SDN Photography Talk Thread

[The Grim Squeaker]

Do you use autofocus? If so, don't complain about focus issues.

Yes. And I have quite a lot of shots where the AF confirmed at a good shutter speed, even of landscapes where the shot is blurry/out of focus.

[DaveJB]

Well, what you need to do is take some shots in controlled circumstances, say by setting your camera down on a table and taking pictures of still objects. If it still misfocuses, and if there's any consistent pattern to the errors (i.e. if they're always to the front or to the back) then it means that your lens may have a calibration error.

[J]

Autofocus works most of the time, except the times when you really need it. You can't trust the camera all the time so you need to know how to operate your camera manually as needed, meaning setting the shutter speed, aperture and focus by hand. Turn off all the automatic features on your camera and shoot manually for a while to get a feel for things, not only will you learn how often your camera lies, it'll make you a better photographer as well.

[DaveJB]

On another note, I tried out one of the new Canon 100mm Macro with Image Stabilisation lenses earlier today (it's certainly hit the market quicker than I thought it would). The IS mode did certainly help when focused in to 1:1 (although apparently you won't see the full benefits unless you have a 7D - I was using one of the shop's display 50Ds), although the benefit was actually most pronounced when used at normal focusing distances. I got several usable photos with the shutter as slow as about 1/15s, and I suspect it would make an excellent lens for low-light event photography.

To get it though, you have to shell out £1,000, which at the moment makes it three times more expensive than the non-IS 100mm macro and about £100 more than the 70-200 f/4 IS, which I suspect would be better for non-macro purposes. Still, I suspect there'll be plenty of people willing to shell out a grand for the latest and greatest.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Autofocus works most of the time, except the times when you really need it. You can't trust the camera all the time so you need to know how to operate your camera manually as needed, meaning setting the shutter speed, aperture and focus by hand. Turn off all the automatic features on your camera and shoot manually for a while to get a feel for things, not only will you learn how often your camera lies, it'll make you a better photographer as well.

I have. And that really is the 102 of improving your photography, highly reccomended, especially in situations with controlled light (such as low light), since it's less educational in areas where the light changes frequently.

On another note, I tried out one of the new Canon 100mm Macro with Image Stabilisation lenses earlier today (it's certainly hit the market quicker than I thought it would). The IS mode did certainly help when focused in to 1:1 (although apparently you won't see the full benefits unless you have a 7D - I was using one of the shop's display 50Ds), although the benefit was actually most pronounced when used at normal focusing distances. I got several usable photos with the shutter as slow as about 1/15s, and I suspect it would make an excellent lens for low-light event photography.

I'd love a macro lens, and that one is spectacular so I hear (I love the focus on sharpness in macro lenses). Maybe one day, as I really don't need it, so there's no way I can justify the much cheaper 60mm macro.

[Bounty]

since it's less educational in areas where the light changes frequently.

Why do you say that? If anything tricky light is the perfect time to try out different settings.

As for your camera, is it actually, objectively fuzzy, or is it just something you say? Do you have examples? Did you ever actually test it?

[The Grim Squeaker]

since it's less educational in areas where the light changes frequently.

Why do you say that? If anything tricky light is the perfect time to try out different settings.

Sorry, sleep deprived brain fart. I mean dynamic light, that is rapidly changing amounts of light and moving/changing subjects. It's hard with quickly moving objects (AF is tricky), distant objects (lack of AF), and, er, some other example with light sources moving that I forgot, or simple expediency needs (limited time, lots of pictures needed).

As for your camera, is it actually, objectively fuzzy, or is it just something you say? Do you have examples? Did you ever actually test it?

No idea how to prove fuzzyness beyond "autofocus should be better at those settings", as for testing focus - I'm not sure how, I certainly can't work it out by focusing at still objects,m I can't figure out if it's back or forward focusing just from looking at it. (I tried that once, but couldn't do it consistently, even with a ruler or line of set objects).
.

[Bounty]

No idea how to prove fuzzyness beyond "autofocus should be better at those settings"

Actual fuzzy images would be nice.

[The Grim Squeaker]

No idea how to prove fuzzyness beyond "autofocus should be better at those settings"

Actual fuzzy images would be nice.

I delete.

[Simplicius]

I delete.

