Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tina and Cooper on June 24, 2009 at 7:07pm

Sounds like to me your doing a pretty good job,,,practice makes perfect,,I have a canon rebel xt and i can understand why u need something small and light weight,,,iso lets light in,,,full sun set it low like 100,,also dark use 800 or higher,,sounds like you need auto so the camera dose it for you while your hanging off a cliff lol :o) good luck keep playing with it and you'll figure it out and read the manual over and over `tina~

Permalink Reply by John Wolff on June 24, 2009 at 8:10pm

Yeah, yours are some of the "sharper photos" I was thinking about.
I really miss my clunky old film SLR, because all the controls were mechanical, I could work them all by feel. With these little things, I gotta exit the viewfinder, call up the menu, and push all these buttons when I can't even read the screen. Maybe I need to wear my new trifocals more.
The Canons do have a "portrait" mode -- maximum aperture, minimum depth-of-field -- but I'm still not getting the blurred-out backgrounds you get (again, maybe because I'm zoomed too high).
I'd should experiment more with aperture-priority, but it's hard when I can't read the screen. I need to get out both the camera AND my map-reading glasses. I want my eyes back.

Permalink Reply by Wendt Worth Corgi's on June 25, 2009 at 10:16am

I use a Canon Rebel and love it. I do set mine to portrait and get real close for those puppy pictures but outdoors we use a larger lense to catch those distant spots. I'm a pure novice w/the camera and am more of a aim and shoot kinda gal. My husband is toying w/it more and trying to get all crafty about it. As long as he keeps capturing good shots for me I'm happy. You sound way more advanced then us. All I know is my cell phones camera is a 3.2 mp and don't care for the shots at all..my other cell w/just a 2.8 was much better. My husbands Blackberry Storm actually takes really nice shots.

Permalink Reply by John Wolff on July 11, 2009 at 8:17pm

What is the limiting factor? Lens quality? Pixel size? Processor?
That's what I don't understand. People used to say (for film cameras), "Put your money into the lenses". With point-and-shoot small digital cameras, I figure the lenses are so small that some acuity has been sacrificed to miniaturization (like, miniature binoculars are never as good as bigger but otherwise comparable binoculars).

Two Wiki pages WORTH READING:
Wiki page on Aperture
Wiki page f number

Permalink Reply by Tammey & Caven on July 21, 2009 at 1:42am

Hey John, I've alway thought that your photographs were some of the best on this site. But, if some of your photos are sharp and some are fuzzy/blured then it is probably something that you are doing and not the camera. I would not be surprised if you don't get a lot of condensation on your lens going from a warm pocket out into the cold mountain air. Or, do you keep your camera in a thin water tight bag out where it stays acclimated to the shootting conditions. Also, I wouldn't give up on the zoom or telephoto shots and miss out on the wonderful compressed views between your subjects (Corgies) and the beautiful mountain back grounds. Just start useing your self timer and making make-shift camera supports. A pile of snow makes a great snow-pod if you use a glove or a piece of water proof fabric to keep your camera dry. Also, rocks or a tree limb work just fine especially if you carry a small ball of modeling clay or silly puddy to hold the camera in place. My mother-N-law has a great telescoping walking stick that has round wooden head that screws off leaving a 1/4" threaded stud sticking up, if you didn't know that it was a walking stick you'ld think it was a monopod. She said that she found it in a backpackers catalog. As for computer fixes, I have a copy of photo shop that I just love. Don't tell anyone but that picture of Bear and George Bush, well, they have never even been in the same room together. And my boyish figuar is not quite as firm as it looks in some of my photos. Just some of them. Yeah, I love my photoshop but I would never plan on useing it to fix something that I could have done right in the first place. But most of all don't get to up set over a few shots that aren't as sharp as you would like. Every time I get a chance to show people how interesting this web site is I make it a point to show off your page. Thanks for sharing

Permalink Reply by John Wolff on July 21, 2009 at 3:58am

Many of my troubles are mistakes one could make with any old film camera: not understanding the camera, not holding steady, dirt, like that.

Condensation is not my problem -- the camera is usually ambient temperature -- but dirt might be. This is field photography, often hurried, with bugs, weather, cold fingers, and a dirty environment, and I can't even read the LED screen icons; I've memorized them. I can't see the screen at all. I use a polarizing filter often (difficult with a compact digital point-and-shoot), and it's often dirty and likely scratched a bit, but worth it. I think using ISO 50 instead of 100 or 200 helps. I'm trying to hold it steadier. I do have a little tripod thingy, but it's too awkward for frequent use.
I just learned that the "Portrait" mode is not giving me the blurred-out backgrounds I want, even with the wide angle. It was shooting at f4.0 when I could've got f2.8 in aperture-priority mode (I've never used this because I need to get out reading glasses to read aperture values on the screen).
I'm trolling Craigslist for a Canon A590. That'll give me about 8 MP instead of 3.2 MP, image stabilization, and 4X zoom instead of 3X. But I just got some nice shots with my $20 Canon A70.

NOTE: I've just realized that the polarizing filter produces obvious seams when pics are stitched-together for panoramas, because the frames are panned at different sun angles. For pans, I don't think you can use a polarizer. Maybe in stitch-assist mode. I just got some seamless pans, without the filter.

Thanks for the tips and the compliments.

Permalink Reply by Tammey & Caven on July 21, 2009 at 1:47pm

I don't know how you are using a polarizer on a non-SLR it seems, to me, that the light gap between the lens and filter would create glare problems. Also, if the filter is not perfectly square to the lens the image will not be uniformly toned, (brighter on one side/edge than the other).

