM

Thanks guys, really good explanations, so i will need to get a polarizing filter, as i would take quite a few landsape shots.
Now you only have yourself to blame Filipe as you mentioned Raw, i have never used it yet, as you said in a previous post it keeps more info per picture, thus cutting down how many pics you can take per card, and keeps the original so you can mess around with the pic and still have the original, if i remember correctly?. so how do i go about shooting in raw?, obviously you change the setting on the camera. when i loaded the cd from the camera there was a pop up came up for me to download a program, which i did, i think this was for raw, or is there a recommended program to use?, again many thanks guys for your time and knowledge :D Edit just found dslrtips.com on you tube, some good vids explaining stuff.

keith_d

13-02-11, 07:06 PM

RAW format means you get a dump of the data from the sensor with very little processing done on it.

JPEG means the data is white balanced, filtered and compressed to save space on the memory card. That process does mean that it's not exactly what was captured when you pressed the shutter, some data is lost.

Professionals generally shoot RAW because it gives them more options for post-processing. Historically, Photoshop was the tool of choice for manipulating the resulting images since most basic editors only handled 8 bits per pixel but a RAW file contained 12. These days Lightroom has been getting a lot of growth in the serious amateur market. I've also read some good reviews for Bibble but I've not used it myself.

I'd recommend downloading the trial version of Lightroom and watching some of the videos on the Adobe site which explain how to use it.

Keith.

keith_d

13-02-11, 07:07 PM

What he said, in condensed version. I really need to work on my condensed writing skills. :lol:

Naah - I'm just too mean to waste words.

Bluefish

13-02-11, 07:17 PM

Bluefish

13-02-11, 07:18 PM

cheers Keith, will have a look at lightroom.

TC3

13-02-11, 10:18 PM

I can vouch for Lightroom. Have used it for many years for both Raw and Jpeg images.
Raw is what I shoot 99% of the time. There is a lot more scope to save an image that may have been exposed wrong or wrong White balance etc. Yes the files are bigger but just vet a bigger card :)

keith_d

14-02-11, 03:15 AM

One of these any good http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/HOYA-67mm-Circular-Polarizing-Filter-Green-Series-67-mm-/110609349245?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item19c0d4ba7d

or this, http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Hoya-67mm-polarizing-filter-/110645818647?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_ CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item19c3013517

edit, i'm guessing the first one is a linear so no good for me?

If you're interested in landscape photography the first thing to get is a sturdy tripod. Assuming you've got that I'd start with a graduated ND filter and holder. This will make more difference to your results than a polarizer.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Cokin-P-Grad-Filter-ND-P121-Also-Fits-Kood-Pro-/280627821539

stewie

14-02-11, 02:32 PM

You could get some coloured fiters too for using in b+w mode, seem to remember red being a good one when doing portrait work in b+w cos it dimishes blemishes on the models skin and evens the tone out a bit or you could use some green or yellow ones on b+w to give the effect of infrared although not sure how to do it in PS afterwards tbh, someone will know though, btw feel free to correct me if I've got em wrong, its been a while since I put some b+w through a camera :)

stewie

14-02-11, 02:36 PM

Actually thats one of the really good things about digital compared to analogue photography, you can go outside now and experiment with various settings, filters, shutter speeds etc then hook it up to your laptop/pc whatever and get instant results with all the exif (?) info already there as opposed to using film and then writing down every shot you take, film speed, ap setting etc and then waiting with bated breath for the results to come back from boots etc

Bluefish

14-02-11, 08:08 PM

cheers guys, no not got a tripod yet Keith, any reccomendations that don't costa fortune, so will need a tripod and some graduated filters then, do those cokin ones stick out a lot from the lens?. just tried uploading some pics to photo bucket and it won't let me, it says no files of type, could this be because they were taken in Raw instead of jpg? edit just took a couple of test pics in raw + jpg and these would upload so i guess i have to take in jpg or raw + jpg to be able to put on here.

Filipe M.

14-02-11, 08:47 PM

just tried uploading some pics to photo bucket and it won't let me, it says no files of type, could this be because they were taken in Raw instead of jpg?

