jcuknz

<p>I wonder if auto ISO is fouling you up when you work at f/16 because the ISO is increased.<br> Better to use a firm support [tripod or something] and fix ISO to lowest possible and let the camera use a slower shutter .. after all the gems don't have legs. I would also as a matter of practice use the ten second delay release and leave everything un touched after the trigger is pressed..... "holding the camera ruins many shots " I rarely do for stuff like this.<br> A FF camera for 1000x1000 pixels is ridiculous overkill and really for DOF a small sensor is better.<br> I would probably use one of my bridge cameras with a two dioptre CU lens for the job [ the dioptre to permit me to work with the telephoto ens of the zoom] ie from 13 inches I fill the frame with 1.5 inches across and 1Tx1T would still be a reduction rather than a crop.</p>

<p>I simply leaned against an outhouse when I shot my first moon shots ... it was too cold to mess around with a tripod :-)<br> If you look at the right hand side of your moon you may get the idea that flat lighting of full moon is not the best and part moon resulting in side lighting/shadows is better.</p>

<p>While it is more difficult with some images than others it took me about ten seconds to rescue this shot using the clone tool, a few more seconds to work around the branches of the tree.<br /> It is obviously irritating to have such problems but photos are not 'ruined' by them if you learn to use a good editing programme.<br> edit ...There is also a dust bunny in top centre which clone tool would removed if I had seen it :-(</p><div></div>

<p>I would hope that if the lens stays fully closed as default the camera would compensate with a long shutter speed.... worth using curves or levels tool to check the shots are sharp and even rescue the/ some of the shots. ' Unuseable' is a very loose term and a lot depends on your editor and knowledge of using it<br> Mu first thought was the EVF compenstaing to show you a clean image despite the wrong exposure? But maybe cameras set up exposure before shutter pressed fully. I had a similar experience before I tumbled to somehow the exposue bias had shifted without me being aware ... new camera multiple function wheel [ Panasonic MFT ]</p>

<p>You should be able to get a step-up or step down ring to suit the lens which in turn accepts the filter<br> I do this with my 14-140 lens which is a 58 thread and I have 55 lenses [ dioptres ] from earlier cameras... while this is frowned upon for vignetting reasons usually, the lens thread is quite a way outside the actual lens I knew and I do not have any problems.<br> I have a VF-2 for my EPL1 and thought it was a camera fitting working off the sensor rather than an extra ?<br> Although it is unlikely to zoom what about a sports finder style thing in the meantime ?<br> Else simply point and shoot which I do from time to time :-)</p>

<p>Interesting comments though sadly for me he doesn't review the 014140 which is my one and only lens. Also half way around the world I am not really in a position to return so I take what I get and quite like my 7.5mm which innitally I used on my Oly Pen 1 as a walk around a couple of times. The bug-eye bought in a moment of weakness for 'fun' :-) Warp Mesh in PSP is a saving grace for the bug-shots :-)</p>

<p>If there are not too many areas missed I press the control key and click on those areas to add them to the selection.<br /> Another way is to make an adjustment layer/threshold, adjust until area is black and make the selection on that layer and then change to picture layer and use selection ... but I would try Jeff's approach first, it usually works .</p> <p>ps. my editors call it magic wand not magic wound :-)</p>

<p>Select the sky area with Magic Wand and then use an adjustment layer/threshold to make it black. It probably would help MW to make a clean selection if you organize exposure to make sky area white [blown out]</p>

<p>I agree with Wouter about starting with digital for instant review of what you have shot and also that as a digital camera takes a photo it records the details of what it is doing and to read this info you need a computer programme which can read EXIF .. all that info which otherwise people used to write down in a notebook as they went.<br> So missing from the list is an photo editing programme which can read EXIF.<br> Access to a scanner to copy film negatives to digital, Maybe that Canon printer does that as well as print like mine.<br> If you are scarce of funds as I suspect you will find it much cheaper to view images on a computer monitor ... I have not used my printers to print photographs for best part of three years now... the canon was bought for its scanning ability not to print.<br> A free download editor is Paint dot Net and sadly it doesn't read EXIF so for that I have PhotoME. also free download, though I am sure there are others.<br> When I started digital I exposed as many files in the first three months as I had shot film in the previous twenty years so in a way the camera paid for itself in three months :)</p>

<p>Sorry I wouldn't suggest a newbie getting a film camera PERIOD. I had a 1950's Model T Rollei and by the time I let it go [c.2005] it had a very unreliable shutter, largely fixed by running a 'film' through the camera without any film ... it had an automatic system permitting this.<br> No you are far better with digital where you can see what 'worked' immediately instead of waiting some time to have everything you shot developed etc.</p>

<p>Louise .. if it does what you want it to why do you need to replace it .... I have a similar problem with Google Chrome not providing up dates for XP and VISTA .... I aim to stick to XP until the death ... mine probably :-) [ at 84yo perhaps quite a reasonable attitude :-) ]</p>

