[manimal]

alright photo nerds. i'm just getting into the -more than basic- shooting and i'd like some critiques and advice on how i can do better.

i'm currently shooting w/ a panasonic DMC-FZ7, about the best, non SLR i could find with a lot of options. has up to ISO 1600 and i can manually adjust aperature and shutter speed. 12X zoom and some italian sounding lens

anyway, i took some shots today at the playground w/ the kids and tried out some different settings. these are my best shots. i'd love to hear some professional opinions on the quality and what i can do to make them better next time.

my favorite. taken from about 30' away. iso 200, exposure -1/3, 1/80 shutter and i forgot the aperature setting.

shooting into the bright overcast sky. should i have used the hood?

no pre-focus on this one. any ideas how to freeze it better w/out pre-focus?

color ok?

another one of my fav's. i pre-focused on him before he jumped when he was at the apex of his swing, then just panned when he jumped.

let me know if you need the exact camera settings on anything.

 

[PatBranch]

1. Exposure Time = 1/125"
F Number = F5.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 200

2. Exposure Time = 1/250"
F Number = F5.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 200

3. Exposure Time = 1/125"
F Number = F4.5
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 80

4. Exposure Time = 1/50"
F Number = F3.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 80

5. Exposure Time = 1/125"
F Number = F5.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 200


There's the exif.

On ones, like 3, if you want to freeze it better, use a faster shutter speed, and bigger aperture -lower number- (that may be your biggest aperture). You had it on 80 ISO. If you had put it up to 200 or 400, you could have a faster shutter speed, and freeze it better. I think anything above 400, there is a noticeable amount of noise.

If you want your kids to be the subject, a lower aperture a focusing on them will blur the background while they are in focus. (if you don't already know).

 

[narlus]

mtnbrider's got it right; i will say that for #2, where you've got a bright background, you can change the metering to center or partial (spot if you've got it, but probably not) and that will help you get the proper exposure on the subject.

 

[Skookum]

Point click if you don't like it take it to photoshop.

 

[Toshi]

i like that last one, manimal.

my tips:

- keep the shutter speed at least as fast as 1/FL, where FL is the focal length of your lens. (so if you're shooting 30 feet zoomed in with your "12x" zoom you probably want at 1/250 or faster.)
- realize that some shots just aren't possible with the way they're lit. to do the second one properly would require waiting for a day with a blue sky, exposing for the sky (so underexposing your kid), and then lighting up your kid with a flash.

 

[narlus]

- realize that some shots just aren't possible with the way they're lit. to do the second one properly would require waiting for a day with a blue sky, exposing for the sky (so underexposing your kid), and then lighting up your kid with a flash.

or shoot RAW, pushing/pulling exposure, and masking layers. :biggrin:

 

[SofaKingBanned]

Point click if you don't like it take it to photoshop.

While "real" photogs will scoff at that, I agree. But I'm a graphic designer, not a photog, so ya know.

I'm more interested in content than quality since I can make adjustments. That said, the first photo is amazing. Captured so much emotion, energy, and innocence. Is she one of your kids? If I had an application for it, I'd buy limited rights to that pic

 

[chicodude]

1. Exposure Time = 1/125"
F Number = F5.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 200

2. Exposure Time = 1/250"
F Number = F5.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 200

3. Exposure Time = 1/125"
F Number = F4.5
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 80

4. Exposure Time = 1/50"
F Number = F3.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 80

5. Exposure Time = 1/125"
F Number = F5.6
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 200


There's the exif.

And you got all of this info how?

 

[narlus]

opanda EXIF browser plugin. it's a nifty little thing.

 

[PatBranch]

It's so cool. I use it a lot.

 

[stevew]

And you got all of this info how?

He is the Amazing Crescan.

 

[binary visions]

- keep the shutter speed at least as fast as 1/FL, where FL is the focal length of your lens. (so if you're shooting 30 feet zoomed in with your "12x" zoom you probably want at 1/250 or faster.)

Dude, his focal length at max zoom of that is like 35mm

The 1/FL rule doesn't apply that well to these little digicams. The lens is so lightweight that you can hand hold them down to ridiculous shutter speeds. My Sony is about 200mm equivalent, and I can easily handhold it down to 1/30 fully zoomed in. I can get it slower but it's one of those take-several-exposures-and-you-might-get-one-good situations.

It's a good point, though, you do need to be aware that when you're zoomed in all the way, you need to have a faster shutter speed.

 

[chicodude]

opanda EXIF browser plugin. it's a nifty little thing.

Uh....So I downloaded it, but it always says unable do find exif data

 

[Toshi]

The 1/FL rule doesn't apply that well to these little digicams. The lens is so lightweight that you can hand hold them down to ridiculous shutter speeds. My Sony is about 200mm equivalent, and I can easily handhold it down to 1/30 fully zoomed in. I can get it slower but it's one of those take-several-exposures-and-you-might-get-one-good situations.

post up some 100% crops that show that you can handhold at 200mm, 1/30... i personally find (and physics supports the assertion that) heavier cameras/lenses to be easier to hold steady.

