# Camera Simulator



## RoyReed (Jun 12, 2012)

I don't know if anyone who's learning how to use their new camera will find this simulator and animated explanation useful. It shows how camera aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc all work together and control the final look of the photo. It says it's for a DSLR, but it would apply to any camera that has aperture or shutter priority or full manual control.

Simulator
Explanation


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 13, 2012)

That's pretty cool.  I'd recommend it to people starting out


----------



## sim667 (Jun 14, 2012)

This might be really cool for my students.


----------



## Pingu (Jun 14, 2012)

thats actually quite useful. nice find


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> I don't know if anyone who's learning how to use their new camera will find this simulator and animated explanation useful. It shows how camera aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc all work together and control the final look of the photo. It says it's for a DSLR, but it would apply to any camera that has aperture or shutter priority or full manual control.
> 
> Simulator
> Explanation


 
I was only saying on the Maths thread yesterday that I doubt I'll ever get the hang of photography as all numbers just scramble my brain 

Will take a look and if there's loads of numbers, it'll probably be a very quick look


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I was only saying on the Maths thread yesterday that I doubt I'll ever get the hang of photography as all numbers just scramble my brain
> 
> Will take a look and if there's loads of numbers, it'll probably be a very quick look


 
it's basically one number high = this, other number high = that.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> it's basically one number high = this, other number high = that.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

I want to be able to take a photo of the London skyline at night.  I'm guessing I either need to be nearer or have a fancy camera, or learn how to use a camera in the first place!


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


>


 


To get the right light is a combination of aperture (the size of the hole) and shutter speed (how quickly the shutter opens and closes)

low aperture numbers let more light in.
low shutter speeds let more light in. (well if you think of 1/40 as lower than 1/1000)

This is the effect:
low apeture numbers = blurry background (called a shallow depth of field)
high aperture numbers = sharp background

low shutter speed = more motion blur/camera shake
high shutter speed = no motion blur/camera shake

hth

As an example, take two photos one with low aperture, high speed and the other with high aperture low speed and compare the results.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> To get the right light is a combination of aperture (the size of the hole) and shutter speed (how quickly the shutter opens and closes)
> 
> low aperture numbers let more light in.
> low shutter speeds let more light in. (well if you think of 1/40 as lower than 1/1000)
> ...


 
In my manual mode I have Shutter Priority which goes from 1-1000.  As I scrolll through, then the F numbers change.

With Aperture Priority it starts at F2.8 to F8.  When I scroll through that, there's a number at the side that changes.  I don't know what that is.

All I do know is that the higher the ISO number, the noisier the picture becomes (I think!)

I came across this website the other day and the analogy I liked best was the window one.  The problem is, I can't seem to retain any new information as I have too much other stuff to think about, so everything I read goes in one side and straight out the other 

http://digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> In my manual mode I have Shutter Priority which goes from 1-1000. As I scrolll through, then the F numbers change.
> 
> With Aperture Priority it starts at F2.8 to F8. When I scroll through that, *there's a number at the side that changes*. I don't know what that is.
> 
> ...


 
keep the aperture at f2.8 using aperture priority and take a shot. Then take the same shot at f22 and compare the two. The camera will automatically adjust the shutter speed to give you the correct overall exposure.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> keep the aperture at f2.8 using aperture priority and take a shot. Then take the same shot at f22 and compare the two. The camera will automatically adjust the shutter speed to give you the correct overall exposure.


 
My F numbers only go up to F8 

(You do realise I don't have a DSLR don't you?)


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> My F numbers only go up to F8
> 
> (You do realise I don't have a DSLR don't you?)


 
Ok, you will still see a difference.  To see the effect try getting up close to something with a background that's far away.  Focus on the close up thing.  At f2.8 the background will blur slightly at f8 it will be sharp.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Ok, you will still see a difference. To see the effect try getting up close to something with a background that's far away. Focus on the close up thing. At f2.8 the background will blur slightly at f8 it will be sharp.


 
Right, I think I did that the other day when I was looking at that other site.

I need it translating into how it works with a long distance night shot.  If it was a case of just setting one thing, it might be easier, but there's more than one thing that needs adjusting isn't there.

I need that translating into how I can take a decent(ish) photo of the London skyline 3 or 4 miles away at night.   Or is it not possible with compact cameras?

Here's some examples.  These were taken on my Fuji F11.  Obviously not great, but best I could do 6 years ago, and no improvement since 



Compared to this







Now obviously I was much nearer to everything in Singapore than I am in the London one and there was a lot more light in the Singapore one.

I realise that zooming without a tripod is going to give blur and I think I also know that a higher ISO would give more noise.

So, what settings would I need to get something better than that appalling London skyline picture?  Or is it never going to happen because I'm too far away and don't have a fancy enough camera and am not using a tripod?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> So, what settings would I need to get something better than that appalling London skyline picture? Or is it never going to happen because I'm too far away and don't have a fancy enough camera and am not using a tripod?


 
For a night shot you want to let as much light in as possible.  This means low f number (in your case f2.8) low shutter speed (as low as possible if you're using a tripod) and high iso.  The blurred background you get from low f numbers shouldn't be a problem as the thing you're focusing on is so far away - it comes into effect when you're shooting things closer than the background.

Take a whole bunch and compare.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> For a night shot you want to let as much light in as possible. This means low f number (in your case f2.8) low shutter speed (as low as possible if you're using a tripod) and high iso. The blurred background you get from low f numbers shouldn't be a problem as the thing you're focusing on is so far away - it comes into effect when you're shooting things closer than the background.
> 
> Take a whole bunch and compare.


 
I've taken bunches and bunches, but I'm probably always setting the wrong whatever speed in relation to the whatever whatever whatever...

I really must learn how they all work together 

Tonight, I shall do as you mention and post up my results 

Right, so I'm going to set my camera now in preparation for tonight.  I have it set to F2.8, but what about those numbers next to it that go from 1-1000?  

I have set the ISO for 1600 (the highest my camera goes to)

Oh, once I've set the thingy to F2.8, but switch on to Nightmode, the number next to F2.8 changes to 500.  Do I take the shot on Nightmode or keep the dial on Manual Mode?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

I expect that number is shutter speed. Go somewhere dark and it should change automatically to a lower number.

I'm guessing night mode will do pretty much what I've explained automatically, but you might be able to force it to do better in manual (aperture priority) mode.  It could well be that your camera just isn't up to it


----------



## sim667 (Jun 14, 2012)

I like to think of it like baking a cake. The aperture is the oven temperature, the shutter speed is the amount of time you bake for, and the ISO is the mixture.

A high ISO (the cake mixture with the fastest raising flour), the less time the cake needs in the oven (slower shutter speed) and the lower the temperature will be (higher aperture)

A medium ISO (the cake mixture with normal flour), the cake will need a standard amount of time at a standard temperature.

A low ISO (one with cheap shitty flour) will need more time at a higher temperature.

I dont know if that makes sense properly, but my students understand it that way normally....

Its all just a balancing act.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> I expect that number is shutter speed. Go somewhere dark and it should change automatically to a lower number.


 
yeah, it does change in front of my eyes as I move the camera about.  Do I have to set that as well?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> yeah, it does change in front of my eyes as I move the camera about. Do I have to set that as well?


 
Nope, that's what aperture priority is doing for you. You choose the aperture and the camera tries to choose the best shutter speed to make a picture.  In the complete dark it should be on it's slowest shutter speed - although many cameras won't go below a certain point unless you force them (full manual) to avoid excessive camera shake.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

sim667 said:


> I like to think of it like baking a cake. The aperture is the oven temperature, the shutter speed is the amount of time you bake for, and the ISO is the mixture.
> 
> A high ISO (the cake mixture with the fastest raising flour), the less time the cake needs in the oven (slower shutter speed) and the lower the temperature will be (higher aperture)
> 
> ...


