Calling all Photographers, UPDATE Camera and Lens bought!
#363
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Phil
So please bear that in mind if I say something like "panning is easy and anyone can do it with a small amount of practice", or "don't bother using RAW files". One of my friends has an Olympus and he shoots in RAW all the time, as he says the built in Olympus JPEG compression is crap and the picture quality is very poor. On my Canon I can hardly tell the difference ![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
Generally speaking, the view is that the processing power that exists inside a camera to turn a RAW into a JPEG in near-real time will be limited and therefore compromised, whereas a piece of software that's dedicated to the purpose, and, allows itself 10s to process each images, should do a better job of it.
Again, a Ł300 camera won't be as good as a Ł2000 one, all things being equal.
More fundamentally though, a RAW image contains exactly what the sensor sees (it's a digital negative), whereas a JPEG being a lossy compression system, the image you end up with is not a true representation of what you took, regardless of how good the JPEG algorithm is.
There is a reason why the JPEG files are so much smaller... they are compressed, and data is lost in the process
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
So, when it comes to recovering a few highlight, or shadows, you won't have anywhere near as much information from a JPEG than you would in a RAW image, possibly limiting your options and the end result.
Hope this helps.
#364
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
Point duly noted, thanks Phil
Ditto. ![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
Originally Posted by AlexF
now all I need to work out is how to put a library of images on my website ![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
#365
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: near coventry
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here are a couple of pics i took at a VW show at the weekend... I'm really pleased with the composition of them. And i was loving hte fish eye lens!
The pictures of the mk1 golf are the best ones i've ever taken.
Matt.
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0034-01.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0041-01.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0074-02.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0143-01.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0136-01.jpg)
The pictures of the mk1 golf are the best ones i've ever taken.
Matt.
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0034-01.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0041-01.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0074-02.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0143-01.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0136-01.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0141-01.jpg)
#367
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Muska
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/muska_funsta/DSC_0074-02.jpg)
Really good example of diffraction on the edge of the lens with this pic, something that I will cover in a forthcoming lesson.
Look at the edges of the cars on the far left, and the people on the right, you can see a little rainbow effect where the picture appears a little blurry
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Out of interest, what fisheye lens is it ?
Stu @ M Developments
You're welcome
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
#368
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: near coventry
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Cheers stu, yours are excellent! Really like the second one down and the lion on its side.
Greg, it was just my kit lens with a cheapo semi fisheye (jessups!) i think. donated from my friends work for the day.
Cheers,
Matt.
Greg, it was just my kit lens with a cheapo semi fisheye (jessups!) i think. donated from my friends work for the day.
Cheers,
Matt.
#369
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Staffs
Posts: 3,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Some good stuff here lads, liking the zoo shots Stu ![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Heres my latest from the garden, they've decided to bring up a family in one of our hedges, awwww![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
The father...
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Heres my latest from the garden, they've decided to bring up a family in one of our hedges, awwww
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
The father...
![](http://www.djaphoto.co.uk/portfolio/main.php/d/1030-1/DSC_3423.jpg)
#370
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Since everyone's sharing, here are a couple of my week end's efforts.
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/frog1/Photography/monk.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/frog1/Photography/Zoe1.jpg)
Links to 800x600 pics (not resized by PF)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...raphy/monk.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...raphy/Zoe1.jpg
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/frog1/Photography/monk.jpg)
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/frog1/Photography/Zoe1.jpg)
Links to 800x600 pics (not resized by PF)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...raphy/monk.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...raphy/Zoe1.jpg
#372
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by danja
Nice work Frog ![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
What was your kit setup on this my friend?
Dan
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
What was your kit setup on this my friend?
Dan
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Both taken with my KonicaMinolta7D and Sigma 70-300mm APO macro (F4-4.5) lens.
Dog: 210mm, ISO 100, F5.6, 1/120s, EV -.75.
Lens in macro mode obviously to get that close. It was a little dark by then, so a little fill-in flash made it.
Had to retouch his left eye a little, flash reflections were too much for the sensor and I ended up with three unsightly blobs
![Sad](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Little Girl: 130mm, ISO 100, F4, EV -.75.
