Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Need opinions - good picture - bad picture

Reply
Thread Tools

Need opinions - good picture - bad picture

 
 
Jim Townsend
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Below are two pictures that I took tonight with my sony p200 7.2 mp
> digital camera. One is probably the best quality picture I have ever
> taken with a digital. The other is what I get about 30% of the time
> when taking pictures with this camera. Are there any ideas of why this
> is happening - below are some of my thoughts:
>
> 1) Any difference between shooting in AF Single and AF Monitor mode -
> could this be it? I was shooting these in AF Single.


I'm not familiar with Sony's Single and Monitor AF modes, but the
bad photo (doo2) looks like it's out of focus... But it could be a
slight motion blur.. It's hard to tell

> 2) Could it be that I was moving just a little to try to center the
> picture. I've noticed in all my blurry shots, there is a chance that
> either I or the subject could of moved just a hair. Would this be the
> problem? In the good qualitypicture below, the dog was moving at all
> times.


Looking at the EXIF data, the shutter speed in both images was
1/50 second @ f/3.5 - ISO 120. Even though you used the flash,
this speed has the potential of causing motion blur in handheld
shots.

Can you not increase the shutter speed somehow ? Try shooting
in shutter priority mode instead of auto mode and bump the shutter
speed up to around 1/125.

> (You may have to copy and paste into your browser)


I had to do more than that I had to download the images
and then add the .jpg extension you left off. Most browsers
need the extension to tell them what type of file they're looking
at and how to handle it.

>
> Excellent:
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo
>
> The dreaded blur:
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I just uploaded them to my ftp space on AOL so the picture would keep
> it's original size. I use www.photobucket.com sometimes, but it
> shrinks the pictures. Where would you guys suggest I upload the
> pictures so everyone can see them? For instance, on my computer it
> doesn't work in Safari (I have a mac), but it does work on explorer.
>
> I have two more pictures I'd like to show you guys, but if you can't
> see the ones above then it won't help. Please advise on a good place
> to upload (free if possible). I took some pictures outside - where the
> subjects were 10 feet away. They were leaning towards each other when
> the pictures were taken, and they all came out blurry in the faces.
> But everything is always moving a little, will every picture I take
> have a 50% chance of being blurry? Also, I read in my manual that the
> AF single setting is better for stationary objects and the AF Monitor
> mode focuses quicker. Would this help any with small amounts of
> movement (from the subject or the camera)?
>

Just put the right extension (.jpg) on them when you upload so browsers
know how to decode them.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I just uploaded them to my ftp space on AOL so the picture would keep
> it's original size. I use www.photobucket.com sometimes, but it
> shrinks the pictures. Where would you guys suggest I upload the
> pictures so everyone can see them? For instance, on my computer it
> doesn't work in Safari (I have a mac), but it does work on explorer.
>
> I have two more pictures I'd like to show you guys, but if you can't
> see the ones above then it won't help. Please advise on a good place
> to upload (free if possible). I took some pictures outside - where the
> subjects were 10 feet away. They were leaning towards each other when
> the pictures were taken, and they all came out blurry in the faces.
> But everything is always moving a little, will every picture I take
> have a 50% chance of being blurry? Also, I read in my manual that the
> AF single setting is better for stationary objects and the AF Monitor
> mode focuses quicker. Would this help any with small amounts of
> movement (from the subject or the camera)?
>


No. The only way to handle motion of the subject is to use a faster
shutter speed. Note that this means you need more light. Most flash
pictures will stop the motion of animals, IF you are close enough to the
subject. If you flash adjusts to compensate for ambient light, you
might be better off dispensing with the room lights and using just the
flash at close range to minimize the problem with motion. This will
even help to prevent blurring due to camera shake.


--
Ron Hunter (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
utseay@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
What program are you using to see the shutter speed?


Jim Townsend wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > Below are two pictures that I took tonight with my sony p200 7.2 mp
> > digital camera. One is probably the best quality picture I have

ever
> > taken with a digital. The other is what I get about 30% of the

time
> > when taking pictures with this camera. Are there any ideas of why

this
> > is happening - below are some of my thoughts:
> >
> > 1) Any difference between shooting in AF Single and AF Monitor mode

-
> > could this be it? I was shooting these in AF Single.

>
> I'm not familiar with Sony's Single and Monitor AF modes, but the
> bad photo (doo2) looks like it's out of focus... But it could be a
> slight motion blur.. It's hard to tell
>
> > 2) Could it be that I was moving just a little to try to center the
> > picture. I've noticed in all my blurry shots, there is a chance

that
> > either I or the subject could of moved just a hair. Would this be

the
> > problem? In the good qualitypicture below, the dog was moving at

all
> > times.

