- 27
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
There are some good pics in here.
SOME are just random marco pics....
anyway keep up the good work.
SOME are just random marco pics....
anyway keep up the good work.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I was wondering how come the photo comes out yellow? Would the lighting be too dark/light/etc or is the camera too close to the object? (Camera type: Point and shoot digital camera)
It's not to do with the amount of light but the wavelength of it. The most common lamps in use on a house are tungsten - just regular household filamentlamps - and they have a pretty yellow output. The fluorescent tubes you get in garages and schools and stuff are pretty blue. Your brain automatically adjustsfor the light so you don't see things like that - your brain looks at what is white and then adjusts everything else according to that.
That's what you have to tell your camera to do - setting the white balance. You're saying that although that looks blue (or yellow or green...) to youit's actually white so make that adjustment.
Your camera should have different settings for different types of lighting - commonly daylight, cloudy, shade, tungsten, fluorescent, flash - and auto.
Auto works okay outside but inside I find that it often chooses the wrong setting.
What my technique on the last page does is sort of set the white balance after you've taken the picture - but it's better to do it before.
There was the same problem with film - you get film with different characteristics for different locations or you have to use the appropriate filter to correctthe color before you take the picture.
The difficulty is when you have mixed light sources. Here's a selection of pictures I just took in my office with a variety of white balance settings -everything else exactly the same.
The light is a little mixed - 4 fluorescent tubes on the ceiling but I left the door open so there is daylight getting in too.
You can see that auto hasn't actually done a bad job here.
The best one is this though - I preset the white balance. On most DSLR's you can do that. Basically you take a picture of something white or grey in thesame lighting and the camera then uses that to give an exact level of compensation.
That one just looks a bit better than the auto one. It's a pain if you're moving from different locations though - fine if you are shooting in the sameplace for a while as it only takes a few seconds to set.
You can also get color-temperature meters which give you a value and then you can set that in the camera - or afterwards if you shoot raw - and that gives youan accurate representation too.
Well for starters its quite dark. Your middle tones aren't middle tones. It lacks a lot shadow detail. And your whites only stark and few andfar between. Basically the constrast seems both quite harsh and on the dark end. You're never going to get really good B/W with digital it just won'thappen... The contrast range (which B/W photography hinges on) is night and day digital to film. But as far as improvements I would try and get a bettercontrast range and more subtlety between tones and try and get some detail in the dark tones rather than just having them fall back as pure or nearly pureblacks.Originally Posted by DUNKiSHH
Critiques please
Originally Posted by ebayologist
sole lovely Shutter speeds refer to 1 over whatever the number is i.e. 25 is 1/25 of a second. The aperture or f-stops refer to the diameter of the aperture opening, the larger f-stop the smaller the opening. Aperture controlls depth of the focus. i.e. the larger f-stops or smaller opening gives greater depth of focus and the inverse is truth aswell. There is no end all be all greatest f-stop or shutter speed its they play off each other inversely for proper exposure and its a balancing act of what kind of depth of focus you want to what kind of shutter speed you need or visa versa. Neeks photographs actually don't strike me as all that great there is nothing particularly wrong with them but nothing remarkable either nonetheless the for majority of them they seem based on the light or lack there of as sort of but not really long exposures with a decent amount of depth of feild and sort of run of the mill for digital exposure (where you lose some shadow detail and the contrast could be better but overall nice).. I think the best part of them is the level of consistency from shot to shot (they're all relatively similar in light temp and just the volume of light to lesser degree so I mean that shouldnt have been super hard but I think thats the best part about them).
Shutter speeds longer or with a number smaller than about 1/60 or 1/125 need a tripod. To get the average persons motion captured still you need about 1/125. A long exposure is usualy considered 2/1 or 2 seconds or more. As far as aperture, usually f1.4 thru about 5.6 are considered shallow depth of feild and f11 or f16 and above is usually considered a wide depth of feild and obivously the f-stops inbetween are sort of a middle ground...
This idea is kind of day 1 photography lesson, and I'm really actually shocked that you didn't know it but it's stuff like this why people learn on super simple fully manual b/w film cameras just striped down to the bare essentials of learning how a camera works but I suppose learning it is better late than never...
Originally Posted by ebayologist
This idea is kind of day 1 photography lesson, and I'm really actually shocked that you didn't know it but it's stuff like this why people learn on super simple fully manual b/w film cameras just striped down to the bare essentials of learning how a camera works but I suppose learning it is better late than never...