 

[PatBranch]

Uh....So I downloaded it, but it always says unable do find exif data

Did you download Opanda Iexif AND the Extension? It can't read some images -i'm not sure why. Like dwaughs photo from his D70 don't work.

 

[PatBranch]

post up some 100% crops that show that you can handhold at 200mm, 1/30... i personally find (and physics supports the assertion that) heavier cameras/lenses to be easier to hold steady.

That's what I thought, heavier = steadier, less little movements affect it.

 

[narlus]

not sure what to say...it works fine w/ firefox for me.

 

[Skookum]

I'm more interested in content than quality since I can make adjustments.

Yup. The beauty of digital, just keep shooting, anyone can turn out top notch photo's, i'm proof. Turn off the targeting computer and use the force....

 

[chicodude]

not sure what to say...it works fine w/ firefox for me.

well, as It turns out, I am just a retard. It works now.



i think I am going to drive off a cliff now

 

[narlus]

but photoshop, no matter how good the user, can't turn a P&S into a DSRL w/ various lens options.

not saying that non-DSLR cameras can't get great captures, but there are certain limitations that photoshop can't make up for.

 

[binary visions]

post up some 100% crops that show that you can handhold at 200mm, 1/30... i personally find (and physics supports the assertion that) heavier cameras/lenses to be easier to hold steady.

Took me a minute to find one.

I think you're on crack, btw. I realize that a heavier object requires more force to move, but it's fatiguing to hold a heavy lens for long periods. These little cameras you can shoot with for hours at a stretch with no effects like that. I don't really believe that requiring more force to move will counterbalance the fact that it's a person holding it.

I've heard many, many pros suggest things like an F/4 lens over an F/2.8, citing that it's far easier to hand hold the F/4. I don't have extensive experience to make suggestions like that, but there it is.

Anyway, not the point of the thread.

 

[manimal]

While "real" photogs will scoff at that, I agree. But I'm a graphic designer, not a photog, so ya know.

I'm more interested in content than quality since I can make adjustments. That said, the first photo is amazing. Captured so much emotion, energy, and innocence. Is she one of your kids? If I had an application for it, I'd buy limited rights to that pic

wow..thanks for all the suggestions. i still have a lot to learn about the mechanical side of things.

yes, LO, these are all of my kids and thanks for the comments on the shot. she's really fun to shoot, likes to playfully pout a lot

here's one for you photoshop guru's, how do i get the dude in the background to disappear?

 

[manimal]

i like that last one, manimal.

my tips:

- keep the shutter speed at least as fast as 1/FL, where FL is the focal length of your lens. (so if you're shooting 30 feet zoomed in with your "12x" zoom you probably want at 1/250 or faster.)
.

i'm not sure what all the lens stuff means but mine is:

1:2.8 - 3.3/6-72 ASPH

no idea what that means

 

[Silver]

here's one for you photoshop guru's, how do i get the dude in the background to disappear?

Stop going to the park where the creepy dude in the khaki pants hangs out to watch the kids...

 

[manimal]

dude...that's EVERY park

 

[imploded]

How low of an ISO can you go? For studio work, I use ISO 64 films (tungsten balanced so my lights don't throw a blue cast), and for most portrature I use ISO 100 (Ektachrome 100 VS, it doesn't butcher the warm tones and reds like ultracold Velvia does).

The overcast day can be one of your greatest assets when doing portrature - because the light is (generally) more equally diffuse across your subject than in direct sunlight, and you can snap some softer, richer shots. With film, I compesate for this by shooting a warmer film, but a digital should be able to compensate for this by changing the color balance to warm up in the red spectrum. The downside is, you can get this big diffuse light box look in your backgrounds...

Changing your light metering is important, especially if you have one that does not have a custom center-weighted mode. My main film body has a custom center-weighted mode, which I turn on and quickly dial in a few points of metering to or away from the center based on my subject. If it doesn't, spot metering is best but be forwarned, in a situation like # 2 you can have way blown out backgrounds (due to the bright light coming through there). Stopping down your lens and also dropping a few points of ISO can really help too, but I'm not sure how low your camera can go.

I live in a world of ultra low ISO. I rarely shoot above 100 ISO (generally only to shoot Neopan 400, but then I still push it a stop and even sometimes push my developing a stop too). I'm a contrast whore and shoot accordingly.

Here is a difficult shot that didn't work out as well as I hoped:

That was shot at ISO 100, f/5.6 and an exposure of 1/125, under a light-blocking tent in Missouri last summer. The background isn't quite washed, but it is getting there; I had hoped to get a little more density out of it. This scan sucks, I didn't want to pay $8/whack for a 98mb drum scan for these shots, so his face is a little darker than it is on the actual slide.

