What in the world is wrong with me?

[mnelson]

A friend told me that I may have outgrown my point and shoot camera. I've had a G9 for only a year, but I've used it a

lot. I don't consider myself as knowledgable enough to have exhausted the technology in that camera in only a year.

But I still have problems with blurry photos. He has agreed with me on the ones that I think are out of focus. All he

can attribute it to is camera shake, since the shots look the same as when I got the camera.

 

But I use a tripod, I make sure there is a lot of light, I check my distance from the lense to make sure I'm not too

close, I use the fastest shutter speed I can, I use the "saftey" features like auto ISO shift and safety focus, I stay

away from digital zoom, I use manual focus to make sure I got the right part in focus, when there is low light I use

shutter priority and always use a tripod, I under expose my shots to keep from blowing out hightlights (but they glow

funny-no not Leica glow), I dampen my flash and use it for fill, I try to use the best f-stop for my subject in terms of

DOF, I am holding my breath to be motionless, I take many shots to make sure I can get a good one... on and on

and on.

 

Some of my shots are perfectly in focus. They are the ones with medium light, a tripod, f-stops below 4.0, ISO 80,

and shutter speeds greater than 1/60th. I did a test where I only changed the f-stop and compared the f2.8 side by

side with the f8.0. The f8.0 shots had a wierd glow around the white letters in the test. When I sharpen, I notice the

white edges shrink visibly. My DOF grows as the aperture shrinks, just like it should. There is nothing wrong with my

camera.

 

I'm about ready to rip my hair out. What in the world am I doing wrong? Why can't I get photos that have at least

ONE part that's tack sharp without using my flash on full blast? Why do my macro shots look so soft? Why do I

have to sharpen every photo, especially one that has bright highlights in it? I thought light was good for clear shots.

 

The only thing I can think of is that I am missing a term in the photography equation when I shoot. I think I must be

omitting something in my settings when I decide to take a shot. I am getting very, very, very, very, frustrated. The

shots I post here have been worked and tweaked so much that I feel like I am slapping band-aids on everything.

Does anyone have any ideas? I've posted once on this subject and done what people suggested with negligible

improvement.

 

With all due respect, please suggest something other than a tripod. I'm way beyond that. M

[jpo3136b]

There is nothing wrong with you; you are merely having difficulty calculating exposure with flash. I suspect you are overexposing;

perhaps to the point that you are greatly increasing contrast in the frame; the darker areas that might be underexposed in a frame

without flash are probably in this case, those areas not reflecting enough of the strobe back to the camera. If you over-compensate for

this in the field by making the frame brighter and brighter, eventually you will reach a high-contrast limit of recording.

 

The glow that you notice around white objects against a dark background is called halation. Just like halo-lation. Halation. It is more

apparent in the smaller f/stops because light is bending more as it slips through the aperture.

 

For an example of this condition in nature, look up at the full moon. Then with your fingers before your eyes, pinch your

fingers together. You will see the apparent size of the full moon appear to shrink. This smaller size is the actual size of

the full moon. The larger size you would normally see is the illusion caused by its great brightness relative to other

objects at night.

 

Sometimes in photography, this same kind of glow can occur from overexposure.

 

In part of the post, I noticed you mentioned using flash. In another, you mentioned using f/stop for subject by depth of

field. I ask, are you using these two concepts together, or separately? Typically, when a flash is used, the distance of

the flash to subject will determine the appropriate f/stop. If that f/stop does not create the depth of field you desire, then

you have to either move the flash closer (ADD LIGHT) or farther away (SUBTRACT LIGHT) until you can synch your

shutter with the flash at the appropriate distance to manage the light from the strobe, and the depth of field, at the same

time.

 

You mentioned using shutter priority and a tripod and a flash in the same sentence. If you employ a flash, the synch

speed of the flash will determine both shutter and aperture. That is, you cannot shoot any faster than the synch speed.

To avoid a more technical discussion, I would say also that you should shoot no slower than 1/8", that is keep the

shutter between synch and 1/8" to meet your compositional needs.

 

It should not be the shutter speed, but the distance of flash to subject that determines the aperture. If your camera is

not metering the flash exposure, you may have a quicker fix: turn the dial to manual. Set the shutter speed to synch. If

a guide number chart came with your camera, use it to determine aperture. If you don't have such a chart, like in the

flash user's manual, then set the aperture to the key f/stop.

