Busy — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:34:54 +0000

Most digital cameras have a manual override for ISO (ASA) which is film speed, ideally you should use around 150 if you can. 100 is good, 200 maybe better for a film camera, 400 iso is very noisey.

to try explain noise, think of pixels. A 400 iso film can only be enlarged to about A3 size (biggest of the A sizes) before it becomes very pixelated, a 100 iso film can be enlarged four times that before suffering the same problem, slide film on the other hand at around 100-200 can be enlarged to movie threate screen size before becoming pixelated.

*had a hard day if this makes no sense ;)* maybe this will make more sense:
100 iso = bmp
400 iso = gif

The old school teaches it like this, the lower the number the more light is needed, the lower the number the less light needed, so 400 + is ideal for night shoots, 200 - is ideal for sunny days.
With a digital you should be able to set the ISO to whatever you want, but in a film camera normally you can't, but if you have a good camera you can BUT, changing the film speed, or tricking it is a trick of the trade but you MUST get it developed at the film speed you changed to, not speed of the film or you will get bad results.

ISO and ASA are the same thing - film speed but named differnt depending on what part of the world you're from.

Another thing to watch out for is metering, most digital cameras (depending on brand) have about 3 types of metering, center, outside of center and spot (depending on brand can be 3,4,5,6,7,8 points) tlc, unless you want a blurred background use the largest focal meter point option you have.

I've started to make a 'my pics' page on my site (isnt anymore than a 'coming soon' at present) about my old work - photography as I no longer do it for a job and wont be renewing my stock library pics (not net based), I plan to do a lot of tips and tricks as well as display a heap of photos - when I get some free time, 95% will be film based tips but some should be able to be used with digital, I only got a digital camera at Xmas time, still havent read the 1000 page manual lol, just stuck it on manual and pressed some buttons, if I find anything interesting will include them as well.

Dragon of Ice — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:45:02 +0000

Andy: Thanks for the info, but fortunately, I've already seen those (I read your blog every once and a while).

Busy: Cool trick!

Everyone:

I've been contacted by istockphoto, and my pics were declined on account of noise. Here's the email:

Quote: Dear David

Thank you for taking the time to apply as a photographer with iStockphoto.com
The iStock administrators have asked that you re-upload your samples. Here's why:

Unfortunately your camera is producing a lot of noise in your files. If you can control the ISO speed, a slower ASA (like 100 ASA) may correct this problem. Or, try scanning at a higher resolution, this may also help to correct the problem. Please see http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.3_noise.php Please re-upload samples when this has been corrected.

Please Re-upload new samples based on this feedback and the iStockphoto administrators will re-process your application.

Best Regards,
iStockphoto.com

I checked that site, and in one of the reccomended threads, our very own zerocattle posted! I don't know anything about ISO other than a bit about the different ISO films. I'm not really sure how to control it on my camera. I'll look into it.

Busy — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:58:59 +0000

Abhishek Reddy wrote: Dang, that's probably not possible with my camera. Do you get a motion blur on the edges?

the whole pic is a motion blur while the centered object stays focused. example, stand straight on to the front of a car, focus on the number plate and do the zoom thing, plate with be readable and outline of car will be seen but kinda looks like it's running over you or going through a time warp.
If you can't zoom with the lens you can get a similar effect using a flat object like a table, focus on something and very carefully slide the camera to (or away) from the object.
Forgot to mention, is best done on tripod or the lines will be wonky if zoomed to slow (can also create interesting effects).
First time I ever did the llights at night, i was on a bridge, thought the bridge (overpass) would be solid enough, turns out the bridge was moving (had shutter open for 5 mins - finger got tired so couldnt do longer lol), result looks like drunken drivers.

There are heaps of 'tricks' you can do with a camera, sadly digital cameras aren't really ideal as they compenstate for what you're trying to do, are made for point and shoot. classic example, to make 'romantic' pic you can place an old stocking over the lens (tint hole in center optional) and this will softy blur the edges, on a digital it will try keep it all focused, if it does focus you will probably get a normal shot, otherwise the camera probably wont find a focus point and continue to try to focus.

Most of the 'tricks' are for studio work (ie filters to remove freckles with B&W ...) or landscapes - gradients (make it look over cast, raining or even stormy, also rainbow), star (makes street lights etc star shape), polarising (should use as standard) - allows to darken clouds and look through water etc.

Most of the digital camera tricks are done after the photos taken - with a program like paint shop pro or photo shop

andy206uk — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:13:26 +0000

yeah... it's really freaky. But cool too! Strangely enough I was reading about that very method in a mag I bought yesterday!

Abhishek Reddy — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:56:59 +0000

Dang, that's probably not possible with my camera. Do you get a motion blur on the edges?