The other one was clear daylight, she was mucking around posing
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
#373
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
was bored at work and had my camera about, thought I’d share this pic of my R1 with you. It was taken from the 2nd floor inside our building on 300mm zoom through dirty double glazed windows hence the lack of quality.
![](http://www.imagesharing.net/images/sunny/sunnyr1c.jpg)
Cheers,
Sunny.
![](http://www.imagesharing.net/images/sunny/sunnyr1c.jpg)
Cheers,
Sunny.
#375
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Staffs
Posts: 3,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by frog
Originally Posted by danja
Nice work Frog ![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
What was your kit setup on this my friend?
Dan
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
What was your kit setup on this my friend?
Dan
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Both taken with my KonicaMinolta7D and Sigma 70-300mm APO macro (F4-4.5) lens.
Dog: 210mm, ISO 100, F5.6, 1/120s, EV -.75.
Lens in macro mode obviously to get that close. It was a little dark by then, so a little fill-in flash made it.
Had to retouch his left eye a little, flash reflections were too much for the sensor and I ended up with three unsightly blobs
![Sad](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Little Girl: 130mm, ISO 100, F4, EV -.75.
The other one was clear daylight, she was mucking around posing
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
I think your Sigma is similar if not the same as mine isnt it? Mines the 70-300mm APO DG Super Macro II, I normally have mine set in MAcro on the lens to when shooting 200-300mm zoom, very usefull I think
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
#376
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by danja
I think your Sigma is similar if not the same as mine isnt it? Mines the 70-300mm APO DG Super Macro II, I normally have mine set in MAcro on the lens to when shooting 200-300mm zoom, very usefull I think ![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
![Red Faced](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Red Faced](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
#377
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Whoops, did I forget to mention that Lesson Three has arrived ![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
https://passionford.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3813539
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
https://passionford.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3813539
#380
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Staffs
Posts: 3,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by frog
Originally Posted by danja
Excellent mate, very impressed ![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Red Faced](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Smokin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smokin.gif)
![Smokin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smokin.gif)
Keep it up, and if you need any help with anything you know where I am
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Dan
#381
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by danja
Keep it up, and if you need any help with anything you know where I am
Dan
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
#382
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Muska
What kit have you used sunny?
still looks like there is lots of quality there.
Matt.
still looks like there is lots of quality there.
Matt.
![Sad](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
I used my Canon 5D with a not so good 75-300 f4 lens (it is the only long focal range lens I have at the moment). Shooting in raw helped me bring the image to a half decent level.
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
#384
10K+ Poster!!
![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/pf_gold_member.png)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Speed bump central
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Im after alittle guidance myself, i love photography and currently own quite a basic Fuji finepix E510 5.2MP digi cam.
I believe you can buy a small selection of lenses for it, but im unsure, should i just wait and save for a new camera or will i see a significant benefit from new lenses?
I believe you can buy a small selection of lenses for it, but im unsure, should i just wait and save for a new camera or will i see a significant benefit from new lenses?
#385
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Zetec Andy
Im after alittle guidance myself, i love photography and currently own quite a basic Fuji finepix E510 5.2MP digi cam.
I believe you can buy a small selection of lenses for it, but im unsure, should i just wait and save for a new camera or will i see a significant benefit from new lenses?
I believe you can buy a small selection of lenses for it, but im unsure, should i just wait and save for a new camera or will i see a significant benefit from new lenses?
In my personal opinion, the glass makes the camera, and also opens up new opportunities for pictures too. But before buying nw glass, ask yourself WHY DO I NEED IT? And answer itv honestly, and when you have done, do some research and see if the glass will really fix the problem... more often than not its user error, and teh user is blaming his tools. All due respect intended of course.
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
If the Glass upgrade is still going ahead...
The most important decision of all is to decide "IF" you are going to upgrade your body anytime soon, and if you are, what to?
Glass is expensive, and it is made to fit certain bodies (Canon & Nikon are not interchangeable for examples to name the big 2)
My point being, if your going to upgrade, perhaps to an EOS 30D like i did in this very topic, then it would be a real waste of money to upgrade your Fuji lens for Ł300 say, and then find it wont fit the new EOS you had saved to buy, leaving you with a time consuming sale of teh old lens to endure just so you can upgrade teh EOS.