Yup, you'll need to convert your photos from raw to jpg for photobucket to be able to read them. The most painless way of doing this (until you know your way around Lightroom) might be using Nikon ViewNX (free software, probably came with your camera, now updated to ViewNX 2), as it will read all the settings off the camera that were stored in the pics inside the raw file and export the jpgs just as if they were created on camera.

Bluefish

14-02-11, 09:02 PM

nice try filipe, but that's what i did, in photobucket it showed the file 004 and a pic from inside it, but when double clicking on it got the no files of type message, was using nikon view nx :(

Bluefish

14-02-11, 09:43 PM

A few pics from the other weekend,

http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu94/andysv/D90/DSC_0043.jpg

http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu94/andysv/D90/DSC_0034.jpg

http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu94/andysv/D90/DSC_0025.jpg

http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu94/andysv/D90/DSC_0014.jpg

keith_d

15-02-11, 08:31 AM

cheers guys, no not got a tripod yet Keith, any reccomendations that don't costa fortune...

These days carbon fibre is trendy so lots of people are flogging their old alumninium tripods on Ebay for peanuts. Recently I picked up a Manfrotto 055C for £40 including head. Have a look at these:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Manfrotto-ART-055-Tripod-/220738543111
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Manfrotto-055PRO-tripod-141RC-head-ex-condition-/170602610756

Pretty much any of the 055 tripods will be a good starting point. They're not particularly light but they are sturdy and you can get a decent selection of heads for them. I think the 055PRO is the nicest to use, but that's personal preference.

... and some graduated filters then, do those cokin ones stick out a lot from the lens?.

The Cokin system comprises a ring that screws into the front of your lens, a filter holder, and one or more filters. So when you get more lenses you just need the right size ring and you can use all your existing filters. The whole assembly is about 15mm thick when mounted on your lens.

To start off, a P121 will be fine, that will cover the vast majority of your needs.

One final thought. Shooting with a tripod gives you time to think about your images, tweak the position and adjust your camera angle until it's just right. By which time the people you're with are completely p***ed off with waiting around. That's why landscape photographers have no friends!! :D

Keith

Bluefish

15-02-11, 09:13 AM

Lol, tell me about it, mrs always says i take too long. Will check those links out tonight, ta.

TC3

15-02-11, 12:50 PM

For a tripod i got one of these from my local camera shop Digital Depot
http://www.digitaldepot.co.uk/tripods/tripods/vista-attaras-tripod.html

I researched on it before i bought it and it had great reviews for the normal selling price of 80 quid. Goes down to floor level as legs go out very wide. I have shown this tripod to several people and all have gone out and got one. Really is well made and a bargain in my opinion. Cost 40 quid when i bought it last year but still great value at 50 quid

Bri w

15-02-11, 12:56 PM

Mrs w bought me a tripod for Xmas. Velbon(?) for about £80 squids. Really like it, and found the flaw when I used it. The flip down screen won't go past the horizontal. I rarely use the big screen anyway - quite happy with just seeing shutter speed & f stop via the viewfinder.

Bluefish

16-02-11, 07:33 PM

Look very good those do TC3, have good reviews :D, will see what the manfrottos on the bay go for first, but i recon they will be more than 50 quid.

TC3

17-02-11, 09:06 AM

Look very good those do TC3, have good reviews :D, will see what the manfrottos on the bay go for first, but i recon they will be more than 50 quid.