The next time you get an image that you deem fuzzy, don't delete it. Post the whole image at display resolution (800 or 600 px), then post a full-size crop of a small area of the image that has fine detail.

Since it isn't a consistent problem, I doubt it's a failing in the hardware. If it happens mostly at long focal lengths except at high shutter speeds, then it's probably your hands. If it happens only under certain shooting conditions, then those conditions may confuse the software. If it happens with no apparent pattern at all, then the camera is probably working just as it should, and you aren't giving it adequate instruction.

[Bounty]

Does anyone have any experience with Gorillapod? It's a flexible tripod, so you can modify it for uneven terrain or wrap it around supports. The idea looks intriguing, sure, but I'm worried they don't last long before they become loose.

[Simplicius]

Portrait format will be difficult, and I can't imagine it would be easy to level properly.

The one that's sturdy enough to hold an SLR seems kind of steep ($54). If you want something really small, for a light camera, and don't miss the ability to grab onto irregular objects, you could always DIY a bottle cap monopod.

[Bounty]

Hm. I saw the standard version at a camping store for €20, which is par for the course with small tripods. Checking the site, they explicitly recommend the SLR one for the A640; knowing exchange rates it won't be cheap here. That's a shame.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I delete.

The next time you get an image that you deem fuzzy, don't delete it.

Fair nuff, a random one from London zoo last Friday, here you are:

Post the whole image at display resolution (800 or 600 px), then post a full-size crop of a small area of the image that has fine detail.

Center body of the bird. (Which is where the AF was. AI servo in fact in that case)

Since it isn't a consistent problem, I doubt it's a failing in the hardware.

It's consistent albeit not in an extremely high percentage.

If it happens with no apparent pattern at all, then the camera is probably working just as it should, and you aren't giving it adequate instruction.

Low light or long focal lengths even with very high shutter speeds (and lots of light in the latter's case).

[Bounty]

A wide-aperture, zoomed-in, auto-focussed shot? You are surprised that parts of this aren't in perfect focus, really?

Where's the full-size crop?

[The Grim Squeaker]

A wide-aperture, zoomed-in, auto-focussed shot? You are surprised that parts of this aren't in perfect focus, really?

It was stepped down 2 stops, in strong light with a high contrast subject. And why should the AF be a problem?

Where's the full-size crop?

I need to muck about with making a crop copy first.

[Simplicius]

Well, that doesn't even seem that fuzzy, for one. Throw unsharp mask on it in post and it looks all right. Without sharpening in post, photos look a little soft at full size and scaled down.

Trouble in low-light is a typical autofocus issue because of low contrast. You were in AI Servo mode for this shot, so you could well have made the shot when the camera hadn't found focus. That would especially be a problem at long focal lengths where the depth of field is narrow.

I don't see anything to suggest that there is something intrinsically wrong with the camera. It looks more like the settings you are using are not suited to a subset of your shooting conditions. Do test shots under a variety of conditions while changing up your AF settings and see if it makes a difference.

Edit: You're in AI Servo with all 9 focus points enabled. In other words, the camera (instead of you) is picking the focus point and the focus point indicators aren't being shown.

Stop letting the camera do all the goddamn work for you. You've no right to complain about the machine when you tell the machine to make the decisions. Get out of Servo and use center point only, focus then recompose, and see what kind of results you get.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Stop letting the camera do all the goddamn work for you. You've no right to complain about the machine when you tell the machine to make the decisions. Get out of Servo and use center point only, focus then recompose, and see what kind of results you get.

Dammit, I meant AI focus. (Not servo). The focus system where it focuses, but maintains that focus point even if I move the camera around to recompose.

Well, that doesn't even seem that fuzzy, for one. Throw unsharp mask on it in post and it looks all right. Without sharpening in post, photos look a little soft at full size and scaled down.

I've begun to take a look at editing in Photoshop elements, Picasa editing is looking very crappy these days. I might it a try next time (photoshop sharpening as opposed to a Picasa "Sharpen").

Trouble in low-light is a typical autofocus issue because of low contrast. You were in AI Servo mode for this shot, so you could well have made the shot when the camera hadn't found focus. That would especially be a problem at long focal lengths where the depth of field is narrow.

It had (found focus).