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
With regards selling your lens on after you buy it, thats another issue. Is there a large used market out there for your lens when you come to upgrade yet again? The Canon and Nikon market is just immense... but i dont personally have experience of Fuji, so try eBay, so what the market place is like before spending substantial amount of money on glass you may not be able to easily sell when the next upgrade path arrives.. and it will.
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Hope this advice is of use.
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
#386
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Onto my question for teh resident experts.
While experimnenting with underexposing pictures to compensate for the metering of light sources, i found i couldnt get teh lightsource to show clearly and sharply. It always tended to blur if you follow me, and across teh lake it always recorded with an orange tint which i dislike...
2 examples with exif:
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/stu@mdevelopments/centerparcs%20May%2007/nightlake.jpg)
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/06...=nightlake.jpg
Flash used: No
Focal length: 28.0mm (35mm equivalent: 153mm)
CCD width: 6.57mm
Exposure time: 2.000 s
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/stu@mdevelopments/centerparcs%20May%2007/rockcafe.jpg)
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/06...t=rockcafe.jpg
Flash used: No
Focal length: 53.0mm (35mm equivalent: 290mm)
CCD width: 6.57mm
Exposure time: 0.500 s (1/2)
Aperture: f/4.5
ISO equiv.: 640
Whitebalance: Auto
Both pictures shot raw as well as jpeg and as yet are completely untouched since pulling from teh camera. Any suggestions?
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
While experimnenting with underexposing pictures to compensate for the metering of light sources, i found i couldnt get teh lightsource to show clearly and sharply. It always tended to blur if you follow me, and across teh lake it always recorded with an orange tint which i dislike...
2 examples with exif:
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/stu@mdevelopments/centerparcs%20May%2007/nightlake.jpg)
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/06...=nightlake.jpg
Flash used: No
Focal length: 28.0mm (35mm equivalent: 153mm)
CCD width: 6.57mm
Exposure time: 2.000 s
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/stu@mdevelopments/centerparcs%20May%2007/rockcafe.jpg)
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/06...t=rockcafe.jpg
Flash used: No
Focal length: 53.0mm (35mm equivalent: 290mm)
CCD width: 6.57mm
Exposure time: 0.500 s (1/2)
Aperture: f/4.5
ISO equiv.: 640
Whitebalance: Auto
Both pictures shot raw as well as jpeg and as yet are completely untouched since pulling from teh camera. Any suggestions?
![Sad](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
#387
10K+ Poster!!
![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/pf_gold_member.png)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Speed bump central
Posts: 13,421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Thanks stu,
I really like my current camera but i want something with more zoom for motorsport and nature photography.
The trouble is a dont often use my camera, but when i do i want good results from it.
A makro pic...
![](https://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/mrmanchester1/bailey6.jpg)
Normal settings pic...
I really like my current camera but i want something with more zoom for motorsport and nature photography.
The trouble is a dont often use my camera, but when i do i want good results from it.
A makro pic...
![](https://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/mrmanchester1/bailey6.jpg)
Normal settings pic...
![](https://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/mrmanchester1/BBQ2.jpg)
#389
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
While experimnenting with underexposing pictures to compensate for the metering of light sources
![Confused](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
i found i couldnt get the lightsource to show clearly and sharply. It always tended to blur if you follow me
A few things could have caught you out...
1. A cheap tripod may be a little flimsy and not actually hold the camera all that well.
2. When pressing the shutter button, the camera can shake/move, even with a tripod. I would recommend using a remote if possible.
3. Try and see if you can lock your mirror (should be in menus) when taking long exposures... Again, the mirror movement which you can hear when taking the picture (click - clack) can make the camera shake ever so slightly.
4. If you have used an IS lens, you need to turn IS off when using a tripod afaik. Otherwise, IS gets confused and tries to compensate for movement that's not there...
Lastly, and this is more to do with CCDs in general, you may have quite a bit of noise (although on the first ISO 400 should be ok, ISO640 on the second is probably starting to introduce noise), or, because of the extreme latitude (very dark and very bright scenes) of your pictures, the CCD couldn't quite capture it all 100%.
If you can, send me a screenshot of the histogram for your RAW files, this may well tell us something.
