PHOTOGRAPHIC THREADS: camera queries, any photo tech stuff!

[Maggi Young]

There you go... colourful photo of an old classic.... just what I'm saying!
 Thanks Mike. 

[Peter Maguire]

Having been away for a couple of days, I've just caught up on this thread and feel that I ought to present the other view of interchangeable lenses.

Several years ago I was on a landscape photography course where we were urged not "to be 'precious' about our camera/lenses - they're only a tool and you do have it insured don't you?" This caused me to look at my equipment in a different light and I now have no hesitation in changing lenses in the field - with the exception of being near to the sea, where salt spray can get into the camera and there I would follow the previous contributors' advice. I find that if I am going on any trip, a good clean of all the equipment before setting out, which includes cleaning the inside of the camera and the rear of the lenses with compressed air (available in cans), followed by regular cleaning at the end of each day with a blower brush when away (I don't think cans of compressed air would be welcomed by airline security these days) and another thorough cleaning at the end of the trip avoids virtually all problems. Also remember that many SLR's these days can be set to shake the sensor when the camera powers up to dislodge any dust particles onto a sticky pad that traps them.
When you are in the field, yes, you turn your back to the wind and change the lens quickly to avoid dust being blown in, but I wouldn't let it stop me changing the lens to get the effect that I want. You will get the odd dust particle appearing occasionally, but by taking a picture of a blank surface (paper, hotel wall, etc) at the end of each day and scrutinising it carefully, you can check whether there have been any particles appearing in the pictures for that day and ensure that it isn't there for the next day so that there is not too much computer work to do removing spots at the end of a trip. Incidentally most of the major specks that I have found in pictures have been caused by minute bits of metal being worn away from the lens mount and getting onto the sensor - it wasn't the wind that put them there!
Compressed air cans need to be used carefully to avoid the propellant being expelled onto the sensor, but you will get find fewer problems caused by this than saliva on the sensor caused by blowing on it - yes, it always happens.  Once you get these smears on a sensor, you need to clean the sensor properly, either having it done professionally, or buying special sensor brushes and fluids to do it yourself (I can recommend products from the Canadian firm Visible Dust for this, having cleaned two camera's sensors now, they also have a great antistatic brush for keeping dust particles off the sensor).
The downside to all this is that you then end up carrying a lot of kit around (hence the specialist camera insurance!) - I find that food for the day has to go into a bum-bag carried under my photo-rucksack if I'm just doing a relatively easy day in spring/summer in the mountains. Winter/long-distance/remote walking is another thing altogether, and I would take the appropriate kit for that that, and then cram in camera, and whatever lenses I have space for/might conceivably use.

[ArnoldT]

I have a very hard time photographing close up of flowers.  I have a Nikon Coolpix 8800 which can take pictures to 2"  As you can see from the attached image the background is in focus but not the flower.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

[TC]

I had a look at the specs. for the 8800  It talks about 9 manual focus areas and 5 auto areas.  Without access to the manual, it appears that you have just pointed the camera at the flower and it has assumed that you wanted the whole area in focus - not the foreground.  I initially had this problem with the coolpix P5000 until I read the instructions closely and found  a sub - program in the menu for close - up shots.  Have a good look at your instruction book and it will more than likely tell what is required  for close up mode.  It's always a good idea to try all the programs in a camera so you can see what they do and how it suits your needs.

[Ian Y]

Arnold the answer is that the autofocus system looks for areas of sharp contrast to focus on and as the flower is much of the same colour the camera has looked to focus on the leaves in the background.

This is a very common problem when taking such pictures with auto focus cameras.

The solution:-

If your camera has a setting that allows you to select the area to focus on then choose the central zone. However even that does not always work so another option is using manual focus if your camera allows.
Another solution I use is to bring your hand into where the flower is focus and hold the shutter button,half down,  remove your hand and take the picture.

And one last option is to focus on something else at the same distance then hold the focus as you re frame the flower, check it looks in focus and take the picture.
As the exposure settings will be taken at the same time it needs to be something that has a similar light value will not adversely affect the exposure - your hand is as near as you will get to neutral for this purpose.

Hope this helps.

[ArnoldT]

Ian:

Makes sense.  It seems that at higher light levels the problem is not so pronounced.