This shows the downside of low ISO films. That was shot on Velvia, at ISO 40 (I push it, it's ISO 50 out of the box), and you can see how lurid the greens are, while the skin tones look ruddy and the white is OH MY GOD bright.

However:

was shot as ISO 100 on Ektachrome 100 VS. The greens are more tonally balanced with the rest of the shot (of course, the air-so-thick humidity washes everything beyond 200' from the lens), and the whites are far more balanced.

I could go on for pages, but I wont. Good luck, work your ISO, you have some good compositions here.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[PatBranch]

Took me a minute to find one.

I think you're on crack, btw. I realize that a heavier object requires more force to move, but it's fatiguing to hold a heavy lens for long periods. These little cameras you can shoot with for hours at a stretch with no effects like that. I don't really believe that requiring more force to move will counterbalance the fact that it's a person holding it.

I've heard many, many pros suggest things like an F/4 lens over an F/2.8, citing that it's far easier to hand hold the F/4. I don't have extensive experience to make suggestions like that, but there it is.

Anyway, not the point of the thread.

I think with a heavier weight, little movements won't affect it as much (making it more still) when compared to a little P&S, but then, the heavier it is, the harder it is to hold it for a longer time.

I think it's a trade-off and the results would be different with different people.

 

[binary visions]

I think with a heavier weight, little movements won't affect it as much (making it more still) when compared to a little P&S, but then, the heavier it is, the harder it is to hold it for a longer time.

I think it's a trade-off and the results would be different with different people.

Maybe. Try it - take a handheld shot at 1/30th at 200mm and see if you can get one to come out sharp.

Probably not a good thing to waste film on, though

 

[Toshi]

Took me a minute to find one.

I think you're on crack, btw. I realize that a heavier object requires more force to move, but it's fatiguing to hold a heavy lens for long periods. These little cameras you can shoot with for hours at a stretch with no effects like that. I don't really believe that requiring more force to move will counterbalance the fact that it's a person holding it.

I've heard many, many pros suggest things like an F/4 lens over an F/2.8, citing that it's far easier to hand hold the F/4. I don't have extensive experience to make suggestions like that, but there it is.

Anyway, not the point of the thread.

uh, that doesn't look all that sharp. granted, it's not clear whether that's from camera movement or other factors: lens, sensor, shadow noise, highlights being lost. if you're interested in continuing this tangent (which is relevant to the thread in that it was one of my suggestions for manimal) please post up a long shot with the subject up close and in focus.

i agree that fatigue may come into play when getting into truly heavy glass like the 70-200/2.8 IS or any of the 300+ 2.8 primes, but for most lenses that normal/non-sports shooters will use i think it is a non-issue. i think manimal shouldn't have an issue in any case, what with his reported 15-18% bf and widely dissected training schedule

 

[binary visions]

uh, that doesn't look all that sharp. granted, it's not clear whether that's from camera movement or other factors: lens, sensor, shadow noise, highlights being lost. if you're interested in continuing this tangent (which is relevant to the thread in that it was one of my suggestions for manimal) please post up a long shot with the subject up close and in focus.

Toshi, that's silly; it doesn't matter if it's perfectly sharp. The point is that you can clearly see that it's perfectly usable. You can see the snow texture and the brickwork edges would be clearly blurred if there were much camera shake. It's not a particularly good exposure and it was taken through falling snow, but I'm not about to dig through nearly 10k photos to find one that fits the specific criterea... I just knew there were a lot of handheld slow exposures in that folder.

Pixel peeping 100% crops doesn't tell you if an image is printably sharp, or sharp under normal viewing circumstances. Which, in the end, is all that matters - right? I'm not claiming that 1/30th is a good place to be shooting telephoto shots from, just that it's doable.

It wasn't a good shot, but it's the only one of the bunch (a metering shot IIRC) that I was positive I shot handheld, most of the rest were on a tripod or were experiments in flash through the snow:

See? It's just fine. It's not as sharp as it would have been from a tripod, but it's completely usable and would print well.

 

[Toshi]

i agree that it's completely usable and "just fine", but i don't think it particularly helps to disprove my point: for sharp shots stick to 1/focal length or faster.

 

[Skookum]

wow..thanks for all the suggestions. i still have a lot to learn about the mechanical side of things.

yes, LO, these are all of my kids and thanks for the comments on the shot. she's really fun to shoot, likes to playfully pout a lot

here's one for you photoshop guru's, how do i get the dude in the background to disappear?

Haha bummer deal, a cool but blurry shot, but totally ruined by that dudes crotch.

Best way to learn PS by not really reading the book, which i hate doing as i'm sure you do...

Just google a description of what you want to do. Here's a good little web site that's helped me out.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/webgraphics/