View Full Version : Digital photography
search66
08-02-2005, 17:12
I actually made a post about this yesterday, but it must have been lost in the zeros and ones...
Anyway, I was browsing some of the photos that members have taken and some are fantastic! I'm just curious on what kind of cameras everyone uses... It would be good to know any hints about places to either email digital photos, or an inexpensive place for developing film (or digital).
I don't know about any of you, but we take so many photos that's it's insane.
I recently purchased a Canon A85 w/ a 512MB card. I'm still getting used to it, but looking forward to putting it to the test at Disney!!
Nostromo
08-02-2005, 17:20
Like all cameras, it is true that you pay for quality but the photographers' skill also plays a major part, particularly in the frame chosen and correct light metering. The picures posted by the likes of Snapper and Brizzle speak for themselves.
I think a good 5MP camera is more than enough for good 'tourist' photography. I own a (now seeming old) Minolta DiMage A1 and am very happy with it.
search66
08-02-2005, 17:26
Agreed. If anyone has any hints for a camera dummy, I'd love it. I'm just horrible at taking pictures... When using the "auto" setting for my camera, sometimes it looks like garbage.
However, if I play with the settings... like exposure, flash, ISO, etc... I can sometimes pull off a decent shot. But, when I'm on vacation; I don't want to mess with it. I want to take it out and snap away.
Hi Search,
Nostromo is spot on the money when he says it's as much about what you do with a camera, as the camera itself. I have personal evidence of this from last November, when the best photo (depending on opinion I might add) I took was one where I'd switched off everything automatic on the camera. Most photography you see in the media is also taken with non-auto kit.
I think photo tips work better with examples, so if time permits over the next few weeks I might try to write something for the Florida Guide for John and Roger's websites.
I know this hasn't answered your question much, so I'll try to add something a bit more constructive here as well. If you take tons of photos, that's a good start to getting some good shots. Some will work, some won't. When you get in at night, take a bit of time to look through the day's photos; ideally on a laptop or something with a big screen. When you get to one you like, ask yourself why you like it? When you get to one you don't like, ask yourself why you don't like it. Then ask yourself what you would do differently next time to improve it. Then if you get a chance, next time, do the different thing and see if the shot improves. Re-frame it, change the angle, change the zoom, add some flash, crouch down, take it at a different time of the day, in diffent light, etc. If you do any photography courses you spend a lot of time doing things like this, and it's true that over time it does improve your photography. It becomes second nature to frame things on 3rd lines or look for triangles or shapes or colours or textures.
It's a lifetime's work though, and can get addictive!
search66
08-02-2005, 18:21
Thanks for the reply, Steve.
I look forward to that guide! I actually may take a course at a community college, now that it was mentioned. My Disney trip isn't until the end of November; and want to make sure it's perfect! :)
But you did give some great advice. I might just keep the camera on me 24/7 and take tons of photos. Thanks again.
Search has very kindly let me know whether some ideas for a photo guide might work, and the news seems to be good. I promised to post a tip called 'the rule of 3rds' by return, so here it is ...
search66
08-02-2005, 21:35
Thanks for blue-balling me... where is it???
:)
A quick tip for composing a photo is called the 'rule of 3rds'. I've dug out a photo from Bryce to illustrate this, so before explaining the rule, take a look at this photo and ask yourself ... what is this a photo of?
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/Snapper/200528171512_DSC_0779.jpg
It's a photo of Bryce Canyon! Or is it?
The rule of thirds basically goes that you try to divide an image into thirds. Imagine drawing a line at 1/3rd and 2/3rd intervals; vertically and horizontally. These give you 3 stripes horizontally, or 3 stripes vertically, or 9 parts to the image, or 4 very key points, called the points of intersecting thirds.
As with all things visual this is really awkward to describe in words and really easy to illustrate visually, so I've marked up the above image with the thirds lines.
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/Snapper/200528171530_DSC_0779_Thirds.jpg
Aha!
So the people in the photo at placed at one of these points of intersecting thirds, the bottom-left point. More or less.
