photography help pwease?

  • psuedofy
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 749
  • Loc: long island, NY

Post 3+ Months Ago

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/84/psuedofyje0.jpg

if yoou look at the moon in the picture there is a little green ring over the rim
and the leaves have a little bit of purple on the edges. how could i have reduced or eliminated these colors through the manual use of the camera?
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I think the picture is pretty out of focus. What kind of camera are you using?

Is it a standard digital camera or are you using an SLR Digital Camera? if you are using an SLR then i think you need to work on the focusing and shutter speed of the camera.

My guess is it is just a standard Digi Cam.
  • Belk Media Group
  • Graphic Monk
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 778
  • Loc: In the heart of California, Fresno.

Post 3+ Months Ago

The purple is the lighter blurred versions of the leaves against the moon caused by camera movement, just an assumption. If you use a tripode it would have came out ok. Like SB said you might want to play around with shutter speed to try and pic up more detail in the moons surface. If you are using a digi cam, dont even attempt it, ever again. You hurt the pure lil digi cams feelings when you try to force it to do what the big boys do.

:D
  • psuedofy
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 749
  • Loc: long island, NY

Post 3+ Months Ago

lol sb.


my camera is fujifilm s5000 i think. it is a digital camera but "slr-like".
its a psuedo dslr camera.
it has plenty control but not quite like the dslr. i will soon get a dslr, im just waiting fo rit to pop into my lap one day. 8)
i can control the shutter speeds and the the thing that allows light in?. yeah i have control of that also but not focus.

evn though the picture was blurry and over exposed i still liked it alot, its my new wallpaper. its the decolorization that irks me.
and also id love to be able to tell if a photo is over exposed or shutter is too fast or slow before the actual picture is taken. the only real way is through continuous practice and memorization of the settings righty?
  • stealthmode
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • stealthmode
  • Posts: 12
  • Loc: London

Post 3+ Months Ago

you have basic settings that will get you up and running here to follow:

1. You must never hand-hold a camera below a shutter speed of 1/60 sec because the blood pumping around your body and hand will cause camera shake that you will never know until you see the final photo.
2. Too fast a shutter speed will only cause the image to be frozen at the moment you click the shutter, and too slow a shutter speed will cause blur or movement in the photo.

A good rule of thumb is any outside average movement like trees in the wind or water flowing you can use 1/500 sec upwards.
Any less will cause blurring or movement in your image.
Shutter speed and lens aperture are linked.
Take a look at my site and look at the photography on it and see if it helps or inspires you.
http://www.mac-designs.co.uk
As for over or under-exposure that takes a lot of practise and if you have photos I can certainly tell you which of these they suffer from.
Good luck
  • Menard
  • Born
  • Born
  • Menard
  • Posts: 2

Post 3+ Months Ago

I must first apologize for resurrecting a thread which is several months old. That being said, however, I could not read this thread without the advice given to the question at hand necessitating a response.

I am a photographer and have written many articles on various subjects of photography; most of my articles being aimed at novices to provide them with a better grounding in said subject.

The advice provided to pseudofy is well intentioned, but much of it is not even touching on the core of the problem in question.

What we have at issue here is distance; the moon itself being, on average, roughly a quarter million miles from earth. Discounting the vacuum of space, the distance between any two objects above ground, not accounting for obstacles, is filled by air. Though we like to think of air as pure and clean, it is filled will dust particles it gathers naturally.

Visible light is measured in wavelengths. Longer wavelengths toward the infrared spectrum, and shorter wavelengths toward the ultraviolet spectrum. Though we can get into a discussion about the various affects of different atmospheric properties on different wavelengths, for the purpose of simplicity, I will concentrate on the most common properties of air and its affects on the visible light spectrum.

The primary wavelength with which we want to concentrate for the purpose of the question at hand is that of the shorter wavelengths toward the ultraviolet spectrum. Being that ultraviolet light is of a shorter wavelength, meaning it radiates at a higher frequency (wavelength is a reference to length it takes for a a particle wave to alternate between two properties and not a physical measure of the length of the particle wave), it has more of a tendency to reflect off of airborne particles in the atmosphere (this is not the same thing as bounce associated with ionic activity in the atmosphere).

