The Official "I have a question about photography" Thread

[Gatis]

Can I ask a question which is not photography related itself - rather about post-processing? About the magical buzz-word - HDR (High-Definition-Range)...

So I've got RAW picture. And I've got Photoshop CS3 with it's nice (?) automated "Merge to High Definition Range" tool.

I've been lazy and have not taken three pictures with different exposures for later merging. I take my single RAW file and make three pictures - one significantly brighter, one - original and one - significantly darker. And I merge them with that magical "Merge to HDR" tool.

...and the outcome is just sad... grainy (initial pic was not grainy), with low saturation and without a single bit of HDR magic in it... Can post results later, when at home computer.

How are your experiences with making HDR's?

[SimFox]

Actually many of the advantages of so-called pro cameras (I guess people mean dSLRs by that) are not so crucial at night and pocket cameras have one serious advantage - absence of any moving parts creating vibrations and hence blurred images with long exposures. All that is, naturally when you shoot from tripod. Without it no IS system will save you.
Real PRO cameras are normally built a bit differently (from different materials) have better quality internal optics (prisms) and mostly higher grade mechanics. Some however have different/bigger sensors (compared to regular dSLR with crop factor 1,5-1,6 - roughly the size of APS film frame) of size of regular 35mm film frame.
Probably the best camera currently available is Nikon D3. It cost a lot, but with that baby and IS (VR) lens you can very comfortably photograph at night with NO tripod as it has very clean image even at ISO 6400+. But this is exceptional camera and to make pictures that will be very popular on Urban Photo Contest you don't need it at all. In fact cheap pocket one will do you better there. Manufacturers make those with a regular customer in mind. Image is tailored to suit that regular person on the street. In fact many lay people when they first see image straight from really expensive camera are normally very disappointed because all the criteria they could think of when judging picture is how bright are colors and how sharp it is.
So just buy for you point and shooter a tripod. Any cheap one would do fine! And may be remote control if you camera didn't have it in the basic package.

[walrus357]

Originally Posted by Gatis

Can I ask a question which is not photography related itself - rather about post-processing? About the magical buzz-word - HDR (High-Definition-Range)...

So I've got RAW picture. And I've got Photoshop CS3 with it's nice (?) automated "Merge to High Definition Range" tool.

I've been lazy and have not taken three pictures with different exposures for later merging. I take my single RAW file and make three pictures - one significantly brighter, one - original and one - significantly darker. And I merge them with that magical "Merge to HDR" tool.

...and the outcome is just sad... grainy (initial pic was not grainy), with low saturation and without a single bit of HDR magic in it... Can post results later, when at home computer.

How are your experiences with making HDR's?

have you done Tone Mapping??

[xzmattzx]

How does this picture look for point-and-click? I took it from my car while waiting at a traffic light. I brightened it a little bit, but nothing else to touch it up, really.

ISO 100, tungsten lighting, vivid colors, 1/4 (not sure what this is), F2.6 (not sure what this is), no flash.

What can I do to make this picture better? Something with the ISO, lighting, etc? Or, should I just hold the camera more still when taking the picture?

[julesstoop]

1/4 is the shutter speed in seconds. So the shutter between the lens and sensor was opened for a quarter of a second (which is basically too long if you don't use a tripod)

2.6 is the aperture. It means that the diameter of your lenze (controllable by changing the size of your diaphragm) was 2.6 times as small as the focal length (putting it very simple here)

Thing you can do to improve on this picture.
First, no amount of post-processing can save this particular picture. You couldn't hold the camera still enough to avoid moving it, besides that the focus seems to be off.

The picture is underexposed to such an extent that you'll never be able to recover any detail from many of the darker areas. To circumvent this you'll basicaly have to use an even longer shutter speed. For that you'll need a tripod or at least a very stable surface.

If you want to see more, next time try a higher ISO number. Neverwithstanding the fact that this introduces more noise, it makes your camera more sensitive to light so you can use a (relatively) shorter shutter speed. Pro camera's produce good pictures with ISO numbers of 1600 or even above, consumer gear however usually can't be pushed beyond 400.

[xzmattzx]

So I should think about making the ISO higher and the shutter speed a little bit higher, and keep the aperture lower? The shutter speed and aperture were the lowest that they could go, and the ISO was almost the lowest that it could go. My ISO can go to 1600, should I try that?

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

So I should think about making the ISO higher and the shutter speed a little bit higher, and keep the aperture lower? The shutter speed and aperture were the lowest that they could go, and the ISO was almost the lowest that it could go. My ISO can go to 1600, should I try that?

I would say yes! Higher ISO works better at night, but I hate, and really never do, take night pictures without a tripod. I know its a pain in the ass to lug around but it makes all the difference. I dont recommend using a tripod while driving though.

