jcuknz

I fail to I cannot understand how such an abomidable page length gets accepted by whoever set up this style. There is a long established practice in the printing industry which determines line length to type siz. It is so long since I learnt the guide I have forgotten the detail but I assure you that a line length HALF of what is here would be too long for easy reading.

<p>With digital you need to know that you are not shooting to a laboratory with a set standard but in addition to camera you need to learn to use an editor. Bearing mind that what you produce on your monitor is not guaranteed to be what others will see on their monitors. Most unlikely unfortunately.<br /> So getting the camera is easy and $300 will cover that with a long zoom bridge camera with $25 perhaps for a good quality Close-up lens ... my solution awhile back was a Panasonic FZ50 with a two dioptre CU lens. The CU lens is not to get you closer but to enable your long lens to focus a bit closer than normal to fill the screen with the gemstones. The narrow angle of shooting with a long lens gets you the 'tight framing' for small objects. I fill the sensor with an area 1.5 inches across from around 13 inches away.<br /> But it also depends on what you want to use the photos for .... for large prints [bigger than 10"x12"] you likely need the DSLR or M4/3 with auto extension tubes instead of CU lens ... a different but likely better way to go, where I am today with a Panasonic GH2 and the 14-140 zoom which does everything for me. but it costs more though still within your $2000 budget.<br /> But for web use the first offering is plenty at less than $500<br /> Forget about 'good color' as the final result is what you get after editing and here the Paint Shop Pro is a good programme, anything from the PSP v.8 of ten years ago to the current offerings which are dirt cheap these days compared with what I paid for my v.8 years ago :-)<br /> So a lot depends on what you want the photos for and how 'the public' will view them ... if for sale the proviso regarding monitors differences is vital to you as vendor. Calibrated screens are few and far between even amongst experienced photographers.<br /> Read and take in what Jos wrote as it covered the more important aspects of what you need.<br /> also the links just above this look interesting to me too :-)<br> If you got for an FZ camera stay with the larger ones rather than the similar but smaller models ... just my opinion :-)</p>

<p>I think it would all be rather involved and without a simple one click operation people look for. If you do not know or can work it out fo yourself by knowing what tools do what then really you are better off not trying to go down that path.<br> Editing is really just common sense and recognising what different tools can do for you and stopping when you hit it right. Early on I took a ordinary photo and then applied the various tools in my editor and stopped when something 'clicked' :-)</p>

<p>To do this without too much expense I would suggest a bit of card to mainly cut of the camera's on-board flash and a optical trigger . these cost less than US$30 from B&H and a cheap flash unit [ perhaps second hand] making sure the trigger you buy suits the flash [ or the flash suits the trigger. Trigger may fire the flash through the base while older versions have a sync cord.<br /> Being able to trigger the remote flash largely permits freedom in lighting. More expensive or less cheap flash may have a built in trigger like my Yugnuo do [ spelling ?]<br /> Your camera body may be able to trigger a remote flash these days.</p> <p>Edit I checked the B$H website and couldn't find the items ... progress is sad at times.</p><div></div>

<p>When I bought a Canon EOS body I also bought a 'flange' to use my older Pentax M42 lens on it ... manual focusing quite possible but a bit of a pain if used to auto-focus and bodies do not have the focusing aids like older film cameras, so possible but maybe not desirable. I mainly used it for big close-up work where one moves the rig in and out to focus. Now I have auto extension tubes for my M4/3 as I have put more money into the game ... its is better :-)</p>

<p>For the best part of a decade in digital I didn't have a wide angle lens just a 35mm equivalent ... BUT and a hobby horse of mine :-) ....I had a oood editor which enabled me to stitch together between two and near twenty frames to get the wide view when I wanted it ... pretty rarely these days. I used a stitch program in the early days but since it gives me more freedom I stitch manually these days. The key is learning what you can do with an editor.</p> <p>Another of my hobby horses is that a key part of photography is selection rather than trying to 'get everything in' Though I did buy a bug eye just for fun ... 7mm for my m4/3 camera though it rarely gets used either since my 14-140 zoom stays on the camera all the time.</p> <p>An editor can also help with the slowness of your lens by easilly up to two stops ... that matches the fastest high price lenses :-)</p>

<p>When hooting using tripod I always use the 10 second delay release to give the camera time to settle down from my pressing the trigger. I also do not touch the rig during countdown and exposure. Tripod read firm support like wall etc.</p>

