UKC

Hi, could someone give me some advice please?

My technical ability is beginner.

I appreciate the subject is not climbing but what I learn will help me take better photographs outdoors

I always thought my photographs weren't 'pin' sharp as I didn't use a tripod. But on this photograph I used a 10 second timer, with the camera on a bench, so effectively there should be no camera shake.

But my photograph looks a bit like a painting when viewed close up? ISO was 400 and settings were 1/125 at F4.8.

Camera is a bridge SLR, Fuji Finepix S6500. Reviews of this are excellent so it must be me

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chenderson/2641248891/sizes/o/

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks,

Colin

In reply to Colin Henderson: The link says you page is private, prob needs undoing in properties?

In reply to dek:


Strange - it's public. Perhaps because I took you to the large size?

Here's another link. Public *should* see brightly coloured bird and a full Size option.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chenderson/

Any better?

In reply to Colin Henderson:

Smaller apperture (bigger number) will help gain sharper focus.

Lower ISO will be less grainy and seem sharper.

Reducing the size of the apperture and/or using a slower ISO will mean a slower shutter speed for correct exposure. So a tripod/bench/camera resting on something stable and timed release may be neccessary. Even if not neccessary, it will help anyway.

In reply to Colin Henderson: Do you meant the bird? Looks fine to me, it has shallow depth of focus and a bit of 'noise' but focus looks spot on! The noise is quite usual at high iso on compact cameras.

In reply to Colin Henderson:

I think it's just a combination of the ISO and the noise reduction.

The aperture should be fine, making it smaller will only make the image less sharp, compact camera sensors tend to be diffraction limited past about f/8 or less.

In reply to Colin Henderson:

Large apperture (small number such as f4.2) will give you a very small depth of field.

That means that only things within a small range will be in focus.

For example if, at f4.2, you focussed on an object 6 feet away, only things between 5'6" and 6'6" will be in focus. (just as an illistration)

If you take a photo of the same subject from the same distance with the apperture at f8 then things between 3' and 9' may be in focus.

Having the background out of focus can be desirable as it removes some of the detractions behind the subject. This allows the viewer to concentrate on the desired subject.

Yip, it was the bird, thanks.

I wanted to knock out the background by using a large aperture. And I was using ISO 400 as I'd read that day that increasing the ISO helped when shooting handheld to reduce camera shake.

But realise now that this increases noise, which may be what I am seeing as painterly (the top of its head and its breast being more brushstroke than realistic).

I'll have a think about focal distances!

In reply to Colin Henderson:


The problem is that if you decrease the ISO you'd probably have movement from the bird :-P

What you need is a stuffed parrot and a tripod

In reply to Richard Carter:



On a different note, and another classic CH photo issue - over exposed skies.

Think of a normal landscape pic, foreground and sky. If you focus on the landscape the sky is over-exposed and vice versa.

How can you get it so your landscape is in focus but the photo is exposed for the sky? (Without double exposures of filters?)

Thinking you could focus in Auto mode on the sky and dial that reading into Manual mode? Then refocus on the landscape?

Would that work? I think you'd have to alter the shutter speed.

I reied earlier but it was too dark to practice. I'll try again tomorrow but if anyone has any decent tips, again, much appreciated.

Cheers,

Colin

What you're after is an exposure lock button and i dont know if the s6500 has that. but yeah just look at the exposure for the sky then dial that into the manual mode and focus on the landscape.

In reply to Colin Henderson: Heheh, if you want sharpness taking pictures of birds, get ready to spend a lot of money.

Your photo is focussed perfectly, something like f8 would give better sharpness, but that really isnt a bad photograph at all. If you can photograph the parrot with brighter light you could use a larger f number and still get an acceptable shutter speed.

If you cant change the lighting or are looking to take photos out in the wild (often dawn/dusk) there is no easy way of getting sharp photos apart from spending some money, as you really want sharpness at low f numbers, and that costs.

In reply to Colin Henderson:

LOL, you cannot get both sky and landscape exposed correctly if the contrast is too great, you need to use graduated filters.

some sites to look at;
http://luminous-landscape.com/
http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/toc.html
http://www.alpineexposures.com/pages/articles
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=492

In reply to sutty:


I don't think he wanted them both to have the same exposure, just the focus seperate to the exposure. Or I've mis-read his post :-P

In reply to Richard Carter:

Read his 23.35 posting, not the OP.

In reply to sutty:

I did!