[xzmattzx]

My camera works pretty well in automatic mode if I use a tripod. I want to get night pictures down in case I am out with friends and an opportunity for a quick picture comes up. For instance, I had several chances to take pictures on Bourbon Street in New Orleans while boozing with friends down there in December. Obviously, I am not going to stop reveling to pull out a tripod and take a series of photos; I want to take a quick picture if I see something that looks nice, then continue on with what I am doing. By the way, I am just saying this in general; this is not directed towards cbotnyse or anyone else.

I will try raising the ISO and keeping the shutter speed and aperture lower.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

I will try raising the ISO and keeping the shutter speed and aperture lower.

yeah try that, that is generally the ideal settings for low light....also go out and shoot on a bunch of differnet settings and see what you get. Once you see the results you'll get a good idea of what you want when that moment comes up for a quick shot.

[xzmattzx]

I think I found the right settings, if I stand still enough. I can't remember what settings I had, and I think my camera goes to default when I change the batteries, but I think for these pictures, I had a high ISO (1600), low shutter speed (1/4), low aperture (2.6), with no flash.

Do these look good for point-and-click?


Unedited



Lightened up to see more detail




Now that I forget my setting and am beginning to second-guess myself, I will have to try this again and see if these specific settings work.

[Moolio]

They seem pretty normal to me for a camera with small photo receptors. Generally speaking, in lowlight photography the greatest problem as regards compact cameras is the limited dynamic range, which at ISO 1600 is even further reduced as a result of heavily deteriorated noise-to-signal ratio - that is, you get noise instead of tone gradation.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Matt, they're underexposed a bit. Try a narrower aperture (higher F number) for better sharpness (somewhere around F6-F11) as well as a slower shutter speed.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Matt, they're underexposed a bit. Try a narrower aperture (higher F number) for better sharpness (somewhere around F6-F11) as well as a slower shutter speed.

I agree, but any shutter slower than that will be really tough to pull of in holding it in your hands....but try it, I'd be interested to see what you get.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Oh, I didn't realize he was trying to take the shots hand-held. That exposure is probably as good as it'll get.

[Xusein]

I have a question.

I'm a novice with a disposable camera. I am in the process of deciding which digital camera to buy (I'm sick of the 1-hour photo thing). Does anyone know of a good, CHEAP digital camera for a beginner like me?

I have been looking at the Canon PowerShot A570 IS. Is this actually any good?

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by 10ROT

I have a question.

I'm a novice with a disposable camera. I am in the process of deciding which digital camera to buy (I'm sick of the 1-hour photo thing). Does anyone know of a good, CHEAP digital camera for a beginner like me?

I have been looking at the Canon PowerShot A570 IS. Is this actually any good?

whats your price range? if its just a point and shoot I recommend the Samsung NV10.

[Xusein]

Thanks for the suggestion!

I pretty much don't want to spend above $200. That camera that you posted looks great! I actually have not seen that in the stores around here. Looks sleek and it seems to have good features...I may be able to pay a little extra for that.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by 10ROT

I have a question.

I'm a novice with a disposable camera. I am in the process of deciding which digital camera to buy (I'm sick of the 1-hour photo thing). Does anyone know of a good, CHEAP digital camera for a beginner like me?

I have been looking at the Canon PowerShot A570 IS. Is this actually any good?

I have this camera, and I like it. Some recent photo threads of mine were with this camera ("Wide Pittsburgh" was, "Wilmington's Trinity Vicinity" wasn't, "Lockport NY" wasn't, "Kenton DE" was, "Mount Morris NY" was, "Princeton NJ" wasn't), so you can see what pictures end up looking like.

The things that I don't like about the camera are 1) that the "low battery" signal doesn't work. I read about this in user comments on newegg.com (where I got my camera), and it was true. The camera indicates low batteries even if you put them in not too long ago and have only taken 10 or 20 pictures. You have to ignore it and carry back-up batteries once in a while so that you are not caught with a camera that doesn't work. Sometimes to colors seem too vivid, at least to me. The contrast between colors can look odd, but maybe that's because I'm used to my cheaper camera mixing white clouds with blue sky if I wasn't taking a picture away from the Sun.

In all, I am happy with it. Someone on here recommended newegg.com and suggested that I wait for a nice deal to come along. I waited about a week and a deal for that camera came up: the camera, a carrying case, rechargeable batteries, a 1 GB memory card, and a pocket tripod, all for $230 (including shipping, I believe). Best Buy was selling the camera only, on sale, for $230 the week before. Newegg.com was also very fast in delivering the camera. I would recommend newegg.com.

[Xusein]

Thanks for the detailed insight, much appreciated.

The Canon PowerShot A570 IS and the Samsung NV10 are up on my list of choices.

[xzmattzx]

Okay, I have beaten the "night pictures" discussion to death, at least for a while. I have a question about some daytime pictures, now.

In the below picture (from Philadelphia, if anyone wants to know where), I took a picture of a church. Behind it are skyscrapers. The light hitting the glass makes the skyscrapers, both to the left and in the center, seem to disappear. How do I get this to not happen?