>
> Looking at the EXIF data, the shutter speed in both images was
> 1/50 second @ f/3.5 - ISO 120. Even though you used the flash,
> this speed has the potential of causing motion blur in handheld
> shots.
>
> Can you not increase the shutter speed somehow ? Try shooting
> in shutter priority mode instead of auto mode and bump the shutter
> speed up to around 1/125.
>
> > (You may have to copy and paste into your browser)

>
> I had to do more than that I had to download the images
> and then add the .jpg extension you left off. Most browsers
> need the extension to tell them what type of file they're looking
> at and how to handle it.
>
> >
> > Excellent:
> > http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo
> >
> > The dreaded blur:
> > http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Below are two pictures that I took tonight with my sony p200 7.2 mp
> digital camera. One is probably the best quality picture I have ever
> taken with a digital. The other is what I get about 30% of the time
> when taking pictures with this camera. Are there any ideas of why
> this is happening - below are some of my thoughts:


<snip>

>
> Excellent:
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo
>
> The dreaded blur:
> http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2


Pretty clear by now (booo!) it's a focus problem in the second shot.
Seems to me the lighting is identical and the flash froze the subject
(shudder) in both.

That (almost a) dog came second in the "Ugliest Dog" contest at the Del
Mar Fairground Sunday, didn't it?
First place was an "American Hairless", looking like a recently-hatched
chick in doglike form.

Don't take offense: According to one observer _my_ almost-a-dog (a
Xoloitzquintli) is the "fugliest dog on the planet". If I'd known about
the Del Mar thing, we'd have been there and blown them all into the
weeds.


--
Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
utseay@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-15-2005
Thats a sexy dog....show me one more sexy and I'll take a blurry
picture of it.


Frank ess wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > Below are two pictures that I took tonight with my sony p200 7.2 mp
> > digital camera. One is probably the best quality picture I have

ever
> > taken with a digital. The other is what I get about 30% of the

time
> > when taking pictures with this camera. Are there any ideas of why
> > this is happening - below are some of my thoughts:

>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Excellent:
> > http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo
> >
> > The dreaded blur:
> > http://members.aol.com/utseay/doo2

>
> Pretty clear by now (booo!) it's a focus problem in the second shot.
> Seems to me the lighting is identical and the flash froze the subject


> (shudder) in both.
>
> That (almost a) dog came second in the "Ugliest Dog" contest at the

Del
> Mar Fairground Sunday, didn't it?
> First place was an "American Hairless", looking like a

recently-hatched
> chick in doglike form.
>
> Don't take offense: According to one observer _my_ almost-a-dog (a
> Xoloitzquintli) is the "fugliest dog on the planet". If I'd known

about
> the Del Mar thing, we'd have been there and blown them all into the
> weeds.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
utseay@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2005
Here are the pictures that I was talking about. They were outside, I
was still, and the subjects may of been barely moving. They were all
blurry except one, and it was a crappy picture period. What do you
guys think:

http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh.jpg

http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh2.jpg

http://members.aol.com/utseay/sh3.jpg

 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank ess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2005
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Thats a sexy dog....show me one more sexy and I'll take a blurry
> picture of it.
>


This is E.T.'s entry in the sexy-dog/ugly-dog sweepstakes:
http://www.fototime.com/C16EEA97F0C43C6/orig.jpg

As to your next three offerings, What kind of in-camera processing is in
place?


--
Frank ess


 
Reply With Quote
 
utseay@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2005
It's a Sony cybershot dcs-p200.

 
Reply With Quote
 
chrlz@go.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-16-2005
sh - vertical motion blur (very good example - see the vertical
smearing effect?), caused either by camera movement.. or an
earthquake... (O;

sh2 - harder to tell, looks more like a bit of subject movement and
maybe slightly out-of-focus as well. Fill-flash would have helped here
(just turn your flash on, even though the camera doesn't ask for it).

sh3 - ok, maybe a touch o-o-f, but nothing a slight sharpen won't fix!
Pity about the blink..

There seems to be nothing much wrong with the exposure or lens quality,
so just try to:

1. Hold the camera dead steady and don't rush your shots, (hold the
camera still as you take it, and don't move it too quickly after you
press the shutter button.)

2. Make sure you have something contrasty in the focussing area (near
the centre), and always try to pre-focus, ie hold the shutter button
down slightly, let the camera find focus (there should be an indicator
- check your manual), and then fire when ready. Fast shutter button
presses are not a great idea with cameras like yours. So getting good
pictures may require some anticipation. And if you have pre-focussed
and then you shift the camera when, or just before, you take the shot,
lost focus may result.

3. Use the flash to help fill shadows in daylight photography, and it
will also help to freeze the subjects. If you are shooting in low
light, you may have AF problems, and might need to use AF assist if
available, or even manual focus - again, check your manual.

Maybe get along to a photography class, or just hunt the web for
tutorials to learn how to inject a bit more interest into your
subjects. I know these are just samples, but it sounds like you are
starting out, so it might pay to learn more about how to recognise what
is going wrong.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
integer >= 1 == True and integer.0 == False is bad, bad, bad!!! rantingrick Python 44 07-13-2010 06:33 PM
Bad media, bad files or bad Nero? John Computer Information 23 01-08-2008 09:17 PM
ActiveX apologetic Larry Seltzer... "Sun paid for malicious ActiveX code, and Firefox is bad, bad bad baad. please use ActiveX, it's secure and nice!" (ok, the last part is irony on my part) fernando.cassia@gmail.com Java 0 04-16-2005 10:05 PM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 12 02-23-2005 03:28 AM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 0 02-19-2005 01:10 AM



Advertisments