Camera Help!

[zackiedawg]

My PERSONAL recommendation - and to each their own here - would be that you probably shouldn't use RAW. At least not yet. RAW is the overall best mode to use for heavy tinkerers because it allows you the most leeway in recovering, and personally manipulating, the output from the camera. But as you noted, it does take up more space. And moreso, it also requires a bit more hands-on. It doesn't sound to me like you're ready for a serious post-processing commitment for all your photos - you can set up RAW converters to do some batch-processing for you which takes some time, but now you're not really using the advantages of RAW to begin with.

Many folks, and this may be surprising to hear, shoot in JPEG all the time. Even pros. Really! In the end, for 99% of use, including publication and professional large-scale printing, very few could tell the difference between a JPEG and a RAW file that's been processed and converted. As long as they are both shot correctly...there isn't much difference. RAW is more about the leeway it provides - recovering blown highlights, brightening shadows, reducing noise, sharpening, altering white balance, color, etc...all these things normally done in your camera are able to be done with the computer instead. But you have to want to do all this.

For basic users, P&Sers, non-enthusiasts, etc I'd always recommend JPEG - it's simple, fast, easy, and can produce very nice results right out of the camera - moreover, you are letting the camera do for you what you really don't want to or know how to do yourself - white balance, color, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. And even for enthusiasts and pros, JPEG vs RAW can just be a personal choice. JPEG files can be manipulated after the fact as well - just not as much. If you get things right in the camera when you shoot, the JPEG can be just as lovely. Some shoot both. or shoot JPEG most of the time, and occasionally RAW when it's important to have maximum insurance on being able to recover the shot if you do something wrong.

So my recommendation would be to shoot jpeg, at least until you know a bit more about your camera, and photography. And maybe jpeg will be all you ever need...or maybe you'll decide RAW will work for you later.

 

[photo_chick]

I agree with you in some ways, zackiedawg. Working with RAW files is adding more to learn when you're starting out. Processing RAW files is the equivalent to processing film in a darkroom. Many, many people are just as happy to send their film out to the lab.

However.... you can set up auto settings for processing or shoot RAW+jpeg. And if you always shoot RAW, then you can come back years later, when you know what you're doing, and make those images even better where as you're kind of stuck if you shot jpeg. I know I go back and play with old stuff every time I learn a new technique or get new software.

So I can see the point of view from either side. It really comes down to how much work an individual wants to put into it.

 

[disneyfanUSA]

Thanks everyone for the advice.

I just bought some Duracell pre charged rechargeables!

 

[disneyfanUSA]

I have a few focusing issues....

1. When taking a picture of a person the person comes out good but the background comes out blurry and not sharp.

I mean its still pretty good but I would like to improve it.

2.

In this picture Mickey and goofy are clear while the other characters are blurry...I had to throw in a Disney pic

3. And also when taking a picture with two people and one is behind the other the person in front comes out sharp and clear while the second person is kind of blurred out. How do I correct this?

------
I am using AF not MF. Any tips or pointers would appreciated.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I have a few focusing issues....

1. When taking a picture of a person the person comes out good but the background comes out blurry and not sharp.

I mean its still pretty good but I would like to improve it.

2.

In this picture Mickey and goofy are clear while the other characters are blurry...I had to throw in a Disney pic

3. And also when taking a picture with two people and one is behind the other the person in front comes out sharp and clear while the second person is kind of blurred out. How do I correct this?

------
I am using AF not MF. Any tips or pointers would appreciated.

Congratulations on your new dSLR!

Believe it or not, having the subject in focus and having the background out-of-focus is something that many photographers strive for, especially portrait and wedding photographers! Having a blurry background actually leads the viewers' eyes toward the sharper foreground subject. That way, viewers won't be drawn to a distracting background, too.

A blurry background is also called "bokeh", in photography terms. You'll see photographers comparing which lenses give a more pleasing "bokeh".

There are several factors that make your background blurry. It all relates to the concept of "depth of field", where you focus on your foreground subject, and you can calculate how much distance in front of and behind the subject will be acceptably sharp. Anything beyond the depth of field will be blurry.

"Larger depth of field" means that more stuff is in focus. "Shallower depth of field" means that fewer things are in focus.

The factors that make your background blurry are:

• aperture - the larger the aperture (ie. the smaller the f-number), the blurrier the background
• focal length - longer focal lengths will have shallower depth of field. Wider focal lengths (ex. wide-angle lenses) will have larger depth of field
• camera-to-subject distance - the closer your camera is to your subject, the shallower your depth of field
• distance from subject to background - if the background is farther from your foreground subject, it'll be more blurry

Usually, folks place a lot of weight on the aperture to control the background blurriness. That's why portrait and wedding photographers try to buy lenses with large maximum apertures (small f-numbers) so they can control how blurry their backgrounds will be. Look for lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or larger (smaller f-numbers).