Thanks for the advice!

[aerius]

Here's the thing. It seems like you're putting most of your emphasis on shutter speed & focus and forgetting about the aperture. You mentioned you were 2 stops down on the lens, well, the lens should have depth of field lines on it for the various stops, at 2 stops down it may not be possible to have much of the subject in focus with the lens you were using so the camera takes a "best guess" at what it thinks should be in focus, and it probably ain't gonna be what you want.

The other thing is I think you have an unrealistic expectation of what "sharp focus" is, that razor sharp focus look that's seen in many photos these days is the result of serious Photoshop work, you're not going to get that straight out of your camera in most realistic shooting conditions. In fact to someone like me who grew up with film, these super sharp photos look fake, the edges are too crisp & contrasty at the expense of the subtle texture details. For instance I could take this picture and sharpen it up so you can see every last hair on the dog, but that'll make the woman's skin and the beach look all wrong.

[phongn]

Here's the thing. It seems like you're putting most of your emphasis on shutter speed & focus and forgetting about the aperture. You mentioned you were 2 stops down on the lens, well, the lens should have depth of field lines on it for the various stops, at 2 stops down it may not be possible to have much of the subject in focus with the lens you were using so the camera takes a "best guess" at what it thinks should be in focus, and it probably ain't gonna be what you want.

Modern lenses tend not to have DOF fields on them.

I've begun to take a look at editing in Photoshop elements, Picasa editing is looking very crappy these days. I might it a try next time (photoshop sharpening as opposed to a Picasa "Sharpen").

There's also GIMP and ImageMagick. Unsharp Mask is a very powerful function but easy to abuse.

[aerius]

Modern lenses tend not to have DOF fields on them.

That's messed up. No DOF marks? Guess he'll have to print out a DOF table and add some marks to his lenses.

Unsharp Mask is a very powerful function but easy to abuse.

Yeah, it's definitely a case where less is usually better. I try to make it subtle enough that a person viewing the picture will never know that it's been sharpened.

[phongn]

That's messed up. No DOF marks? Guess he'll have to print out a DOF table and add some marks to his lenses.

No DOF marks; the old lenses tended to have them since you had a known size of the imaging plane (35mm) and you had an aperture ring. There's no reason the camera shouldn't be able to compute the DOF at a given focal length and aperture, though.

[Instant Sunrise]

DEATH, you really don't want to go down this road of always looking for some arbitrary amount of "Sharpness" from a camera/lens. You keep doing that and you're going to end up like those Fred Miranda and Photography-on-the.net posters who buy five copies of the same lens and through some arbitrary metric, determine the sharpest lens, and return the other ones. Then they use that lens to photograph a test chart and nothing else.

Also, I enjoyed this blog post

[Bounty]

The Zorki is having a fit again. Now the metal clip that holds the film on the take-up spool has gone slack, so new film just slips off. I need to find one of the improved spools with a small hook to catch the film. To the eBay-mobile!

It really is the worst time for the spool to break, I've just cleaned out some gunk from the inside and need to see if I put all the shims back in the right place. And there's a carnival next Sunday I wanted to shoot with it.

[Simplicius]

Also, I enjoyed this blog post

Damn you, there goes my Testing parody thread!

I've begun to take a look at editing in Photoshop elements, Picasa editing is looking very crappy these days. I might it a try next time (photoshop sharpening as opposed to a Picasa "Sharpen").

I use Elements 5 because it came with my Canon, and my job requires a few tricks that Paint.net can't do. There is a lot of post work that I'd like to learn to do that just isn't possible in Elements. It's a good place to start, though.

Aerius is right about needing to spend time in post for any image you think is worthwhile. Digital camera lead people to think that post is unnecessary because an image file comes right out of the camera, but file is no different than a negative - it's raw, unrefined, and probably has at least one thing wrong with it. Fine printmaking requires darkroom work; there's really no escaping it.


Edit:

This is just a snapshot. I would not even have considered showing this. If you ware going to post pictures you need to make sure it is of something unusual or with a personal vision. Otherwise you are going to loose the interest of your audience.

Oh I am mad guilty of this one. But I spend my free time looking at vast quantities of images; if something doesn't at least pique my interest I won't think much of it.

Also, I really like Eggleston's colors.