Yeah i have used mine a lot as i have done studio shots for work and also used it outside a few times. Looks far better in the flesh though. I wanted a decent tripod but did not want to spend too much and this fits the bill. If it is windy out i just hang camera or something that has a bit of weight from the hook on itat the bottom of the colmun

Bluefish

17-02-11, 06:21 PM

bleedin hell, now i have to buy another camera just to hang from the hook, ;)

TC3

18-02-11, 10:38 AM

bleedin hell, now i have to buy another camera just to hang from the hook, ;)

Ok i meant camera bag :)

allantheboss

27-02-11, 10:23 PM

Hello all. Some of you may remember me from movies such as "What middle-range compact cameras are out there" and "Lumix TZ10 or a Canon?! II"

Just to say I got the TZ10 and really love it so far! I can't upload full images as I don't have a photobucket or picasa account, but if it means anything, here are a couple of facebook-sized pics for colour or whatever. Maybe one day I will upload more:
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/183569_10150095453225614_554350613_6666392_3474729 _n.jpg
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6666400&id=554350613http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181791_10150095454290614_554350613_6666403_1430354 _n.jpg
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/182213_10150095454005614_554350613_6666400_6373444 _n.jpg
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/182710_10150095454140614_554350613_6666401_1549777 _n.jpg
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181704_10150095453850614_554350613_6666399_1172039 _n.jpg

Bluefish

28-02-11, 12:12 AM

allan, err interesting ;)

Filipe M.

28-02-11, 12:21 AM

allantheboss

28-02-11, 08:24 AM

Brilliant, glad you're liking it. :D
Now you just need to learn how to control your white balance, the pic with the McVitties is a bit on the blue side of things ;)

YES! I was hoping someone would notice that! I basically have several options, "Aperture priority, Manual Exposure, Shutter priority" and a couple of others. When I go on anything other than auto, I get this blue sorta effect. How do I rid myself of that plague?

Also, someone's explained vaguely aperture and exposure to me, but if anybody wouldn't mind, could they give me their version?

Yay

allantheboss

28-02-11, 08:26 AM

Brilliant, glad you're liking it. :D
Now you just need to learn how to control your white balance, the pic with the McVitties is a bit on the blue side of things ;)

I MEAN- That's the effect I wanted...

stewie

28-02-11, 11:14 AM

I thought I'd found my next camera until I saw the price
http://www.finepix-x100.com/en
until I saw the price
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/brand/?new&t=fuji
Looks gorgeous though :)

Filipe M.

28-02-11, 11:51 AM

YES! I was hoping someone would notice that! I basically have several options, "Aperture priority, Manual Exposure, Shutter priority" and a couple of others. When I go on anything other than auto, I get this blue sorta effect. How do I rid myself of that plague?

Also, someone's explained vaguely aperture and exposure to me, but if anybody wouldn't mind, could they give me their version?

Yay

Keith's academic explanation: here (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2478360&postcount=110).

My condensed version: here (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2474803&postcount=39).

Keith's condensed version of my drivel about flash exposure: here (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=2479069&postcount=121) (you can safely ignore the bit about flash exposure for now, but the rest holds true).

As for your blues problem: when you take the camera out of auto, you're in charge of a few decisions yourself, one of them being white balance (basically a setting that will tell the camera what colours are supposed to be white / neutral, depending of the temperature of light). Look for that setting (can't remember where it sits on the Panny's menus) and change it accordingly the conditions: daylight if you're out in the sunlight, tungsten / fluorescent if you're indoors, shade if you're an open shade, and you might even find an Auto White Balance setting that will use a best guess algorithm for you and probably get it right 90% of the time. Unfortunately it will fail miserably the other 10% of the time, and that's exactly when you don't want it to, like coloured sunsets / sunrises, where it'll just bleach out the colours because the camera is looking to make everything look neutral.
The reason your shots are coming out blue right now might be something to do with being in tungsten white balance while shooting in daylight. If you do it the other way around (shoot under tungsten lights in daylight setting) you'll get the typical yellow/orange cast of crappy indoor shoots.

Filipe M.

28-02-11, 11:51 AM

I thought I'd found my next camera until I saw the price
http://www.finepix-x100.com/en
until I saw the price
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/brand/?new&t=fuji
Looks gorgeous though :)

Indeed it does... :cool:

allantheboss

28-02-11, 08:46 PM

As for your blues problem: when ........

All hail, DON OF THE CAMERAS!

allantheboss

28-02-11, 09:26 PM

All read up now. I can't really get a picture with sufficient light (now in my room) without blurring. F3.3 (lowest) and exposure as low as 1/6, blurry pics of my moving foot. And sharper and it just starts getting really dark. Flash looks too artificial though. Tips?