 
Sort of, but I think I prefer the window analogy


----------



## sim667 (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Right, so I'm going to set my camera now in preparation for tonight. I have it set to F2.8, but what about those numbers next to it that go from 1-1000?


 
Thats the shutter speed

The 1, will be 1 second, sometimes it will say 2 for half a second.

But after that it switches portions of a second, ie 125 = 1/125 of a secon, 60 = 1/60 of a second..... 1000 = 1/1000th of a second.

If you go below 1/60th, you either want a tripod or something to stand it on.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Nope, that's what aperture priority is doing for you. You choose the aperture and the camera tries to choose the best shutter speed to make a picture. In the complete dark it should be on it's slowest shutter speed - although many cameras won't go below a certain point unless you force them (full manual) to avoid excessive camera shake.


 
Right, so that's only happening when I put it in nightmode.

When it's in Manual Mode and the shutter speed is F2.8, the number next to it doesn't seem to change itself.  It seems to be stuck on whatever I move it to.  So that number looking at it again, doesn't seem to go from 1-1000, it.... oh fuck it, now it is going from 1-1000.  A minute ago it seemed to start at what looked like 3" (ie. 3 inches).  Wtf is happening?  aaarrrrrrgggh 

Now the F number is changing by itself 

Why's it changing if I set it to F2.8

I'm NEVER going to get the hang of this bollox


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Nope, that's what aperture priority is doing for you. You choose the aperture and the camera tries to choose the best shutter speed to make a picture. In the complete dark it should be on it's slowest shutter speed - although many cameras won't go below a certain point unless you force them (full manual) to avoid excessive camera shake.


 
Ah, so that's where the priority in aperture and shutter priority come into it 

You can set it to aperture priority and the camera takes care of the shutter and vice versa, but you can't set both?  Yes?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Ah, so that's where the priority in aperture and shutter priority come into it
> 
> You can set it to aperture priority and the camera takes care of the shutter and vice versa, but you can't set both? Yes?


 
full manual would allow you to set both.
shutter priority allows you to change the shutter speed (the camera chooses aperture)
aperture priority allows you to change the aperture (the camera chooses shutter speed)


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Right, so that's only happening when I put it in nightmode.
> 
> When it's in Manual Mode and the shutter speed is F2.8, the number next to it doesn't seem to change itself. It seems to be stuck on whatever I move it to. So that number looking at it again, doesn't seem to go from 1-1000, it.... oh fuck it, now it is going from 1-1000. A minute ago it seemed to start at what looked like 3" (ie. 3 inches). Wtf is happening? aaarrrrrrgggh
> 
> ...


 
It took me ages to work out the 3" thing on mine   It means 3 seconds!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Thats the shutter speed
> 
> The 1, will be 1 second, sometimes it will say 2 for half a second.
> 
> ...


 
See, all those numbers again!  I know what they are, but I just don't like them!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> full manual would allow you to set both.
> shutter priority allows you to change the shutter speed (the camera chooses aperture)
> aperture priority allows you to change the aperture (the camera chooses shutter speed)


 
Right!

Now, feel free to call me an idiot, but I thought the Priority modes were just some technical term, and thought I had to set Shutter Speed, Shutter Priority ('cos I thought they were different things, which they are, but not in the way....erm, I know what I'm talking about) and the same with Aperture Priority 

So, this has definitely meant I've learned something today so we *are *getting somewhere folks. 

Thanks for all your help.  I'm going for a bath now to get my head around the fact that I have to ignore that Aperture and Shutter Priority mean anything other than you taking control over 1 thing but not the other.  That probably doesn't make any sense to you, but I know what I'm talking about.

Don't think I've finished with you though.  This is just the beginning!  Blame yourself for being such good teachers   *hopes this flattery leads to further photography lessons from the photographers on here*

I should really get a tripod as well.  I only need one that about 2ft high.  A nice cheap one.  Any recommendations?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> It took me ages to work out the 3" thing on mine  It means 3 seconds!


 
Oh, that's a relief 

erm...

I'm going to have to start going back in the thread to figure out what 3 seconds means



> Thats the shutter speed
> 
> The 1, will be 1 second, sometimes it will say 2 for half a second.
> 
> ...


 
ah!

Well how come sometimes it's 1-1000 and other times it starts at 3", or have I got something mixed up?

Doing my brain in.

Going for a bath to wash all these numbers out of my head!


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

No it's not mixed up.

imagine it on a scale

slower <----------------> faster
3seconds 2second 1second 1/2(half)second 1/4(quarter)second 1/8second etc etc


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

Right (still not in my bath)

Decided to have a go at the camera simulator again and did pretty well this time.

I set it as follows:

lighting to *Dim Indoors *
distance to *10ft*
focal length to 43 (purely because I don't know what to set it to and don't understand it either)
Aperture priority *6400 *(even though my camera only goes to 1600)
Shutter priority *2.8*

and all I got was "uh oh, your image is starting to get blurred from camera shake"

So that's an improvement 

Wish they'd stick a nighttime picture up for me to play with


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> No it's not mixed up.
> 
> imagine it on a scale
> 
> ...


 
Well where 1000 come into it?  

I never saw it as 1000", only 1000

I'll leave you alone now... for now


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well where 1000 come into it?
> 
> I never saw it as 1000", only 1000
> 
> I'll leave you alone now... for now


 
the 1000 is your fastest shutter speed.  It's one thousandth of a second 1/1000


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> the 1000 is your fastest shutter speed. It's one thousandth of a second 1/1000


 
Then why's there no *Inch *after it (ie. ")?

Is it better to have full manual or to have Shutter/Aperture priority modes?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Is it better to have full manual or to have Shutter/Aperture priority modes?


It does not really matter because in either case the only things you can adjust are ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed.

For doing a night shot of the City of London, my first thing would be get a good solid tripod, mount the camera and frame the view you want. A tripod permits you to shoot at slower shutterspeeds without motion blur. Then set the ISO low (100ISO for example) for a smooth grain free image, then set the aperture perhaps at f8 for good depth of field, then shutterspeed. Note if you are in A Aperture priority mode then the camera will select its own shutterspeed and that could be quite fine.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Then why's there no *Inch *after it (ie. ")?
> 
> Is it better to have full manual or to have Shutter/Aperture priority modes?


 
this inch bit means whole seconds.  On your camera

1000"  would be 1000 seconds
1000 would be 1/1000 seconds


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> It does not really matter because in either case the only things you can adjust are ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed.
> 
> For doing a night shot of the City of London, my first thing would be get a good solid tripod, mount the camera and frame the view you want. A tripod permits you to shoot at slower shutterspeeds without motion blur. Then set the ISO low (100ISO for example) for a smooth grain free image, then set the aperture perhaps at f8 for good depth of field, then shutterspeed. Note if you are in A Aperture priority mode then the camera will select its own shutterspeed and that could be quite fine.


 


What about this?



> For a night shot you want to let as much light in as possible. This means low f number (in your case f2.8) low shutter speed (as low as possible if you're using a tripod) and high iso. The blurred background you get from low f numbers shouldn't be a problem as the thing you're focusing on is so far away - it comes into effect when you're shooting things closer than the background.
> 
> Take a whole bunch and compare.


 
Two totally opposite bits of advice for settings


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> this inch bit means whole seconds. On your camera
> 
> 1000" would be 1000 seconds
> 1000 would be 1/1000 seconds


 
aaaahhh, I see


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What about this?
> 
> 
> 
> Two totally opposite bits of advice for settings


 
 f8 will give you a better depth of field (keep more things in focus), which is obv preferable.