Your portrait mode should default to the widest aperture and give you the narrowest depth of field (DOF), (the closest to the farthest point that is in acceptable focus). However, wide angle lenes have a "very" deep DOF. If you can remember back to the old pocket 110s (I just dated myself) the little lenes were fixed 24 or 28mm with no focusing except that little switch that showed a head (close up) and a mountain range (far away), subsequently, everything was in focus. If you think about it, it is amazing that those things worked at all! Anyway, DOF is controled by the size of the aperture, (little numbers = large apertures f/1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0 ...giving you the narrowest DOF and the larger numbers = small aperture f/11, 16, 22... givng you the greatest DOF.

Also, distance between lens and subject or focus distance effects DOF greatly. A 55mm lens on a 35mm camera with the aperture set to f/16 focused on a point 4' feet away has a depth of field of from (closest) 3.5' to 5' (farthest). By the way, depth of field is always 1/3 to 2/3, that is from point of focus (POF) 1/3 in front of POF and 2/3 behind POF. The same lens at the same aperture with a POF at 20' feet has a depth of field from about 8 ' feet to infinity.

I hope that I did not ramble to much. But DOF is controlled by the aperturesize, the distance between the lens and the subject POF, and by the lenght of the lens. The field of focus or the negitive size also effects DOF but that is not important here.

Permalink Reply by John Wolff on July 21, 2009 at 11:58pm

I was surprised to find that in Portrait Mode, it was using f4.0 when f2.8 is the maximum aperture.
I'm going to try using Aperture Priority Mode for portraits.
I really miss my old SLR -- except when I'm carrying it -- I could work the controls by feel -- since I can't see the LED screen in outdoor light without reading glasses, I'm working by the Braille Method. It's a challenge.

I like to use the 3X zoom for portraits because I'm not sticking the camera up my subject's nose -- I can back off, letting my subject relax -- I forget now: up close, does the tele or wide angle have the deeper DOF?

Permalink Reply by Tammey & Caven on July 21, 2009 at 2:27pm

Oh, on the polarizer. Polarizer work by directing light into a single direction relative to the angel of light entering the lens. They don't actually remove glare they just direct it into a direction so that it is less noticeable. Remember the old cross screen filters that turn highlights into little stars that you could turn to rotate the points of the stars. Those were just real crappy polarizers with fewer and bolder lines to direct the light. Anyway, when you take one picture with the filter in place and then rotate to take the next image., for your panorama, you are changing the angel of light relitive to the lens and subsequently the tonial range of the image. So, they won't match.

Permalink Reply by John Wolff on July 21, 2009 at 11:44pm

Polarizing filters are great for deep blue skies and contrast with white clouds. It's a real pain to use without an SLR. I have to put my eyeball to the screen and then turn the filter until I see the sky darken. This effect is greatest with a 90deg sun angle, and nil at 180 or 360 deg. So yes, I'm going to quit using it for panos.
The polarizing filter can give interesting effects when any shiny surface is involved -- light gets polarized when reflected from a shiny surface like metal, water, leaves -- but without an SLR, I can't see this effect.
I want to determine whether the Canon "Stitch Assist" feature really does much. I've taken most of my panos in Program AE Mode, not Stitch Assist Mode. It is possible that the Stitch Assist Mode keeps the exposure constant across the pano.

Permalink Reply by D46 on August 12, 2010 at 2:17pm

The Canons do have a "portrait" mode -- maximum aperture, minimum depth-of-field -- but I'm still not getting the blurred-out backgrounds you get (again, maybe because I'm zoomed too high)."


I thought I'd resurrect this thread and make a suggestion or two and a few comments. I had a Kodak Z612 and later a Canon S5...both basically point and shoot. You cannot get blurred backgrounds with these cameras like you can with a DSLR and a fast telephoto...period. It's not in the design.

I finally decided to go up and pay the price for a DSLR and it's paid off in big dividends giving me much better photos and with the proper selection of lens, that blurred background and much sharper pics have resulted. Of course, I sharpen a bit with Nikons's Capture NX-2 software and remove sticks and stray hair, etc but the difference in pictures is great over the point and shoots.

Occasionally, I'd get a good photo with the Canon but it wasn't to be relied upon. sometimes it focused where I didn't want it too and ruin a great potentially fine photo. I still have it but all it does is take short movies. Nikons and Canon DSLR's aren't much heavier than point and shoots-it's the lens choice that can get heavy-especially my 80-200 f/2.8 tele. It weighs more than 2-3 bodies would...maybe a bit more. Want sharp photos with the ability to blur the background? A DSLR is about your only choice other than a film camera.

Permalink Reply by John Wolff on August 12, 2010 at 7:05pm

Yeah, I've kind of figured that out. For that narrow depth-of-field, you need a fast lens with a really wide aperture.
A DSLR would be great. I would not have to do photography by the Braille Method -- I'm 58 now, so farsighted that I cannot see the LCD screen, and I do not wear reading glasses often (I have them taped to my backpack strap, for map reading) -- that's why I need the Canons' viewfinder -- but I can't read any of those little LCD icons; I have them memorized. Without an SLR, I can't even see what I'm photographing.
But I can't afford the dollars or the ounces of a DSLR, nor the bulk. I guess I've made a value choice: 2nd-rate photos of 1st-rate places over 1st-rate photos of 2nd-rate places.
And if I get a DSLR, won't I want a real computer that actually works?
Also, backpacking is really hard on cameras, especially beaches or deserts, all that grit. I've never spent more than $100 on a camera. All of the money goes to the dogs.

It's tempting though. Maybe I'll rethink this.

Am I missing something? With digital photography, is the relationship between depth-of-field and aperture different than film? I'd just thought: wide aperture, low f stop = narrow depth-of-field, with either.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page