So is this a photo of Bryce or is it a photo of the people? Well, it's actually both. It's a photo of someone taking a photo of Bryce. Because these people are placed on the intersecting third one's eye naturally gets drawn to them. So it adds a kind of lasting interest to the photo, and once you look at the people, typically the next step is for your eye to go on to explore the enormous rocks behind them. So maybe it is a photo of Bryce after all, and the people are only there to put everything into scale and to improve the scale and composition of the photo.
Don't ask me why the rule of thirds works. It's something to do with the way our heads are wired and how we perceive beauty and interest in things. There is a number called the Golden Ratio that exists all throughout nature in the way plants divide and snowflakes form and a million other things. The rule of thirds just fits with this ratio.
So the top tip for a better photograph is that if you are taking a photo of something, frame the photo so that the subject is on one of the 4 points where the lines of thirds intersect.
You might even find that your camera's viewfinder has these lines marked to help. You might also find that your camera's autofocus sensors marked in the viewfinder fall directly on the third lines rather than being in the middle. This is no accident, and the camera manufacturers are putting these autofocus sensors there as this is where they are expecting the subject of the photo to be.
If taking a landscape photo the composition improves dramatically if you put the horizon onto either the top or bottom third line rather than having it go straight across the middle.
Now you may not believe all this, and I wouldn't blame you because how can something so simple make such a difference? So the homework for tonight is to watch a movie and try to spot where the cameraman is putting the subjects in key scenes. More often than not you will find them on either the left or right vertical third lines.
search66
08-02-2005, 21:50
This is freakin' awesome! I can't wait to go home and try this! Thanks a ton Snapper for the tip of the day!
I also want to thank Brizzle as well, he actually DM'ed this to me as well. I'm excited about trying this... Maybe I'll be bold and post some pictures for trial purposes. No worries though, I'll avoid self portraits with spandex.
There's a great website at http://www.goldennumber.net
When you see how this stuff works throughout the whole of nature it does start to make you wonder.
MaggieAllan
09-02-2005, 01:12
Steve thats really useful info thank you
If you look at the OV homepage http://www.orlandovillas.com you can see John doing exactly the same thing. Each of the side columns is about a 1/3rd the width of the wider center column.
The VF homepage http://www.villasflorida.com follows the same formula.
The OFV homepage http://www.onlinefloridavillas.com is a variation of the theme. If you cover up the leftmost column with your hand the split of the right 2 columns is more or less on a third line. If you cover up the rightmost column with your hand the split of the left 2 columns is ... you guessed it ... more or less on a third line.
It's no wonder that these pages 'feel' right. Nice one John!
I guess a question for John is whether he got this result from the maths or whether by a couple of minutes of trial and error for what feels and looks right.
search66
09-02-2005, 18:40
Steve, do you have any suggestions on photographing people? With three kids, most of my photos are of them... And with kids, there is rarely enough time to "set up" your camera to adjust the settings.
It seems as though most of my shots of the kids, use the automatic flash and really washes out the photo. If I have time, I can reduce the flash output and that really does help.
Nostromo
09-02-2005, 19:12
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by search66
It seems as though most of my shots of the kids, use the automatic flash and really washes out the photo. If I have time, I can reduce the flash output and that really does help.
[/quote]
I have a flash diffuser made by Lumiquest that distributes the flask more evenly and avoids harsh shadows. Can only be used with a flashgun that has a 'bounce' facility, of course.
The flash on my Canon snappy does exactly the same. I think its a 'feature' of most point-and-shoots that the flash metering isn't great.
I think the root of the problem is that the cameras don't have a really sophisticated flash metering system and they are trying to achieve an 'average' flash for the whole scene, background included. This causes the flash to be way to sharp for a portrait and, just as you say, washes out all the details and turns everyone pale and white.
There are a couple of things you could try. My Canon has a setting for flash exposure compensation (different from normal exposure compensation) which I keep constantly set between -0.75 EVs and -1.5 EVs. That helps sometimes but you do have to keep an eye on the image review to watch for the shot being too dark.