However, you said you had no tripod, in which case f8 wouldn't let in enough light.  

With a tripod (as weltwelt has in his example) then you'd be able to lower the shutter speed enough to use f8.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Two totally opposite bits of advice for settings


Sorry, do not intend to confuse. We both agree on a sturdy tripod for night photography.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> f8 will give you a better depth of field (keep more things in focus), which is obv preferable.
> 
> However, you said you had no tripod, in which case f8 wouldn't let in enough light.
> 
> With a tripod (as weltwelt has in his example) then you'd be able to lower the shutter speed enough to use f8.


 
Oh right

I have one of those Joby Gorillapod thingies


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Sorry, do not intend to confuse. We both agree on a sturdy tripod for night photography.


 
but your settings if I have a tripod, but fractionman's settings without a tripod?

Although even with fractionman's settings, I'm unlikely to get a good picture without a tripod?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

I have actually been down in the city taking night shots of those very buildings, I did use a tripod and I think ISO100.. can't remember the other settings. For some reason the resulting images were not so great, perhaps because I got there as the last light in the sky was fading to black. I should have been earlier while the sky still had some light in it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

Considering I've not got the hang of all the above, should I even ask what EV is?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I have actually been down in the city taking night shots of those very buildings, I did use a tripod and I think ISO100.. can't remember the other settings. For some reason the resulting images were not so great, perhaps because I got there as the last light in the sky was fading to black. I should have been earlier while the sky still had some light in it.


 
but you were obviously closer than 3+ miles as well


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> but your settings if I have a tripod, but fractionman's settings without a tripod?
> 
> Although even with fractionman's settings, I'm unlikely to get a good picture without a tripod?


 
The thing, about not having a tripod, is that you need to adjust your other settings to permit you to handhold the camera without motion blur when you take the image. So you would likely chose a high ISO, so rather than ISO100 perhaps ISO1600 or ISO3200 depending on what your camera can do, then you would probably select an aperture as wide open as you can get to let as much light in as possible, so that would be f2.8 (rather than f8) - that way you would maximise your shutterspeed so that it may be possible to handhold without blurring.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> The thing, about not having a tripod, is that you need to adjust your other settings to permit you to handhold the camera without motion blur when you take the image. So you would likely chose a high ISO, so rather than ISO100 perhaps ISO1600 or ISO3200 depending on what your camera can do, then you would probably select an aperture as wide open as you can get to let as much light in as possible, so that would be f2.8 (rather than f8) - that way you would maximise your shutterspeed so that it may be possible to handhold without blurring.


 
See, this is where numbers confuse me.  You want to let in *as much light as possible *so to me, that would mean a *bigger/higher number*, but instead, *it's the complete opposite,* and that's what one of the main problems for me is, getting my head round the numbers not meaning what I think they should mean!

I need a way to remember that *as much as possible means lower, not higher*


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> See, this is where numbers confuse me. You want to let in *as much light as possible *so to me, that would mean a *bigger/higher number*, but instead, *it's the complete opposite,* and that's what one of the main problems for me is, getting my head round the numbers not meaning what I think they should mean!
> 
> I need a way to remember that *as much as possible means lower, not higher*


 
I know the problem 

Don't think of is as lower then. To make it stick in my head I thought of f2.8 as being _wide open_ instead.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> I know the problem
> 
> Don't think of is as lower then. To make it stick in my head I thought of f2.8 as being _wide open_ instead.


 
Well to me, 8 would be even wider open 

I'm going to have to somehow drum it into my head that

Aperture means Amount of Light which is what the F numbers are for and lower F numbers mean more light, not less

Correct?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Examples of city from 2003


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

I am not really happy with this, needs some light in the sky and it is squint I think, needs straightenning.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Examples of city from 2003
> View attachment 20171


 
erm, very nice, but what am I looking at, the building right at the front of the picture or those ones right in the distance?  

Did you use a fancy camera?  Was it on a tripod?  How did you make the lights in the distance show up so well?  Would they be a total blur if you zoomed in and the picture was cropped?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Aperture means Amount of Light which is what the F numbers are for and lower F numbers mean more light, not less
> 
> Correct?


Yes.
Don't worry, I think everyone gets confused about this, it is not intuitive.

I was at a talk by a professional wildlife photographer recently and he referred to fstops as being depth of field. (i.e. how much of the photo will be in focus).

He would say so I set the camera to f8 depth of field and ....

In fact in that way it could make sense, f8 has a greater depth of field than f2.8 and f22 has even more than f8.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Did you use a fancy camera? Was it on a tripod? How did you make the lights in the distance show up so well? Would they be a total blur if you zoomed in and the picture was cropped?


 
I expect that camera is about five times as fancy as yours 

What camera do you have?


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Aperture means Amount of Light which is what the F numbers are for and lower F numbers mean more light, not less
> 
> Correct?


Aperture means the size of the hole in the lens that lets the light in and yes, the bigger the F number the smaller the hole - so less light is let in.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> erm, very nice, but what am I looking at, the building right at the front of the picture or those ones right in the distance?


The first pic was trying to put the dome into some perspective, I have some of just the dome but they are not so great so I tried this one with it poking out in the background between some buildings.



Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Did you use a fancy camera? Was it on a tripod? How did you make the lights in the distance show up so well? Would they be a total blur if you zoomed in and the picture was cropped?


I used a FujiFilm S2 (a dslr) and a 28-70mm f2.8 lens and a tripod.
As to if everything would be blurred if I zoomed in, that would depend on the quality of the tripod, if it is very stable you should be able to zoom in quite a lot. My lens however only went to 70mm.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> I expect that camera is about five times as fancy as yours
> 
> What camera do you have?


 
I have a compact camera 

*Fuji F11.*  I love it, but it's now 7-years-old and I still barely know how to work it so Auto mode is generally used, but I want to try to learn to do a bit more.  I know there's going to be restrictions with having a compact, but there's no way I'm up for carrying a big bulky camera around.  I'd just like to learn what I can do better with my manual settings.

I used it recently at a wedding and of all the pictures posted up by people on Facebook using their compacts or camera phones, my more than holds its own in low light settings (ie. the wedding reception).

I'm getting a new compact though.  It's got very mixed reviews, has lots of bells and whistles, records great HD video.  Unfortunately, the still shots aren't great


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> The first pic was trying to put the dome into some perspective, I have some of just the dome but they are not so great so I tried this one with it poking out in the background between some buildings.
> 
> 
> I used a FujiFilm S2 (a dslr) and a 28-70mm f2.8 lens and a tripod.
> As to if everything would be blurred if I zoomed in, that would depend on the quality of the tripod, if it is very stable you should be able to zoom in quite a lot. My lens however only went to 70mm.


 
What makes a good tripod then?  Something that's weighted so it won't shudder when the picture's taken?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> I expect that camera is about five times as fancy as yours


 
Well yes, I guessed that!

Most people's camera phones are more fancy than my camera


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I'm getting a new compact though. It's got very mixed reviews, has lots of bells and whistles, records great HD video. Unfortunately, the still shots aren't great


 
Which one?

Can you decide on a different one if you want to?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What makes a good tripod then? Something that's weighted so it won't shudder when the picture's taken?


Yes pretty much, a solid thing that will not flex at the slightest movement. Some of them have a hook underneath so that you can hang your equipment bag on it to further weigh it down and establish some solidity.

e.a: Ideally a tripod should extend upwards so that when you are standing normally, the camera is in front of your face, and stable.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 14, 2012)

Here's an analogy that might help with understanding camera exposure:

Imagine you are using a hosepipe to fill a bucket to the brim. When the bucket is full that corresponds to a perfectly exposed photo.

