Playing around with the camera
- Thread starter 300Busa
- Start date
O
outtahand
your lighting is getting uneven in the last two...
Nice use of lighting to show texture, mymaster.
300Busa, it this your first dSLR? If it is, it takes a little getting used to...particularly if you've spent a lot of time with point & shoot digital cameras.
With point & shoot digital cameras, the depth of field is very wide. The lenses suck, and these cameras are designed to allow someone with the same level of development as a five year old use them and get "good" results. "Good" to the average consumer means "everything in focus".
"Everything in focus", however, is not how our eyes work in real life. At present time, I'm sitting in my recliner, watching my computer screen as I type. The screen is in sharp focus. If I allow myself to become aware of my surroundings beyond the computer screen, without changing where I'm allowing my eyes to focus on, I'll notice everything else is a bit blurry. This is how our eyes work, and just one of the reasons dSLR's are so much better than digital point & shoot cameras. Photographs taken correctly with dSLR's are more like what our eyes see.
As you're posting these photos, I'm assuming you don't mind a critique. If you do, just let me know. I'll try to point out issues as they appear otherwise.
Are you using autofocus? That's probably okay if you have enough light for the camera to correctly focus. Make sure there's enough light inside your lightbox before the picture is taken...not just while it is taken. It doesn't take a lot, but the camera's autofocus system needs something to work with, as it detects differences in contrast to focus correctly.
I see another issue in focus, and that is where you're allowing the camera to focus. This one takes a little time to get used to, and some of it is individual creative expression that will vary from artist to artist. On the twenty dollar bill photo, I think the depth of field is fine...everyone knows the blurry part of the image is a twenty dollar bill. It does bug me though when I look at that photo, because for some reason the interesting part of that bill to me is the very small, curled up corner near the prominent "20" I'd really like to see that in very sharp focus.
Depth of field is used by good photographers to draw the viewer's attention to what the photographer wants to be the point of attention. The closer one gets to one's subject, or the higher the focal length, the more shallow the depth of field will become. Taking photographs of small objects is generally more difficult than taking photographs of large objects for this reason.
On the photograph of the Hershey Kisses, one of them in the back is in sharp focus, while the one in front is not. This is generally the opposite of what one would want in a product shot, and in most cases you'd want the object "closest" to the viewer to be the sharpest. In photography,
are made to be broken though, and there are certainly times when it is advantageous to have the foreground objects blurry while background objects are sharp. I don't think this particular photograph is one of those cases.
This makes me suspect you're allowing the camera to select which autofocus point it uses to focus with. If that is the case, try overriding that to force the camera to focus only on whichever point YOU select...preferably the center point in most cases. The technique to use here is press halfway down on the shutter button while whatever you want to be in focus is under the focus point you've selected in your viewfinder. Once the camera locks focus (remember to try to find a high contrast area in your subject if you can because that will help the camera's focusing mechanism), keep the shutter button pressed halfway, then reframe your image as necessary before taking the shot. This is difficult if the camera is mounted on a tripod, but it can be done. If tripod mounted, you can also select a feature called "focus lock" that will hold the focus where it is until you deselect it.
As posted earlier, decreasing your aperture will increase the amount of depth of field (or "stuff in focus") in your image...though that comes at a cost. You'll need more light, a longer shutter speed, higher ISO rating, or combination thereof, the other very definite downside to smaller apertures is that whatever point in the image is sharpest will be less so than at a larger aperture. That may not make sense, but bear with me here. Most lenses are "sharpest" at about two stops smaller than wide open. If this terminology doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll back up some more. What this means to me is that if I want any particular part of an image to be at the absolute maximum sharpness my max aperture lense of f2.8 can produce...I'll need to shoot somewhere around f5.6. I'll do this knowing that whatever point I want to be sharp will be, but I'll be giving up sharpness on the rest of the subject. If I'm willing to give up maximum sharpness in that small area of the image, I can make a larger part of the image become more sharp by decreasing the aperture to f8, f11, f16, f22, f32 (all standard stops).
I hope this helps. Keep the images coming. The more you practice and learn, the better you'll become!
300Busa, it this your first dSLR? If it is, it takes a little getting used to...particularly if you've spent a lot of time with point & shoot digital cameras.
With point & shoot digital cameras, the depth of field is very wide. The lenses suck, and these cameras are designed to allow someone with the same level of development as a five year old use them and get "good" results. "Good" to the average consumer means "everything in focus".
"Everything in focus", however, is not how our eyes work in real life. At present time, I'm sitting in my recliner, watching my computer screen as I type. The screen is in sharp focus. If I allow myself to become aware of my surroundings beyond the computer screen, without changing where I'm allowing my eyes to focus on, I'll notice everything else is a bit blurry. This is how our eyes work, and just one of the reasons dSLR's are so much better than digital point & shoot cameras. Photographs taken correctly with dSLR's are more like what our eyes see.
As you're posting these photos, I'm assuming you don't mind a critique. If you do, just let me know. I'll try to point out issues as they appear otherwise.
