geoff_foale

If your body is a little blurred then head movement is the most likely explanation as others have suggested. If the photo is sharp I can only suggest that he has deliberately cloned out your head, possibly intending to replace it with someone else. In that case you should start to worry.

If you want a zoom upto 300mm I would suggest the 70-300 IS as Ulrich advised. Yes, it is more money but worth it. If you can get a refund from the shop put it towards this lens. If they won't agree, which is likely, keep your Quantary for now and consider a part exchange in the future.

If your printer has a small power on 'pilot light' to show that it is 'live' the UK Greenies would have you publically flogged for wasting electricity and destroying the planet.

 

I usually switch off at the mains because there is a small theoretical fire risk if something in the electronics short circuited.

It would be a pity to burn down the building for the sake of flicking a switch off.

 

Once you start using it again check for clogged nozzels, as the others have advised.

Yes, you are asking too much. That was an impossible shot, the bird was too far away and the light was totally wrong. You did well to get what you achieved.

 

Because I don't usually have time to think I like to set my default camera settings as spot metering, centre focusing, AI focus. Sometimes I may switch to AI Servo but I never trust it. The risk with multiple focusing points is that unless the action is all at infinity distance it is too easy for the camera to focus on a hard edged object in the background instead of the soft edged bird in the foreground, or the other way around.

 

Also, I use 1/1000 as my default setting for Tv and ISO at 400. I wonder if your shutter speed was too low with this image. If hand held with a large lens I would consider 1/500 to be the absolute minimum, even with IS. My personal default settings are arranged to let me quickly switch as required. I don't worry too much about aperture in cases like this.

 

In reality, exposure settings for a quick shot are simply aim towards the bird then, if you have time, plus a little compensation for a black bird or minus a little for a white bird. Taking meterings of the sky in advance and doing a few test shots are a good idea if you have the option. Then you may well get good results with manual settings but I find that in most cases it is a case of 'Wow, look at that bird', lift the camera aim and click.

 

Just keep shooting, over and over again. Expect 90% rejects but once in a while things will go right and it will all be worthwhile. Also, as others have shown, a lot can be done with software to save an average photo.

After getting an IS lens (I wouldn't use anything else now) I found that by keeping the shutter button half depressed, and IS running, while manual focusing gave me better and quicker focus, particularly when hand held. Makes sense when you think about it but, yes, it does eat up battery power. Now, I always keep a spare battery and it only takes a couple of seconds to change.

 

When auto focusing there is no problem as battery consumption is minimal so I keep IS on all the time if I think I might need it. The bigger risk with turning IS off is that you forget to turn it back on.

Do you want film or digital? Many genuine camera shops offer good second hand film cameras with a guarantee at a realistic price, and some of the better ones have helpful staff. Also, you can easily take it back if it doesn't work properly.

 

Some of the better point and shoot digital cameras, which sell for around $500 new, take excellent photos and have traditional controls. There will be some bargains, new and secondhand, after Christmas.

 

In reality the only answer is to start by reading up on the specs. of a selection of cameras to work out what really suits you. Start here then search for other sites, I found www.imaging-resource.com to be helpful.

Adam. You don't really need a new cheap lens. Put the money in an old fashioned bank and keep adding to it. Next Christmas buy yourself a really good lens with IS to replace the Tamrom zoom, there are several alternatives. Maybe something around $1,000 or $2,000 it will be worth the wait.

If you are going from 3 x 2 ratio to 5 x 4 ratio (eg. 10 x 8 ins.) then you will have to crop to the correct ratio (5 x 4) and loose part of your image. Other sizes have slightly different ratios but the principle is the same. After cropping to a ratio you will have to resize your image to get the correct print size, but both sides should alter together and the ratio will remain.

 

Here is something for you to ponder over. If you want to print an image to fit a frame but leave a regular white border around the image, say 1 ins., you delete 2 ins (2 x 1 ins) from the overall length and height sizes, but the ratio will change slightly. So a 10 x 8 ins frame would require a print size of 8 x 6 ins which means a 5 x 4 ratio changes to 4 x 3 ratio print size in order to fit the frame.

 

It's logic not magic, but I think Einstein put it a bit clearer than me.

Patrick. I remember you doing this previously. Was it really a whole year ago! Best of luck for the coming year. Geoff.

