1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Camera Simulator

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by RoyReed, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Used the 10 second timer.

    Was too busy to do it earlier. Will try again tomorrow, after I've had a try tonight. Have to wait for himself to leave room though before I can open window :D
     
  2. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Will try that later (different settings, NOT the sitting with the window open for hours!)
     
  3. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet ammonia snooker balls

    You shouldn't need to do an exposure for hours really :D but it could be minutes. Hours is when there's only stars and the moon illuminating the scene. You can get some fascinating colours like that, though, which you wouldn't be able to see with your eyes - sometimes people don't believe that long night exposures are real, they say they must be shopped, because at night eyes don't see colours.
     
    Minnie_the_Minx likes this.
  4. fractionMan

    fractionMan Custom Title

    That's terrible. I'd be well pissed off at that.
     
  5. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Well good, as I have no intention of sitting in the cold for hours :D

    I've seen them before and am amazed at what's going on in those pictures and how people get them :cool:
     
  6. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Managed to do it slightly in Macro, but again, this seems to be another thing people aren't happy about. I had the blur on these photos on the maximum of the three as well
    DSC00610.JPG

    DSC00697.JPG
     
  7. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Here's what what reviewer says about defocus on the camera (from Imaging Resource)

     
  8. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet ammonia snooker balls

    Best not to use that I think. It sounds like just a trick to simulate an effect that comes with different lenses, to make pictures look "professional" by removing detail.

    Really, program settings on digitals seem to want to do this all the time regardless - set a huge aperture to get a tiny depth of field and keep whatever they focus on in shot while everything else is blurred. This is just not how I like to shoot, personally, except for special purposes. When I'm taking pics on the street, I set my film cameras to a small aperture which has a huge depth of field and so, any time I point the camera and take a picture, it's in focus.
     
  9. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    I can't be that bothered about depth of field as I've barely got to grips with aperture and shutter :oops::D

    No doubt, I'll soon start wishing I was able to do it, but I don't want to start running before I can walk :D
     
  10. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Different strokes and all that, I am considering a 180mm f2.8 prime lens which is sharp at f2.8 (I would use it for people shots often candids) .. I was discussing it with a buddy who is a landscape specialist. He is interested in a 18-300mm f5.6 superzoom and said he never shoots at below f8-f11 anyhow. :)
     
  11. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet ammonia snooker balls

    You'd know it if you saw it. Depth of field (DOF) is just "how much of the scene behind and in front of what I focus on is not blurred". If you do a portrait and everything more than a foot or two behind the face is blurred, that's low DOF. If you can see the background in focus as well as the face, that's high DOF.

    DOF depends on a few different things - aperture (smaller/higher number is better), focal length of lens (wider angle lenses are better) and the distance from the camera that you are focussing on (focal points further away will have higher DOF).

    It looks "good" to have low DOF because it emphasises what you've focussed on, but it's a bit of an overused mechanism IMO. Digitals have really good autofocus these days, so they can be sure of being able to focus at the right range, and also, compact digitals have really low focal lengths so everything is in field.
     
  12. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Ah right, but what I meant is that it's the least of my worries at the moment as I need to get the hang of other things now :D

    And anyway, it'll take me ages to remember "depth of field". As you've seen with my photo pics up there, it's just blur. :oops: High depth of field is not blurred :D

    I have no understanding about focal lengths and distances as that also includes numbers which I don't like and it's too much for me to get my head around. It may have to wait a while 'til I get the hang of aperture and shutter ;)
     
  13. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet ammonia snooker balls

    DOF is really not anything you have to worry about when taking pictures of landscapes. They're all far enough away that it's not an issue. I just mention it in passing really.
     
  14. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    oh no, by all means mention away. I need all the help I can get :D

    It is something that it would be nice to be able to do especially as I take lots of flower pictures and sometimes would prefer the flower's surroundings to be blurred out
     
  15. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Tried doing a picture last night on Twilight setting with mode but just couldn't do it. I couldn't even see what I was trying to photograph, even zooming in. :confused: Kept changing setting on camera to check I was zoomed in on correct spot, and then changing back to twilight, but screen was showing nothing.

    Couldn't manage it in manual mode either (or it may have been Manual mode that I couldn't see anything. I forget).