Are you using autofocus? That's probably okay if you have enough light for the camera to correctly focus. Make sure there's enough light inside your lightbox before the picture is taken...not just while it is taken. It doesn't take a lot, but the camera's autofocus system needs something to work with, as it detects differences in contrast to focus correctly.
I see another issue in focus, and that is where you're allowing the camera to focus. This one takes a little time to get used to, and some of it is individual creative expression that will vary from artist to artist. On the twenty dollar bill photo, I think the depth of field is fine...everyone knows the blurry part of the image is a twenty dollar bill. It does bug me though when I look at that photo, because for some reason the interesting part of that bill to me is the very small, curled up corner near the prominent "20" I'd really like to see that in very sharp focus.
Depth of field is used by good photographers to draw the viewer's attention to what the photographer wants to be the point of attention. The closer one gets to one's subject, or the higher the focal length, the more shallow the depth of field will become. Taking photographs of small objects is generally more difficult than taking photographs of large objects for this reason.
On the photograph of the Hershey Kisses, one of them in the back is in sharp focus, while the one in front is not. This is generally the opposite of what one would want in a product shot, and in most cases you'd want the object "closest" to the viewer to be the sharpest. In photography,
are made to be broken though, and there are certainly times when it is advantageous to have the foreground objects blurry while background objects are sharp. I don't think this particular photograph is one of those cases.This makes me suspect you're allowing the camera to select which autofocus point it uses to focus with. If that is the case, try overriding that to force the camera to focus only on whichever point YOU select...preferably the center point in most cases. The technique to use here is press halfway down on the shutter button while whatever you want to be in focus is under the focus point you've selected in your viewfinder. Once the camera locks focus (remember to try to find a high contrast area in your subject if you can because that will help the camera's focusing mechanism), keep the shutter button pressed halfway, then reframe your image as necessary before taking the shot. This is difficult if the camera is mounted on a tripod, but it can be done. If tripod mounted, you can also select a feature called "focus lock" that will hold the focus where it is until you deselect it.
As posted earlier, decreasing your aperture will increase the amount of depth of field (or "stuff in focus") in your image...though that comes at a cost. You'll need more light, a longer shutter speed, higher ISO rating, or combination thereof, the other very definite downside to smaller apertures is that whatever point in the image is sharpest will be less so than at a larger aperture. That may not make sense, but bear with me here. Most lenses are "sharpest" at about two stops smaller than wide open. If this terminology doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll back up some more. What this means to me is that if I want any particular part of an image to be at the absolute maximum sharpness my max aperture lense of f2.8 can produce...I'll need to shoot somewhere around f5.6. I'll do this knowing that whatever point I want to be sharp will be, but I'll be giving up sharpness on the rest of the subject. If I'm willing to give up maximum sharpness in that small area of the image, I can make a larger part of the image become more sharp by decreasing the aperture to f8, f11, f16, f22, f32 (all standard stops).
I hope this helps. Keep the images coming. The more you practice and learn, the better you'll become!
Hello 300busa
I was wondering about the building pics.
Are you using HDR (Photomatix or other) or are you using layers in Photoshop to produce the surreal glow affect?
I am relatively new to Digital and photoshop techniques.
I shot mostly film and had my own dry darkroom which I am currently giving all my equipment to my sister and going to put in a Digital Darkroom in its place.
Love the light box shots. nice work.
I shoot mostly action and nature and I am horrible at flash and studio work.
My sis is a pro in Atlanta but we hardly get together so I can pick her brain.
Anyway good work and keep up the pics.
I was wondering about the building pics.
Are you using HDR (Photomatix or other) or are you using layers in Photoshop to produce the surreal glow affect?
I am relatively new to Digital and photoshop techniques.
I shot mostly film and had my own dry darkroom which I am currently giving all my equipment to my sister and going to put in a Digital Darkroom in its place.
Love the light box shots. nice work.
I shoot mostly action and nature and I am horrible at flash and studio work.
My sis is a pro in Atlanta but we hardly get together so I can pick her brain.
Anyway good work and keep up the pics.
Wow F=MA, great info! This is my very first DSLR camera. I have been over on the dps forums learning as much as I can and getting critiqued by some real pro's. I do appreciate the feedback. I have a basic understanding of what you just said, but I can never make it happen. I do use the auto focus, I will try switching the lens to manual next time and see if that helps. My lightbox is not the greatest, I need to make a better one that will allow more even lighting or find a better place to place the lights.
Bubba, I used a free version of "Essential HDR" to make those images. It is a great program, but the free version limits the images to 1 megapixel. I ran them through photoshop after the HDR program did it's thing.
Bubba, I used a free version of "Essential HDR" to make those images. It is a great program, but the free version limits the images to 1 megapixel. I ran them through photoshop after the HDR program did it's thing.
Billy Busa
Banned
good looking pics
300Busa, I don't think you need to switch the lense itself to manual focus for what you're doing at present...though in the future if you get into serious macro work autofocus is not particularly effective. What I meant to communicate was you should set your camera to only use one autofocus point.
Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions. I'm a Canon user, so I can't help much with specifics about your gear, but I should be able to offer assistance with general digital photography and Photoshop questions.
Just have patience and keep practicing.
Using auto mode on a dSLR is like buying a new Hayabusa, setting it in "C" mode, and pulling off a couple of plug wires before going for a ride.
In time you'll learn how to get your money's worth out of that camera.
Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions. I'm a Canon user, so I can't help much with specifics about your gear, but I should be able to offer assistance with general digital photography and Photoshop questions.
Just have patience and keep practicing.
Using auto mode on a dSLR is like buying a new Hayabusa, setting it in "C" mode, and pulling off a couple of plug wires before going for a ride.
In time you'll learn how to get your money's worth out of that camera.
Thanks for the Essential HDR info, I will look into that. Check out the Photomatix web site anyway you might like it.
Quick question??
What did you do in photoshop after the HDR?
PS I concur w/ F=MA, great cameras and lots of features to play around with.
I rarely use the Auto.
I too am a canon user but I greatly respect Nikon and was close to going that way myself.
thanks again
I have tried using photomatix also, but the demo version put a watermark across the image and I didn't want to pay for the real deal. In photoshop I used a color boosting filter by "filters unlimited". I never use the auto function on the camera either, I sometimes use the preset landscape function though. I wish that it was warmer outside so that I could go get some real practice....
Thanks,
I didn't know Nikon had landscape function. Did you download that or was it with the camera software?
I took a few pics in this mode and have had mixed results.
here is a couple of better ones taken in Alaska.
Be kind I don't really care for my own pic's, I just like to shoot and play with the camera. Kinda like riding the Busa, I am not the best but I sure do have fun on it.
happy shuttering
I didn't know Nikon had landscape function. Did you download that or was it with the camera software?
I took a few pics in this mode and have had mixed results.
here is a couple of better ones taken in Alaska.
Be kind I don't really care for my own pic's, I just like to shoot and play with the camera. Kinda like riding the Busa, I am not the best but I sure do have fun on it.
happy shuttering
So sorry,
I too hate that and forget about including the info.
here it is as best I could gather.
Canon 40D
1/1600 sec exp
f 4.0
split metering
ISO 250
280 focal lenth
70 - 200mm 2.8f L lens
w/ 1.4 teleconverter
No EV
AV priority
sorry, thats all I could get from the pic, after I resized it it lost some info.
thank you for reminding me.
O
outtahand
Depth of field is a function of aperture. It's a matter of optical physics.
If a person wants to learn how to put certain things in or out of focus based on distance the way to do it is to experiment with aperture and manual focus.
O
outtahand
Keep finding ways to shoot inside. Get past the "limitations" by working with them. One learns faster by having to think, and learns easier when not "in love" with the subject matter before taking the shot. One gets to what's unique about their vision, their personal style. Otherwise the new shooter has a tendency to try to copy the photos they have seen and admire. Can you make the mundane seem sublime? I think you can...
What exactly is the benefit of using manual focus? Focus is a completely different subject than depth of field. The same image shot twice at the same aperture...once using autofocus correctly, and one using manual focus correctly are going to look exactly the same.
And depth of field does change with distance from subject and focal length.
Here are two photographs, both shot at f8.0 The first is of fresh, unground pepper...taken with a 100mm macro from a distance of about four inches. Notice that there are very few of these tiny peppercorns in focus...only those "closest" to the camera (It was a pile of pepper, and the camera was positioned above it shooting down).
The second photo was also taken at f8...but at 45mm focal length, at a distance of about six feet. The focus point on this particular shot was her eyes, but every part of her is within the depth of field area of sharpness.
Aperture is the primary control for depth of field, but focal length, distance to subject, and distance of subject to/from foreground/background also plays a role.
O
outtahand
The benefit is in composition. Say you have a scene with several objects and you want only one to be in focus - for emphasis. Conversely, you want to de-emphasize an element of the scene, to improve your composition, you can know that thing out of focus. Using the aperture to control the depth of field facilitates that.
You can see some examples of this in still lifes by the Weston's, Imogen Cunningham and Robert Mapplethorpe, amomg others.
This is a more advanced concept in photography, but I mentioned it because I think 300 is capable of utilitizing the information.
I think we're agreed that aperture is primary for controlling depth of field...everything else being equal.
I also understand that manual focus can be used to ensure the area of the image the artist wants to be in focus - is.
If autofocus is used as I wrote earlier...center point only, focus on desired item/area, recompose, then shoot...there will be no difference between the end result of the methods employed. I think we agree on that. It's just a difference in technique.
My goal here is to ensure we collectively offer accurate information to help out someone who is learning a hobby or profession we share. I'm sure you share this desire as well.
The educator in me wants to keep things simple, accurate, clear, and concise. For some, the concept of "in focus" and "selective focus" are not easy to understand.
Similar threads