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
and across the lake it always recorded with an orange tint which i dislike...
Try to change the colour balance in software to see if you can adjust it so that the orange lights aren't so orangey
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
Both pictures shot raw as well as jpeg and as yet are completely untouched since pulling from the camera. Any suggestions? ![Sad](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
![Sad](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Then, try and play with the RAW images, adjusting exposure should bring some detail back, then highlights and shadows will bring more detail in the trees on the first one.
I hope this helped a little.
#390
Testing the future
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by frog
2. When pressing the shutter button, the camera can shake/move, even with a tripod. I would recommend using a remote if possible.
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
#392
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by frog
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
While experimnenting with underexposing pictures to compensate for the metering of light sources
![Confused](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Red Faced](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
As you well know, if i used teh TTL exposure metering system on teh camera in a scene like that (It was actually very dark indeed) it would simply not work as it would automatically expose only for the lights on the building, due to the dark backgrouds, sky etc... so i was playing with various exposure levels to get the shot how i wanted it to look instead, using full manual.
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
A few things could have caught you out...
1. A cheap tripod may be a little flimsy and not actually hold the camera all that well.
1. A cheap tripod may be a little flimsy and not actually hold the camera all that well.
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
2. When pressing the shutter button, the camera can shake/move, even with a tripod. I would recommend using a remote if possible.
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
3. Try and see if you can lock your mirror (should be in menus) when taking long exposures... Again, the mirror movement which you can hear when taking the picture (click - clack) can make the camera shake ever so slightly.
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
4. If you have used an IS lens, you need to turn IS off when using a tripod afaik. Otherwise, IS gets confused and tries to compensate for movement that's not there...
![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/roi.gif)
Lastly, and this is more to do with CCDs in general, you may have quite a bit of noise (although on the first ISO 400 should be ok, ISO640 on the second is probably starting to introduce noise), or, because of the extreme latitude (very dark and very bright scenes) of your pictures, the CCD couldn't quite capture it all 100%.
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
and across the lake it always recorded with an orange tint which i dislike...
Probably colour balance, the artificial lights appear red/orange while the light clouds at the horizon are natural light.
Try to change the colour balance in software to see if you can adjust it so that the orange lights aren't so orangey
Try to change the colour balance in software to see if you can adjust it so that the orange lights aren't so orangey
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
[/quote]
#393
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
So you've got a good tripod, used a remote, and not an IS lens which means the blurring isn't down to movement.
tbh, looking at the trees, they are quite sharp (for a small jpeg on my screen). I just wanted to make sure we had all bases covered![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
So it's probably a sensor issue (note: There is nothing wrong with your camera or sensor...
).
Basically, you've exposed very dark and very bright stuff at the same time, and the CCD in all cameras (as film did in the old days) can only deal with a given range of light variation either side of the correct exposure.
Anything brighter, or darker outside of that range will either be blown out (bright areas), or, show no detail (dark areas) simply because it isn't possible for the CCD/film to capture the wide range of differences at the same time.
This is most likely what's happened to you here, the lights are totally blown out, and appear blurred as a result.
Essentially, the CCD converts the light information into digital data (analogue to digital conversion), anything outside of the 0-255 (for example) range is lost, similar I guess to using a sensor which outputs 0-12V with an ECU that expects 0-5V, anything above 5V will be sampled as if it was 5V thus giving incorrect results.
If you consider that 128 corresponds to the "average" brightness in the picture, the camera will only be able to record plus or minus a certain amount either side.
I feel I am digging a hole with a spade at this point![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
The histogram for the picture should show it on the right hand side which corresponds to the bright parts of the image. If it looks like it's truncated, then that's what's gone wrong here.
The only solution, would be to take two pictures, one exposed for the lights, the other exposed for the dark areas, and blend them together in photo editing software, but that's pretty advanced stuff
tbh, looking at the trees, they are quite sharp (for a small jpeg on my screen). I just wanted to make sure we had all bases covered
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
So it's probably a sensor issue (note: There is nothing wrong with your camera or sensor...
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Basically, you've exposed very dark and very bright stuff at the same time, and the CCD in all cameras (as film did in the old days) can only deal with a given range of light variation either side of the correct exposure.