Two things affect how much water we get in our bucket - the diameter of the hosepipe and how long we run the tap for. There are many combinations which will fill our bucket - from a narrow pipe left running for a long time to a wide pipe running for a short time, and everything in between.

A camera works in exactly the same way, with many combinations of aperture diameter (hosepipe width) and shutter speed (water running time) adding up to the same thing - a perfectly exposed photo (full bucket).

The ISO setting on the camera can be equated to the size of the bucket. A small bucket will need much less water to fill than a large one. A small bucket is the equivalent of a high ISO setting (less water/light is required).


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

And that's how I understood amps and volts ^^


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Which one?
> 
> Can you decide on a different one if you want to?


 
I've spent the last well over a month looking at various cameras (lots of Canons, Panasonics etc.).  Didn't really like the quality of the Panasonic shots and low-light performance on various ones weren't getting great reviews.  Various Canons were ruled out as my sister has one and I hate the touchscreens and I tried using Macro on it and it kept using Auto Intelligent something or other and overriding what I was trying to do, and others... I can't remember.  I spent hours and hours and hours and hours looking at cameras.  Looked at Fujis as well but decided against them for reasons I can't remember.  Others were ruled out due to lack of zoomage


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> Here's an analogy that might help with understanding camera exposure:
> 
> Imagine you are using a hosepipe to fill a bucket to the brim. When the bucket is full that corresponds to a perfectly exposed photo.
> 
> ...


 
aaargh, everyone uses the bucket of water analogy!  I still prefer the window one though


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I've spent the last well over a month looking at various cameras (lots of Canons, Panasonics etc.). Didn't really like the quality of the Panasonic shots and low-light performance on various ones weren't getting great reviews. Various Canons were ruled out as my sister has one and I hate the touchscreens and I tried using Macro on it and it kept using Auto Intelligent something or other and overriding what I was trying to do, and others... I can't remember. I spent hours and hours and hours and hours looking at cameras. Looked at Fujis as well but decided against them for reasons I can't remember. Others were ruled out due to lack of zoomage


 
So which one are you getting?  Spill the beans


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> aaargh, everyone uses the bucket of water analogy! I still prefer the window one though


 
Imagine it's like a monsters mouth vomiting up pictures. The aperture is how many teeth it has and the neck is a bucket of light or something.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 14, 2012)

A good alternative to a tripod is a large bean bag. Put the bean bag on top of a wall, window sill, whatever and set the camera on that (making sure that the lens isn't obscured) then use the self-timer delay so that when the camera takes the photo you're not touching the it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> So which one are you getting? Spill the beans


 
A Sony Cybershot


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> A good alternative to a tripod is a large bean bag. Put the bean bag on top of a wall, window sill, whatever and set the camera on that (making sure that the lens isn't obscured) then use the self-timer delay so that when the camera takes the photo you're not touching the it.


 
Beanbag would need to be a couple of feet high


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Imagine it's like a monsters mouth vomiting up pictures. The aperture is how many teeth it has and the neck is a bucket of light or something.


 
Nope.  Windows when is still the simplest to me


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Here is a shot taken with an ancient prosumer FujiFilm 4900z in low light with a tripod near Gravesend. The camera did not have clean high ISO settings so I think I used ISO100. I like it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

The Windows analogy (from Digital Photography School website)

*3 Metaphors for understanding the digital photography exposure triangle:*

Many people describe the relationship between ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed using different metaphors to help us get our heads around it. Let me share three. A quick word of warning first though – like most metaphors – these are far from perfect and are just for illustrative purposes:



Photo by Liisa​*The Window*
Imagine your camera is like a window with shutters that open and close.
Aperture is the size of the window. If it’s bigger more light gets through and the room is brighter.
Shutter Speed is the amount of time that the shutters of the window are open. The longer you leave them open the more that comes in.
Now imagine that you’re inside the room and are wearing sunglasses (hopefully this isn’t too much of a stretch). Your eyes become desensitized to the light that comes in (it’s like a low ISO).
There are a number of ways of increasing the amount of light in the room (or at least how much it seems that there is. You could increase the time that the shutters are open (decrease shutter speed), you could increase the size of the window (increase aperture) or you could take off your sunglasses (make the ISO larger).

Ok – it’s not the perfect illustration – but you get the idea.



Photo by Sanchez​*Sunbaking*
Another way that a friend recently shared with me is to think about digital camera exposure as being like getting a sun tan.
Now getting a suntan is something I always wanted growing up – but unfortunately being very fair skinned it was something that I never really achieved. All I did was get burnt when I went out into the sun. In a sense your skin type is like an ISO rating. Some people are more sensitive to the sun than others.

Read more: http://digital-photography-school.com/learning-exposure-in-digital-photography#ixzz1xmNJ1opK​


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Beanbag would need to be a couple of feet high


No - you just need to get a liking for low angle shots


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> No - you just need to get a liking for low angle shots


 
Through glass?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

I think you should get used to thinking of aperture - shutterspeed and ISO according to what they do rather than spending too much time with windows and buckets 

The reason I think this is because it is actually the secondary effects of these settings that are most interesting. You can just leave the camera on auto and it will select an aperture - shutterspeed and perhaps ISO for you. But do you know the secondary implications.

For example:

Aperture: A smaller aperture (f8 - f22) will give you more depth of field in focus in the picture. A bigger aperture (f2.8) may blur the background behind the object you focussed on.

Shutterspeed: a high shutterspeed (1/1000) will freeze motion in the image so horses will be frozen in the air, the wheels on a motorbike will appear static. Conversely a slow shutterspeed (1/30 or 1 second or more) will permit blur in things that are moving in the image. You can make walking people completely dissapear sometimes, if you want to.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

Here's the window sill I need to get up onto to open window to take pictures.  You can see from the milk bottle how high it is (lower window is a pane of glass, it doesn't open).  City of London is in the background


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I think you should get used to thinking of aperture - shutterspeed and ISO according to what they do rather than spending too much time with windows and buckets
> 
> The reason I think this is because it is actually the secondary effects of these settings that are most interesting. You can just leave the camera on auto and it will select an aperture - shutterspeed and perhaps ISO for you. But do you know the secondary implications.
> 
> ...


 
F22 is an ENORMOUS aperture compared to F2.8 - except it's not, it's the sodding opposite!  

Oh, didn't know about all the moving bits.  Thank you 

I'm now being told about white balance as well.  This is too much info!

What's Slow Flash do? 

Anyway, I've thought of something to help me remember the aperture. 

F2.8 is big and wide (despite being a small number), so I've decided to think of it like this:

You go *2 *the opticians who tells you to open your eyes wide.  Your eyes are the number *8 *but vertical


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> I don't know if anyone who's learning how to use their new camera will find this simulator and animated explanation useful. It shows how camera aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc all work together and control the final look of the photo. It says it's for a DSLR, but it would apply to any camera that has aperture or shutter priority or full manual control.
> 
> Simulator
> Explanation


 
See what you started Roy!

I actually got quite a good shot on my last attempt except it said picture was a bit blurry because girl moved!


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> See what you started Roy!


Sorry


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> Sorry


 
It's alright Roy!  I'm getting an education in photography explained in ways I can understand from some lovely posters being most generous with their time and patience!  I'm really appreciating it all, so heaps of thanks. 

If camera manuals explained all this rather than assuming you already understand all photography terminology, it would make life a lot easier.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

I just got a "Nice Shooting" comment on the simulator


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

Then I got "That's a Keeper"


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> If camera manuals explained all this rather than assuming you already understand all photography terminology, it would make life a lot easier.


I know what you mean wrt camera manuals. Mine has an entry for Exposure Compensation that just says press this and turn this for +EV .. it does not say at all when you might want to use it or what it does.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I know what you mean wrt camera manuals. Mine has an entry for Exposure Compensation that just says press this and turn this for +EV .. it does not say at all when you might want to use it or what it does.


