Tips and Examples

[Groucho]

I don't think the K100D can set minimum ISO though, can it? I think most DSLRs can do a basic Auto ISO and set a maximum, and many can do the warning if it's above a certain level. Even my lowly $367 DL can do that.

Not that setting a minimum is particularly useful most times, but there are probably occasions where you might want it relatively high for one reason or another.

 

[extreme8]

I don't think you folks are understanding what Mark means by Auto ISO on the K10D.

The K10D has three types of ISO functionality that the D80 and D200 lack (and I think virtually all DSLRs other than the K10D lack):
1. The Auto ISO can be configured for both maximum and minimum ISO.

Nope, D200 can only choose the max ISO, but I can't see any reason to need a min ISO (?)

2. There's a Sensitivity Priority (Sv) mode that works like Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority, where you set the ISO with the rear dial..

No dedicated mode, but since the ISO setting is accessed via a dedicated button on the top of the camera the same effect is duplicated by holding the ISO button and spinning the command dial

3. There's a Shutter and Aperture Priority (TAv) mode where you use the rear dial to select aperture and the front dial to select shutter speed, leaving the camera to pick the ISO.

If auto ISO is enabled the M (manual) setting on the D200 works exactly this way.
In P (program) & A (aperture prority) mode you set the minimum acceptable shutter speed via a menu setting and when that threshold is reached it bumps the ISO by a user definable 1/3, 1/2, or 1 stop increment.
In S (shutter priority) mode it shifts the ISO if the metering system decides that the picture would be under or over exposed.

The neat trick there is the user definable threshold for shutter speeds. It really works well.

Not at all familiar with the K10D ISO system (although that camera seems like a killer deal).
I've described the D200 system as well as I can so I guess it's up to someone else to decide if the two systems are at all comparable.

 

[ukcatfan]

It might not have the minimum. I have never checked but cannot think of a situation where I would want to force it higher on auto. Any ideas when you would want to do that?

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Nope, D200 can only choose the max ISO, but I can't see any reason to need a min ISO (?)

Not sure... maybe if were taking pictures in a darker environment but wanted to keep the shutter speed high? Perhaps set the auto ISO to 800-1600, put it in aperture priority, choose the ideal f-stop, then the camera will choose a good mix between 800/1600 ISO and a correspondingly fast shutter speed?

No question, this is certainly not a "gotta have" feature. But it's an interesting one.

I've described the D200 system as well as I can so I guess it's up to someone else to decide if the two systems are at all comparable.

This page from the DPReview review going into a little more detail than I did about the shooting modes. I think that there is certainly SOME difference between M and TAv mode otherwise the latter wouldn't exist.

The program line settings really get me excited, though... that sounds like fun. The Hyperprogram functionality is probably the big change that can really make changing common settings unbeatably quick and easy.

One thing that would be kind of neat that it doesn't have (as far as I know, no DSLRs do) would be a setting that would stop down the lens, meter, then immediately take the photo. This would eliminate the extra step necessary when using a simple lens that doesn't have an "A" aperture setting. My 16mm Zenitar and 400mm Vivitar would really like that!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

stop down the lens, meter, then immediately take the photo.

I don't follow you. Why would it stop down the lens before metering?

 

[Amyg]

Be ever prepared. You never know what you might miss.

WOW! This is way cool! Really great shot!

I tried to get the Blue Angels like this a couple of years ago but wasn't able to quite get it.

 

[barrie]

Hey, psst, you guys... can we have some more tips like the first few posts please? Those were great!

 

[Groucho]

I don't follow you. Why would it stop down the lens before metering?

For older lenses that don't have an "A" setting for the aperture. That means that the camera can't set the aperture itself, you have to do it manually with the aperture ring. When you do that, in order to get proper exposure (unless you're really good and work it all out in your head), you go into full manual mode and hit the button (called different things on different cameras, but I think most have it) to stop down the lens and meter.

Both my 16mm Zenitar and the 400mm Vivitar need this done - the Zenitar because of those wacky Russians (perhaps automatic aperture not allowed in communist Russia, comrade), and the Vivitar because it's a screw-mount so there's no communication whatsoever between lens and camera.

It would take backwards lens compatibility just that much farther. I'd love it as it would remove the step of hitting the AE-L button when using one of those lenses.

Sorry for the thread hijacking, barrie. I promise I'll contribute something relevant in a few weeks! 10 days and counting 'til we leave.......

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Fill the Frame

This was the tip most often repeated to me by the experienced photographers I knew when I started. It means that you should try to fill your entire picture with interesting stuff. All to often people leave large sections of the picture filled with uninteresting or even distracting things.

A classic mistake comes when taking a picture of another person. Your instinct is to look right through the middle of the lens straight into their eyes. That would be great if people's eyes were in the middle of their bodies, but they aren't. So what usually results is an interesting bottom half for the picture and a bunch of wasted space above the person. Instead of putting their eyes in the middle, aim lower so that you fill the picture frame with your subject.

Here's the wrong way:

Here is the picture cropped so that it "fills the frame":

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Fill the Frame - Landmark Edition

I don't really have a good example for this one because I don't take many carefully posed shots. I'll try to describe it instead.

Picture the Adventureland sign towering 10 feet over the pavement in the Magic Kingdrom between the hub and Adventureland. You want Joe Bob and Bobby Sue to pose so that you can shoot them and the sign. They run under the sign, your spouse holds back the throngs for a few seconds, and you snap the shot. When you get home, you see that you have a picture with a little Joe Bob and Bobby Sue standing all of four feet tall, six feet of empty space, and then a 2 foot tall sign. You're glad you got the shot, but you can't help thinking that you wasted all that space between the kids and the sign.