 

The key f/stop for all neutralized exposure tests is the aperture number nearest to the square root of the film speed. For

example, if you are shooting ISO 100, the square root of 100 is 10. The closest f/stop number to 10 is f/11.

 

Then, shutter on synch, ISO 100, f/11, test shot with the flash. Since you have a digital camera, look at that exposure.

Over or underexposed? Adjust aperture. Keep film speed constant until you start pushing the edge of the aperture dial.

Test again.

 

A common flash setup would be, at 12 feet, ISO 100, f/4. This would be for a small, flashcube-style electric strobe.

Notice, for that exposure, it was four stops from the key f/stop. This is because of the weak power of the flash in the

example. Yet, it is typical of the weaker strobes used by most beginners. In fact, it is off of the chart printed on the

back of the first little flash unit I ever used.

 

I hope this helps get you started on settling your exposure problems with flash. I would like to recommend two books,

Ansel Adams' "The Negative" for a classic chapter on artificial lighting, and "Light: Science and Magic," by Fuqua, the

best comprehensive book on lighting in print. Good luck. Please post back if you are still having problems. Also, a

small typical image attached to the post might be helpful in troubleshooting in the future. J.

[mnelson]

Thank you very much for your reply. My camera only goes up to f8.0, and my flash is on the camera. There is a hot shoe for another flash, but I don't have the money for it right now. I have to read this a few more times and digest it.

 

You have given me a fantastic place to start. I really appreciate you suggesting tests for me to do. It helps me not feel so frustrated. I enjoy knowing the nuts and bolts of things, and you gave me that. I am very thankful for your input. M

[kari v]

"The f8.0 shots had a wierd glow around the white letters in the test."

 

f8 is a bit too much for small sensor digitals. Try f4-5.6, it should offer you plenty of DoF, only go to f8 if you really need it for close-up stuff. f8 is common aperture in dslr world, all lenses are at least pretty good there and you get reasonable amount of DoF, not so with small sensor cameras.

 

Sharpening is a part of the process. If you can't dial in good settings in-camera then set it to low/normal and sharpen every shot to taste in post. When you resize for print/web you have to sharpen again, final size, final sharpening.

 

You could post a sample image or two showing your problem areas. Your post was loaded with stuff that's a bit hard to pinpoint only verbally.

[davidmoore]

A couple of quick additions to the good advice you've already received.

 

1. Turn off image stabilization when using a tripod. It isn't needed, and may actually add a bit of residual vibration to the image, depending on the amount of hysteresis present in the servo mechanism. I'm not sure how the G9 performs in this respect, but it can't hurt to try.

 

2. As mentioned above, use wider apertures. Small sensor cameras don't perform as well at small apertures, like f8, as they do at wider ones. Depth-of-field effects decrease as sensor size decreases, so maintaining depth of field is a less a concern then with a full-frame or crop sensor DSLR.

 

3. Expect to do some post processing. I'd rather get a workable image from the camera that needs some sharpening and tonal adjustment, than an image with just a bit too much sharpness, or blown highlights, especially in the case of JPGs.

 

4. If you're not already shooting RAW, give it a try. The RAW tools in Adobe LightRoom are quite powerful and easy to use. You can download a fully functional trial for a month (free) from the Adobe website. This will give you a better set of tools for sharpening and correcting anomalies.

 

A final thought. I shoot the G10, which is very similar to the G9, and I'm quite satisfied with its IQ performance at low ISO (100 to 400). I find the G10 lens and image stabilization especially impressive, especially at the price. My gear includes Canon 5D, various L series lenses, and Leica film gear, so my standards are pretty high. Remember, the G9 and G10 are consumer grade products, and subject to considerable variation in manufacturing quality. It's possible you got a defective camera--it happens sometimes. My first Canon 24-70L lens was a dog-horribly back focused at the wide end. I wouldn't be at all surprised to buy a defective G9 or G10, and I wouldn't hesitate to return it, as well.

[mnelson]

Thank you, everyone. I have some more shots, at f4.0 in daylight of a room. We'll see. I am quite sure there isn't anything wrong with camera. M