Chew On This
Dudley Hanks
I put the XSi on a gorrilla pod and placed it in front of Mich, and then I
used a remote shutter release to trigger the shots.
I had the camera set to "A-DEP," letting the camera choose the DOF / shutter
speed.
With this configuration, I was able to spend more time lining up the shot,
and was able to trigger the release as soon as things felt right.
How did it work?
My daughter trimmed the cropped shot.
Chew On This:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw-cropped-small.jpg
(cropped image, quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw-cropped.jpg
(cropped image)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw-small.jpg (bw,
quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-bw.jpg (BW, full
size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-colour-small.jpg
(colour, quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis-colour.jpg
(colour, full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/ChewOnThis.cr2 (original RAW
image)
Can anyone suggest a better cropping?
Take Care,
Dudley
Savageduck
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> said:
Sorry Dudley, this one does not quite work.
The DOF issues are still a factor here. Way too shallow.
Your point of focus is Mich's paw, leaving his face and ears
unrecoverably out of focus.
This might be a technique which could work for you, however the focus
and DOF issues should be overcome first.
I know that your rationale is, you are presenting the image from your
point of view, but the focus issue is too distracting.
Keep at it.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dudley Hanks
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009040217495844303-savageduck@savagenet...
Thanks, SD, I had hoped that, by using the A-DEP mode, the DOF issue might
be minimized, since the camera is supposed to keep the area covered by the
sensor points in focus. Either I didn't get the points over the area I
wanted in focus, or the A-DEP feature doesn't work that well when the
subject is fairly close to the camera.
I'll have to play around with it a bit to extend the DOF.
I checked out an on-line DOF calculator and ran some numbers through it. It
seems that my style of photography is going to be tough to meld with the DOF
characteristics of most lenses. I frame the best when the subject is close,
but the DOF gets really restrictive then. In order to get a better DOF, I
should theoretically move the subject farther away and zoom in. When in
tight, even the smaller apertures seem to have a tight DOF. Kind of a
chicken and egg thing.
I'll just have to keep juggling the numbers till I find a sweet spot / lens
combo that works.
Thanks, once again, for the feedback.
Take Care,
Dudley
Bob Williams
Even the sharpest area in the image is in pretty poor focus and the DOF
is WAAAAY to shallow.
Solution:
If possible, add more light to the subject.
If you absolutely want ambient lighting, set the ISO at 800. (The XSi
can handle that OK).
Set the f-stop at 5.6-8.0. That will increase your DOF markedly.
Then set the camera on Autofocus.
Bob Williams
Dudley Hanks
"Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sthBl.216212$6r1.1...@newsfe19.iad...
Thanks, Bob, I'm wondering if the camera focused on the cushion in front of
Mich, instead of on him.
The aperture was set to 7.1, if I'm not mistaken, so DOF should have been
around 3 feet (if my calculations are correct). But, something didn't work
out.
Take Care,
Dudley
Mark Thomas
I'm afraid I would offer a different view (so you better wait for at
least a couple more opinions!). First up I checked the EXIF, and you
were shooting at 1/20, because of the f7.1 aperture.
So subject movement is going to be a big issue.
And if you look carefully (yeah I know, Dudley!;o), the cushion and even
some of the table cloth in the b/g is pretty much *in* focus. It's just
him flicking his head around that is the problem!
If it was me and I wanted natural light, I'd set the ISO reasonably high
(which you did), set it to shutter priority instead and about 1/100...
(and probably use single centre point AF, if that camera does it.)
Take lots of shots, and then get someone to help you pick out the
winners - if the eyes aren't in focus and there isn't a good countering
reason, then it's probably not a winner..
cheers,
mt
Bob Williams
may have gotten a problem camera.
Have an experienced, sighted photographer take a few shots of the same
subject matter an check the results. If he also gets soft images it may
be time to send the camera to Canon for evaluation. Something definitely
seems awry.
Bob
Dudley Hanks
That's been lurking in the back of my mind, but I've tried not to get overly
worried. However, last night, I set the lens to manual and moved the focus
ring out to infinity and took a picture that should have been in focus. My
son said it wasn't.
Still, the light wasn't good (it was late), so I'll take some more shots
todaywhich should be easier to evaluate. If there is a problem, it'll be
off to the shop for my XSi.
Thanks, Bob, I appreciate your comments.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Mark Thomas" <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gr4g4v$vfq$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
Thanks, Mark, that puts the pic in a new light. I checked the EXIF for
aperture (since I was interested in what size the A-DEP mode had chosen),
but forgot to check the shutter speed. I thought there was enough light for
the exposure to capture the motion of him chewing, after all, he was just
leisurely playing with the bone, not attacking it.
But, you are correct, if the shutter speed was only 1/20, then the soft
image is probably from subject motion. I guess I got a bit caught up in
trying to manipulate the DOF and forgot to monitor the other half of the
equation...
I'm impressed, Mark, you do have a way of catching these things. If I ever
get rich and famous, I'll have to ship a high priced cam of your choice down
to you in appreciation...
Take Care,
Dudley
Mark Thomas
Gosh.. shuffles feet.. What can I say, except you are a very perceptive
bloke..! (grin)
Back in my impetuous youth, working with film slrs, I got quite obsessed
with image sharpness. It happened on the same day that I first
projected some Kodachrome 25s using a fairly ordinary Rollei projector..
but to which I had fitted a very UNordinary Leitz Super Colorplan lens
(still have it - LOVE that lens).
I had (accidentally!) nailed a couple shots on prime lenses, and I was
astonished by the difference in sharpness between those shots, and
others taken on lesser lenses, or where they were affected by camera
shake or focus problems. So I got very analytical as I studied the
projected images in great detail, and took a lot of time working out how
to recognise where I went wrong. I found that you could usually tell
the difference between motion blur and focus blur by the appearance of
the blur (motion blur has a sort of directionally-smeared quality) *and*
other clues in the image. Plus you could often guess at the shutter
speed/aperture by the light conditions, or memory..
That process helped me no end - from then on I had many more bad shots
that at least I knew the reason for! (O:
Anyway, I thought you were *already* famous - I've seen those media
articles etc..? So I'll have...
Oh. I guess it's the RICH part that is the problem? Sigh.
Cheers, mate.
mt
Dudley Hanks
I think we've come at picture taking from opposite directions. While you
were perfecting sharpness, I was working on taking pics that look like
paintings. Given the crazy lighting, fast action and glitz of concerts, I
tried to manage motion blur and soft focus to get images that looked less
like pictorial recordings of an event, and more like a barometer of the
atmosphere.
Re: being famous... One human interest segment on the CBC doesn't exactly
equate to fame. But, I have to admit I've been surprised at how many folks
have seen the video and have come up to me and wished me good luck.
Now, if only the cash would start rolling in... :)
Take Care,
Dudley