Is that a real cat, Pete. Mine would have immediately upset the candles and set fire to the house.

 

In reality Justin is correct, it will take a lot of trial and even more error to get things lookin good. Try spot metering around the scene to get the best exposure for individual images which you will have to combine or alternatively work out an average exposure which will suit the flame without underexposing everything else.

 

Using RAW is a good idea and you may find that manual settings work best. A real fire in the fireplace would add good light but otherwise a red tinted low power spotlight may work and help to add reflections to the glass of port.

 

Don't forget if things aren't going well you can always drink the port and try again.

Which ever way you look at it you are going to end up spending more money than you intended - that's life. The only suggestion to minimise the cost and maximise the efficiency is to think very carefully about what you really need. How far away from the action will you be standing? So do you need 300mm or will 200mm or less suffice? Do you absolutely need a fast lens? Could you use flash instead?

 

All of the previous suggestions are excellent choices. But let's try to narrow things down a bit. Would prime lenses be feasible instead of a zoom? A good choice if you know the distance will be suitable and you will not end up buying multiple lenses and having to continuously change them. The Canon 70-300 IS is a good general purpose lens but will the cost of this plus a faster lens, possibly a prime, actually add up to more than you think. You could always spread the cost by purchasing lenses over a period of time.

 

I can only recommend writing down all the options with prices and doing a real comparison test. Also, I wouldn't buy a secondhand lens; although other people seem to have better luck than me.

Amy, if you are definitely going to get him a good zoom around the 300mm range then I agree with the 70-300 IS. A good well built general purpose lens. Not cheap but well worth the money. It's my most used lens.

How many calendars? Some years, if I have time to waste, I print small quantities of calendars (around 10 or 12) using my inkjet. I use a basic desk top publishing software which has a calendar function and add suitable photos for each month. You can even include the name of the recipient on the calendar. How about that for oneupmanship.

In some ways it is nicer to receive the exact item for which you have been really longing than just a voucher. However, there is nothing worse than getting the wrong piece of equipment. So unless you are absolutely certain this is the correct item get a gift voucher from a good photography store, as Dan has advised.

 

But, you can do a bit of research and price a selection of cameras and lenses etc from a number of outlets so that you buy the gift certificate from the best value company.

As Phil and Kelly have just mentioned, what is manipulation? Is making exposure compensation adjustments or adding saturation and sharpness using the in camera settings OK but using software to tweak Curves and Unsharp Mask totally outlawed?

 

And, in all honesty, who really cares anyway? Surely, getting the original unadulterated image straight from the camera as near to perfection as possible is the best starting point irrespective of what you do with it afterwards.

In theory, if you have a good lens, tripod or steady hand and sufficient shutter speed you shouldn't have to sharpen every photo. But, in practice, most digital images will benefit from a little careful use of Unsharp Mask. And I do mean careful! JPEG or RAW are basically both potentially liable to suffer when it comes to sharpness. Each image will be slightly different so I would never use batch sharpening or increase the camera settings.

 

Possibly, you are trying to get away with shutter speeds that are a little bit too low but you have good equipment there. What happens with a tripod, cable release and mirror lock up on a stationary subject?

 

To me, 175% is the absolute maximum to use in one go, and it may be worth considering a little bit of Threshold if parts of your images start to look oversharpened. Skin tones are particularly problematic. Ideally I like to keep sharpening around 50% and 1 pixel.

 

One method which often works for me when greater sharpening is required is to use Unsharp Mask at a maximum setting of 150% and 1 pixel radius (less if possible) followed by a second pass with 50% (preferably no more than 30%) and a maximum of 3 pixel radius. It does take a bit of time but gives you individual control over the results.

Let's be generous to Ryan. Firstly, he may have purchased a secondhand camera without a manual. I've just checked by manual and 'burst mode' isn't mentioned, just Continuous Shooting, like Ian has demonstrated. But in my manual the page is titled 'Drive Mode Selection' so it is quite feasible that a person of average intelligence could easily get confused. Also, the little square symbols all look the same to me without my reading glasses.

 

In all seriousness Ryan, as others have advised, read the manual from cover to cover, download a copy if you don't already have one. Then you will probably come back to ask more detailed questions about Custom Functions, which Auto Focus point to use, which metering mode, etc., etc. and people will still be keen to help you.

