|
Post by michaelesterol on Jun 22, 2007 7:45:46 GMT
From PZ's thread on the notice board. - Composition. There is a tendency for people taking a photograph to put the subject right in the centre of the frame. There are occasions when this works but for the most part it is best to follow the artists 'Rule of Thirds'. The human eyes tend to look at the world naturaly looking at things that are one third in and one third down. This is a natural way to compose and image and we subconciously like it. When looking at the subject, split the scene into imaginary thirds both vertical and horizontal: Put important elements on these lines. So for a portrait you may like to put the eyes one thirds down, because we do tend to look at the eyes most in a face: use it for landscapes too.
|
|
|
Post by lily on Jun 23, 2007 13:44:41 GMT
I'd not heard of that but thanks...it does work. I've just been looking though some of my fave photo's and realise that the 'nicest' ones are those that fit into the 'Thirds'.
xxx
|
|
|
Post by paul Zernikazof on Jun 23, 2007 14:12:41 GMT
Thinking of getting a digital camera ? The obvious advantages of being able to see your pictures immediately, not having to buy films and with a modern photo printer being able to print off only what you need to apply to any digital camera that you buy. Megapixels, the bigger the better and usually more expensive. But do you need very high resolution pics? I have photos printed out at 18" x 12" taken with a 2.1 Mp camera and they are good quality. However if I wanted to extract a small part of the print and blow that up to the same I might be struggling to get a quality print. So if you only ever take snapshots and never want to edit or print out poster sized then you don't need to buy a top Megapixel camera. One thing to be aware of is what is called 'shutter lag' This is the delay between pressing the button and the camera taking the picture. It can make it difficult to get quick snaps of animals or children. As they move from the perfect pose after you have pressed the button but before the picture is taken. Another delay to take account of is the time the camera takes to process the picture after it is taken and before it can take another.
These delay times do vary on different cameras and there are websites that list many of them.
|
|
|
Post by tigerlily on Jun 23, 2007 14:20:24 GMT
My Fuji has a sports mode setting to allow me to take a number of frames in quick succession - I haven't had the opportunity to try it out yet, annoyingly.
|
|
|
Post by paul Zernikazof on Jun 23, 2007 15:20:58 GMT
Thinking of getting a digital camera ? The obvious advantages of being able to see your pictures immediately, not having to buy films and with a modern photo printer being able to print off only what you need to apply to any digital camera that you buy. Megapixels, the bigger the better and usually more expensive. But do you need very high resolution pics? I have photos printed out at 18" x 12" taken with a 2.1 Mp camera and they are good quality. However if I wanted to extract a small part of the print and blow that up to the same I might be struggling to get a quality print. So if you only ever take snapshots and never want to edit or print out poster sized then you don't need to buy a top Megapixel camera. One thing to be aware of is what is called 'shutter lag' This is the delay between pressing the button and the camera taking the picture. It can make it difficult to get quick snaps of animals or children. As they move from the perfect pose after you have pressed the button but before the picture is taken. Another delay to take account of is the time the camera takes to process the picture after it is taken and before it can take another. These delay times do vary on different cameras and there are websites that list many of them. Forgive my temerity in asking but is this not more eqipment than tips? I can see where you are coming from Carl But I decided to put it here as it doesn't relate to any specific equipment and is a tip for anyone thinking of getting into digital photography, before they buy a camera.
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on Jun 23, 2007 18:49:41 GMT
I notice that my wife's camera has much clearer pictures than mine. My camera goes to 5m pixels but I have it set at 3m. She also takes her pictures at 3m, but it is a much more expensive camera.
Mine is a Casio QV-R51 and has a 3x Optical zoom.
Any guidance would be gladly received.
|
|
|
Post by carlott on Jun 23, 2007 19:14:02 GMT
I notice that my wife's camera has much clearer pictures than mine. My camera goes to 5m pixels but I have it set at 3m. She also takes her pictures at 3m, but it is a much more expensive camera. Mine is a Casio QV-R51 and has a 3x Optical zoom. Any guidance would be gladly received. PM sent
|
|
|
Post by Glen B Ogle on Jun 26, 2007 19:55:13 GMT
Continuous shooting is mentioned above in relation to avoiding shutter delay. My camera is almost permanently set in continuous mode now as much of what I take involves some degree of action. Depending on exact circumstances my camera will shoot at about 1 pic per second (the Memory Card is the limiting factor). An example of the sort of thing you can achieve is shown below. This was a pic taken at the National Waterways Festival for the Newsletter. Not sure how clear it is at this resolution but here I've got the axe in the log with a bit of wood flying off (to the right below the gap in the fence). The main obvious problem with continuous shooting is the number of pics you take - you do need large memory cards (I currently carry 4 1Gb cards). At the above festival I took about 1,000 photos in four days! Glen Glen
|
|
|
Post by adamzappel on Jun 27, 2007 12:23:45 GMT
Really good tip, Choppy. Not new to me but a good reminder.
I've recently moved on to a DSLR and a major plus for me is the ability to take 3 photos per second. My TYG, who used to cleverly close her eyes for every shot, can't outwit the camera now!
As for your question, Michael, there are lots of reasons why one camera may perform better than another. It's often down to the combination of the Optics, the CCD and the on-board processing. Canon use DIGIC III image processing now, Image Stabilisation, Face-Recognition and other enhancement measures.