 
Exactly.  Even looked into getting Digital Photography for Dummies but one of the reviewers even seemed to suggest they assumed you knew *something  *


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Exactly. Even looked into getting Digital Photography for Dummies but one of the reviewers even seemed to suggest they assumed you knew *something  *


I have learnt what little I know from the web, there are a lot of blogging photographers who are sharing what they know.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I have learnt what little I know from the web, there are a lot of blogging photographers who are sharing what they know.


 
I don't have time to go hunting down loads of stuff in the hope I'll find one that actually explains it in a way I understand.  I did find a couple of websites though.  Fractionman also sent me a couple of helpful ones.  

I'm raring to get going but unfortunately it looks like I'm going to have a busy month ahead doing other stuff I don't want to be doing 

Anyway, have just been taking more photos outside.  They look slightly better than my last effort, but were done without using a tripod and half hour ago it was a bit lighter than when I've taken previous shots.  Lots came out almost black (the ones where I used F8 and 100 ISO) and I took others on F2.8 and 1600 ISO.  Unfortunately I've already forgotten whether I used the flash, whether the camera was on the Manual mode or whether I was on the Night Mode dial


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

Picture from a couple of months ago







Unfortunately, this is the best of the bunch I took half hour ago

Uncropped



Cropped


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

hm, not a huge amount of difference


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Flash would not make any difference at that range, it can only light things that are quite close.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 14, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Flash would not make any difference at that range, it can only light things that are quite close.


 
That's what I thought.

So, how much difference would a tripod make to that particular picture?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> So, how much difference would a tripod make to that particular picture?


 
That image you posted does not look at all blurred so however you were supporting the camera seems to be quite stable. That said it does look quite noisy, as if you had used quite a high ISO, higher ISOs tend to be more noisy. So, perhaps using a tripod or some other support might have permitted you to use a lower and cleaner ISO which would have resulted in a longer shutter speed.

Generally, the closer you get to your target the better the image will be, taking a shot and then cropping it you have to have a pretty good image to start with for the cropped image to look good.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

In other news Minnie, it may be that you have some dust either inside the lens of your camera or on the chip. If you look at the full image you posted, to the left and above middle there are two gray blurry marks, check other images and if they are present in them also then you may have some dust inside your camera.  If your camera is not an interchangeable lens SLR type then you probably can't get in to clean them yourself so ... well ... did you say you were getting a new camera ?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> That image you posted does not look at all blurred so however you were supporting the camera seems to be quite stable. That said it does look quite noisy, as if you had used quite a high ISO, higher ISOs tend to be more noisy. So, perhaps using a tripod or some other support might have permitted you to use a lower and cleaner ISO which would have resulted in a longer shutter speed.
> 
> Generally, the closer you get to your target the better the image will be, taking a shot and then cropping it you have to have a pretty good image to start with for the cropped image to look good.


 
I was resting the camera on the bottom of the window frame for a bit of support.  I did use a high ISO.  When I used 100, the picture came out practically black, so I went right to the other end and did it at 1600.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In other news Minnie, it may be that you have some dust either inside the lens of your camera or on the chip. If you look at the full image you posted, to the left and above middle there are two gray blurry marks, check other images and if they are present in them also then you may have some dust inside your camera. If your camera is not an interchangeable lens SLR type then you probably can't get in to clean them yourself so ... well ... did you say you were getting a new camera ?


 
Yes, I've been noticing those blobs for a while, but haven't cleaned lens yet.  Chip?  What chip?  

Yes, getting new camera as this has been playing up for a while.  Thought it was the card, but have had same problems with last 3 cards.  Keep getting card read errors (possibly deleting too often!), and sometimes when I plug in to put cameras on laptop, latest pictures won't show and yet they're there on the camera.  It's pretty battered and bruised as well as it tends to just get chucked in my handbag without being put in a case


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

Just looked at lens and it's filthy 

I was aware of those blobs but kept forgetting to check.  Now you've reminded me, will attempt a clean


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I was resting the camera on the bottom of the window frame for a bit of support. I did use a high ISO. When I used 100, the picture came out practically black, so I went right to the other end and did it at 1600.


I don't know anything about your camera but if you move from ISO1600 to ISO100 you have to have the shutter open for longer to get a correct exposure. I don't know what shooting mode you are using but if you have a manual mode that might be ok for forcing the shutter to stay open longer to get a ISo100 shot.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yes, I've been noticing those blobs for a while, but haven't cleaned lens yet. Chip? What chip?


 
The chip is the imaging sensor at the base of the lens assembly. You could just have a dirty lens, or you could have dust inside the body of the lens assembly, or you could have dust on the actual imaging sensor at the base of the lens assembly. Cleaning the lens is a good start, hopefully the issue will go away when you have done that.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I don't know anything about your camera but if you move from ISO1600 to ISO100 you have to have the shutter open for longer to get a correct exposure. I don't know what shooting mode you are using but if you have a manual mode that might be ok for forcing the shutter to stay open longer to get a ISo100 shot.


 
I have a Fuji F11 compact.

I can't remember what mode I was shooting in.  I turned the dial to the three positions it goes to:  Manual, Nightmode and Automatic and took pictures on all three settings


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

Right, I'm going to have another go with F8 and ISO800 on Manual, although it's much darker now


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I have a Fuji F11 compact.


Is it this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fuji_finepixf11


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

Nah, crap again, but at least the blobs have gone   Cropped as well



F2.8 and ISO 800

Can't remember again whether it was on Manual or Nightmode


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Is it this one:
> http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fuji_finepixf11


 
Yep


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

I rather like it  it is kind of "painterley"...

ps: great that the dust blobs have gone!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Is it this one:
> http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fuji_finepixf11


 
and that says max aperture 2.8-5.00 and yet on my screen it goes up to 8


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I rather like it  it is kind of "painterley"...
> 
> ps: great that the dust blobs have gone!


 
The picture's painterly?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm going to build a mountain of books 2ft high tomorrow topped off with my mini tripod which is about 6 inches tall and attempt to take more pictures


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The picture's painterly?


Yes, it is kind of like an impressionists view - like it was painted..


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Yes, it is kind of like an impressionists view - like it was painted..


 
It's not one I'd have hanging on my wall


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

Oh, I've found another website that's simplifies things a bit

http://stopshootingauto.com/2007/07/12/how-your-camera-works-in-overly-simplified-terms/


----------



## weltweit (Jun 15, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Oh, I've found another website that's simplifies things a bit
> http://stopshootingauto.com/2007/07/12/how-your-camera-works-in-overly-simplified-terms/


That looks quite good.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> That looks quite good.


 
It does look like it's going to explain things a bit easier.

I went to bed dreaming of Apertures and Shutters and unbelieveably woke up with them in my head 

I definitely spent too long on them yesterday


----------



## High Voltage (Jun 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> and that says max aperture 2.8-5.00 and yet on my screen it goes up to 8


 
Did you get your camera from one of the members of Spinal Tap?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 16, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> Did you get your camera from one of the members of Spinal Tap?


 
that's gone way above my head I'm afraid


----------



## weltweit (Jun 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> that's gone way above my head I'm afraid


In the film, Spinal Tap, the band famously have Amplifiers that go up to 11 rather than 10!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> In the film, Spinal Tap, the band famously have Amplifiers that go up to 11 rather than 10!


 


Have looked at other cameras and seen the same thing.  I think, but maybe wrong, that it's to do with normal settings and telephone and macro as to what the F number goes up to... maybe


----------



## weltweit (Jun 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Have looked at other cameras and seen the same thing. I think, but maybe wrong, that it's to do with normal settings and telephone and macro as to what the F number goes up to... maybe


I think it is quite likely your camera does f8, dpreview probably made a mistake on their page.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I think it is quite likely your camera does f8, dpreview probably made a mistake on their page.