An other thing to try is to switch the flash into a 'fill flash' mode if you have one. The camera won't be quite as aggressive then as it knows you are trying to pick-out a subject against a background.
If the camera has a portrait setting you could give that a twirl too, as that will likely smarten the camera up to what you are trying to do.
Alternatively, light permitting, dial in a faster (higher) ISO setting of ISO 800 or above and try taking the photo using the ambient light. You might get a more natural photo that way.
On the subject of flash, when taking photos in the Disney (or other) shows, it's usually best to switch the flash off and do your best to hold the camera steady. If you think about it, a stage show has dozens and dozens of lights that can typically be anything between 1kW and 3kW (10 to 30 times brigher than an average domestic house bulb). There is no way that a small flashgun is going to have any material affect on the light on the subject. There is a really nasty side-effect though. What happens is that the camera knows you are using flash and so it tries to get a good exposure on whatever it thinks is the subject. Quite often it will latch onto the head of the person sitting in front of you, so you end up with a well-exposed hair-piece but the show is terribly dark or blurred.
The other thing to remember when doing portraits is to use the zoom end of the lens if you can. Longer focal lengths are more flattering to facial features than shorter ones. In the 35mm world a lens anywhere between 75mm and 125mm is ideal for portraits. In the digital SLR world this usually drops to 50mm to 100mm (ish). I don't know the equivalent in the point-and-shoot world as it varies with the size of the CCD image sensor. Think longer rather than shorter and it should help.
A last tip for portraits, which is probably more applicable to SLR cameras, is to use as wide an aperture as possible. This will minimise the depth-of-field (make the background slightly out of focus while retaining focus on the subject) and helps to pick-out the subject from the background.
Personally I find portraits incredibly difficult. I did a whole course about portrait and studio photography once. The results were, to be frank, pretty shocking!
Nostromo
09-02-2005, 20:06
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Snapper
On the subject of flash, when taking photos in the Disney (or other) shows, it's usually best to switch the flash off and do your best to hold the camera steady. If you think about it, a stage show has dozens and dozens of lights that can typically be anything between 1kW and 3kW (10 to 30 times brigher than an average domestic house bulb).
Personally I find portraits incredibly difficult. I did a whole course about portrait and studio photography once. The results were, to be frank, pretty shocking!
[/quote]
Snapper, I have a Cullmann monopod that is more portable than the Benbo Trekker and can be used to assist in holding the camera steady with the flash off. In my days of film photography, the results were mediocre at best because of the color casts by the artificial lights. But now, the anti-shake of my Minolta A1 not only helps with a clearer picture, but the casts can be removed easily by Photoshop afterwards. I feel like a cheat doing it though :(.
I've become a huge fan of the anti-shake on one of my Nikon lenses Nostromo.
I wouldn't worry about contrast or colour balancing in photoshop. Photo.net allows both of these actions and will still regard an image as 'unmaniuplated', provided it isn't selective to certain areas of the photo. So an auto-levels or auto-contrast or changing a white-balance isn't cheating, at least not according to the experts.
If you think of white-balance, when you shoot in raw mode the raw image file doesn't have the concept of white balance, it's just the image data ripped straight off the image detector. The white-balancing is done when this data is converted into a jpeg, so you can effectively apply any white-balance you chose without it being considered a manipulation of what the camera actually recorded.
I was only thinking along these lines while in London at the weekend. I first learned about light temperature and colour when I tried taking some photos on the tube. They all had a green tint because of the flourescent lighting. Now here's the catch. If you shoot on slide film the resulting transparency is exactly what the camera recorded in true colours; so the green tint is entirely accurate. So if you then took this slide, scanned it and re-balanced the colours I think the ruling would be that this was a manipulated image. If though, on the very next shot, you slapped on a correction filter (an 81A I think for shooting flourescent lighting on daylight balanced film) the resulting slide would be correctly colour balanced and would be considered unmanipulated.
Strange old world huh?