<p>In my opinion the 'macro mode' offered by most cameras is pretty useless for actually taking tight framed shots .... OK it will focus close for you but since you are at wide angle you unfortunately still shoot wide. immediately you zoom the lens will not focus for you.</p>

<p>While there are other ways of taking close shots the CU lens is the way a bridge camera does it well, not so good for shorter P&S camera but with x16 zoom you have just the tool you need so long as you experiement and use the tele lens to get detail and stay back so it can focus for you. This a basic aspect of doing this sort of thing.. I suggest you start way back at full zoom and gradually move closer until AF doesn't work for you and that is the closest you can work with whatever cu lens you are using. have fun :-)</p>

<p>Her are some of the results along with and earlier one of my wife's caterpillar taken with a Canon S20 with ten dioptre.</p><div></div>

<p>The problem with most lens is that they are not designed to focus close when in telephoto mode which I assume you use to get the detail in your models .... I am also a modeler and for years I have been a fan of the 'close-up lens' or 'dioptre'.<br /> One uses a CU lens not to come in close but to enable the telephoto set lens to focus as a distance where AF will work for me.<br /> Example I usually use a two dioptre [ 500mm focal length CU lesn and this enables me when using the focusing ability of the tele lens to focus between 20 inches and 13 inches. At 13" I find an object an inch and a half wide fills the sensor using the x12 zoom of my bridge camera.<br /> Before you spend up I suggest you try using a magnifying glass... in my photo you will see I was using a over powerful 10 dioptre mag glass. I do not reccomend you do this except to learn how a CU lens can help you. The figure is a Gauge One LGB figure [ I'm into railways :-) ]<br /> A quick warning, on Ebay etc you will see sets of CU lens for $15 or so .... these generally are rubbish and better would be simply to buy a single good one from the likes of B&H in New York. If likely your camera doesn't have a filter thread then buy one of a suitable size that you can cellotape to the lens mounting, making sure it doesn't retreat into the camera and gum up the works. A problem with CU lens is that as they get more powerful as thier power increases their IQ drops off badly, why I use just a 2 dioptre or 500mm lens.</p><div></div>

<p>I didn't see you last comments but would tell you in all my experience with my bridge cameras I never had to clean my sensor nor my Pany GH2 I now use ... despite the dire warnings one reads on blogs about zoom lens .... but perhaps my FZ were better designed with the lens not tromboning but zooming taking place within the lens. My GH2 with its 14-140 lens is not automatic and no problems to date .... perhaps some considerations to consider for your next camera, not a DSLR I hope with the temptation to change the lenses anywhere and everywhere :-)<br> Congratulations on your successful repair job ... more than I would be prepared to tackle .....</p>

<p>In the meatime until you get the sensor cleaned you could look to your editor and you would find that with the clone tool it is a ten second job to cover the mark with sky from nearby.This was an easy job, it is not always quite so easy :-)<br> The photo also shows that you were shooting almost into the sun, something I avoid and I am sure in a city environment you could have found within a few feet something to shade the lens.<br> It is rare that one has to include the shading object in the frame... my first pix was an extreme example and I was a bit heavy handed as the man walking away was getting smaller.<br> As a ex-professional the camera I normally use has one lens on it 99.9% of the time... M4/3 with a x10 zoom for convenience in general shooting. Duplication as far as possible the specs of my eariel brifge camera Panasonic FX 20/30/50..</p><div></div>

<p>faced with a similar problem and needing a solution 'NOW" I took two shots and stitched them together. This gave me the panoramic format suitable for the group and almost twice the resolution of a single shot.<br> Lighting was not a problem as there were windows high up on one side and facing the group in the hall, I didn't have room to moved back and was using my mini tripod sitting on a cardboard box as my 'tripod' .. ten second delay release for each frame to let camera settle down after I pressed trigger and gave me time to include myself in one of the frames :-)<br> Shooting with a bridge camera an extra lens is not an option.</p>

<p>Gleen a hair or anything on the lens is most unlikely to be seen as it is well out of the depth of field with most lenses. Why I rarely clean my lens as unless the light is shining on the len it will not degrade the image*. More lens are spoilt by cleaning than photos by dust on lens my tutor told us way back in the days of 'soft coated lens'. Probably not applicable with modern lens with hard coatings but the principle stays with me :-)</p> <p>*in this situation I shade the lens with my hand, or something, even if my hand shows as one can crop or edit it out. [clone]<br> Here I only wanted the figure walking to the tent, shooting almost into the sun with nothing but my hand to shade lens.</p><div></div>