 
I did wonder if someone had misread the 8 as a 5


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Picture from a couple of months ago
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2012)

So Minnie, the second pic is from the new camera? What is it, the camera?

I think the image is much sharper than the previous one and has more detail. It could perhaps have let a little more light in, either by a longer shutterspeed or a more open aperture but there is more detail there than in your last ones.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Absolutely, a much better shot.  Needs a bit more light.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

weltweit said:


> So Minnie, the second pic is from the new camera? What is it, the camera?
> 
> I think the image is much sharper than the previous one and has more detail. It could perhaps have let a little more light in, either by a longer shutterspeed or a more open aperture but there is more detail there than in your last ones.


 
The Fuji F11 sensor is a 1/1.7 whereas this Sony's is only f/3.3, but that picture is zoomed right in at 16x.

It's a Sony HX9V.  Didn't manage to get a decent picture at all yesterday in the London Aquarium 

Zooming images shows loads of noise and that's one of the main complaints about this camera + watercolour effects, but some people said once they've played around a bit, they get the hang of it more.  There's no Aperture or Shutter priority which confuses me even more because at least if I had one, the other would be taken care of.  This compact may be a bit too complicated for me 

Loads of reviews here

http://www.otest.co.uk/p/sony-tests/cybershot-dsc-hx9v-reviews.html


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Absolutely, a much better shot. Needs a bit more light.


 
I think I used the *handheld twilight *mode (I tried a few different modes) and the exif data says F number f3/3, exposure time 1/25, ISO 3200.

You can't set F3/3 - F8 unless in manual mode I don't think


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I think I used the *handheld twilight *mode (I tried a few different modes) and the exif data says F number f3/3, exposure time 1/25, ISO 3200.
> 
> You can't set F3/3 - F8 unless in manual mode I don't think


 
You'll need a longer exposure than that.  Try a whole second.

I recently purchased a remote control for my pentax. It was less than a tenner. You can plonk the camera down on a handy surface and fire the shutter remotely. Result is you can use much slower shutter speeds with no camera shake. Not sure if you can get reotes for yours but it's worth a check.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> You'll need a longer exposure than that. Try a whole second.
> 
> I recently purchased a remote control for my pentax. It was less than a tenner. You can plonk the camera down on a handy surface and fire the shutter remotely. Result is you can use much slower shutter speeds with no camera shake. Not sure if you can get reotes for yours but it's worth a check.


 
Then I'm going to have to go for manual setting aren't I?  Or get a tripod?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

So tonight I shall try it on ISO 3200, Speed (absolutely no idea) and F3.3

What speed will I try?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Then I'm going to have to go for manual setting aren't I?  Or get a tripod?


 
Sticking it on a tripod won't help if you can't get the shutter to go slower.  See if it's got a shutter priority mode.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Sticking it on a tripod won't help if you can't get the shutter to go slower. See if it's got a shutter priority mode.


 
There is no shutter or aperture priority modes


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> So tonight I shall try it on ISO 3200, Speed (absolutely no idea) and F3.3
> 
> What speed will I try?


 
Try a few.  Try 3 seconds, 1 second, half a second etc.  If you're doing it hand held though it's going to look crap.  RoyReads beanbag + timer tip above would do the trick.  It doesn't need a beanbag though, just put the camera on a handy wall.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> There is no shutter or aperture priority modes


 
Fully manual it is then!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Try a few. Try 3 seconds, 1 second, half a second etc. If you're doing it hand held though it's going to look crap. RoyReads beanbag + timer tip above would do the trick. It doesn't need a beanbag though, just put the camera on a handy wall.


 
I have no beanbags or handy walls 

I'm going to have to build a wall with books or boxes or something


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Hang on - you used the handheld twighlight mode.  I'm guessing this refuses to go slower than 1/25 to avoid camera shake.  Does the camera have a night mode?  That should do the trick.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Fully manual it is then!


 
The shutter speeds confuse me.  I can't figure out what's a fraction of a second and what's full seconds although yesterday in the aquarium I think I acidentally went to 30 seconds as camera sat there doing nothing for ages


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Hang on - you used the handheld twighlight mode. I'm guessing this refuses to go slower than 1/25 to avoid camera shake. Does the camera have a night mode? That should do the trick.


 
No night mode.  There's Twilight (with tripod), Handheld twilight (no tripod) and  Twiglight Portrait (low light with flash).  There's also ISO (Shoot without flash in low-light reducing blur)


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> No night mode. There's Twilight (with tripod), Handheld twilight (no tripod) and Twiglight Portrait (low light with flash). There's also ISO (Shoot without flash in low-light reducing blur)


 
Use twighlight mode. That'll get a decent exposure but you'll need to stick the camera on a surface. Even the floor propped up with a rock will do.

I've got this tiny tripod that came with an 18 quid laser.  Bit crap but it works for me.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Use twighlight mode. That'll get a decent exposure but you'll need to stick the camera on a surface. Even the floor propped up with a rock will do.


 



That'll be a 2 foot high stack of books then to enable camera to reach window


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Are you opening this window to take photos?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Are you opening this window to take photos?


 
Yes.  Should I not be doing that (I realise wind might be a factor)?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yes. Should I not be doing that (I realise wind might be a factor)?


 
Keep the windows open.  Otherwise the glass would interfere.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Keep the windows open. Otherwise the glass would interfere.


 
I always do otherwise I have reflection problems.  It was right cold doing that last night and my knees were suffering kneeling on the window sill 

Anyway, here's some daytime shots.  I like the wide angle, get quite a bit more of London in it.  Next one is zoomed in.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It's a Sony HX9V. Didn't manage to get a decent picture at all yesterday in the London Aquarium
> 
> Loads of reviews here
> http://www.otest.co.uk/p/sony-tests/cybershot-dsc-hx9v-reviews.html


It looks good. You will have to get used to it.
I wonder where it displays its adjustments when it is in manual mode, well it must be on the display panel because it does not have a viewfinder like your last. Anyhow, looks good.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

weltweit said:


> It looks good. You will have to get used to it.
> I wonder where it displays its adjustments when it is in manual mode, well it must be on the display panel because it does not have a viewfinder like your last. Anyhow, looks good.


 
Yeah, does it on the screen

There's a Youtube video done by some guy kindly explaining the manual mode.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

weltweit said:


> because it does not have a viewfinder like your last. Anyhow, looks good.


 
PS:  My Fuji F11 doesn't have a viewfinder either


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 18, 2012)

That looks to be quite a useful camera. The lens range is massive.

However in Manual Mode the aperture setting is a fraud. The man explains that the aperture is not variable. The camera uses built in Neutral Density filters to reduce the light rather than changing the aperture. This is a bit of a swizz, and although the number changes the aperture doesn't. This means that you cannot vary the Depth of Field that is the amount that is in focus from near to far. That would be the main purpose of changing the aperture in any other camera. With this being so I can guess that most owners will use the camera on one of its auto modes most of the time.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That looks to be quite a useful camera. The lens range is massive.
> 
> However in Manual Mode the aperture setting is a fraud. The man explains that the aperture is not variable. The camera uses built in Neutral Density filters to reduce the light rather than changing the aperture. This is a bit of a swizz, and although the number changes the aperture doesn't. This means that you cannot vary the Depth of Field that is the amount that is in focus from near to far. That would be the main purpose of changing the aperture in any other camera. With this being so I can guess that most owners will use the camera on one of its auto modes most of the time.