Being that shorter wavelengths of light reflect off of particles in the atmosphere and bounce back to earth in more abundance than longer wavelengths, this creates a preponderance of coloration tending toward the ultraviolet spectrum; this is a condition often referred to as atmosperic haze. Though our eyes are less sensitive to the UV wavelengths, and thus less noticeable to the naked eye, film and CCD sensors are quite sensitive to this effect, and will record such effects accordingly. The color spectrum most affected by this and noticeable is UV, Blue, and Green.

What does this mean in the simpler end result? Pictures taken outdoors, particularly at distances, have a tendency toward a coloration of the shorter wavelengths of light, especially as distance increases. Another effect of this is haze is that it can make a picture appear to be out of focus.

There is, however, a solution to this problem, with varying degrees of success. The use of a filter which blocks out UV light can reduce the effect of atmospheric haze. UV and Skylight filters will accomplish such a correction. Though there is no 100% correction, either filter can provide enough correction to effect a good capture from such conditions.

Another recommendation I make, when there is a lot of distance involved, is the use of FLD (fluorescent) filter. The FLD filter has a stronger filtering effect than a skylight filter, as it is designed to block out the tendency toward green cast produced by fluorescent lights in photography.

This also gives us another useful solution for digital camera users who may not have a filter to use, or even a filter ring on their camera. When presented with a shot that includes a great distance outdoors (read that as greater than 100ft), you could take some shots for backup using the fluorescent mode of your camera.

To get back to the picture at hand in this thread, the green and purplish casts are likely coming from haze. The focus, though some of that could be slight camera shake (though I doubt it as there should be some ghosting in the image if such was the case), is soft due to the haze itself. Though you cannot see this with the naked eye, that well (except on hot summer days you can get an idea of what haze looks like to film and sensors), it is picked up by the camera.

You could try color balancing filters when shooting such a situation. Though you can use color balancing in an image editor, the color balancing is not going to improve the softness of focus in an editor, but it can improve it when manually applied to the camera.

The suggestions for using a tripod and keeping your shutter speed above 1/60 when handholding a camera are all good suggestions, but that is not the problem at hand.
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I think that was a really good reply. I'll admit at the time of my initial reply i wasn't at all clued up on the Photography side of things and i was more or less just an amateur. It is good to see another photographer come along and fill in the gaps. Your post was an education not only to psuedofy i'm sure, but to myself. Thank you.
  • stealthmode
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • stealthmode
  • Posts: 12
  • Loc: London

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well menard,
Next time just add to a thread without trying to be MR smart-ass, you just shown how much of an ass you are :)
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8745
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I reckon that was a bit uncalled for. I think he came along and saw what had been posted and wanted to give a more technical answer to the question. Something everybody who replied was unable to do.

I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that Menard mentioned your reply "with spite" stealthmode.
  • Menard
  • Born
  • Born
  • Menard
  • Posts: 2

Post 3+ Months Ago

stealthmode wrote:
Well menard,
You seem to think your someone special with your post. Another Mr no-it-all cyber bully, the internet is overrun with your type, the reason I say this is the fact you had the gall to post in an old thread meaning you are only interested in sticking your pennies worth in.


You are correct on several accounts:

I am a bully

I do know it all

I am special

Oh, and you deserved that reply Image


My reason for sticking my penny's worth in was that someone asked a question to which I had the knowledge to be helpful; whether for them directly, or to someone else reading this thread as the replies, though helpful in a general photography sense, did not address the issue directly.


stealthmode wrote:
As for writing articles on photography, only ones I met that do this are wannabe snapshot photogrpahers who never sold a piece of work in there life.


That's great, but you really need to hang out with a different group of people if all you know are wannabes.

My articles simply come from my experience as a photographer. I did not live on the road for years as a photographer to write articles; my article writing came from when I moderated a photography forum and my posts were so long (as evidenced in my previous post) that someone suggested that I might as well write more fleshed out articles on the subjects.

You can find most of my articles on photography here: http://aninstantintime.com/articles.html


stealthmode wrote:
had you not mentioned my reply with spite in your manner then I would not be writing this. Next time just add to a thread without trying to be MR smart-ass


Neither had I specifically mentioned your reply nor anybody else's in my post. The only thing I had mentioned was the advice provided in general and did not demean anybody in a negative light.

If you have a chip on your shoulder and want to make everything about you, well, that is fine for you, but don't do it at mine or anybody else's expense.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 10 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.