Filipe M.

28-02-11, 11:10 PM

Quick reply: Increase ISO (you'll get noisier images) or add more light (like flash).

Longer reply: You need faster shutter speeds (or a flash pulse) to freeze motion, and the closer you are to it, the faster it'll have to be (close up moving object moves faster across the frame than at a long distance). Stabilizing the camera on a tripod / tabletop in this situation will only help with static subjects blur, not movement, so your only solution is to try and buy yourself a faster shutter speed by shooting at max aperture (which you are), increasing your ISO as high as it'll go without making the picture look like a pointillist painting, and adding more light. On camera flash will, like you said, look artificial (it's too close to the lens axis), so you'd need an external flash gun, triggered in your case by an optical slave firing off the internal one (which could prove tricky because of the pre-flashes from the internal flash, but I'm guessing with enough tweaking it could be done).

Bluefish

08-03-11, 10:21 PM

Filipe on the d90 what would be the highest iso you would use, cos was taking a few pics tonight indoors and they were too bright with the flash on, i then thought hold on the iso was on auto, so set iso to manual at 800 and was a lot better making the pics lighter but not washed out as the flash was doing, just wondered what was the usable range as opposed to the highest 3200?

Filipe M.

09-03-11, 12:17 AM

Can you post a couple of examples from before / after changing the ISO? Without them I can only make guesses at what might have happened, but assuming you were shooting in one the semi-auto exposure modes (P, S or A) with auto flash and ISO, your exposures should have been pretty much the same at ISO 800 or 3200 (the camera should have compensated the difference in some way). Using Auto-ISO with flash makes it a bit weird to understand what's going on, because each camera (even within Nikon) will behave differently. Some will default to the lowest possible ISO and stay there no matter what, some will start pushing the ISO when the flash is firing at maximum power and still not putting out enough light, and some will start pushing the ISO at some point in between. Pretty much black magic stuff, but usually it works.

As for the question itself, under normal conditions I always try to stay below ISO 800, and if I'm indoors in a small space with enough flash power I'll try to keep it at 400 max. That said, ISO1600 is still very usable (as long as you make sure you nail your exposures) and I will use it if that means the difference between getting the shot or going home without it. I'll only go above that if there's no other way of doing it.
Higher ISOs are wonderful to have at hand, but you pay a price for using them and it's not just increased noise: your dynamic range goes on holidays and takes colour accuracy with it, leaving you with a lot less margin for exposure error because not only the highlights will start blowing out sooner - which means you need to make sure you're not overexposing, but your shadows will become noisy and blotchy really quickly - making you want to overexpose slightly to keep them clean. Ops, that would be your highlights going through the roof, then.

This is going to sound weird, but I try to keep my flash photography really simple by taking control over the most variables I can. Indoors, I'll use manual exposure and manual ISO, and decide on auto or manual flash depending on circumstances.

Bri w

09-03-11, 12:23 AM

Filipe M.

09-03-11, 01:29 AM

TC3

09-03-11, 08:38 AM

Cheers Filipe for your expertise, as always. The noise on ISO I expected but I hadn't thought about colour accuracy.

I hope to get few hours in the Lake District today... not happy with the results of the D5k, especially after being a keen slr guy for many years. Poor workman blames his tools but this dslr stuff is driving me nuts.

D5k is a very capable camera. It takes time to learn about a camera model and how to get the best from it. Maybe you should join a web forum that includes that actual camera and post a question or 2 as well as pics so that others can offer advice as to how to maybe do things a lil different to get the end result you want?
Far too many variables with a DSLR to learn and get control of so dont blame the camera. Most the time it is the photographer at fault. (I know that as a fact (as i always blame the camera) :)