Nostromo
09-02-2005, 21:54
Thanks Snapper, that makes me feel better. The improvement even with a simple 'auto-correction' for flash assisted indoor photography is amazing. My wife took some interior pictures of the Wells Catherdral in Somerset that improved so dramatically after I played around with them in Photoshop that she refused to believe they were hers. I guess there is something to be said for technology.
search66
09-02-2005, 22:54
More great advice, I really appreciate it. This weekend, I'm going to snap as many photos as my 512MB card can hold!!! :)
David and Debra Waters
10-02-2005, 02:52
Just an added extra really, and definately not up to the knowledge level of Snapper etc...but my Fuji digital has a slow flash setting that means i can snap somethin near (like the family) yet the background view is not dark as used to be the case with my old slr.
So buldings with lights, views etc,,,still look great.
David
Ooooooooo. Slow sync flash. Now we're talking!
What this does is give you a reasonably slow shutter speed (so that things blur if they are moving) but then gives a bit of flash to pick-out a more solid set of details.
If you get a good one the results can be wicked.
It's another one of those things that's really difficult to describe in words but easy to illustrate with an image. I'll have a dig around and see if I can find an example.
One tip for this. If you go for slow sync flash also switch on the setting that says 'rear curtain sync'. I won't bore you with the technicalities of why, but do trust me; it will give better results 99 times out of 100.
Here's a reasonable example of what slow sync flash will do ...
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/Snapper/200521005032_116_1606_RJ.JPG
It's a photo of Janine opening a bottle of champagne. The slow shutter speed gives the blurring effect, and then the flash kind of overlays a clear(ish) image that holds everything together. When it works it gives a great feeling of movement and dynamics but at the same time retains a reasonably clear image.
search66
10-02-2005, 19:22
That's a great photo. I don't think my camera has the slow-sync... However, it does have a way to decrease the flash intensity.
Actually, my photos are starting to improve thanks to everyones advice. There is a lot of trial and error, and I've been taking 4-5 pictures of the same thing instead of one. Usually, one of the photos will turn out ok (out of the 5).
I'll actually post some photos sometime, maybe by looking at them you can say... "Do this.. don't do this... etc."
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Snapper
Here's a reasonable example of what slow sync flash will do ...
<snip photo out>
It's a photo of Janine opening a bottle of champagne. The slow shutter speed gives the blurring effect, and then the flash kind of overlays a clear(ish) image that holds everything together. When it works it gives a great feeling of movement and dynamics but at the same time retains a reasonably clear image.
[/quote]
Is that kind of like the night flash setting on my camera?
It led to this picture which I kind of like for some reason but didn't come out as I expected it to...
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/brizzle/2005210175733_syd.jpg
Brizzle
I think it is Brizzle; it certainly looks like it from the photo. There's a great bit of movement with the people passing in the background. Nice thirds as well mate!
David and Debra Waters
11-02-2005, 02:59
What a great line.
Nice thirds!!!
lol David
search66
15-02-2005, 18:07
Nice photo. Did you use a flash?
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by search66
Nice photo. Did you use a flash?
[/quote]
No external flash, just the camera's own built in flash.
It was on 'night' setting which flashes to capture the foreground/subject and then stays exposing for a while after the flash to capture the background (or that's my take on it at least)...
Brizzle.
search66
15-02-2005, 21:31
Awesome, thanks. I took a bunch of pictures over the weekend, and am still getting frustrated. This was at an indoor dance my wife and I went to. I played with different flashes, exposure and everything; but couldn't nail it down. Most of the time it seemed as though the top 3/4 of the photos I took were fine; but the lower half was washed out. Any suggestions for low-light indoor pictures?
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by search66
Awesome, thanks. I took a bunch of pictures over the weekend, and am still getting frustrated. This was at an indoor dance my wife and I went to. I played with different flashes, exposure and everything; but couldn't nail it down. Most of the time it seemed as though the top 3/4 of the photos I took were fine; but the lower half was washed out. Any suggestions for low-light indoor pictures?
[/quote]
Tricky subject I think.
The best thing for indoor low-light (or outdoor for that matter) is slow shutter speeds. However to slow it down enough you will also need a tripod to keep the camera absolutely steady.