Which camera is PMR using? That may help us to give a clearer answer.
|
|
|
Post by Janglers on Jun 30, 2007 7:26:40 GMT
I notice that my wife's camera has much clearer pictures than mine. My camera goes to 5m pixels but I have it set at 3m. She also takes her pictures at 3m, but it is a much more expensive camera. Mine is a Casio QV-R51 and has a 3x Optical zoom. Any guidance would be gladly received. It's proabably because you are always drunk when you take your pics, however the PMM, doesn't drink as much as you.
|
|
Hugh L B Fayed
TOG
You're not meant to be reading this, it's a soliloquy.
Posts: 615
|
Post by Hugh L B Fayed on Aug 4, 2007 15:19:24 GMT
A lot of it is down to lens quality (and size of lens) not just resolution; it is only recently that digi SLRs have have more than about 6 Mp, and you can get much more from a modern pocket cameras, but the SLR will create the much better picture. A bigger lens allows much more light into the camera enabling faster exposure times and consequently less likelihood of shake and blurriness. You can change the 'film speed' on many cameras which can help. You may also find holding the camera up to the eye and using the eyepiece produces sharper shots as the camera is less likely to shake than when held at arms length using the screen.
Different cameras have different colour balance algorithms, some are better than others , my Olympus (admittedly a few years old now) has a tendency to turn everything a little bit orange if the light levels are low.
|
|
|
Post by carlott on Aug 18, 2007 14:28:57 GMT
I place this here simply to show how a picute can be cropped to isolate a particular element within a picture to create a new one. Sadly this example is not as well focussed as I would like. The original: The Crop
|
|
|
Post by revmichael on Oct 30, 2007 9:49:36 GMT
Thinking of getting a digital camera ? The obvious advantages of being able to see your pictures immediately, not having to buy films and with a modern photo printer being able to print off only what you need to apply to any digital camera that you buy. Megapixels, the bigger the better and usually more expensive. But do you need very high resolution pics? I have photos printed out at 18" x 12" taken with a 2.1 Mp camera and they are good quality. However if I wanted to extract a small part of the print and blow that up to the same I might be struggling to get a quality print. So if you only ever take snapshots and never want to edit or print out poster sized then you don't need to buy a top Megapixel camera. One thing to be aware of is what is called 'shutter lag' This is the delay between pressing the button and the camera taking the picture. It can make it difficult to get quick snaps of animals or children. As they move from the perfect pose after you have pressed the button but before the picture is taken. Another delay to take account of is the time the camera takes to process the picture after it is taken and before it can take another. These delay times do vary on different cameras and there are websites that list many of them. There is a particularly longish delay when a flash has been taken - well, my camera take a while to re-charge the flash (while a red light flashes on an off for a few seconds). This seconds can mean we can miss a got shot of a child or animal, or somethiing that is moving.
|
|
|
Post by carlott on Oct 30, 2007 12:12:02 GMT
Fairly common unfortunately Michael - part is down to the recharge time and part to allow the auto-focus to lock onto the subject and in low light conditions this can be quite significant. I find myself reaching for my film camera at times like this or selecting manual focus as this at least cuts down the delay.
|
|
|
Post by paul Zernikazof on Oct 30, 2007 12:58:09 GMT
To add to what Carl has already said Michael. You also have a delay time whilst the last picture is written to the memory card to add to the above. Half pressing the shutter button to allow the autofocus to set itself before pressing it the whole way down to take the picture will make it a much quicker shot. Unfortunately this will not help with those moments when you want a quick snap. I have had this problem when photographing animals or small children who don't sit still for you. One other possibility that may help is that some digital cameras have a multi frame mode where you can take a number of pictures one after the other in one burst and pick the best one out afterwards. Otherwise the only solution is a new camera some of the more recent ones have a very short delay time between shots. Even the very small compact ones. The Canon ixus I just bought for the PMZ is one of these. If you are thinking of going this route then check any cameras that you like the look of for delay time either at a reputable camera shop or email the manufacturers technical support.
|
|
|
Post by Pistachio Newt on Dec 25, 2007 19:40:08 GMT
Fairly common unfortunately Michael - part is down to the recharge time and part to allow the auto-focus to lock onto the subject and in low light conditions this can be quite significant. I find myself reaching for my film camera at times like this or selecting manual focus as this at least cuts down the delay. In the low light conditions of the Arctic winter I've noticed the shutter speed can also be the limiting factor.
|
|
|
Post by Shuggie on Jan 11, 2008 11:29:25 GMT
A general rule - which applies to ALL photography:
Look at the four corners of the viewfinder before pressing the tit: YOU may not notice the telegraph pole growing out of someone's head, but the camera will!
|
|
|
Post by paul Zernikazof on Jan 11, 2008 13:59:12 GMT
A general rule - which applies to ALL photography: Look at the four corners of the viewfinder before pressing the tit: YOU may not notice the telegraph pole growing out of someone's head, but the camera will! Good tip Shuggie. It's surprising how easy it is to miss something that seems so obvcious in the finished picture The Automatic Telegraph Pole Removal tool in Photoshop is such a boon
|
|
|
Post by Shuggie on Jan 18, 2008 12:47:32 GMT
Another tip .. following on from the "Cheating?" thread in the context of digital manipulation:
Every manipulative step undertaken in something like Photoshop, whether it be as mundane as brightness, contrast or saturation adjustment, involves image degradation (loss of detail, colour or resolution) to a greater or lesser degree. The important thing to realise is that, in the vast majority of cases where images are stored as jpeg files, that degradation is irreversible.
Thus, a golden rule: if the image needs manipulating, copy the original and manipulate THAT; never manipulate the original .. unless you are absolutely 100% certain that you will never need it again.
|
|
royal
TOG
keep smilling,have a nice day.
Posts: 377
|
Post by royal on Jun 23, 2008 12:07:24 GMT
|
|