Photography Question - Digi Cam

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Barewolf

Ive set the quality to medium and its set on 5 megapixel. Can only take 15 pics with the cams memory with that, 20mb. Got a 2gb SD Card coming tomorrow so should be ok lol.

For quality purposes you'd be better setting the quality to high and if possible reduce the number of MP's.

Originally Posted by Barewolf

My problem is even at those settings the pics on the PC come out at 1.7mb Each mostly. Thats pretty big for a Jpeg, my old ones were 600kb ish. Is this just sods law if i choose hi pixels?

The more pixels you have, the larger the file sizes will be. This isn't a big issue when you get your 2gb card of course.

Originally Posted by Barewolf

All camera settings are on auto at the moment, Whitebalance is on auto, Flash, ISO? That goes up to 1000 but i dont know if i manually select it or not, manuals a bit confusing as to what these things do rather it tells you how to alter it if needed.

ISO is the same as old film cameras, when you used ISO200 for outdoor and ISO (or ASA if you're really old!) 400 for inoor. As with film, the sensor on the camera is more sensitive to ligght, so will offer faster shutter speeds in lower light than using a lower ISO number. However the flip side of faster ISOs is grain or noise on the shot. The higher the ISO, the more noise on the shot there is, but the faster the shutter speed will be.

Originally Posted by Barewolf

Ive taken one on this new camera of my cake Louise made for me, i really cant eat it so i keep taking pics of it instead. trouble is that its not really sharp. It has a little hand that comes up when you take a picture to tell you if the camera is shaking. No i normally have a steady hand being an artist so the camera wasnt shaking, its very hard to get rid of this icon on the LCD display when trying to take a picture. Perhaps its coz i used zoom maybe?

Your camera, as it is set to auto, will try to guess what the optimum settings are for that shot. What it's done is to look at the ambient light in the room, open the aperture as much as possible and drop the shutter speed down to expose the shot correctly.

However, the shutter speed is too slow, so the little hand is coming up to warn of possible camera shake. It doesn't matter how steady your hand is, you are unlikely to avoid camera shake if the shutter speed drops below 1/60th of second without some sort of stability aide, such as a tripod or something to rest on. Also, the more you zoom, the more prone to shake a photo becomes, so that 1/60th sec will increase to anything up to 1/200th second. A rule of thumb of SLR cameras is you never drop your shutter speed below what your focal length on your lens is, eg 200mm lens needs a shutter speed faster than 1/200th second, but obviously on compacts this is difficult to guage sometimes.

Originally Posted by Barewolf

About the large files. i dont know what to do to compress them and if i will loose quality, is it easier to just lower the megapixel? or compress them afterwards on pc? Which is worse for the quality of pic?

You should keep copies of photos you want to process. Take them off the camera, copy them to a CD/DVD and then work on local copies of the shots. That way you can resize, process, alter, etc to your heart's content without destorying the original (the negative if you like).

To start emailing things, pick a reasonable image size like 600pixels by 400 pixels and a resolution of 72dpi (as computer screens don't display more than 72dpi unless you've got a Mac, in which case it's 96dpi).

When printing, you should crop to the print size you want to make, eg 6x4" and a resolution of 300dpi (which is the standard for printing and the same resolution as our eyes see).

Originally Posted by Bender

The size of the file depends on what level of compression the built in processor uses for the JPEGs. Not all cameras are the same.

This is correct, but another major factor on file size is the subect of the photo; if you're shooting something on a plain white background and there is only a small area of the actual subject in the frame, the file size is far far smaller than if you'd filled the frame with the subject. This is the nature of JPEG compression, which looks at pixels next door when discarding info.

Originally Posted by Bender

ISO levels are used in conjunction with the Aperture setting, which controls the diameter of the diaphragm when open. This also affects the Depth of Field and exposure length (shutter speed).

Sorry to be pedantic but ISO can be relative to aperture, but doesn't work in conjuntion with it and it doesn't change shutter speed. I know what you're saying, which is broadly corrrect, but it could be a bit misleading that way.

I could go into a couple of pages as to how the relationship works, but I'd be asleep by the time I'd finsihed writing it. Save to say that keeping the ISO on 100 is good if you want grain free images. Adjusting the aperture will change the look of the image, as you say depth of field (which is also affected by zoom length) the lower the number, the more light going through the lens and shallower the depth of field (i.e foreground and background more likely to be blurred). And if you've not got enough light with the previous two settings then you need a longer exposure which is when you start getting camera shake!