<p>As an editor I would suggest a few 'noddies' are useful to to bridge cuts, shot of interveiwer looking intelligent. but that applies to single cam i/vs ... from a sad experience with film hope that the two cameras are shooting at same speed and not 24 and 25fps as was my bad lack once with sound on Nagra so I couldn't edit single system ..... "them were the days " :-)</p>

<p>As Jose suggests it is the viewing distance that determines acceptability, look at a street hparding-bill board close-up [ pixel peeping equivalent, to see what I mean ].</p>

<p>I do not use PSE but usually 'save-as' as a separate file does not strip EXIF so I would look to the site to which you are uploading, see my comments further down the other thread on this subject.</p>

<p>If I wanted to display a message on my photos I would make a layer with that info and save it as such and simply add it to the stack of layers prior to final merge .... but unfortunately I do not think Lightroom has layers but a cheap Paint dot Net [ free download] would do that for you but also you want it to change for each photo so only applicable to things like a 'copyright' message disfiguring your photo.<br /> I would stick to your viewer being interested enough to check EXIF or preferably add a border and type in the info onto it [NEVER on the photo itself]... in the mean time do not use the Adobe 'Save for the web' system but downsize and then 'save as' into your system and then download that to here or elsewhere. My system is to add the letter 'W' to the file name to tell me it is a web suitable file or perhap add ''PN' for files conforming with the Photonet requirements. I have folders for the small files added to PN and other sites so if it is in their folder I know it is suitable :-) Another site CiC prefers files to be 1600 pixels across max.</p><div></div>

<p>I do not know either but I know how to access EXIF if it has not been strip'd off in the editing process. Google 'Photo Me' for one system of reading the info.</p>

<p>In looking at an editor I check to if it has firstly layers as I use them on virtually every file and they permit a lot of processes too numerous to mention. P.N has layers though unfortunately not adjustment layers which to me is the mark of a good editor. PS, PSP and P.N all have layers, maybe Elements too.</p>

<p>While it is not free I have bought a boxed version of Paint Shop Pro X3 for US$15 and found it little different to X4 then on my dsktop at home... I bought the X3 for my notebook while in the States.<br> PSP has done everything I need for the past decade and I tried PS, two versions, and simply did not like the way they are set up to work, GIMP is the same way whereas PSP is more user freindly. But anything worth having will have a steep learning curve.<br> Paint dot Net I also got to see what it is like and find it a bit 'clunky' compared to PSP but if you truely have no money it is worth getting. <br> If you do go for PSP I suggest you get X3 or later but subsequent versions are not 'better' just have added some handy tools.... anything from v8 will do much of what you are likely to want. Note X stands for 10 so X3 = v13 :)</p>

<p>To comment on just the original image, my reaction is you need a reflector to bounce the side lighting back onto the face. I used the 'fill flash' tool in PSP and it improved matters a bit while cloning could handle the dust spots and cropping the scratch line.<br> Result nothing like as good as Micheal McBroom which are very nice but shows what editing with a good editor can do [ with practice :) ] With the dust I just did the obvious ones :)</p><div></div>

<p>Personally if I had this problem I would simply adjust the camera to expose to my liking ... I normally have my cameras set to a minus one stop which is my simple solution after reading 'Expose to the right'. But then I am happy to and rarely do not edit my files which may not be your preference.</p>

<p>The alternative is to brush up on your editing as I had done much earlier where Leo came within feet of me as it paced its enclosure. and I edited out the cage material.</p><div></div>

<p>Photo also shows the collar I made for attaching to tripod or monopod.... 3" thick wall aluminium tube I had. Lens screws onto camera lens which is not one of the tromboning type that have been adopted in recent years. Why I didn't downgrade to later models and went to MFT in due course where I only have about 500mm reach.<br> But with MFT I can crop though here I cropped too much :-(<br> Insert shows what I got with Oly TCON x1.7 on my 14-140 zoom but unfortunately only f/10 . a little under 500mm reach.<br> But from experiments I did with APS-C I doubt if Tele adaptors are likely to work so you have to live with Tele-converters and the one or two stop light loss from a probably already slow lens :-) [ unless you spend BIG :-) ]</p><div></div>

<p>I have had 950mm AoV for years now ever since I added a Raynox 2020 [ current model is 2025 ] to my basic x12 zoomed Panasonic FZ20. Since you are showing results on the web there really is absolutely no need for a bigger body/sensor size. Current costs fom Amazon [ FZ50 $250<$350 later model which I have . raynox 2025 at $196 ]<br> With the 2020 I had to organise a pushfit lens hood made from a plastic drain pipe connector but rhe later 2025 has a thread to do this :) Well worth the trouble as it improved IQ.<br> The result is an f/4 950mm lens combo to make up for only ever using 100 ISO. with OIS of course.</p><div></div>

<p>I have been using M43 for over two years now and never missed a shot because of AF 'alleged slowness' :-) I am sure it is slower in tests but in real life hardly.</p>

<p>Experience with a good editor </p>