Prev: Sigma, SD15 delayed. Does anyone care?
Next: iPad, G2, ALL touch screens are disgusting, filthy products
From: Martin Brown on 28 May 2010 10:18
On 28/05/2010 10:51, ken d wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:29:48 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2010 04:34, rfdjr1(a)optonline.net wrote:
>>> I recently bought an Olympus SP800UZ. Tonight I was trying to take some flash
>>> pictures, inside, of a new guitar. Shots were taken from four to six feet away.
>>
>> That is fairly close so even the weedy flash unit on a P&S should manage
>> that distance OK. Sounds to me like the autofocus didn't lock onto the
>> guitar properly. A bit more ambient light might help with that.
>>
>> 4-6 feet is in the range that most cameras ought to be able to focus.
>> Default when it sees no focus assist signal back is to assume infinity
>> focus which may well be what happened here.
>>
>> Is the guitar by any chance a black one?
>
> Do you often pretend to give advice about which you know NOTHING about?

No. But you do.
>
> The bright bronze or silver strings alone are enough to focus on.

Not in low ambient light they aren't. One of the annoying quirks of
small cameras is that they do not always get a good focus lock in low
light unless the scene in front of them where the focus assist
illuminator hits is high contrast. The OP can easily test this.

Hopefully he will be smart enough to recognise the multiple and ever
morphing ravings of the deranged P&S troll.

>>> Not one of about a half dozen shots were as clear as I would expect from the
>>> camera. As I said, I used flash, I have the AF illumination turned on as well as
>>> image stabilization. I was using the camera hand held, as my tripod was down in
>>> my car. What else, short of a tripod, could I have done to try and get a sharp
>>> image?
>>
>> Try and hold the camera steady and squeeze the shutter release. Are you
>> sure that the flash actually fired? Flash photography will usually
>> freeze movement so you get a tack sharp bright image with a dimmer
>> motion blur from the image formed by the ambient light.
>>
>> It would help to see a sample image. It is hard to guess what went wrong
>>from your description. If you try to photograph the same guitar from the
>> same distance outside in natural sunlight can you get decent images?
>> That would eliminate bad camera technique from the equation.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> Yet another KNOW NOTHING ROLE-PLAYING PRETEND-PHOTOGRAPHER TROLL.

I suggest you look in the mirror.
You are only a third rate troll at best.

Regards,
Martin Brown
From: John Navas on 28 May 2010 10:38
On Thu, 27 May 2010 21:01:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com>
wrote in <4bff4031$0$1628$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>:

>On 27/05/10 8:34 PM, rfdjr1(a)optonline.net wrote:
>> I recently bought an Olympus SP800UZ. Tonight I was trying to take some flash
>> pictures, inside, of a new guitar. Shots were taken from four to six feet away.
>> Not one of about a half dozen shots were as clear as I would expect from the
>> camera. As I said, I used flash, I have the AF illumination turned on as well as
>> image stabilization. I was using the camera hand held, as my tripod was down in
>> my car. What else, short of a tripod, could I have done to try and get a sharp
>> image?

Without a sample image I can only guess what happened was failure to
focus properly, which can be a problem with the SP-800UZ when the
subject has insufficient contrast. (Look and listen for an indication
of focus failure.) Try prefocusing on something with high contrast at
the same distance, reframing, and then shooting your subject.

(Whatever you do, ignore Steven, who is clueless about photography.)

>Unfortunately, the SP800UZ does not support a more powerful external
>flash, so short of a tripod there's little you could have done. Well not
>totally true since the FL-36R and FL-50R flashes will work wirelessly
>with the SP800UZ. Alas they are quite expensive compared to D-SLR flashes.

Flash power "from four to six feet away" is not an issue. Doh!

--
Best regards,
John

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
-Benjamin Franklin
From: Jeff Jones on 28 May 2010 12:22
On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:18:48 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Not in low ambient light they aren't. One of the annoying quirks of
>small cameras is that they do not always get a good focus lock in low
>light unless the scene in front of them where the focus assist
>illuminator hits is high contrast. The OP can easily test this.

You've never used any of these cameras. You just proved it.

From: Paul Furman on 29 May 2010 00:29
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> rfdjr1(a)optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>> I recently bought an Olympus SP800UZ. Tonight I was trying to take some flash
>>> pictures, inside, of a new guitar. Shots were taken from four to six feet away.
>>> Not one of about a half dozen shots were as clear as I would expect from the
>>> camera. As I said, I used flash, I have the AF illumination turned on as well as
>>> image stabilization. I was using the camera hand held, as my tripod was down in
>>> my car. What else, short of a tripod, could I have done to try and get a sharp
>>> image?
>>
>> Try zooming as wide as it'll go and move closer. This will give more
>> light, faster shutter,

Seriously, wide buys a shorter hand held shutter speed, regardless of
flash.

>> bugbear wrote:
>>>
>>> He's using flash. Moving closer *will* give more light.

Flash will look more harsh closer up and background will go to black
more. I'm biased that I don't like flash and rarely use it but yeah,
that sounds right.


>> (and more exaggerated perspective distortion,

Yep, things in front will look larger, things in back will look smaller,
relatively, so more exaggerated. For a portrait, the nose will get
bigger relative to the face. Can look freaky or dramatic, depending on
the subject and intent.


>> which may or may not be desirable).
From: Paul Furman on 29 May 2010 00:36
>> (and more exaggerated perspective distortion,

For example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/2120400091/
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Sigma, SD15 delayed. Does anyone care?
Next: iPad, G2, ALL touch screens are disgusting, filthy products