[Barewolf]

Thanks andy and bender, you both seem to know your stuff on cameras. I am still reading through the manual and have taken a shot of my Birthday cake. I will add 2 pics, you can see they are not too good, i did have zoom on it, its not as crisp as i would like.

I took it on 5 megapixel on medium quality set to landscape mode. probably did everything wrong for that shot didnt i?
All the cameras settings were on auto as well, ISO etc etc.

I have used infraview to shrink my pictures file size with no loss of quality. I set some pics to 1500x1500 dpi. thats still to high then? would 300x300Dpi be enough? for keeping them for e mails and forums etc?

The SD card came this morning and i had camera set to 5mp medium quality and it said i had 1500 shots left lol. I was like OMG!!!! I usually only take a maximum of 50 when i am out. Anyway i changed it to 7.1mp and super fine and i still have 600 to take with that so i am all set now for travels.

My problem is batteries. My god how fast do they burn up? I used up 2 Duracel yesterday and managed about 20 Pics before it had gone, mind you i dont think they were brand new. I have 2 Duracel Ultra in at the moment, brand new, wonder how many i can get out of that, hmm.

[bob_a_builder]

Hi-capacity rechargables is the only way to go with digital cameras.

The fact that it may use normal batteries is only really useful in emergency (is there such a thing oi photo terms) and don't have time for a recharge - so just have 2 sets

[Halcyon]

Recharageables are the way to go. Normal batteries just get used up really quickly in camera's.

As for the zoom quality. Sometimes forget the zoom altogether and get closer and use the macro feature. Yo'ul get a lot more detail, and crisper photo when taking close objects.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Whilst RAW is a nice thing to have if you're planning on doing a lot of post processing, it's something that most people simply wouldn't use. Files are huge, take a lot of time to process on the computer and in most cases don't produce shots that are any better than JPEGs stored with a large fine setting.

I actually read something like that in a Canon camera manual. They said that for most purposes , you will see little or no difference between RAW mode and a JPEG mode on the highest quality setting. Apart from the fact the file will be considerably larger than the JPEG.

It's different if you are planning to print the picture on a large-format printer (A3, A2, A1 or larger), or are planning to work on it within photoshop or a similar image editing application.

[Barewolf]

Can anyone reccomend any high capacity rechargable batteries? good ones?

How long will they last on average? Like 50 shots with flash or something?

I normally take my picture and turn the cam off to save battery life.

Also do you have any links to these batteries that will accept paypal?

Sorry i am totally new to this, never used rechargable batteries before so no idea what to look for or what is the best options.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Matt D

The Powershot range is excellent.


Canon make great cameras.

http://www.grattan.co.uk/Web/main/Pr...ze=&quantity=1

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Barewolf

Thanks andy and bender, you both seem to know your stuff on cameras.

You're welcome! I'm a photographer, so many things on this subject I can help with, but I don't personally use a digital compact anymore, I use a camera phone for snaps and one of my three DSLRs for 'proper' shots!

Originally Posted by Barewolf

I am still reading through the manual and have taken a shot of my Birthday cake. I will add 2 pics, you can see they are not too good, i did have zoom on it, its not as crisp as i would like.

OK, on the two shots you posted I can see from the EXIF data that the first one you used a shutter speed of 1/30th sec and the second one a shutter speed of 1/15th (half as fast again). Realistically you shouldn't have a shutter speed under 1/60th as rule of thumb.

Now, going back to what Bender and I were on about... here's lesson two!

Exposure is measured in stops. f/2.8 is ONE LESS than f1.4 but ONE MORE than f/4. Your first shot was as f/2.8 which is a wide aperture. Your second shot was at f/4.2 (which isn't really an f/ stop, as one less than 4.2 is f/5.6!!!) Confused? It took me a while to grasp this one when I was learning it too.

So, the relationship between aperture and shutter speed is as follows: If you have an aperture of f/4 and shutter speed of 1/30th sec, by increasing the aperture by one stop to f/2.8 (widening the aperture) you also increase the shutter speed by one stop, from 1/30th sec to 1/60th sec.

ISO comes into this to as Bender said...in your first example your camera selected an ISO of 191 (which again is not a true ISO, so lets say it's 200). By increasing the ISO to 400 you are gaining another stop. So if we use the same exmaple of your f/4 aperture increase it again to f/2.8 and now we increase your 200ISO to 400, the shutter speed goes from 1/30th sec, through 1/60th (as increasing aperture got us this) and up to 1/125th sec shutter speed, which is a nice all round speed with no fear of camera shake at most focal lengths on your camera.

