Help with my photography

[Rich]

I was trying to use depth of field (aperture) to blur the background in these but it didn't work.

 

 

 

 

Link to Japfest 2010 photos

[phipck]

how long have you been taking photos for? what camera have you got?

 

you have some good shots there chap. I was into photography while at college 10 years ago then got back into it again about 2 years ago when i got a new digital slr. it kind of never goes away and it highly addictive!

[Rich]

how long have you been taking photos for? what camera have you got?

 

you have some good shots there chap. I was into photography while at college 10 years ago then got back into it again about 2 years ago when i got a new digital slr. it kind of never goes away and it highly addictive!

 

I've had the camera for over a year but only used the auto and programmed settings before. The camera is a Fuji S8000fd. Taking these shots I was playing with the aperture and ISO settings but I have alot of reading/learning to do as there are so many settings on this camera compared to a compact

[phipck]

I've had the camera for over a year but only used the auto and programmed settings before. The camera is a Fuji S8000fd. Taking these shots I was playing with the aperture and ISO settings but I have alot of reading/learning to do as there are so many settings on this camera compared to a compact

 

youve done well to get the pics you have only playing with those two

 

ive had a look at that camera before, quite simular to my stepdads and theyre a great step between compact camera and dslr. If your wanting to up the anti on motion shots like the cars passing on the track, i would look at the shutter speed. Your camera has all the modes a full dslr has and you will get great shots with the right combination, i dont want to repeat things you probably already know but for anyone else who might be interested having seen your pics, the modes on your camera work like this:

 

M is full manual mode, you get to change the apature, shutter speed, iso, white balance and focus......best used if you have a tripod and are shooting a stationary subject, it does mean that you can get the exact charactoristics that you want in your photo though but through lots of trial and error.

 

S is shutter speed priority, this varies how quickly the shutter returns to closed, the camera will set the rest of the settings appropriatly for the shutter speed you choose, very fast shutter is great for capturing birds in flight, cars on track, rain falling etc kind of freeze frame life shots or alternatively if you slow the shutter down you can get smudgy images like car lights on the motorway at night or when the light levels are low you can get an exposure as if it were daytime.

 

A is apature priority, the apature varies how much light fits through the lense at any one moment, it creates a "bubble" of focus or depth of field. This can help highlight a subject you are focusing on by bluring out everything but them. Its ideal for protraits or engine details, or on the other extreme if you want lots of detail from differing distances having the apature more open gives a bigger "bubble" and more light detail from things further away, ideal for holiday photos when somone is in the forground and you want to capture the background too like standing in front of the leaning tower of pisa.

 

P is a combined mode, you set the apature for instance and the shutter speed will raise and lower proportionaly, equaly if you change the shutter speed the apature will raise and lower proportionaly. all the other settings are calculated for you.

 

 

i tend to find myself in M mode for stationary things, or S mode for moving items. And if in S mode, a great trick for taking motion photos, is to think "sniper" and trace your target before you take the picture, while your taking it and also after, all in one clean sweep. it means the subject will appear crisp and the background will "speed sweep" a little.

 

hope this helps

[Rich]

Good info there mate I've been reading talk photography forum alot and there's so much info it can make you go crazy, abit like geometry really!

 

I set the camera to aperture as I wanted to get the blurred background effect, depth of field as you say. Unfortunately it seems this camera can't do those kind of shots as the f number range isn't that big. I will have a play with the shutter speed next see what shots I can get.

 

There are other settings on my camera like single and multi focus. Maybe we need a photography subforum somewhere!

[phipck]

haha, ive only been here about 10 days and already i feel im contributing lol

 

yeh in this case the blur is more from the motion than from the apature (but they do intreract much like any adjustment in geometry!).

 

i think the issue your having is your trying to use the apature instead of tracking the cars, taking a quick look through your pics, theres a few pics that the car is slightly blury and the background is crisp. It suggests to me that your either standing still and snapping as a car goes past, or tracking the car but stopping as you take the photo.....just keep tracking during the shot and a little after....the car will be crisp and the background will be blury. Even better if your camera can take a few quick shots in succession, rattle 2 or 3 shots off as you track the car, your likely to get atleast one out of the three that your happy with.

 

you will suffer a little with zoom limitations because of the camera type, the easiest option here is to choose your shooting location carefuly, make sure that where you stand you can zoom slightly closer than you need for the the shot you want, that way you know you camera is within its range and you know you will be able to track the car cleanly.

 

im gunna shut up now as im taking the thread over a little and that wasnt my intentions sorry

[Rich]

We now have a photography forum

 

Feel free to carry on contributing as I'm sure it will benefit those who are interested

 

I was playing with the aperture with the cars on the stands trying to blur the background, one example was with the close up of the turbo but it didn't work.

 

You are right about the cars on the track I was sitting still and just taking shots as they came around the corner. I was also quite a fair distance as well so will try and get closer next time and practise panning. I can do quick shots as well, lets me take 3 in succession.

 

Another big problem I've had with this camera, especially in auto mode is the reds look like pink! What causes this, over exposed?

 

 

[Bazza]

a photography forum !

 

excellent idea

so far very educating

I do like photography, just wished I had time to study and practice it a bit more

[Bazza]

typical holiday snap !! well my holidays tend to be like this

 

 

spent ages and took about 50 pics to get this one

 

[Rich]

a photography forum !

 

excellent idea

so far very educating

I do like photography, just wished I had time to study and practice it a bit more

 

It's taken me a year to get mine out of auto! I think I've been afraid of trying new things when I'm out and they all look rubbish so I have nothing to remember the occasion by.

 

Where did you take that photo, looks good? I've always wanted to photograph lightening but I don't think I'd have the patience.

[Bazza]

a photography forum !