 
The aperture in certain settings can only go to two settings.  I can't explain it very well as I don't understand camera terminology, but if you read reviews, you'll see what I mean.  As for the auto modes, a lot of people have switched from those and seem to be using the manual or program modes.  Seems to be a bit of a Marmite camera with regards stills, but everyone seems to love the video.  There's also a lot of people who hated it initially, and after a bit of tweaking, seem to have changed their minds.  http://www.flickr.com/groups/hx9v/discuss/72157628364551057/

I'm definitely not liking zooming in on laptop and seeing how bad the picture gets, but I suppose if I'm never going to blow pictures up that large, it's not a problem, but I do like zooming in on things on pictures to see what's happening etc.  Would also make it difficult to crop I'd imagine.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This means that you cannot vary the Depth of Field that is the amount that is in focus from near to far. That would be the main purpose of changing the aperture in any other camera. With this being so I can guess that most owners will use the camera on one of its auto modes most of the time.


 
Not something I have any experience with using, but if I *ever *get any flowers appear in my garden, I shall be attempting it when using the macro, although I've read reports that it's not great, others saying it is


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

The one I posted up earlier








Tonight's attempt (using a mini tripod which is sitting on top of a square box game which is sitting on top of a box set of books which is sitting on top of a 7.5l tub of paint). Doesn't seem to have made much difference  (although the blue-lit building looks a bit better)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 18, 2012)

It's not taken a long enough exposure to do more than capture the highlights.

If the program settings won't do it, you need to play with the manual ones - set the aperture to the minimum, the ISO to, say, 400, and increase the exposure time until you get something with a reasonable amount of detail. If the exposure time you end up with isn't too long, then move the ISO downwards and try again, so that you get more detailed results.

People do night exposures which are literally hours long sometimes.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Absolutely, a much better shot. Needs a bit more light.


 
I did it on Twilight though so no options to change.  The only thing changeable is EV.

Looks like I'll have to try Manual next.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Tonight's attempt (using a mini tripod which is sitting on top of a square box game which is sitting on top of a box set of books which is sitting on top of a 7.5l tub of paint). Doesn't seem to have made much difference  (although the blue-lit building looks a bit better)


Did you use the self timer also? though if you didn't it looks like you don't need it.
I think you should try a pic when there is still some light in the sky - dusk as it were.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Did you use the self timer also? though if you didn't it looks like you don't need it.
> I think you should try a pic when there is still some light in the sky - dusk as it were.


 
Used the 10 second timer.

Was too busy to do it earlier.  Will try again tomorrow, after I've had a try tonight.  Have to wait for himself to leave room though before I can open window


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not taken a long enough exposure to do more than capture the highlights.
> 
> If the program settings won't do it, you need to play with the manual ones - set the aperture to the minimum, the ISO to, say, 400, and increase the exposure time until you get something with a reasonable amount of detail. If the exposure time you end up with isn't too long, then move the ISO downwards and try again, so that you get more detailed results.
> 
> People do night exposures which are literally hours long sometimes.


 
Will try that later (different settings, NOT the sitting with the window open for hours!)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 18, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Will try that later (different settings, NOT the sitting with the window open for hours!)


You shouldn't need to do an exposure for hours really  but it could be minutes. Hours is when there's only stars and the moon illuminating the scene. You can get some fascinating colours like that, though, which you wouldn't be able to see with your eyes - sometimes people don't believe that long night exposures are real, they say they must be shopped, because at night eyes don't see colours.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 18, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That looks to be quite a useful camera. The lens range is massive.
> 
> However in Manual Mode the aperture setting is a fraud. The man explains that the aperture is not variable. The camera uses built in Neutral Density filters to reduce the light rather than changing the aperture. This is a bit of a swizz, and although the number changes the aperture doesn't. This means that you cannot vary the Depth of Field that is the amount that is in focus from near to far. That would be the main purpose of changing the aperture in any other camera. With this being so I can guess that most owners will use the camera on one of its auto modes most of the time.


 
That's terrible.  I'd be well pissed off at that.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You shouldn't need to do an exposure for hours really  but it could be minutes. Hours is when there's only stars and the moon illuminating the scene. You can get some fascinating colours like that, though, which you wouldn't be able to see with your eyes - sometimes people don't believe that long night exposures are real, they say they must be shopped, because at night eyes don't see colours.


 
Well good, as I have no intention of sitting in the cold for hours 

I've seen them before and am amazed at what's going on in those pictures and how people get them


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This is a bit of a swizz, and although the number changes the aperture doesn't. This means that you cannot vary the Depth of Field that is the amount that is in focus from near to far. That would be the main purpose of changing the aperture in any other camera. With this being so I can guess that most owners will use the camera on one of its auto modes most of the time.


 
Managed to do it slightly in Macro, but again, this seems to be another thing people aren't happy about.  I had the blur on these photos on the maximum of the three as well


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> That's terrible. I'd be well pissed off at that.


 
Here's what what reviewer says about defocus on the camera (from Imaging Resource)



> _Background Defocus._ Telephoto shots with a wide aperture and narrow depth-of-field have become a distinguishing look of digital SLRs that is not necessarily feasible for point-and-shoots to recreate. The Sony Cyber-shot HX9V attempts to compensate for this by offering a digital approximation of the feature, tagged "Background Defocus." The setting will allow you to zoom in on an object in the frame, and ultimately blurs the background. The HX9V creates this effect with electronics, while DSLRs achieve it through optics. There is a hefty trade-off here; users shouldn't expect the “DSLR effect” they've become accustomed to seeing, but the setting does come fairly close.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 18, 2012)

Best not to use that I think. It sounds like just a trick to simulate an effect that comes with different lenses, to make pictures look "professional" by _removing detail_.

Really, program settings on digitals seem to want to do this all the time regardless - set a huge aperture to get a tiny depth of field and keep whatever they focus on in shot while everything else is blurred. This is just not how I like to shoot, personally, except for special purposes. When I'm taking pics on the street, I set my film cameras to a small aperture which has a huge depth of field and so, any time I point the camera and take a picture, it's in focus.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 18, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Best not to use that I think. It sounds like just a trick to simulate an effect that comes with different lenses, to make pictures look "professional" by _removing detail_.
> 
> Really, program settings on digitals seem to want to do this all the time regardless - set a huge aperture to get a tiny depth of field and keep whatever they focus on in shot while everything else is blurred. This is just not how I like to shoot, personally, except for special purposes. When I'm taking pics on the street, I set my film cameras to a small aperture which has a huge depth of field and so, any time I point the camera and take a picture, it's in focus.



I can't be that bothered about depth of field as I've barely got to grips with aperture and shutter 

No doubt, I'll soon start wishing I was able to do it, but I don't want to start running before I can walk


----------



## weltweit (Jun 18, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is just not how I like to shoot, personally, except for special purposes. When I'm taking pics on the street, I set my film cameras to a small aperture which has a huge depth of field and so, any time I point the camera and take a picture, it's in focus.


Different strokes and all that, I am considering a 180mm f2.8 prime lens which is sharp at f2.8 (I would use it for people shots often candids) .. I was discussing it with a buddy who is a landscape specialist. He is interested in a 18-300mm f5.6 superzoom and said he never shoots at below f8-f11 anyhow.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I can't be that bothered about depth of field as I've barely got to grips with aperture and shutter
> 
> No doubt, I'll soon start wishing I was able to do it, but I don't want to start running before I can walk


You'd know it if you saw it. Depth of field (DOF) is just "how much of the scene behind and in front of what I focus on is not blurred". If you do a portrait and everything more than a foot or two behind the face is blurred, that's low DOF. If you can see the background in focus as well as the face, that's high DOF.