Does that make any sense? (Don't worry if it doesn't, it didn't to me for a long time too). If I remember, I will try and fish out my study in first year photography that I (eventually) grasped this relationship.

If your camera has one, try setting it to shutter priority mode and manually set a shutter speed of at least 1/60th, preferably 1/125th sec and let camera sort out ISOs and apertures...see the difference it makes!

Enjoy playing!

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's different if you are planning to print the picture on a large-format printer (A3, A2, A1 or larger), or are planning to work on it within photoshop or a similar image editing application.

Not really, RAW doesn't add anything extra into an image (aside from potential dynamic range for certain shooting complex shooting conditions). As printing at larger sizes such as A2 upwards would require interpolation, you again would see little if any difference between a RAW shot and a large fine JPEG on a good camera.

[Barewolf]

Originally Posted by andygrif

OK, on the two shots you posted I can see from the EXIF data that the first one you used a shutter speed of 1/30th sec and the second one a shutter speed of 1/15th (half as fast again). Realistically you shouldn't have a shutter speed under 1/60th as rule of thumb.

Now, going back to what Bender and I were on about... here's lesson two!

Exposure is measured in stops. f/2.8 is ONE LESS than f1.4 but ONE MORE than f/4. Your first shot was as f/2.8 which is a wide aperture. Your second shot was at f/4.2 (which isn't really an f/ stop, as one less than 4.2 is f/5.6!!!) Confused? It took me a while to grasp this one when I was learning it too.

So, the relationship between aperture and shutter speed is as follows: If you have an aperture of f/4 and shutter speed of 1/30th sec, by increasing the aperture by one stop to f/2.8 (widening the aperture) you also increase the shutter speed by one stop, from 1/30th sec to 1/60th sec.

ISO comes into this to as Bender said...in your first example your camera selected an ISO of 191 (which again is not a true ISO, so lets say it's 200). By increasing the ISO to 400 you are gaining another stop. So if we use the same exmaple of your f/4 aperture increase it again to f/2.8 and now we increase your 200ISO to 400, the shutter speed goes from 1/30th sec, through 1/60th (as increasing aperture got us this) and up to 1/125th sec shutter speed, which is a nice all round speed with no fear of camera shake at most focal lengths on your camera.

Does that make any sense? (Don't worry if it doesn't, it didn't to me for a long time too). If I remember, I will try and fish out my study in first year photography that I (eventually) grasped this relationship.

.

---------- Post added at 10:53 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Originally Posted by andygrif

OK, on the two shots you posted I can see from the EXIF data that the first one you used a shutter speed of 1/30th sec and the second one a shutter speed of 1/15th (half as fast again). Realistically you shouldn't have a shutter speed under 1/60th as rule of thumb.

Now, going back to what Bender and I were on about... here's lesson two!

Exposure is measured in stops. f/2.8 is ONE LESS than f1.4 but ONE MORE than f/4. Your first shot was as f/2.8 which is a wide aperture. Your second shot was at f/4.2 (which isn't really an f/ stop, as one less than 4.2 is f/5.6!!!) Confused? It took me a while to grasp this one when I was learning it too.

So, the relationship between aperture and shutter speed is as follows: If you have an aperture of f/4 and shutter speed of 1/30th sec, by increasing the aperture by one stop to f/2.8 (widening the aperture) you also increase the shutter speed by one stop, from 1/30th sec to 1/60th sec.

ISO comes into this to as Bender said...in your first example your camera selected an ISO of 191 (which again is not a true ISO, so lets say it's 200). By increasing the ISO to 400 you are gaining another stop. So if we use the same exmaple of your f/4 aperture increase it again to f/2.8 and now we increase your 200ISO to 400, the shutter speed goes from 1/30th sec, through 1/60th (as increasing aperture got us this) and up to 1/125th sec shutter speed, which is a nice all round speed with no fear of camera shake at most focal lengths on your camera.

Does that make any sense? (Don't worry if it doesn't, it didn't to me for a long time too). If I remember, I will try and fish out my study in first year photography that I (eventually) grasped this relationship.

.

Hi Andy

So what youre saying is manually change ISO to 400 - 800? For shots? This will reduce camera shake and blurry images?

Sorry i know noting about apperture and focal lengths. Theres nothing on my camera about these settings, the only settings it allows me to change are...

ISO - Auto,80,100,200,400,800,1000
White Balance - Auto, Daylight, Cloudy, Flourecent, Tungstun, Custom
Exposure Compensation - -2.0 ~ 0.0 ~ +2.0 ~ (0.5EV Steps)

Also with reading the manual i discovered the camera has an option of Continuous shot which can take Continuous shots until the shutter button is released, or AEB which is 3 pictures at different expsures. Under, normal, and over.