In reply to Colin Henderson: You could expose one shot for the sky and rexpose on a tripod for the ground, then combine in photoshop or the gimp. Or use neutral density grads on the sky. (all easier than it sounds!)

In reply to Richard Carter:

He said;
>Think of a normal landscape pic, foreground and sky. If you focus on the landscape the sky is over-exposed and vice versa.

too much contrast to do both at once.

In reply to sutty:

"Think of a normal landscape pic, foreground and sky. If you focus on the landscape the sky is over-exposed and vice versa."

He did say that, and it's true. But what he asked was:

"How can you get it so your landscape is in focus but the photo is exposed for the sky? (Without double exposures of filters?)"

Erm sorry that last post didn't come out right, I came across as a smug git. Sorry

In reply to Richard Carter:

See what you mean. I still think he wants both EXPOSED right, and is confusing exposure with focus, though maybe I am second guessing him wrong.

Thinking your way, I would suggest focusing on what needs to be sharp, hold the button on the half way position and let the exposure take care of itself, and dodge it later.

I think his camera locks the metering with the focus though which is the problem. Who knows though!

In reply to Richard Carter:

He has gone to bed and it seems we are plaiting fog ATM

Sleep?! What a lightweight :-P

In reply to Richard Carter:

twas a rather hard weekend, ended up in bed before midnight on sunday, first time this year maybe.

sailing by is on, goodnight.

In reply to Colin Henderson:
You do know you can graduated filters dont you, so there is no need for 'double exposure of filters'

In reply to Richard Carter/Sutty/Dek:

Hiya, sorry, crashed last night and missed your replies.

Yip, it was how can you get it so your landscape is in focus but the photo is exposed for the sky? Without using filters or double exposures.

Which you've answered (I think) by saying that I may not be able to easily (as my camera may not have exposure lock) but I could focus on the sky in Auto and take that reading into Manual and re-focus on the landscape.

Or I can take a double exposure and us PS.

I'll try them out.

Cheers,

Colin

In reply to Al Evans:

Al, thanks - Sorry that should have read double exposures OR filters.

In reply to Colin Henderson:

Interesting topic. You do have another option as you learn your techniques and that is to use the + / - exposure option which I am sure your camera will have.

For example, you know the sky is say lighter than the landscape for a particular shot and therefore your camera is going to bleach it out. You would select to under (-) expose your shot by 1 or 2 stops, focus on the landscape and then review the result on the camera and re-take if required.

The added benefit is that you will get two or three different exposures and you can pick the best one when you back home, because you may prefer a little bit of bleaching in order to maintain some detail in the darker areas of the landscape.

I suspect if you point your camera straight at the sky to read the exposure you may get shots a bit too dark for your liking.

Rich

In reply to tryfan06:

You can then merege the three and get this sort of effect:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhythmandcode/2623057219/in/pool-hdrpanoramas

Google HDR for some real whacky stuff, e.g.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aneurysm9/2611628413/in/pool-hdrpanoramas

In reply to Colin Henderson:


At least that last one is nice and subtle! lol

In reply to Colin Henderson:

Complete hijack, but was this Edinburgh zoo? I recognise the tiger enclosure and the black jaguar lying on the log... If so, isn't the lorikeet enclosure cool?!

In reply to kathrync:

Well spotted!

I liked the lorikeets - my niece liked the fact you can feed them by hand. Not sure how 'right' I thought that was though but I suppose they're not gettign out to act wild again.

I was disappointed in the Budongo trail though. Great for the apes - i was expecting a bit more for us humans though - like a tree-top trail around them perhaps. It's more of a room you go into and look at them through glass windows, with some info and a couple of cool skeletons.

And I felt sorry for the leopard and the polar bear - they both did that walking back and forward, shaking their head, routine. Which didn't seem right.


He didn't seem to move much! Perhaps he's stuffed and positioned there each morning.

In reply to Colin Henderson:

I missed the skeletons...your skeleton photo is ace! It did seem like a fantastic enclosure for them though, and whoever built it must have had a fantastic time doing it too.

Lorikeets are that friendly and tame in the wild and are classified as a pest in Western Australia....I don't think feeding them is going to cause any real problems tbh and it's a bit of fun for the kids. Given the way they've prioritised the new ape enclosure and the other new monkey enclosure towards the animals, I think they probably thought that one through very carefully before they built it.

The polar bear certainly doesn't have enough room. She is pretty elderly now though and they aren't going to replace her when she dies. I can't remember the leopard enclosure...

The black jag was quite active last time I was there, stalking a rat that had got into the enclosure !