Not sure why the bottom part of the photo's are washed out though.
I use the live histogram on my camera to show if the snap is correctly exposed as best I can so I don't know if your camera has that option?
Maybe Snapper can shed some light (sorry!!) on the subject as he got some great night shots in Florida a couple of months ago.
Brizzle.
Are you feeling brave enough to post one or two of the photos? We might be able to work out what the camera was doing.
Point and shoots can often get confused over what they are trying flash at.
If they are trying to flash at something way in the distance they might end up over-exposing and washing out anything close. Closer things would usually be at the bottom of the frame.
What they do other times is to expose for the near subject and leave everything else quite dark.
If there's a big difference in light levels across the whole picture it could be that the camera is having trouble getting a balanced exposure.
search66
18-02-2005, 20:37
I'll post some pictures tonight. Thanks.
ORLANDO_MAGIC
18-02-2005, 21:05
I have an Olympus mju400 digital,and though it takes some good night photos such as the one below i still have major problems with photos that contain things such as lamp lights and car headlights that always turn out blurry,as the 2nd photo below shows.
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/200521817240_bellagio.jpg
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/2005218165346_VIEW.jpg
John[8D]
Nostromo
18-02-2005, 21:26
Great Pics John. The slight blur is OK because it gives the feel of 'movement' on the strip. What was your vantage point?
ORLANDO_MAGIC
18-02-2005, 21:43
I took that photo from the Eiffel Tower observation tower looking Southward as you can no doubt tell.
The photo below is looking Northwards,and the picture below that was looking West towards the Bellagio.
I lost a little quality as i had to resize and reduce the file size to get them uploaded here.
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/2005218173712_north.jpg
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/2005218173816_fountains.jpg
Nostromo
18-02-2005, 21:52
Is the big building 'behind' (ie to the north of) Venetian in this pic the new Wynn Las Vegas? And was it blocking your view of Stratosphere from where you stood because of the curve of the strip?
ORLANDO_MAGIC
18-02-2005, 22:09
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Nostromo
Is the big building 'behind' (ie to the north of) Venetian in this pic the new Wynn Las Vegas? And was it blocking your view of Stratosphere from where you stood because of the curve of the strip?
[/quote]
That photo was taken in February of last year and here is a pic from the opposite direction taken from the Stratosphere tower.
You can just make out the Wynn hotel in the middle of the picture.
It was still only half completed and still not lit up.
Its the dark brown building and yes it does seem to block out the Paris hotel and tower.
But still one of the best places to view the strip.
I just cant seem to get clear pictures with this camera though im sure Snapper would with his camera and knowledge.
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/ORLANDO_MAGIC/200521818414_strat.jpg
I think what you are seeing John is one of the limitations of photography vs. the human eye. That might sound like a bit of a cop out of an explanation but bear with me.
If you look at the night photos you have an incredible range of light, from pitch darkness through to extremely bright neon. The camera is trying to make a decision as to how much light to allow in so that it keeps the pure blacks only just black, and the pure whites only just white. This is extremely tough for night shots as you really are dealing with the whole range from pitch black to pure white, and most cameras (even hugely expensive ones) can be a bit hit-and-miss when it comes to making this decision. If they go too dark it means that you get larger dark bits where all the detail has been lost and is all just black. You sometimes see this on daytime shots where you lose a bit of detail in the shadows if they become pure black. At the other end, if the camera allows in even just a bit too much light the exact opposite happens and the highlights (bright bits) get burned in and you lose the detail in them. They kind of burn out to a pure white, and you lose the intricate details. Your first photo of Bellagio is a good one to use for an example. If you look at the very top of the tower in the middle of the hotel you can just see the lights starting to burn in and lose detail. The flip side is that the shot has some lovely reflections and textures in the lake.
There are a couple of ways to play around with this. If you set the camera to under-expose (it might be called exposure compensation on one of the menus) it will darken the darks and also darken the lights. You can save some of the detail in the lights, but at the cost of losing a bit in the darks. Any settings around -0.5 EV to -1.5 EV are worth trying.
