Photography and Cameras

[Pushka]

Progress today. I’m starting to unravel all the technical terms. I knew them but in my own vernacular. And now photos of moving cars aren’t blurry anymore (when not on auto).

And I have homework. Really like the lecturer and she’s a lot of fun but very out there. Which makes her pragmatic. Works for me.

Taking photos is a hobby or profession. Just like golf!

 

[JohnK]

Taking photos is a hobby or profession. Just like golf!

Golf is not a hobby. It's a good walk spoilt.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

It is not about the equipment, it's all about seeing the image in the first place....

For me there is an essential equipment requirement in terms of seeing and being able to take an image - optical zoom.

There are cameras and phones that have excellent image quality, but with low or no optical zoom there is a massive range of photographs they simply cannot take.

For example if the subject is very far and/or moving away, if approaching the subject would disturb it, or if approaching isn't possible. That includes a lot of my favourite photography - wildlife and of course planes.

For obvious reasons, a small camera would be good for me.

Compactness is essential for me. Never wanted anything bigger than a pocketable point-and-shoot (which nowadays can have 30x zoom or more).

I wish I had many more images of some of the things I've seen.

Agree. There is a balance between living the moment and capturing the moment, but memories fade while digital photos don't.

Family members and friends often say they wish they had many more photos of such-and-such event. I try to avoid having that regret, but still fail ...

 

[TheRealTMA]

I met someone playing golf in Thailand recently. They spend a couple of weeks playing golf and 1 week in SE Asia relaxing and taking photos and try to go to different locations.

Interesting hobby but I'd be bored. I don't mind taking photos as part of what I am already doing. Smartphones are more than acceptable.


To each their own. To me food is a chore. It'd be nice to experience fine dining but that would mean less time/money for other things.

So? This thread is about cameras and photography, not really a place for negative personal opinions. By all means use the TOT thread for such I would suggest?

 

[TheRealTMA]

Golf is not a hobby. It's a good walk spoilt.

TOT JohnK.

 

[Pushka]

Yesterdays homework was about looking at the effect of aperture and focal point change. I tried some photos inside and just cannot get a properly lit photo on manual settings even with an aperture priority setting. Lighting is poor. Yet if I put it into (currently cheating) auto mode the lighting is fine. No flash. Why the heck is that?

Ended up outside lying on the concrete lining up a group of small objects to try show the effect. Check list for getting it set up correctly is check ISO, then if inanimate aperture then last the shutter setting so that 0 is on the light meter.

Realised when looking at the photos that I tended to focus on the second object in a row rather than the first but think that’s a function of me lying on my stomach giving my back a killer (for me) curve and not being able to really focus on object 1.

Then decided to go higher so popped the objects on a lounger. That worked better but realized that the web in the lounge gave a greater example of the effect of aperture change than the objects.

We have to print off 6 example photos each week. Our instructor (Gee Greenslade - google her to see some of her (out there) work) showed me how to take RAW plus jpg of the same shot. RAW files 23 mb while same jpg was around 6 on fine detail.

Couldn’t see RAW on my pc - windows codec won’t install as - in true windows fashion - I get this nonsensical error message. Suspect they stopped doing this after around 2015 to force people into a subscription. Have currently downloaded a 15 day trial and can compare the two outputs. RAW files show very different lighting to the same jog files plus I can see a darker boundary around the RAW files.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Well, aperture doesn’t affect focus as such, but depth of field, so your depth of field ( maybe what you are seeing as the apparent focal point) will become much shallower at a wider aperture.

Possibly on auto, your camera is adjusting ISO for light. On the A setting, depending on your camera settings you may have set a low ISO or you may need to set auto ISO or play around with this if your photos are too dark.

Using a metre ruler for focus and depth of field experiments can be useful.

Aperture Setting (A Simple Exercise) | Online Photography Courses

 

[Pushka]

Well, aperture doesn’t affect focus as such, but depth of field, so your depth of field ( maybe what you are seeing as the apparent focal point) will become much shallower at a wider aperture.

Possibly on auto, your camera is adjusting ISO for light. On the A setting, depending on your camera settings you may have set a low ISO or you may need to set auto ISO or play around with this if your photos are too dark.

Using a metre ruler for focus and depth of field experiments can be useful.

Aperture Setting (A Simple Exercise) | Online Photography Courses

Yes. That’s the terminology. Depth of field. .

 

[Renato1]

Yesterdays homework was about looking at the effect of aperture and focal point change. I tried some photos inside and just cannot get a properly lit photo on manual settings even with an aperture priority setting. Lighting is poor. Yet if I put it into (currently cheating) auto mode the lighting is fine. No flash. Why the heck is that?

.