What DS suggests is an ideal way to win the UK Turner prize. A few years ago a guy from my area sent in his old shed door and was highly commended.

 

Kimberly, as far as photos or digital images are concerned; if you are as useless as me at drawing it is essential to start with a photo. Digital imaging covers a wide range of artwork from creating a simple silhouette from a photo to extensive brush work which is well beyond my capabilities.

 

I found some useful advice on creating basic artistic effects from photos at www.melissaclifton.com but there are many other sites which get far more complicated.

 

In short, as has often been stated before, just do whatever turns you on.

If you are using a flash, especially the camera's own flash then Stacy could well be correct. Also, you have a fair but of sensor dust that needs removing.

Shay. They may not be to everyone's taste, although to me, the second one has something of a mysterious look about it and I prefer it to the rather bland original. Remember you will never please everybody so don't worry about what others think so long as you are having fun and learning.

 

To me, if this is the sort of thing you like to create you seem to on the right lines so just keep experimenting.

In my opinion the 70-200 with an extender will still be a bit small. I'm currently using the 70-300 IS and need a bit extra, so I'm facing the same dilema as you.

 

The results of my searches, so far, suggests that the 100-400 tends to be a bit soft at the far end and not very good with an extender added, although some people seem satisfied with the result. The 300 prime is universally praised even with a x1.4 added, but for flexibility you may also want the x2 as well, you lose autofocus with this size and it adds a bit more to the cost. Also the 300 has IS which, for me, is essential. The 400 prime is also popular and costs about the same but without IS.

 

There really seems to be a missing lens in Canon's line up at these sizes. I've looked at the Sigma alternatives which fill the gap but most reports suggest that they are softer than the 100-400.

 

Can't really offer one solution. I'm still thinking between the 100-400 (which may be a bit short for me) and the 300 IS prime with extenders, probably the second choice is slightly ahead for me - but I've postponed the decision until the new year.

Bill. With regards to the sharpness issue. Firstly, we really need all the information concerning shutter speed, aperture, ISO etc. However, in general terms, assuming you were at 200 mm you would really need a shutter speed of at least 1/250 to have any hope of a hand held sharp image, I would prefer 1/500 if possible. You may be able to reduce the aperture and increase ISO to suit, but I would consider ISO 800 to be the absolute maximum. I use Canon lenses and the Image Stabilisation really helps in these conditions.

 

Secondly, auto focus is fine if you are sure that it is really focusing on the soft edged bird and not the hard edged branch nearby. If in doubt use manual focus. If there is time I like to take a few shots with auto then switch to manual just to make sure. Also, how clear was the air? 'Heavy' damp air will cause distortion.

 

Finally, have you used any sharpening? I've had a go with Unsharp Mask but there isn't a lot to work with here. However, for what it is worth, this is what I tried. Slightly adjust Curves to lighten the bird. If sharpening the whole scene makes the background look over sharpened try drawing a freehand selection just outside the bird and feather 4 pixels. With this sort of image you should manage to get away with this rough selection method. Apply Unsharp Mask at 1 pixel and 100%. Apply second Unsharp Mask at 3 pixels and 20%. There are better sharpening systems with the more expensive software.<div></div>

It isn't a rule - just a suggestion. The world doesn't conform to thirds so just look for what seems best to you. Sometimes it might be thirds but on other occasions that will look totally wrong.

 

Generally, I will consider the look of thirds when cropping but never work exactly to a fixed design.

 

Just a suggestion about your photo. I would consider cropping it to a different ratio or maybe a portrait orientation as the bird appears, to me, to be looking rather lost at the moment.

As an alternative to the Canon 9500, I went for the 9000. Seems fine so far and doesn't suffer from nozzle clog like the Epsons which I previously used. But, in all fairness they were cheaper models.

 

I originally changed to digital cameras and home printing because my local processing shops were producing bright oversaturated colours which didn't match reality. Now I am in total control.

 

As others have mentioned, the choice of paper and correct printer settings are vital to get whatever result you require.

Could it be that the 10D was/is a low end professional camera and not popular with 'Happy Snappers' like the 350D which was aimed at this market. Possibly some people find the 10D a bit heavy, cumbersome and not a trendy design. When faced with the same dilema I chose the sturdy 10D and don't regret it.