Similary, if the shot looks too dark, try going +0.5 EV to +1.5 EV or something in between. This will make the lights lighter, but also at the cost of making the darks lighter as well. A bit like the early version of Persil automatic.
There is a technique called bracketing, which used to be hugely important in the world of film, especially for night shots, where you would do a sequence of shots some darker and some lighter. The theory being that if you did 5 you would be more likely to get one that was spot on. The ability to preview with digital helps this enormously. The Nikon has a feature that I absolutely love to bits, in that when it pops the image up for a preview it will highlight with a flashing colour any areas of the shot that is burned out. It makes it easier to just pick a small correction (-0.3 EV or -0.5 EV or whatever) and re-shoot it hoping to get everything as close as possible.
I had exactly the same problem with Bellagio when I was over in Las Vegas last November so I'll try to dig out a couple of shots that might help show what all this waffle is trying to say.
Here's about the best example I can find John. Same subject (Bellagio), same lighting (all artifical), darker photo.
It keeps the detail visible in the really light bit at the top of the hotel (you can still read Bellagio) BUT this is at the expense of the hotel appearing darker and also losing some of the lovely reflections in the water. My water is quite dark and boring by comparison to yours.
It's a real compromise with no real right and wrong answers. The best tip is to try a whole bunch of photos and see which works best.
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/Snapper/20052181917_DSC_0580.jpg
BTW John, I think the people who build hotels in Las Vegas do this on purpose. The town is both a photographer's dream and a photographer's nightmare both at the same time. It's scortched of all colour during the day and by night there is so much light flying around everywhere that it presents more problems than it solves.
ORLANDO_MAGIC
19-02-2005, 00:07
Very good explanation Steve.
Thanks for taking the time to reply,hopefully i will learn a little more about photography as i take more and more photo's.
I think we both must have been standing in exactly the same spot when we took our Bellagio photo's:D
John.
Nostromo
19-02-2005, 00:41
Snapper & John I have heard several Las Vegas entusiasts claim that some of the best photographs of the Strip lights can be obtained from the balconies of the off-strip Rio Hotel. Maybe you can set up your tripod there at the next opportunity and have a go with a 24mm or 28mm lens to get a panoramic view.
ORLANDO_MAGIC
19-02-2005, 01:01
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Nostromo
Snapper & John I have heard several Las Vegas entusiasts claim that some of the best photographs of the Strip lights can be obtained from the balconies of the off-strip Rio Hotel. Maybe you can set up your tripod there at the next opportunity and have a go with a 24mm or 28mm lens to get a panoramic view.
[/quote]
tripod,whats one of those:D
never used one as im always on the go.
i even take mine on the coasters if i can to take a short movie and though it worked out ok on the hulk i would not recommend it on some of the more shaky coasters such as the manhattan express where it is almost impossible to hold on to your camera[msnwink]and if you have ever tried the mad mouse at blackpool your asking for serious trouble[msnscared]
John.
The top floor of the car park at McCarran is also rumoured to be a great photo location too Nostromo. If I get the chance next week I'll head over there to see if it's true or not, although I don't have my tripod. It's locked in my owners closet in Orlando. Long story!
The other winning system with Las Vegas is to photograph it around sunset or just after. The desert sky can show some amazing colours, and with there being lots of ambient colour still in the sky there isn't as much tonal range between the blacks and the whites (in a manner of speaking) so the metering is more forgiving and the shots turn out better as they don't burn out as much detail in the whites and don't lose as much detail in the blacks. If I remember I'll try to do a couple of photos from the same spot by way of comparison.
Nostromo
19-02-2005, 13:43
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Snapper
I don't have my tripod. It's locked in my owners closet in Orlando. Long story!
[/quote]
If you're passing anywhere near Swindon before you head off into more sunny pastures, just pop into Wootton Bassett and I'll let you borrow my Benbo Trekker. Seriously.
search66
20-02-2005, 18:14
Ok, here are three photos as promised. None have been enhanced yet (Photoshop), and I just shrunk them down and lowered JPG quality for the boards...
