The Photography Thread 2

[briareos_kerensky]

Essentially what FSW said. Coming to the conclusion that a camera is crap without knowing the basic concepts of photography is a bit far-fetched.
Few other suggestions: photos need light. If you don't have light and are using the camera without a tripod (or other stable surface), keep times at 1/60; if you camera/lens is stabilised, you can usually go as low as 1/30 for the focus point, but you'll have to do some test shots to see how the stabiliser works.

Use a flash unit; if it's an external flash unit, you can also get a diffuser to mute down strong shadows and remove some of that artificial feeling most flashes give (the latter can be done in Photoshop, though).

If you're going to take a photo of a normal-lit office, you won't need f/22; f/8 would probably be enough to get everything in focus if you're going to a general shot; for Japanese arcades you'll probably have to go as low as f/4 or even f/2.4, without help (tripod/flash) it will be hard to get everything into focus.

Once you've the hang on timings and aperture, use a mode that puts one of them under manual control, it will be easier than going for a full manual config and will give more flexibility than full auto.

Don't use automatic focus points (at least, I hate them).

[smouty]

I blame artsy photographers who think blurriness is somehow a form of expression

It is a way of isolating the subject
You would normally want 'focus to infinity' for landscapes so if this camera had a mode for this it may be an easy option.

[charlesr]

I've got a GX1. No idea if it similar setup to yours, but just in case:
in normal auto mode (iA) it detects a face and shows you the portrait symbol. You can then click the toggle wheel and move the focal depth from blur to infinity and all points in between with the wheel.

[Brad]

Sadly simply doing that in the conditions that Scetcz was (probably - based on his original issue) working in will just drop his shutter speed to a level that will allow camera shake and he'll have blurry shots again.

2 winters ago I went out and shot some snow scenes with a T90 (Canon manual focus film camera) and a Lumix G2. Looking at the results I concluded that the T90 took *much* better photos than the G2. The T90's shots looked great. Really sharp, whereas the G2's were nowhere near as sharp. However, printing the G2 images onto 6x4 photo paper I ended up with nigh on identical photos to the T90. All the imperfections of the G2 images were reduced to a 6x4 print whereby they were no longer visible.

[Yakumo]

Here's a few examples of focus. Click the images to see the larger size.

Aperture set to f4.0
Gives a blurred foreground but the distance is in sharp focus


Aperture set to f8
Gives a slightly blurred foreground but the distance is in pretty much the same sharp focus as the f4.0 setting



Aperture set to f22
Gives a very sharp foreground but the distance is blurred plus you WILL need a tripod st this aperture.

[MartyG]

The wider the lens, the more DoF you get. With a 14mm you should be able to get front-to-back sharpness in that shot above at f11, maybe even f8 if the lens is set to its hyperfocal focus point for that f-stop. In fact going to f22 you'll get other image issues from lens diffraction.

I spent ?1800 on this camera, and my conclusion is it's a bit rubbish.

Read up on hyperfocal distance - it's definitely not the camera that's the problem, but the technique you're using. Controlling DoF is one of more desirable features missing on auto-everything compacts.

[Sketcz]

I've never owned a phone with a camera, until this trip to Japan where someone lent me one. As I said, I've mainly used a spool camera, and in recent years sometimes borrowed a digi cam, but I've not much experience with them. I suppose everything looks OK shrunk down to 6x4?

Wow, those shots from Yakumo are excellent!

I've tried messing around this evening, and I can just about get my hand and foot in focus in the same shot (yay!), but it's nowhere near as crystal clear as some photos I've seen. I was expecting to see my fingerprints on the ends of my fingers.

Well, got another shoot tomorrow, so will test this with a tripod.

[Brad]

What lens are you using? If it's one with image stabilisation be sure to deactivate that before using it with a tripod.

If you still have troubel try posting a couple of pics here (exif data intact) and we can take a look and mayb pinpoint where you can improve.

[EvilBoris]

1986 spool camera: you just put film in it, aim, click, and the result was 100% clarity at all distances

Sounds like you had one of those Sketcz fantasy cameras that somehow bent that laws of physics, they discontinued them as they were too expensive to make.
It's the reason the Swiss built the LHC, so see if they could disprove Einstein and create another camera that could do that.


You said that you couldn't easily get your hand and foot in the same shot and have them both in focus?
Sounds like physics is getting in your way, the GHthree has a closest focusing distance of half a metre, so as the distance approaches that, you will get progressively blurrier images. Could that be the problem?

Understanding what your camera is autofocusing on may help, you can try aiming the camera at something midway between what you require in focus, focus the lens by half holding the button then aiming back at your original shot.
If the f-stop is high enough you may catch more within the depth of field you would like.

As FSW said, it may just be that you aren't used to seeing your own photos on a screen, it's much less forgiving than a small glossy print.

[Sketcz]

You said that you couldn't easily get your hand and foot in the same shot and have them both in focus?
Sounds like physics is getting in your way, the GHthree has a closest focusing distance of half a metre, so as the distance approaches that, you will get progressively blurrier images. Could that be the problem?

I wish I'd know that when I bought it. Half the stuff I want to photo (games collections of old developers, stuff I'm holding), are all really close to the camera. Very few shots I've wanted to take have been much further than half a metre.

[EvilBoris]

It's down to the lens rather than the camera itself, I think that is the figure for the typically included Lens.

Looking in more detail the 12-35mm is 25cm and the 14-140mm is 50cm

[Brad]

I wish I'd know that when I bought it. Half the stuff I want to photo (games collections of old developers, stuff I'm holding), are all really close to the camera. Very few shots I've wanted to take have been much further than half a metre.

Luckily Boris is actually talking about a GH3 with a standard lens. Closest focus distance is down to the lense. Look up macros lenses and you'll find some that focus closer.

[Yakumo]

As the others have pointed out, it's down to the lens. The shots I took in the room were with a 14mm to 140mm lens. I don't use this lense for close hots really. Mostly for video and zoom shots.

[smouty]

I wish I'd know that when I bought it. Half the stuff I want to photo (games collections of old developers, stuff I'm holding), are all really close to the camera. Very few shots I've wanted to take have been much further than half a metre.

TBH you could have bought something for ?100 to do that
My first stop for a macro camera would be the fuji refurb shop - http://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/refurbish...cameras?cat=48
Their bridge cameras usually have a super macro mode with focus down to 1-2cm

Fuji S8000 ?109

[MartyG]

Always liked the colour reproduction of Fujifilm cameras; the EXR range has a good reputation, quite tempted with the F770EXR myself at ?119. 20x optical zoom and GPS makes it a great compact travel camera.