The danger of using super large apertures is that the depth of field can be razor thin (like a few millimeters). For example, you might get a person's eyes in focus, but the nose will be out-of-focus! Or, if you have 2 people standing next to each other, but one is standing just a few inches in front of the other, then you might only get one person in focus and the other out-of-focus if you used a very large aperture.

In your case, if you want the background to be sharper, you can try using a smaller aperture (larger f-number). If you want a group of people to be sharp in the same photo, use a smaller aperture (larger f-number), perhaps like f/8.

In your first photo, my eyes are first drawn to your subject, but then you've got a lot of stuff in the background, so now I'm distracted and want to see what you've got in the background. In this case, I'd try to throw the background even more out-of-focus so that the viewer's attention is on the subject.

Why not just use the smallest aperture (largest f-number) all the time? Why not just use f/22 all the time? When your aperture gets really really small, you run into a problem called "diffraction", where light waves that go through a tiny opening actually interferes with itself, ironically causing a photo to be slightly blurrier. I try not to go smaller than f/11, or maybe f/16.

For more information about "depth of field": http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Hope that helps! Sorry for the long post.

 

[disneyfanUSA]

Congratulations on your new dSLR!

Believe it or not, having the subject in focus and having the background out-of-focus is something that many photographers strive for, especially portrait and wedding photographers! Having a blurry background actually leads the viewers' eyes toward the sharper foreground subject. That way, viewers won't be drawn to a distracting background, too.

A blurry background is also called "bokeh", in photography terms. You'll see photographers comparing which lenses give a more pleasing "bokeh".

There are several factors that make your background blurry. It all relates to the concept of "depth of field", where you focus on your foreground subject, and you can calculate how much distance in front of and behind the subject will be acceptably sharp. Anything beyond the depth of field will be blurry.

"Larger depth of field" means that more stuff is in focus. "Shallower depth of field" means that fewer things are in focus.

The factors that make your background blurry are:

• aperture - the larger the aperture (ie. the smaller the f-number), the blurrier the background
• focal length - longer focal lengths will have shallower depth of field. Wider focal lengths (ex. wide-angle lenses) will have larger depth of field
• camera-to-subject distance - the closer your camera is to your subject, the shallower your depth of field
• distance from subject to background - if the background is farther from your foreground subject, it'll be more blurry

Usually, folks place a lot of weight on the aperture to control the background blurriness. That's why portrait and wedding photographers try to buy lenses with large maximum apertures (small f-numbers) so they can control how blurry their backgrounds will be. Look for lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or larger (smaller f-numbers).

The danger of using super large apertures is that the depth of field can be razor thin (like a few millimeters). For example, you might get a person's eyes in focus, but the nose will be out-of-focus! Or, if you have 2 people standing next to each other, but one is standing just a few inches in front of the other, then you might only get one person in focus and the other out-of-focus if you used a very large aperture.

In your case, if you want the background to be sharper, you can try using a smaller aperture (larger f-number). If you want a group of people to be sharp in the same photo, use a smaller aperture (larger f-number), perhaps like f/8.

In your first photo, my eyes are first drawn to your subject, but then you've got a lot of stuff in the background, so now I'm distracted and want to see what you've got in the background. In this case, I'd try to throw the background even more out-of-focus so that the viewer's attention is on the subject.

Why not just use the smallest aperture (largest f-number) all the time? Why not just use f/22 all the time? When your aperture gets really really small, you run into a problem called "diffraction", where light waves that go through a tiny opening actually interferes with itself, ironically causing a photo to be slightly blurrier. I try not to go smaller than f/11, or maybe f/16.

For more information about "depth of field": http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Hope that helps! Sorry for the long post.

thank you very much that did help!

 

[DawnM]

Yeah! Your camera came!

 

[disneyfanUSA]

Yeah! Your camera came!

 

[Master Mason]

Congratulations on your new dSLR!

Believe it or not, having the subject in focus and having the background out-of-focus is something that many photographers strive for, especially portrait and wedding photographers! Having a blurry background actually leads the viewers' eyes toward the sharper foreground subject. That way, viewers won't be drawn to a distracting background, too.

A blurry background is also called "bokeh", in photography terms. You'll see photographers comparing which lenses give a more pleasing "bokeh".

There are several factors that make your background blurry. It all relates to the concept of "depth of field", where you focus on your foreground subject, and you can calculate how much distance in front of and behind the subject will be acceptably sharp. Anything beyond the depth of field will be blurry.

"Larger depth of field" means that more stuff is in focus. "Shallower depth of field" means that fewer things are in focus.