    Discovered on one of the settings with the zoom zoomed in, I couldn't even go past ISO 800 and F number wouldn't go lower than 5.6. Tried it on ISO 100 but couldn't see anything. After about an hour of faffing about, my fingers were frozen and I gave up. All I managed was a picture identical to the decent(ish) one I posted yesterday which was Twilight (handheld)
     
  16. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

     

    Attached Files:

  17. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    I'm still having great fun with zoom, and there were some lovely blue skies today. Decided to zoom in on that other new building that's going up instead of The Shard

    DSC01120.JPG

    PO Tower.JPG
     
  18. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    and I got a nice little bird in garden today

    DSC01147.JPG

    DSC01152.JPG

    DSC01153.JPG
     
    fractionMan and RoyReed like this.
  19. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Minnie, your camera produces a nice clean image.
     
    Minnie_the_Minx likes this.
  20. Hocus Eye.

    Hocus Eye. Snap, crop, scrap crap

    Excellent photos MInnie. I think you should find out the setting that stops the date being inserted into the pictures. It spoils the look of them. If you need that info, it is always available in the exif data that can be read in your photo editing software. You are getting some good shots with that camera, keep it up.
     
    fractionMan and Minnie_the_Minx like this.
  21. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Yes :) I should have said that :)
     
  22. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    I agree. I put the date on myself but have now decided to take it off. I've cropped a couple of pictures to get rid of it so I think I'll turn it off permanently.

    Glad I'm getting good shots. I still think my Fuji F11 is better in low light.

    I'm also not mad on how it saturates red colours (although I was aware of that when I bought it). Difficult getting blue skies as well without making things in the foreground really dark, but otherwise, I'm enjoying playing with it. :)

    Can't get used to not being able to zoom in much on photos either (compression issues) but that's just me being nitpicky probably
     
  23. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    PS: I'm starting to understand about defocus now (or whatever you call it). Think the bird in the first picture would stand out much more if all the leaves around the bird were blurred, but can't figure out how to do that other than in macro mode
     
  24. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I was thinking of commenting on the date in picture actually also. I don't think it is necessary.

    As to defocus - or narrow depth of field, as I understand it your camera does not have a true aperture adjustment, however you will probably maximise this effect of having things in front of or behind out of focus more - the more you zoom your camera and the closer your target subject is.
     
    Minnie_the_Minx likes this.
  25. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    ah right, couldn't really get any closer to those birds as I was literally a foot away from them and they just kept jumping on to other branches or hiding as I get any nearer (as you can see in first pic) and zooming in even more meant I kept losing them and having to zoom back to find them. They were most inconsiderate birds :mad::D

    I think the reason I was putting date on was just to make sure the date was on there in case dates weren't true. What's started to happen to my Fuji F11 is, often after I've taken card out of camera, it loses the date, so pictures I've taken this year are dated 2005 because I can't be arsed keep setting the date every time I take card out. Never used to do that :hmm:
     
  26. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke


    PLEASE IGNORE: Just me trying to see whether latest attempt is any better than previous attempts.

    PS.jpg
     
  27. Hocus Eye.

    Hocus Eye. Snap, crop, scrap crap

    You cannot post and say 'ignore' without someone ignoring your request. That looks better to me. It just needs to be rotated clockwise by 2%, or by showing the grid to help judge rotation by eye, a bit of unsharp mask might help to get rid of some of the haziness (photoshop).
     
  28. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Yeah, I meant ignore in that I wanted to view it with the other one on the same page which is hard if you're doing in using something else iykwim.

    Rotated? Is it wonky then? :hmm::oops:

    I used sharpening. Maybe I should have used less? I don't really know how to use all these photo editing thingies and I don't have Photoshop. I have Corel Paintshop and I still don't understand what 905 of it does. :oops:
     
  29. Hocus Eye.

    Hocus Eye. Snap, crop, scrap crap

    Ironically 'unsharp mask' increased sharpness. You were on the right track, possibly you could have given more. Yes I think it is leaning a bit to the left. If you don't see it, leave it alone. It varies across the picture.
     
  30. Minnie_the_Minx

    Minnie_the_Minx purves grundy - definitely a bloke

    Right, will see if I can unsharp it and straighten it up a bit
     

Share This Page