<p>You do not need photoshop as Paint , which came to me with Windows 3.1.1, can do this for you at no expense apart from your time.... if you do not like white then organise a pleasing color?<br /> I organised a new 'canvas size' and pasted the photo to it and then filled the blank areas with the red color.</p> <p>edit probably other simple [free] editors would also do it for you</p><div></div>

<p>One of the first things I learnt when I tried a 'box camera version digital' [to taste this NEW thing DIGITAL ] was that it could take good photos in almost any lighting and the EVF when I moved up to a camera with one always looked nice and bright.<br /> But as a long time film user who never shot in poor light I knew there were precautions to take like supporting the camera properly to avoid camera shake. No 'hand-holding' not even when on a tripod and using the delay release and not touching the rig during countdown and exposure.<br /> No digital for me was a giant liberation from what I could do with film but I knew the simple precautions needed for good results.<br /> Of course subject blurr is a result of the long exposure the camera chooses to get the 'right' exposure.</p><div></div>

<p>I am left eyed and this means I have never used the flying elbow but always most cameras fit snuggly to my face.</p>

<p>I wonder why at your level of knowledge you shoot RAW? I took a look at the process a few years ago and considered it a can of worms and never shoot it.... jpg is fine for all my needs.<br> Also since I started with film many years ago I do not blaze away but select what I want and take it.... can only remember using continuous once when I wanted a background sequence for some animation. But I guess I am an old foogie who is behind the times.</p>

<p>Your Castle shot.... you need to learn a bit about 'Post Processing' as all I did was to apply some sharpening and reduced its size to show here.<br /> PP is an essential part of shooting with a better class of camera that you have ....sharpening is done automatically with P&S cameras but better gear does not and expects you to know how .... one of the drawbacks of buying 'good gear' :-)</p> <p>As a general rule no shot at full resolution looks sharp .... you grossly soft images suggest a problem but if you can take the castle I doubt a camera problem. Sorry!</p><div></div>

<p>It is not the actual focal length but the equivalent focal length which needs to be considered and the 'rule' only applies to experienced users who know how to hold the camera steady and how to release the shutter, not jab it down :-) ....if you can master those aspects you should find that OIS or IBIS permits a quartering of the shutter speed<br> [iBIS should be set to the focal length being used]<br> My first thought on reading your question was the lens moving focus of its own accord when in the vertical mode ... but do you mean pointing downwards or 'portrait' mode? I mean the first situation.</p>

<p>Any test shot should be taken with the camera firmly supported*, using the delay release, and not touching the camera during the countdown and exposure ...anything else is very likely to be worthless for test assessment. This rules out the human factor which is normally the cause of most problems.</p> <p>* preferably a brick wall or similar and NOT the average budget tripod if by chance you have one.</p>

<p>You can use a ten year old P&S camera for all the difference gear makes. Likewise I never use RAW and can do all the work with a free editor Paint dot Net.<br> Way back when most people had small screens and a 800 pixel across by 600 pixel height was what it showed so you find Photonet here sticks to a maximum dimension of 700 pixels.<br> If you want sharp images then last thing you do is apply some sharpening to the file.<br> If you want a close shot of the material then take a close shot, your camera will do that for you ... but as James said you end up with a file 4600x3000 pixels and this then needs to be resized and saved as a separate file from the camera file at a smaller pixel size for web use.*<br> A further refinement to help pictures load quicker is cutting down on the file size as for web use you will find a 100kb file size is perfectly adequate. P.N will do that calls it resamplingand Photoshop does this by giving you a slider and displays the file size result<br> *A key point here is NEVER use the 'save' command which writes the small new file over the camera file and destroys it so ALWAYS use 'Save AS' which prompts you for more info and here you can simply add a single character to the file name and it becomes a safe and separate file for web use from the irreplaceable camera file .... I add the letter W to indicate a web use file :)</p>

<p>A simple habit I learnt with my first digital [ P&S Canon s20] was to give it time to focus and WAIT for the green light to tell me it had got focus.... for action there is the practice of pointing the camera at where the action will be and holding half trigger until the action arrives and then the camera will take the shot as quickly as your reaction time presses the trigger fully down .... hopefully in a calm and quiet way to avoid camera shake.</p>

<p>since most digital cameras show the exposure they have choosen that is what I would use ... but I have not needed a handheld light meter in decades so I wouldn't spend even $25 on one.<br> I remember spending $10 on a Weston Master for nostalgic reasons awhile back :-)</p>