Busy — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:44:28 +0000

Another effect, similar to long exposure at night is a zoom lens (dont think you can do this on digital cameras), focus on an object or part of an object and with the shutter open zoom out then release, can get different results going opposite way.

andy206uk — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:45:51 +0000

I love the picture that was approved by sxc.hu Very tasty!

I've submitted a couple of pics to iStock over the past month or so. They've only accepted one... It's a picture I took of the toilet roll holder in my bathroom at home. Interestingly the light in the shot is completely natural.

What do you think?

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=394610

One of my fave techniques at the moment is to I hold the shutter open for 10 seconds+ at night but in situations with lots of moving lights. It creates all sorts of cool effects, like these for example:

http://www.greendezire.com/images/uploads/screamifyouwannagofaster.jpg
http://www.greendezire.com/images/uploads/redambergreengo.jpg
http://www.greendezire.com/images/uploads/speedymotorway.jpg

Kewl huh?

Busy — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:23:27 +0000

Flash is your friend.
- If inside, bonce the flash off the roof or wall (if you cant point your flash up use white paper and rubber band around flash to point it up).
- You can't really over fill (over expose) with flash during the day (peoples biggest fears)
- Using the flash at night is different during the day as it no longer becomes a fill in.
- Depending what part of the world you live and time of year, the best times for photos is early morning and late afternoon, when the light is at it's mellowist (new word I believe)

To photograph objects (depending on the size), ideally you should use a light table (also depending on the desired effect you want). A very low budget tip is to get an old kids table, place some white cardboard or thick paper on it and peg it, or tape it so tape/pegs not seen, place this on table or floor if you like working low (is a portable work place). next you need light, ideally you want minimum of two lights, one at 10 oclock, the other at 2 oclock (and your flash on camera is at 6 oclock), to test you have it right, something like a small vase with flowers is ideal, place on card (if card isnt thick either place thick card under paper or be careful it doesnt tip over) and with the lights you will see the shadows, adjust lights to fill in shadows, use a temporay third light in place of camera for flash while setting up.
Another method get one of those fold away chairs and use the paper/card trick again but leave a curve in the join of the chair, lights at either side or top and side or top and beside you ... different angls = different results, this is how most object photography is done - with a seamless background.
I personally hate doing objects as it can take hours setting up and the rewards are minimal.

A few items you may want to 'play with' to find out about light and shadows etc
glass/s of water (different levels, behind, beside or on top of one another). paper, get white paper (printer paper), roll some up, screw some up, fold some and place them all together (be creative and make castles or something). Shiny objects, something like an old tea pot, toaster (chrome) or whatever, as long as it reflects light. These objects will teach you about light, shadows and reflections - also great for learning B&W photography too (when using filters). something else could be a keboard, focus on the number key pad while looking down the whole thing, use lights to adjust the shadows or fill them in completely.

Using lamps (household) and foursents (sp?) will give you false results, ideally you need flash units but on a budget what you can find is just as good, it gives you the idea and method/style you need. If you're just doing it as a hobby or for the fun of learning buying equiment like a studio set wouldn't be worth it, unless you plan to make some money out of it (will cost you heaps), if you want to make a living you have to really pick a field, inside/outside/items/things/people/cars/animals ... as all are photographed differently *I have a studio kit for sale if anyone wants one muahaha*
If you do want to do anything except landscapes, I'd suggest buying, or even making a reflector, great for helping out with fill in light, can also replace the flash if conditions are right. If you buy one, get a reversable silver/gold one, shape doesnt matter, size only matters for your subject, ie a 20inch reflector isn't going to be much good taking a pic of a 747 areoplane

Ideally, if you can go 100% manual you should bracket your shots, one under exposed, one exposed and one over exposed.

Not all the old photography books are correct, example some say it's best to have the sun behind the camera. This is wrong for several reasons, one, if you're taking a picture of a person, the person will have the sun in their eyes ... Sun to the side and use flash to compensate the shadows. Have also seen a book saying best time for photos is mid day, this is so wrong as this is when the sun it at its brightest and the shadows are so sharp, very hard to fill in sharp shadows with just a normal flash.
oops, babbled on again

Woot!

Dragon of Ice — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:00:33 +0000

Woot! I just got my first photo approved by sxc.hu (still waiting on istockphoto, but I doubt those are gonna be approved, as the ones I submitted weren't very good). It can be seen here:

http://sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=246386

It was already downloaded 3 times (not alot, but I'm proud for my first)!

The other 4 I submitted were unfortunately rejected because they already had too many of that type.

Dragon of Ice — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:48:47 +0000

On my camera, I have both an auto and manual settings options. In the manual there is an "E/V" thing that compensates exposure, so I can play with the shutter speed there, which helps but not always fixes everything. I too have been told to use flash even in light, and I've had mixed results. I think part of my problem is that I'm not shooting in enough natural light, as I often don't have a chance to until night, and I'm still trying to find a good place to do objects.