[cohan]

Thanks for the input, all!
David- sounds like the 18-200 should work okay for me.. getting a specialised macro lens is not going to happen for now (well, the 18-200 will have to wait a bit for that matter..lol)

Cliff, I agree I don't wish to carry a lot of stuff around-- when on foot near home or cycling nearby (especially cycling- mostly on gravel roads- super dusty!) I really wouldn't want to carry/change anything... some sites we visit on the road wouldn't be as bad- I could change equipment inside the vehicle if needed-- but even still-- I go from close-up to macro from one shot to the next, and back, and forth, and back.... So maybe longterm I will need to adjust something, but I'd really like to have one versatile lens... funny that I could do it with my cheaper camera...lol

Peter- insurance? wouldn't even know where to look for it!.... Your maintenance regime sounds great, but I have to say it sounds beyond me at the moment.. something worthwhile to aspire to

Maggi- I take lots of photos in portrait format, but rarely post them as such, since they look much smaller onscreen!! Not that I think I have many subjects appropriate for the IRG cover, so not that important..lol

[David Pilling]

Arnold: my camera not focusing on what I wanted was my #1 reason to get a DSLR. After I could see what it was up to I learnt to set the auto focus to a  single spot in the middle of the frame  but I do often turn it off for very close up pictures.

Cohan: You can get screw on close-up lenses as an alternative to a macro. I got a set of four for 10 quid on ebay. Resulting quality was acceptable.

[Mike Ireland]

Arnold
I have used a Nikon coolpix 8800 for many years & had no real problems with close up shots.

Go into SCENE mode then MENU & select Close up.  When you then press the accept button your screen changes to one marked with a selection of brackets. With the arrows around the central button you can select a bracket which is closest to the subject you wish to photograph.  I also believe the closest you can have the camera to the subject is about 9 inches.

Hope this is useful.

Mike

[Mike Ireland]

Forgot to include this close up.

Mike

[Maggi Young]

Comment/query from non-techy type (me  ):

I understand about the focus area and so on.... but in addition....with a digital camera, is it not just as easy to get close definition by not trying to get physically so close to the subject, but by getting "quite" close to the subject and then magnifying the desired area from the resulting picture?
Don't know if I've explained that very well, but you clever folks may be able to interpret my meaning......

[David Pilling]

Maggi - you're comparing 'digital zoom' with physical zoom.

You can take any digital image and zoom it up - software generates more pixels for you. It does this by saying, if this pixel has value 2 and the one next to it value 3, I can insert a new pixel with value 2.5 between them. Problem is that in reality the point between the two pixels might have a different value to the average.

As you digitally zoom in, you see lots more pixels but not necessarily more information.

Physical zoom with lenses and sensors with more pixels sets off with more real information about the target, hence better quality.

Good macro lenses offer 1:1 resolution, one pixel of the target ends up on one pixel of the sensor in the camera. Or an inch of target ends up on an inch of sensor.

It is true though that one often takes high resolution photos and ends up reducing the resolution to post the image on the forum, and you might as well have set off taking the photo from further away in the first place or with a non-macro lens.

[Maggi Young]

Yes, I think I follow that, David , thanks.
If one is having trouble getting a satisfactory result at a physical distance of two inches, though, would it not be possible to get the desired effect at say 9 inches and then crop the picture to concentrate the image?

 edit: I mean to capture the image in good focus and then crop to emphasise the intended centre of attention?

[ian mcenery]

Yes, I think I follow that, David , thanks.
If one is having trouble getting a satisfactory result at a physical distance of two inches, though, would it not be possible to get the desired effect at say 9 inches and then crop the picture to concentrate the image?

 edit: I mean to capture the image in good focus and then crop to emphasise the intended centre of attention?

Some interesting comments  here. Compacts are always problematical in gaining good focus for close ups probably because  they are designed for snapshots and not close up flower photography.

Being very close to a subject will mean that the depth of field (that is the distance over which focus can be achieved) is much less when closer to the subject and when really close the amount can be a couple of mm which is minuscule. I find that if I want greater depth of  focus in taking say a Crocus it is better to move back from the subject and crop the final result. And providing there is no camera shake the image will be just as sharp to the eye and more of the flower will be in focus. After all most cameras now have 12 million pixels so with the tiny files we post here it probably makes little difference

[Peter Maguire]

Maggi,

Yes you are correct in thinking that you can crop the image to get the result you want, and it will be fine for use on the web, small prints, etc. It's only when you want to make large prints (A4, A3, etc) that you would find that the image suffered through cropping.
You would be able to get the image of the flower sharp this way, the only problem with compact cameras is the limited ability to obtain a different depth of field, i.e. to get the flower sharp, but the background out of focus so that the flower you want to depict stands out.