The trick is to fill the frame. To do so, don't have the kids stand under the sign. Have them keep walking towards you until they fill the entire part of the picture from under the sign. It won't bother people looking at the picture that they are not directly beneath the sign. They'll like the fact that the entire picture from is taken up by nothing other than your darling children and that wonderful scene-setting sign.

This technique works for all sorts of posed shots. Our tendency is to have people post as close to the object as possible, even though that often results in an awful composition. If you have time when arranging a shot like this, have your people subjects move around so that you find the spot where they and the non-people subject fill up the entire picture.

Another tip to remember is that people want to see faces, not shoes. If the best shot only includes the people's heads and shoulders along with the landmark, that's OK. You don't really have to have their entire body.

One thing that you have to be careful about if you are taking a picture with people close to you and a landmark a long way off is "depth of field." It is possible to get the people close to you in focus and the stuff behind them out of focus. This problem is worse with DSLRs because they tend to have a smaller "in focus" area. If you are worried, try taking the picture with a few different apertures. When you make the aperture smaller (higher f-stop number), more of the picture will be in focus.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Take a Few Extras

Nothing annoys me more than spending 5 minutes getting a shot set up and then finding out when I get home that someone blinked during the picture. Aargh! Have you ever tried painting open eyes on a blinker in Photoshop? Not fun.

Remind yourself - it's digital, no one is charging me for shots I don't keep. When you spend time and trouble setting up a shot, take several. Whenever I pose people, I always fire off a quick burst of 3 or more shots.

Throwing mistakes away is much easier than trying to fix shots with flaws. Just make sure that you throw away the extras. No one really wants to look through three shots in a row of the same exact scene.

 

[jann1033]

good ones about having the subject walking toward you to fill the frame ...i hate it when you see these 2 little pin dots that you can barely make out that are supposed to be the subject with an area the size of wdw around them. try to think of us old people who have to hold it 20 ft away just to see the picture to start with, we can't even tell they are people if they are to small

 

[extreme8]

Fill the Frame - Landmark Edition

I don't really have a good example for this one because I don't take many carefully posed shots. I'll try to describe it instead.

Picture the Adventureland sign towering 10 feet over the pavement in the Magic Kingdrom between the hub and Adventureland. You want Joe Bob and Bobby Sue to pose so that you can shoot them and the sign. They run under the sign, your spouse holds back the throngs for a few seconds, and you snap the shot. When you get home, you see that you have a picture with a little Joe Bob and Bobby Sue standing all of four feet tall, six feet of empty space, and then a 2 foot tall sign.

I dug up a couple to illustrate your point.
This "wrong" picture was intentional shot just to show the scale of this beast, but you get the idea.

This composition is better in most situations, although they were forced to look into the sunny windows and it shows.

Here's one that shows the effectiveness of the "no shoes" shots.
I intentionally set the dof to keep the background oof. Creative decision.

 

[Michele]

Mark-

I can't remember if I posted a thanks earlier on this thread and didn't check to see if I did, but I just want to add THANKS!!! These are great tips, even if some of the posts get too technical for me, maybe someday I'll understand them.

I can't wait to use the 'fill the frame' tip in my pictures!!!!

 

[jann1033]

I dug up a couple to illustrate your point.
This "wrong" picture was intentional shot just to show the scale of this beast, but you get the idea.

111.pThis composition is better in most situations, although they were forced to look into the sunny windows and it shows.

Here's one that shows the effectiveness of the "no shoes" shots.
I intentionally set the dof to keep the background oof. Creative decision.

the very first one is a good choice however if you are taking a photo of really ugly people...then it would be quite flattering since you could honestly tell them they look great in that picture

 

[barrie]

bad girl jann!

 

[Groucho]

the very first one is a good choice however if you are taking a photo of really ugly people...then it would be quite flattering since you could honestly tell them they look great in that picture

That's also something to keep in mind if you have a really ugly family, like a kid that's ugly like a diseased camel or a husband who has back hair that you can see from the front or a wife that looks like the "before" picture in a plastic surgery advertisement... it's worth getting a first-generation digital camera off eBay rather than a DSLR or high-end PnS, that way you can blame the camera for the ghastly photos.

Just another helpful tip from your friendly neighborhood Groucho! The megapixel race is only for us beautiful people!

 

[jann1033]

That's also something to keep in mind if you have a really ugly family, like a kid that's ugly like a diseased camel or a husband who has back hair that you can see from the front or a wife that looks like the "before" picture in a plastic surgery advertisement... it's worth getting a first-generation digital camera off eBay rather than a DSLR or high-end PnS, that way you can blame the camera for the ghastly photos.

Just another helpful tip from your friendly neighborhood Groucho! The megapixel race is only for us beautiful people!

OT from an other wise worthwhile thread i like to read but have nothing to add to so....
you know that is kind of an "un"pc remark...what if the wife has back hair and the husband looks like the before picture?...and the diseased camel society might take exception to their members being compared to an ugly kid...we really should be more sensitive to the plight of others
and forget the L glass from... now on it's the lousier the lens the better so i can blame it all on the camera ie i'd be like ansel adams if only i didn't have this lousy promaster lens ( well he's dead so not exactly like him but you get the picture)

 

[Groucho]

Ahh Jann1033, I suspect that we'd get along very well if we knew each other in the "real" world.

I'll stop myself before I make a comment about the fungus on old lenses masking the fungus on the person in the picture............