Subject:
|
Re: Help with Digital Photography
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:27:19 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
adam.payne.1998@alumIHATESPAM.bu.edu
|
Viewed:
|
657 times
|
| |
|
|
I've got a Sony Mavica (FD91), but some of the advice will apply to
any digital camera (or film for that matter). The on-camera flash is
a joke, and most people on the Mavica boards (eg: www.mavican.nu)
recommend an additional slave flash (or several). Lots of people
(including me) like the little Quantaray MS-1 available at Ritz for
$20. I hear there's also a similar one (Cobra?) at Wal-Mart for even
less. The slaves fire when they sense the light from your on camera
flash (no need for cords or expensive wireless transmitters). I
carried my MS-1 in my pocket through Legoland CA this past weekend,
and I took some decent shots even in the total darkness of the
Adventurers exhibit (they'll be posted soon :)
As for things being off-color, bear in mind that the light you use
affects your color. In the film world, that means using a film
formulated for your light (daylight balanced, tungsten light) and/or
appropriate filters. Using a photographic flash (as opposed to
regular room lights) should produce the same results as daylight, but
incandescent or fluorescent lights probably will not. I know my
camera has a "white balance" button that adjusts automagically,
perhaps the Kodak does as well. If not, and if you insist on using
light that "colors" your subject, you can still use filters to correct
it (any decent photography book at the library should give you enough
info to choose the filter(s) you need.
Close up shots certainly benefit from a camera capable of a
close-focusing "macro" mode. That's one of the reasons I chose the
mavica, in fact. It will focus as close as 1 cm from the lens (in
fact, it focuses sharply on the inside of it's own lens cap :), so you
can pretty well fill the frame with a 2x4 brick and no zooming. Of
course at such close distances, the camera itself blocks most light to
the subject, so backing off a bit and zooming in is the order of the
day. (the 14x optical zoom was the other big reason for going with
the Mavica for me--I got some frame-filling shots of the little 4-inch
folks in Miniland from 10 feet away). The camera's macro mode would
take care of the "fuzzy" i.e. out of focus, closeups you refer to, but
when you say "only clear in the centre of the shot", that's linked to
the concept of "depth of field" (DOF). Basically the depth of field
determines how much of the picture (foreground to backround) is in
focus. Zoom lenses tend to reduce depth of field as you zoom (which
nicely blurs out a distracting background), but that isn't necessarily
what you want for your closeups. When close up, depth of field
becomes critical, and the way to adjust it is by adjusting the
camera's aperture (size of lens opening: how much light is let in).
Leaving it "wide open" (a smaller aperture number) lets in more light,
but reduces DOF. Closing the aperture (setting to a higher number)
reduces the amount of light allowed in, but increases the depth of
field (and you must choose a faster shutter speed to compensate for
the decrease in light, or use more light, like the flashes above).
Few consumer digital cameras allow you to go fully manual and adjust
the aperture and shutter speed simultaneously, but some, like my
Mavica, allow you to set one while it figures out the other for you.
("aperture priority" or "shutter priority"). This feature may be one
to look for if you plan on doing closesups. Full manual will probably
produce more screwed-up pictures that it's worth. (But being stuck
with only full auto may cause you to miss a few great pictures--like
choosing a fast shutter speed to stop the motion of an athlete, for
example).
I just wish I had my digital cam back when I visited New Zealand and
Australia. It was so beautiful, I shot so many pics that developing
alone cost me over $150. (I took nearly 40 rolls of 36-exposures
each)
Play well,
Adam Payne
"Sanjay D'Souza" <sds87@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm hoping to get my hands on a high res digital camera (1) (still not
> video) to take a few pics of the LEGO City I'm constructing. But before I
> do I'm keen to hear other people views on how to get the best out of these
> cameras.
> One thing I've noticed is that low lighting seems to be a problem, with many
> pictures of LEGO cities turning out more yellow or off colour than they
> should be. Is there anyway to get around this, keeping in mind that the
> city will be indoors rather than outdoors and some of the pics may be taken
> during the evening when the lights are on?
> I also intend to take a number of close up shots as well. Are there any
> tricks to taking pics of this type which aren't fuzzy or are only clear in
> the centre of the shot?
> Thanks in advance.
> Sanjay
> ------
> Millennium City - Coming Soon........
> (1) It's a toss up between the Kodak DC 265 or the Kodak DC215
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Help with Digital Photography
|
| I'm hoping to get my hands on a high res digital camera (1) (still not video) to take a few pics of the LEGO City I'm constructing. But before I do I'm keen to hear other people views on how to get the best out of these cameras. One thing I've (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