TC3

09-03-11, 08:44 AM

I agree with Filipe about using flash and iso controls on manual. To have complete control is the only way you can be sure the camera will do what you want and not what it thinks you want as it does on auto. Off camera flash photography does not look artificial if you use bounce, diffusers and maybe a colour tint or gel for flash head (to help balance the flash light with any other type of light hitting the subject).
First thing i did when i got my lil Canon G12 was to get a small bounce flash. Colours are much more life like and no harsh light hitting the subject directly.
You can buy simple flash diffuser on ebay that will fit in the hotshoe so that you can diffuse the light from the on board camera. Maybe not great but certainly an improvement on the on board flash alone.
An advantage of getting a decent add on flash is the fact you can use it as a decent fill flash during the day as unlike the onboard flash it is not limited to a certain shutter speed range. This allows the flash to function correctly in bright light as you are able to shoot at much faster shutter speed than the onboard flash allows. Takes practice but is a good way to eliminate harsh daylight shadows.

Bri w

09-03-11, 11:29 AM

You're welcome. ;) What's the bit driving you nuts? :D

D5k is a very capable camera. It takes time to learn about a camera model and how to get the best from it. Maybe you should join a web forum that includes that actual camera and post a question or 2 as well as pics so that others can offer advice as to how to maybe do things a lil different to get the end result you want?
Far too many variables with a DSLR to learn and get control of so dont blame the camera. Most the time it is the photographer at fault. (I know that as a fact (as i always blame the camera) :)

I'm more than happy with the composition. And the data I'm seeing via the viewfinder, e.g. f stop, shutter speed, iso etc but the end result appears out of focus most of the time.

I'm pretty sure its me at fault but I intend to spend some time using the camera in the various manual modes just to prove I'm the numpty and not the camera.

Filipe M.

09-03-11, 01:08 PM

I'm more than happy with the composition. And the data I'm seeing via the viewfinder, e.g. f stop, shutter speed, iso etc but the end result appears out of focus most of the time.

I'm pretty sure its me at fault but I intend to spend some time using the camera in the various manual modes just to prove I'm the numpty and not the camera.

Oh right, the autofocus thingy... it's one of the most complex systems within the camera, and unless you know what, when and how it does what it does, it'll mess you up.

I believe the D5k uses the same AF system as the D90, so it basically boils down to 2 different groups of settings:

1- Single Point / Dynamic Area / Auto Area / 3D-Tracking
2- AF-S / AF-C / AF-A

Group 1 settings will tell the camera where to look for focus:
- Single Point - as per name, camera will look under (and only under) the focus sensor you activate at any given time;
- Dynamic Area - camera will start looking for focus under the focus sensor you activate, but if it detects the subject has moved around the frame it will use any of the other sensors without letting you know which;
- Auto Area - camera will choose what sensor to use, according to what it "thinks" the subject might be;
- 3D Tracking - similar to Dynamic Area, but a bit more complex and with more integration with the exposure metering sensor which will help the camera track focus by using colour information as well as the usual phase detection.

Group 2 settings will tell the camera when to look for focus:
- AF-S - Single servo mode: camera will look for focus and lock at that distance as long as you keep your shutter half-pressed; if subject moves and need to reacquire focus, you have to take your finger off the button and start again. On the lower end cameras, AF-S also means camera will only fire when "something" is in focus under the active focus sensor (it might not be your subject, though...);
- AF-C - Continuous servo mode, means the camera will keep tracking focus as long as you keep your finger on the button. Subject moves, camera moves focus with it. Camera will fire at all times, independent of focus acquisition.
- AF-A - A mixture between AF-S and AF-C, camera will behave like AF-S most of the time, but if detects the subject has moved it will attempt to track focus and then lock again. It's also a "focus priority mode", in which the camera will only fire if something is in focus.

In theory this is all fantastic. In practice it can become a bit of a mess, and needs some practice to get things right, or a lot of it to use it to it's full potential.

Try starting with Single Point and AF-S or AF-C and see where that takes you, as that will give you the most control over what the camera is doing. And pay attention to the green spot light in the viewfinder (focus confirmation dot). ;)

BTW, my usual settings are AF-C (with focus being activated by the AE-L/AF-L button at the back) and Dynamic Area, but I will switch settings according to the situation.