The factors that make your background blurry are:

• aperture - the larger the aperture (ie. the smaller the f-number), the blurrier the background
• focal length - longer focal lengths will have shallower depth of field. Wider focal lengths (ex. wide-angle lenses) will have larger depth of field
• camera-to-subject distance - the closer your camera is to your subject, the shallower your depth of field
• distance from subject to background - if the background is farther from your foreground subject, it'll be more blurry

Usually, folks place a lot of weight on the aperture to control the background blurriness. That's why portrait and wedding photographers try to buy lenses with large maximum apertures (small f-numbers) so they can control how blurry their backgrounds will be. Look for lenses with apertures of f/2.8 or larger (smaller f-numbers).

The danger of using super large apertures is that the depth of field can be razor thin (like a few millimeters). For example, you might get a person's eyes in focus, but the nose will be out-of-focus! Or, if you have 2 people standing next to each other, but one is standing just a few inches in front of the other, then you might only get one person in focus and the other out-of-focus if you used a very large aperture.

In your case, if you want the background to be sharper, you can try using a smaller aperture (larger f-number). If you want a group of people to be sharp in the same photo, use a smaller aperture (larger f-number), perhaps like f/8.

In your first photo, my eyes are first drawn to your subject, but then you've got a lot of stuff in the background, so now I'm distracted and want to see what you've got in the background. In this case, I'd try to throw the background even more out-of-focus so that the viewer's attention is on the subject.

Why not just use the smallest aperture (largest f-number) all the time? Why not just use f/22 all the time? When your aperture gets really really small, you run into a problem called "diffraction", where light waves that go through a tiny opening actually interferes with itself, ironically causing a photo to be slightly blurrier. I try not to go smaller than f/11, or maybe f/16.

For more information about "depth of field": http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Hope that helps! Sorry for the long post.

Also, in the first picture you're shooting in portrait mode, where the camera will attempt to do exactly what it did, blur the background.

In the second, you're very close to the subject, and then zoomed in to 300, which is why the depth of field is almost paper thin.

 

[disneyfanUSA]

We live near the American side of the falls, nut we went to Canada for fathers day. Here are some pics I took any pointers?

Also, it seems like the ones I uploaded to photobucket lost some resolution and are not as clear? Is there any better photo uploaders.

 

[disneyfanUSA]

Would you recommend using High-iso NR? Should I put it on medium low or high?

 

[StrwLady]

Prior to getting my DSLR I had a Fuji S9100. While this is considered a point and shoot, it did have a lot of features on it as well as a fixed mount lens focal range equivalent of 28mm - 300mm.

I know Fuji does not sell the camera anymore. From what I read, many peoples opinion, Fuji commercial market was mostly in the point and shoot area. The S9100 was more advanced then most point and shoot customers are looking for. There was rumor of a new model in the works back in Jan 2008 but I haven't seen anything similar

But I have seen the S9100 on sale used on Ebay for $150 to $200. Amazon has a seller selling a couple new for $690 but that's insane when you consider about 3 4 years ago they were right about $350.

Here are some night shots I took with the S9100.

This next one was taken with a tripod (which you can see was not even LOL I was too busy trying to get the right setting and didnt notice it was not even)

I know you said you didn't want to carry around a tripod but for any camera you consider look into the gorillapod (or other flexible tripod) They are really small and you can wrap them around anything.

http://www.amazon.com/Joby-GP1-D1EN...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1277373618&sr=8-1

Whatever you decide to buy I know you will enjoy it

PS these have all been resized to 640 X 480 on photobucket. I don't know why there are posting larger here. Sorry

 

[StrwLady]

oops just noticed this thread is a little old. Well I will leave my other post in case anyone else is interested in a used S9100

 

[Master Mason]

We live near the American side of the falls, nut we went to Canada for fathers day. Here are some pics I took any pointers?

Also, it seems like the ones I uploaded to photobucket lost some resolution and are not as clear? Is there any better photo uploaders.

Not bad for a new dslr user..

Photo Sites to take a look at

Flicker, Smugmug, Zenfolio. I think that Flicker has a free option, possibly zenfoolio, I don't know much about them. Smugmug is a pay site,(you can have a free trial)

Of the 3 I have only used Smugmug, but I have been happy with them from day one.

 

[seashoreCM]

PS these have all been resized to 640 X 480 on photobucket. I don't know why there are posting larger here. y

They are genuine 640x480.

 

[disneyfanUSA]

Noise reduction. Yesterday I took some photos at DS graduation Since the ISO was high there is some noise. I just tried using Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4. I shot in raw for these photos because they where important. Anyways, it seems like the random noise reduction bar on PDCU4 makes the pictures worse not better? What am i doing wrong?