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/search66/2005220141252_1.jpg
This is my wife and I taken at a dance
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/search66/2005220141331_2.jpg
This is my wife and two other friends at a Japanese Steak house
search66
20-02-2005, 18:15
Lastly... Here is a photo of my youngest daughter
http://www.orlando-guide.info/forums/Data/search66/2005220141538_3.jpg
search66
21-02-2005, 20:57
Sorry.. had to bump this for snapper
Hey Search,
Cool photos.
If you want a bit of commentary about the flash we were talking about, here are some thouhgts, working backwards ...
The photo of your daughter is great. That exposure looks spot-on, there's no red-eye and the flash has even picked out a catchlight in your daughter's eye. I think it worked because you've framed her full-frame, so the camera knows exactly what it is trying to illuminate. I think it's a great photo.
The next photo up of your wife and friends I think is the effect where the flash is a bit too strong and kind of washes out the closest subject. I think the camera is trying to get the whole scene lit with the flash and the result is that your wife and friends are all visible, but your wife has suffered a little as she was closest to the camera. The flash pulse is probably a bit too bright and so wifey has been a bit blitzed. One idea for these kind of shots is to have a quick look at the image preview when the camera previews it after the shot. If it looks even a smidge too light then grab a second shot but try setting a Flash Exposure Compensation of -0.5 EV or -0.75 EV or -1.0 EV. The setting might be called something different depending on the camera. It will probably let you set values on a sliding scale from -2 through to +2, possibly in 0.5 or 0.3 increments. It's a different setting than the noraml Exposure Compensation setting, which will do the same thing but for daylight exposures. Flash tends to have its own setting.
Your top photo (you and wifey) is an interesting one. It looks a bit bright, and again setting a flash compensation of something like -0.5 EV would probably correct that. In this photo though, I don't think it's the camera trying to light up the whole shot. I think what's happened here is that with you both wearing black shirts you have fooled the camera's metering system into thinking that the photo is a bit darker than it really is, and so the camera has slightly upped the flash-pulse to compensate for this. There is a really strange effect with cameras and metering in that if an image is mostly black the camera will usually over-expose it and turn the black into a grey. At the other end, if a shot is mostly white the camera will under-expose it and turn the whites into a grey, or sometimes a blue. If you look at lots of photos taken on snow, and then really look at them closely you'll see that the snow is blue, not white. Your brain corrects for this when you just glance at the photo but if you look closely you'll spot the non-white whites. If you are interested in the technicalities of why this happens I'll post another post for you.
On your first photo there is also a slight blooming or halo around your white t-shirt. I think this is probably the camera struggling with the white next to black combination, but could I ask if you had just whipped the camera out of a pocket? Sometimes this effect can happen if there is a bit of condensation on the camera lens, especially if you've just gone into a warm room from a cold outside. This can be a really nice effect on a portrait. If you want to try it, see if your daughter will pose for you for a couple of minutes, and just before you snap the photo try breathing on the camera lens to fog it up a bit. You can get some really nice sof***ocus effects doing this. Nylons and fishnet stockings stretched over the lens also work great in a studio too. Strange world huh? If you try this with a point-and-shoot you might find that the flash goes crazy and the photo is way too light or dark. If this happens, try playing around with the flash exposure compensation. With a point and shoot camera, the camera is not always making the exposure calculation based on what comes through the lens (called TTL metering). SLRs are a better beast for this kind of studio work. But do give it a go. If you are ever out in the mountains and you suddenly think, boy these mountains would look really great if only there was a bit of fog or mist around, then a quick breath on the lens to fog it up
search66
22-02-2005, 16:47
Wow, some great hints. I'll have to try to set the exposure down a notch. If I'm thinking right, lowering the EP restricts the amount of light to enter and bumping it up allows more light in... right?
If that's the case, it makes sense. I'll have to continue to practice. I've yet to take any pictures OUTSIDE believe it or not... I figure if I can get indoors nailed; I'll have no problems outside... ;)
Thanks again, and I'll update you on my progress.