Manually the apparture is F2.8 + 7.1 Switchable When I zoom in it changes values also switchable. The shutter speed I can also change 1/15,1/30,1/45 Etc etc

[Halcyon]

The darker the area the more you want to increase the ISO. Higher ISO, means more sensitivity to light.
You will get images with to some extent less blur but the higher the ISO, the more noise that will appear in the image.
By noise, I mean spots and graininess.

See here for more info and examples:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...itivity_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...xposure_01.htm

[bob_a_builder]

No idea if they take paypal but just for reference

Link
Look for the more mAh - bigger the number , generally lasts longer

Then you need a charger
Link
Most tend to be mains ones, but there are some in-car ones too
some come with batts too, again look for a big mAh number

Not a bad option here link main s + 12v car charging + 2700 bats x 4

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by andygrif

I use a camera phone for snaps and one of my three DSLRs for 'proper' shots!

I know, the 3MP camera on my SEK800i is fantastic. Even has a pretty good flash, though you need to then do red eye reduction on people (flash to close to lens).

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Not really, RAW doesn't add anything extra into an image (aside from potential dynamic range for certain shooting complex shooting conditions). As printing at larger sizes such as A2 upwards would require interpolation, you again would see little if any difference between a RAW shot and a large fine JPEG on a good camera.

Actually, I based that statement on a Canon EOS D350. We have a Hewlett Packard A1 inkjet at work, and when testing it, we went out and took pictures in various modes. Two (both of a statue on some grass) were taken at the highest res for the camera. One as a RAW image, and one with JPEG compression. When printed out (at A2 size), there were noticable artifacts on the grass with JPEG compression.

Having said that, I didn't take the photo, so only have the other technician's word that he was using a high quality JPEG setting. Sadly, he kept the file as well.

[Xaccers]

RAW is the data that the senson recieves, unmodified, so no whitebalance affected, no compression etc.
Great if you want to touch up the photo afterwards in photoshop, but as has been said, for most snappers jpg is good enough.
I love using RAW, but most of my shots need to be up on the web within a few hours of getting home, so I generally use jpeg, but if I'm taking any arty photos I'll use RAW just because then I've got the greatest number of options open to me.

[Barewolf]

Hi Guys.

Ok Today I have been out with my Samsung S700. I took on board what people have been saying and I am still learning, however if it hadnt have been for andy pointing out apperture, focal length, ISO etc then I would have had it set on Auto all the time which would have been useless today.

Today was sunny, not the brightest day weve had but it was bright outside.

I took some pictures WITH and WITHOUT auto function. I was suprised at the difference it made.

I set the Manual mode to 1/60th Shutter Speed. Most were taken 1/90th Though. The decent one below is 1/90th. The gloomy dark one is AUTO. And the 3rd one Is one i took which is how i want it all the time really, if possible to make it better then wicked. This was Manual 1/90th.

The Focus was 7.1 But i did zoom in and out on some pictures and the Focus changed obviously. I dont understand what reducing the focus does, it allows me to change between two. If i am not zoomed in and its set Focus 7.1 and Shutter Speed is 1/90th I can change the Focus to 2.1 or back to 7.1. When I zoom this changes different values.

I have options to change from AWB / Sunny / Cloudy. Theres other modes but they are for indoors. When I choose cloudy i get more vivid colour, Sunny makes it darker. And most inc the ones i added were done using AWB. No idea what that means lol.

ISO Was set to Auto as well on the pictures even though it was in Manual mode for some shots, I dont know if that is a wise idea or not?

As you can see in picture one. Its like what i started with my old camera. The background is dark, no detail in the trees, gloomy looking. This is why i got the Samsung Camera. Using Manual the Second picture is far better, no detail in the sky though like picture one but you can pick the detail up better, looks like a decent pic to me, Novice with no idea what he is doing lol.

So definately helps knowing about these focal lengths and Shutter speeds. Focal length still confusing me

The third picture seemed to come out great, cant remember if i used Macro mode in Manual for this shot or not. Or if i should have done that.

I found though even in Manual mode "Some" pictures came out a little dark while others were nice and bright. Does this have something to do with where the sun is shining? Ie if its behind me do i use more shutter speed?, If its in front of me I use less? Or is that all wrong lol. Sorry if it is.

Anyway heres the pics. Any advice would be helpfull. I didnt mess with the apparture with these pics or the ISO. Only the Shutter speed and AWB for manual mode and gloomy pic is Auto mode.