For your comments
- Thread starter magic1980
- Start date
- Status
Using auto focal point? First pic look confusing. Dunno is the leaves that is the attraction or the end of the path way. 
Thats wat I see.
Thats wat I see.Sorry, but both images are OOF and the highlights are blown.
No EXIF in the second image, but the first one shows you used ISO 400 and f/3.5. I think that image would have looked better using ISO 100 and stopped down to ~f/8. I assume focus is wrong because you let the camera decide the focus point. I would have locked focus approximately halfway down on the branches and recomposed the image.
I suspect the second image is taken with even higher ISO, since there is some visible high ISO noise. Maybe I am mistaken, and that depends on an undersexposed image which you tried to fix at PP. Even this image is I suspect taken wide open, and IMO it would again need some stopping down and lower ISO. Onece again, focus should be selected and locked manually before the iamge is taken.
No EXIF in the second image, but the first one shows you used ISO 400 and f/3.5. I think that image would have looked better using ISO 100 and stopped down to ~f/8. I assume focus is wrong because you let the camera decide the focus point. I would have locked focus approximately halfway down on the branches and recomposed the image.
I suspect the second image is taken with even higher ISO, since there is some visible high ISO noise. Maybe I am mistaken, and that depends on an undersexposed image which you tried to fix at PP. Even this image is I suspect taken wide open, and IMO it would again need some stopping down and lower ISO. Onece again, focus should be selected and locked manually before the iamge is taken.
To add on to the prev comments. i feel that the color for the 2nd pic are abit dull, perhaps u took them after the rain?
Perhaps u can try to increase saturation during PP...
Perhaps u can try to increase saturation during PP...
Hi Thanks for all the valuable comments.
I will brush up on my skills. :embrass:
hammie: you are right, i used auto focus.... I will take note.
OlyFlyer: What is EXIF? i understand what u mean by locked focus approximately halfway down on the branches. but i dont understand how and what you mean recomposed the image. Dont understand the term. sorry.... really trying hard to pick up the meanings.
sunboi80; JerrySH: Thanks, will take note.
JerrySH: :embrass: hee hee, sorry for the dumb mistake.
I will brush up on my skills. :embrass:
hammie: you are right, i used auto focus.... I will take note.
OlyFlyer: What is EXIF? i understand what u mean by locked focus approximately halfway down on the branches. but i dont understand how and what you mean recomposed the image. Dont understand the term. sorry.... really trying hard to pick up the meanings.
sunboi80; JerrySH: Thanks, will take note.
JerrySH: :embrass: hee hee, sorry for the dumb mistake.
basically EXIF is the information your camera records when you take the image (like shutter speed, aperture, time, date etc)
what he means is that after you focus the image, you shift the position of your camera. this allows you to 1st set your point of focus, then change the image to what you would like.
so even if what you want to focus on is not in one of the autofocus points, you can use this method to get it in focus
Couldn't be explained better. Thanks for helping out. Just to add one more thing, I am not a Canon shooter, so I am not familiar with tha camera, but I guess that is possible to do with the 450D as well. Also, I think exposure lock would help as well. Tha is done through separate button push and is done in principal the same way. Focus point and exposure reading is not always taken from the same area, I occasionally lock exposure on my hands or some other thing using spot metering and than focus and compose the image. Especially under difficult conditions, exposure lock may be the only way to get a fast and correct setup of the exposure parameters.
Y would we need to do this? I can manually choose which point (out of the 9 AF point) i want to focus... Will the effect be differently if i choose manually? hmmm... photography is interesting yet deep.... :bsmilie:
I recognise this part. It's just after the golf course, venturing deeper and towards bkt timah would be nice too. Lots of dragonflies, just whack it, put it on a leaf and slowly work on your macro. Lol but I don't recommend that but the flowers you might want to pour some water to for that water effect. It works but I never try bfore.
Flower shot you might want to focus on the tip of the stem or flower as whole (increase dof). Effect will be different if you've chosen a different aperature on aperature mode, or you can select all 9AF points just to be sure or in manual or try it with flash for that pitch black background. Etc etc lotsa ways
Flower shot you might want to focus on the tip of the stem or flower as whole (increase dof). Effect will be different if you've chosen a different aperature on aperature mode, or you can select all 9AF points just to be sure or in manual or try it with flash for that pitch black background. Etc etc lotsa ways
New Question:-
Using 450D with kits lens
I want to take a portrait of someone about 5 m away from me.
I want to take a full body pic, therefore, i didnt zoom.
Focal length 18mm, F3.5.
I realise that the pic of the person is not sharp.
I think I understand the theory of depth of field (DOF) and aperture.
With a small aperture (bigger F number), I will increase the DOF, meaning, longer distance before and after the object will be sharper.
with a big aperture (smaller F number), the sharp image distance before and after the object is shorter.
My question is, if I use a big aperture (small F number), does it matter how far the object is from my camera?
hmmm, I dont know how to phrase it.
Will I get the same image quality if I use 18mm, F3.5 with the object 5m away; 18mm, F3.5, object 2.5 m away,
Taking into consideration that for both pic, I focus on the head.
or as long as the object is far away, I should increase my F number (use smaller aperture)?
then is there a chart or sometime that elaborate distance of object VS min aperture to use?
Using 450D with kits lens
I want to take a portrait of someone about 5 m away from me.
I want to take a full body pic, therefore, i didnt zoom.
Focal length 18mm, F3.5.
I realise that the pic of the person is not sharp.
I think I understand the theory of depth of field (DOF) and aperture.
With a small aperture (bigger F number), I will increase the DOF, meaning, longer distance before and after the object will be sharper.
with a big aperture (smaller F number), the sharp image distance before and after the object is shorter.
My question is, if I use a big aperture (small F number), does it matter how far the object is from my camera?
hmmm, I dont know how to phrase it.
Will I get the same image quality if I use 18mm, F3.5 with the object 5m away; 18mm, F3.5, object 2.5 m away,
Taking into consideration that for both pic, I focus on the head.
or as long as the object is far away, I should increase my F number (use smaller aperture)?
then is there a chart or sometime that elaborate distance of object VS min aperture to use?
you should probably note that big f/ number or small aperture does not mean that your picture will always be sharp.
try 3 things. 1. use flash, a high shutter speed and good handholding to minimize cam shake.
2. manually select the af point, and focus in at the subject's eyes (the camera might focus somewhere else)
3. buy a sharper lens
basically, about your questions, if you shoot at 18mm f/3.5 from 5m away and 2.5m away, the larger portion of the image will be sharper at 5m away as compared to 2.5m away
however i do think that if you get your focus correct, most of the image will be sharp at 18mm
- Status