Anything brighter, or darker outside of that range will either be blown out (bright areas), or, show no detail (dark areas) simply because it isn't possible for the CCD/film to capture the wide range of differences at the same time.
This is most likely what's happened to you here, the lights are totally blown out, and appear blurred as a result.
Essentially, the CCD converts the light information into digital data (analogue to digital conversion), anything outside of the 0-255 (for example) range is lost, similar I guess to using a sensor which outputs 0-12V with an ECU that expects 0-5V, anything above 5V will be sampled as if it was 5V thus giving incorrect results.
If you consider that 128 corresponds to the "average" brightness in the picture, the camera will only be able to record plus or minus a certain amount either side.
I feel I am digging a hole with a spade at this point
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
The histogram for the picture should show it on the right hand side which corresponds to the bright parts of the image. If it looks like it's truncated, then that's what's gone wrong here.
The only solution, would be to take two pictures, one exposed for the lights, the other exposed for the dark areas, and blend them together in photo editing software, but that's pretty advanced stuff
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
#395
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I get what your saying now Mr Frog and will hopefully nip out later this weeka nd try out a few things to see what affects apperture and exposure time make to the problem, not to mention using mirror lock too... just because i never have done before!
Thanks for your help, and i reckon your photo courses should be moved to GD for a while personally. Just say the word if you want to try it...
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Thanks for your help, and i reckon your photo courses should be moved to GD for a while personally. Just say the word if you want to try it...
![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/roi.gif)
#396
0-60 in 17 seconds (eek)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
I get what your saying now Mr Frog and will hopefully nip out later this weeka nd try out a few things to see what affects apperture and exposure time make to the problem, not to mention using mirror lock too... just because i never have done before! ![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/shocked.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/shocked.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/shocked.gif)
Originally Posted by Stu @ M Developments
Thanks for your help, and i reckon your photo courses should be moved to GD for a while personally. Just say the word if you want to try it... ![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/roi.gif)
![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/roi.gif)
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
#397
PassionFord Post Troll
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Staffs
Posts: 3,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Can we show our latest pics off again? ![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
I'm going to anyway lol
![](http://www.djaphoto.co.uk/portfolio/main.php/d/1044-1/DSC_3135.jpg)
![](http://www.djaphoto.co.uk/portfolio/main.php/d/1040-1/Cornish-Field.jpg)
The art of layer masking 2 exposures![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
I like your first image Stu, could do a bit with that in RAW and a dib dabble in Photoshop
![Big Grin](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
I'm going to anyway lol
![Pthbbbb](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile045.gif)
![](http://www.djaphoto.co.uk/portfolio/main.php/d/1044-1/DSC_3135.jpg)
![](http://www.djaphoto.co.uk/portfolio/main.php/d/1040-1/Cornish-Field.jpg)
The art of layer masking 2 exposures
![Wink](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
I like your first image Stu, could do a bit with that in RAW and a dib dabble in Photoshop
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
#400
![Default](https://passionford.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Thanks Greg, i will move them as you deserve the exposure after all your efforts.. people should be reading the damn things
remind me ina wek or 2 to move them back thats all.![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/roi.gif)
Dan... AMAZING pics!!
Thanks for the comment on my lake scene.. its my first serious attempt to do anything like that and i was out an hour or so bloody freezing.. I fear Nicole wasnt too impressed when i got back from my "Justa quick shot of the lake in darness babe, be right back", she had gone to bed.
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
That ripple across the middle was a damn midnight duck... pesky things, i presumed they slept at night.
![Top](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/smile011.gif)
remind me ina wek or 2 to move them back thats all.
![](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/roi.gif)
Dan... AMAZING pics!!
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/shocked.gif)
Thanks for the comment on my lake scene.. its my first serious attempt to do anything like that and i was out an hour or so bloody freezing.. I fear Nicole wasnt too impressed when i got back from my "Justa quick shot of the lake in darness babe, be right back", she had gone to bed.
![Red Faced](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Wall](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/wall.gif)
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)
That ripple across the middle was a damn midnight duck... pesky things, i presumed they slept at night.
![Surprised](https://passionford.com/forum/images/smilies/bigcry.gif)