 

excellent idea

so far very educating

I do like photography, just wished I had time to study and practice it a bit more

 

It's taken me a year to get mine out of auto! I think I've been afraid of trying new things when I'm out and they all look rubbish so I have nothing to remember the occasion by.

 

Where did you take that photo, looks good? I've always wanted to photograph lightening but I don't think I'd have the patience.

 

that was taken on our holiday in Cyprus two weeks ago !

weather was stormy and wet, so i just sat there taking pics,

on a fuji compact

[Bazza]

It's taken me a year to get mine out of auto!

 

I have done the opposite, brought the camera, started off using all the settings but lazily reverted back to auto

[Sagitar]

I was trying to use depth of field (aperture) to blur the background in these but it didn't work.

 

The camera that you are using gives some difficulty in achieving limited depth of field. The sensor is only about 7mm on the longest side, so although the spec quotes focal lengths in 35mm equivalent figures, the real focal length is much shorter - only about 20% of the 35mm equivalent figure quoted. The spec says 27mm to 486mm (35mm equivalent) but the real focal length is 4.7 mm to 84.2mm.

At the widest setting and the biggest aperture, everything from about 6 inches to infinity will be in focus.

 

To get minimum depth of field you need to use the lens at its maximum focal length - zoom it right out. The problem then is that you don't get much in the frame - so you walk back to get more in, which increases the depth of field again. At the longest setting, you should be able to get the depth of field down to about 6 inches; say from 5' 9" to 6' 3" but you wont have much in the frame.

 

The only real answer is to buy a camera with a bigger sensor and that generally means a single lens reflex.

 

Looking on the positive side, the fact that your camera has a wide angle lens and therefore a large depth of field, means that you are much less likely to get pictures that are out of focus. It should also be pretty good for macro photography.

[Rich]

I was trying to use depth of field (aperture) to blur the background in these but it didn't work.

 

The camera that you are using gives some difficulty in achieving limited depth of field. The sensor is only about 7mm on the longest side, so although the spec quotes focal lengths in 35mm equivalent figures, the real focal length is much shorter - only about 20% of the 35mm equivalent figure quoted. The spec says 27mm to 486mm (35mm equivalent) but the real focal length is 4.7 mm to 84.2mm.

At the widest setting and the biggest aperture, everything from about 6 inches to infinity will be in focus.

 

To get minimum depth of field you need to use the lens at its maximum focal length - zoom it right out. The problem then is that you don't get much in the frame - so you walk back to get more in, which increases the depth of field again. At the longest setting, you should be able to get the depth of field down to about 6 inches; say from 5' 9" to 6' 3" but you wont have much in the frame.

 

The only real answer is to buy a camera with a bigger sensor and that generally means a single lens reflex.

 

Looking on the positive side, the fact that your camera has a wide angle lens and therefore a large depth of field, means that you are much less likely to get pictures that are out of focus. It should also be pretty good for macro photography.

 

Thanks for the explanation, just confirmed what I had been reading and I didn't think I could achieve what I want with this camera. Still it's a step up from a compact and will help me learn about photography.

 

I've taken a few shots in macro mode and I've been very impressed (to my standard) with how they've come out. I think I'll have a play over the weekend and see what shots I can take.

[Mark H.]

These have varying effects of depth of field.

 

 

 

[Rich]

I like the last one, the outline of the car looks very sharp against the background....kinda wish I'd saved the money towards a DSLR now! Oh well have to make the most of what I've got.

[Rich]

Any ideas on what's made the red ferrari's go pink?

[Mark H.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[andyelcomb]

Nice pics - how about coming along to Crystal Palace on the 30th / 31st May if you want to get some moody and variable shots? Crystal Palace 30 & 31st May 2010

Here's an example from 10 years back....

[Rich]

Some stunning shots there, you guys are putting mine to shame!

[phipck]

just takes practice, having played with an slr and moved on to a dslr it took some getting use to. but its all time and repetition.

 

regards the reds, the pic does look a little over exposed, in full auto, try half clicking the trigger while aiming at a neutral colour like the tarmac then still half pressed re-aim and take you photo. see if it makes any difference. it might be the light values the camera is giving when auto detecting on the red. experiment with red in bright light, see if its just your camera that has a quirky distaste for ferraris or whether it was simply a combination of lighting and settings on the day.

[Rich]

Well I took over 150 photos when I was at WIM today with either the aperture or shutter mode or full manual. I swear I was getting some funny looks but hey ho I was enjoying myself!

 

With the reds I'm positive it's the camera, I had the problem with one of the cars I photographed at japfest. A photo I took of the side of the car with me kneeling next to it looked red, but when I stood over the bonnet holding the camera down it came out pink...both taken in auto mode!

 

Although not the above car here is an example on the Lotus from today, first shot is pink, the second is better but still looks a tad pinky. The last photo of the whole car looks alot better now.

 

 

 

 

I could not get the background to blur no matter what I did but I have found that in macro mode I can, although have to get very close to the subject...not much good for cars then. The wing mirror below I took 25 shots and that is the only one I'm happy with, the rest are over/under exposed, out of focus etc.

 

Tyre valve on the Lotus

 

 

MG wing mirror

 

 

A couple from Bazza's motor

 

 

 

Some flowers around the centre

 

 

 

I am very impressed with this one, not sure what the pros would make of it and even though it's just starting to open there's something about it that is intriguing...IMO of course

 

Info for this shot is:

 

Shutter speed - 1/388 sec

Aperture - F/3.5

Exposure - 1/400 sec

ISO - 64

 

[phipck]

if you pop up the details for the two example shots of the pinky pics, we might spot something different between them that could be the cause in full auto as the camera might be using different settings for both pics

[Rich]

I'll do that tomorrow mate...any comments on the above?

[Tony]

I thought the flower pics were very good.