DOF depends on a few different things - aperture (smaller/higher number is better), focal length of lens (wider angle lenses are better) and the distance from the camera that you are focussing on (focal points further away will have higher DOF).

It looks "good" to have low DOF because it emphasises what you've focussed on, but it's a bit of an overused mechanism IMO. Digitals have really good autofocus these days, so they can be sure of being able to focus at the right range, and also, compact digitals have really low focal lengths so everything is in field.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You'd know it if you saw it. Depth of field (DOF) is just "how much of the scene behind and in front of what I focus on is not blurred". If you do a portrait and everything more than a foot or two behind the face is blurred, that's low DOF. If you can see the background in focus as well as the face, that's high DOF.
> 
> DOF depends on a few different things - aperture (smaller/higher number is better), focal length of lens (wider angle lenses are better) and the distance from the camera that you are focussing on (focal points further away will have higher DOF).
> 
> It looks "good" to have low DOF because it emphasises what you've focussed on, but it's a bit of an overused mechanism IMO. Digitals have really good autofocus these days, so they can be sure of being able to focus at the right range, and also, compact digitals have really low focal lengths so everything is in field.


 
Ah right, but what I meant is that it's the least of my worries at the moment as I need to get the hang of other things now  

And anyway, it'll take me ages to remember "depth of field".  As you've seen with my photo pics up there, it's just *blur*.    High depth of field is *not blurred  *

I have no understanding about focal lengths and distances as that also includes numbers which I don't like and it's too much for me to get my head around.  It may have to wait a while 'til I get the hang of aperture and shutter


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 19, 2012)

DOF is really not anything you have to worry about when taking pictures of landscapes. They're all far enough away that it's not an issue. I just mention it in passing really.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 19, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> DOF is really not anything you have to worry about when taking pictures of landscapes. They're all far enough away that it's not an issue. I just mention it in passing really.


 
oh no, by all means mention away.  I need all the help I can get 

It is something that it would be nice to be able to do especially as I take lots of flower pictures and sometimes would prefer the flower's surroundings to be blurred out


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 19, 2012)

Tried doing a picture last night on Twilight setting with mode but just couldn't do it.  I couldn't even see what I was trying to photograph, even zooming in.    Kept changing setting on camera to check I was zoomed in on correct spot, and then changing back to twilight, but screen was showing nothing.

Couldn't manage it in manual mode either (or it may have been Manual mode that I couldn't see anything.  I forget).  

Discovered on one of the settings with the zoom zoomed in, I couldn't even go past ISO 800 and F number wouldn't go lower than 5.6.  Tried it on ISO 100 but couldn't see anything.  After about an hour of faffing about, my fingers were frozen and I gave up. All I managed was a picture identical to the decent(ish) one I posted yesterday which was Twilight (handheld)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 19, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Last one. Maximum I can go to is 30 seconds
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 24, 2012)

I'm still having great fun with zoom, and there were some lovely blue skies today.  Decided to zoom in on that other new building that's going up instead of The Shard


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 24, 2012)

and I got a nice little bird in garden today


----------



## weltweit (Jun 25, 2012)

Minnie, your camera produces a nice clean image.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 25, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Minnie, your camera produces a nice clean image.


Excellent photos MInnie. I think you should find out the setting that stops the date being inserted into the pictures. It spoils the look of them. If you need that info, it is always available in the exif data that can be read in your photo editing software. You are getting some good shots with that camera, keep it up.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 25, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Excellent photos MInnie.


Yes  I should have said that


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Excellent photos MInnie. I think you should find out the setting that stops the date being inserted into the pictures. It spoils the look of them. If you need that info, it is always available in the exif data that can be read in your photo editing software. You are getting some good shots with that camera, keep it up.


 
I agree.  I put the date on myself but have now decided to take it off.  I've cropped a couple of pictures to get rid of it so I think I'll turn it off permanently. 

Glad I'm getting good shots.  I still think my Fuji F11 is better in low light.

I'm also not mad on how it saturates red colours (although I was aware of that when I bought it).  Difficult getting blue skies as well without making things in the foreground really dark, but otherwise, I'm enjoying playing with it.  

Can't get used to not being able to zoom in much on photos either (compression issues) but that's just me being nitpicky probably


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Excellent photos MInnie. I think you should find out the setting that stops the date being inserted into the pictures. It spoils the look of them. If you need that info, it is always available in the exif data that can be read in your photo editing software. You are getting some good shots with that camera, keep it up.


 
PS: I'm starting to understand about defocus now (or whatever you call it). Think the bird in the first picture would stand out much more if all the leaves around the bird were blurred, but can't figure out how to do that other than in macro mode


----------



## weltweit (Jun 25, 2012)

I was thinking of commenting on the date in picture actually also. I don't think it is necessary.

As to defocus - or narrow depth of field, as I understand it your camera does not have a true aperture adjustment, however you will probably maximise this effect of having things in front of or behind out of focus more - the more you zoom your camera and the closer your target subject is.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 25, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I was thinking of commenting on the date in picture actually also. I don't think it is necessary.
> 
> As to defocus - or narrow depth of field, as I understand it your camera does not have a true aperture adjustment, however you will probably maximise this effect of having things in front of or behind out of focus more - the more you zoom your camera and the closer your target subject is.


 
ah right, couldn't really get any closer to those birds as I was literally a foot away from them and they just kept jumping on to other branches or hiding as I get any nearer (as you can see in first pic) and zooming in even more meant I kept losing them and having to zoom back to find them.  They were most inconsiderate birds 

I think the reason I was putting date on was just to make sure the date was on there in case dates weren't true.  What's started to happen to my Fuji F11 is, often after I've taken card out of camera, it loses the date, so pictures I've taken this year are dated 2005 because I can't be arsed keep setting the date every time I take card out.  Never used to do that


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The one I posted up earlier
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

PLEASE IGNORE: Just me trying to see whether latest attempt is any better than previous attempts.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> PLEASE IGNORE: Just me trying to see whether latest attempt is any better than previous attempts.
> 
> View attachment 20628


You cannot post and say 'ignore' without someone ignoring your request. That looks better to me. It just needs to be rotated clockwise by 2%, or by showing the grid to help judge rotation by eye, a bit of unsharp mask might help to get rid of some of the haziness (photoshop).


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 29, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> You cannot post and say 'ignore' without someone ignoring your request. That looks better to me. It just needs to be rotated clockwise by 2%, or by showing the grid to help judge rotation by eye, a bit of unsharp mask might help to get rid of some of the haziness (photoshop).


 
Yeah, I meant ignore in that I wanted to view it with the other one on the same page which is hard if you're doing in using something else iykwim.

Rotated?  Is it wonky then? 

I used sharpening.  Maybe I should have used less?  I don't really know how to use all these photo editing thingies and I don't have Photoshop.  I have Corel Paintshop and I still don't understand what 905 of it does.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 29, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, I meant ignore in that I wanted to view it with the other one on the same page which is hard if you're doing in using something else iykwim.
> 
> Rotated? Is it wonky then?
> 
> I used sharpening. Maybe I should have used less? I don't really know how to use all these photo editing thingies and I don't have Photoshop. I have Corel Paintshop and I still don't understand what 905 of it does.


Ironically 'unsharp mask' increased sharpness. You were on the right track, possibly you could have given more. Yes I think it is leaning a bit to the left. If you don't see it, leave it alone. It varies across the picture.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 29, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Ironically 'unsharp mask increased sharpness'. You were on the right track, possibly you could have given more. Yes I think it is leaning a bit to the left. If you don't see it, leave it alone. It varies across the picture.


 
Right, will see if I can unsharp it and straighten it up a bit


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 29, 2012)

Think it's straighter now


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 30, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Think it's straighter now!
> 
> View attachment 20658


Yep!


----------