If you are using Windows, right click on the Auto picture that came out fine, then click on Properties. Then click on Details - and you will see what the aperture, shutter speed and ISO setting the Auto function selected for that shot. You can then compare with your manual settings that came out bad in the photos (if you forgot what you used, check their Properties/Details)

Have you been taught the Rule of Thirds for composition of photos in your class yet?
It makes most photos more interesting to the eye. Some books on photography refer to it straight away, while others bury it down the back of the book somewhere.
Cheers,
Renato

 

[Pushka]

If you are using Windows, right click on the Auto picture that came out fine, then click on Properties. Then click on Details - and you will see what the aperture, shutter speed and ISO setting the Auto function selected for that shot. You can then compare with your manual settings that came out bad in the photos (if you forgot what you used, check their Properties/Details)

Have you been taught the Rule of Thirds for composition of photos in your class yet?
It makes most photos more interesting to the eye. Some books on photography refer to it straight away, while others bury it down the back of the book somewhere.
Cheers,
Renato

Yes. But I’m not using the PC so much these days and need details on the run and also I learn better when I read it over and over again. So it’s going in the journal. I need these details when I’m taking photos to try get a good shot.

Had a lightbulb moment last night.

 

[love_the_life]

Yes. But I’m not using the PC so much these days and need details on the run and also I learn better when I read it over and over again. So it’s going in the journal. I need these details when I’m taking photos to try get a good shot.

Had a lightbulb moment last night.

And....?

Reminds me, when are are off again? Isn't it this week? Should be some good photo ops there.

 

[Pushka]

And....?

Reminds me, when are are off again? Isn't it this week? Should be some good photo ops there.

Yes. I have to think of a good ‘wagging school’ excuse.
My dyslexic brain rationalises the opposite. You know my direction issues? In photography this translates to the measure of a slow shutter setting actually to me looking like a fast one. So once I slowed down the shutter speed I am getting good photos now in dim settings.
Had to go to office works today to get some prints taken for class. Man, do they make the self print process complicated.

 

[Danger]

What are people's thoughts on this lens for a Canon 70D: Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM review

 

[love_the_life]

What are people's thoughts on this lens for a Canon 70D: Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM review

What are you wanting to use the lens for? Wildlife? plants? landscapes? Have no experience with that one, but others might.
Daughter bought a Tamron (cheaper than the Canon). Pretty sure it was this one: (the Tamron site is really slow so this is Teds)
Tamron SP 150-600mm f5-6.3 (Gen 1)
She is talking about getting another lens at some stage but is loathe to part with her hard earned cash.

 

[BAM1748]

What are people's thoughts on this lens for a Canon 70D: Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM review

I know you're trying to get it all in one lens, but I think two lens would give you superior results. Those extremes push the boundaries.

I use canon gear and only have 3 zooms and a bag of fixed, when I travel I pick out the most suitable three for my trip and one on the camera.

I'd suggest if you can only get one lens get the canon (I think and will check tonight) 24 to 125 zoom. Then get the 70 to 200 and you have everything covered.

 

[Daver6]

Like others have said. Those kind of lenses are a jack of all trades, master of none. However, when playing tourist and walking around all day you don't want to be lugging multiple lenses (well I don't at least) so having the convenience of it means you can get the shots you want. I'd imagine at the long end you'd need to stop it down a bit to get decent sharpness which would limit its usefulness for action or low light.

So as a walk around travel lens, it could be a good option. I've not read reviews and I wouldn't touch a Canon lens...mainly because I'm a Nikon kinda guy

 

[Pushka]

It’s interesting seeing the Canon/Nikon ‘battle’ in class - almost like Holden and Ford. In the class the Canon is winning. It’s also interesting to see older models of the more expensive cameras don’t have some of the features of recent models, even mine.

There is one person in the class who takes beautiful photos. Stunning. It’s also interesting that she has multiple photos of her kids and one photo we all loved she didn’t so much because her child was in shadow and small in the overall frame. It was a seascape as a storm rolled in. She also uses Lightroom to enhance her pictures and it’s interesting to see how that adds dimension to photos.

Also how to do bracketing - looking at the light histogram and changing lighting by shutter speed or aperture. I can finally take photos in dim light (without the flash) although I never use flash anyway and photography lecturers hate it.

I realise I’m not good at creating photographic scenes but once it’s in my face I can be creative in how I take the shot. I just don’t do well in visualising it first.

Have to shoot in RAW and other than the size can think of no reason why not to use it all the time.

Although I still am in the camp that using Lightroom etc is still kind of cheating.

 

[JessicaTam]

Although I still am in the camp that using Lightroom etc is still kind of cheating.

I feel that the skill is in the initial photo, not in what a computer program does with it afterwards.

 

[Pushka]

I feel that the skill is in the initial photo, not in what a computer program does with it afterwards.

So you agree? The photo stands on its own merit? I subscribed to National Geographic and they don’t allow any manipulation at all. The course does provide a diploma for professional photographers who produce for clients etc so they need to know how to manipulate.

 

[Renato1]

Yes. I have to think of a good ‘wagging school’ excuse.
My dyslexic brain rationalises the opposite. You know my direction issues? In photography this translates to the measure of a slow shutter setting actually to me looking like a fast one. So once I slowed down the shutter speed I am getting good photos now in dim settings.
Had to go to office works today to get some prints taken for class. Man, do they make the self print process complicated.

Don't forget, that only works up to 1/60th of a second (or 1/30th for some people) as camera shake starts blurring the images at slower shutter speeds. If you have Auto ISO on, pictures will still come out okay at 1/60th of a second in dim light, but that relies on how well the camera's noise reduction works (which may affect fine detail). That is one reason to shoot RAW in dim light situations, as noise reduction programs can often do a better job of reducing noise than the camera can.
Regards,
Renato