Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: Grahame
Page: <<prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 140 next>>
Nov 1, 2023 22:28:11   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Need a photography boost
delder wrote:
Sometimes spot is on wrong area of subject.

That's why we have been given the ability to move it.
delder wrote:
With the Aquarium, the glass may be throwing off the focus due to refraction.

That's correct and can be a possible source of AF confusion.
Go to
Nov 1, 2023 19:29:43   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Need a photography boost
delder wrote:
From reading UHH & my own experience, one issue with focus is using the Spot focus.

Why?
Go to
Nov 1, 2023 18:37:07   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
I have to pay Nikon to get an answer to a problem
grandpaw wrote:
Just to let everyone know that I am smart enough to ask here I have already ask in the past and nobody had the answer so I thought I would give Nikon a try. I have ask here and done a lot of research with no results but I will ask again for those that think I wasn't smart enough to ask here first.

I have a Nikon Z6ii and as far as I can determine there is no way to lock the location of the focus point and I find it very annoying and causing me problems. Before I start getting the same answers that I got last time, I know that I can press the toggle button down and make the focus point go back to the center. I shouldn't have to do that constantly every time I pick up my camera. I use back button focus on all of my cameras and the toggle button is right under th BBF button and it gets pressed every time I pick up my camera and place my thumb on the BBF button which in turn touches the toggle button and it moves my focus point. Last time when I ask here I got all kind of remarks about it not bothering other members or how to double press the toggle to get the focus point back to center. If you have this camera and it doesn't bother you I am happy for you but it is annoying to me. I am not an English scholar so please do not take the time to make remarks about how I wrote or punctuated my post. If you do have helpful information I would very much appreciate it. Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond.

I can lock my focus on any of my DSLR nikons with a lever on the back of the camera. It seems to me this could be fixed with a software update.
Just to let everyone know that I am smart enough t... (show quote)

There is absolutely no way to have that focus point position 'locked' on the Z6 so that it can't be inadvertently moved.

Yes it can be annoying for some due to there style of shooting, it can only be assumed that Nikon thought every photographer wants to spend time 'positioning' its location prior to taking the shot. It was one of my peeves and still is using the Z6 for certain types of photography, but I'm now one happy camper using a Z8 where having to move the focus point around or worry where it is for 99% of my shots is no longer necessary.
Go to
Nov 1, 2023 06:01:59   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Gear is irrelevant
CrazyJane wrote:
And sharpness is overrated. The most important of all tools in photography is the eye. If you don't have an eye for it, there's nothing can help. And it's pretty easy to see who does and who doesn't, don't you think?

Me thinks these are the sort of statements, including the title 'Gear is irrelevant', that are made by someone who they are applicable to due to their own preferred style/genre of photography.
Go to
Oct 30, 2023 16:54:35   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
My gear is fine for me
potica69 wrote:
The cellphone photos and videos are quickly replacing the high-end camera.

What say you?

I'm not seeing any evidence of cellphone cameras producing equivalent or better sports action pics than high-end cameras are capable of.
Go to
Oct 26, 2023 00:41:26   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
image not sharp,
lydiabpinkham wrote:
i am shooting nikon D5200, used a 50mm 1:8 and 1:4, i can't get a sharp image, F16 160ss studio strobes
i am not sure if it's the lens or the camera, or combo, it's works well most of the time but for this transfer bench,it
's not
so if i decide it's the camera, any not too expensive, still use nikon either as is lens or adapters , i can't afford to start from scratch, but i'm feeling like i'm not advancing this way
any suggestions are always appreciated..

Without seeing an image, or a far more detailed description, all that can be done is guess. One of the problems is that some suggestions in these guesses could be absolutely not applicable to your problem/findings.

Within your description, you say "i can't get a sharp image". To make an assessment there are two items that are of vital importance to know,

a) Are you referring to it being 'unsharp' throughout the entire scene/picture, or, 'unsharp' in one area but sharper elsewhere?

b) What method of focusing did you use to ensure sharpest focus was on the exact part of the scene where you wanted it?

A picture with the problem as already mentioned will greatly assist us helping you.
Go to
Oct 24, 2023 22:21:48   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Fear of Adapters
Gee!

I've got an FTZ on my desk.

Anyone want me to photograph it in detail so we know who knows what they're talking about?
Go to
Oct 24, 2023 17:10:03   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Z8 live view switches from horizontal to vertical
lrm wrote:
when viewing captures on live view (Z8), the view changes from horizontal to vertical on its own Maddening! My Z7 does not do this. I can't find a way to stop this. Gone through menus but can't find a way. Anyone know how to?

It's good to know that I'm not the only who had found the same thing maddening.
Go to
Oct 22, 2023 17:15:09   #
(Photo Analysis)
Outdoor Monolight
Golden Rule wrote:
I could always somewhat blur the background in LR.

Out of curiosity I used the new Blur tool in ACR/LR on one of your images, impressive.
Go to
Oct 22, 2023 16:53:45   #
(Photo Analysis)
Outdoor Monolight
Golden Rule wrote:
You are right, I am asking the wrong question. Better put is how do I expose for the background and apply a flash to the subject without having movement blur? Is there such a procedure? I thought about DoF and decided to go with long just in case that was a better preference. I could always somewhat blur the background in LR.

Great, that makes things clearer.

Your only option is to try and obtain a shutter speed for the background as close as you can to freezing any movement of the dog/fur. This is going to be dependent upon time of day and ambient light level you choose. It will also be dependent upon the minimum DoF you will accept along with the amount of noise due to high ISO you can accept and deal with. This is not easy and compromises are required.

Once you have determined this, the fill light for the dog is just a matter of getting the level you want.

The problem is that if there is movement you will get two exposures on the dog, one for ambient and the other for flash. If no movement great, slight movement and it may not be noticeable. I would take a number of shots and pick the best.

Another gain would be to put the dog in shade so that ambient light has less affect on it and the flash which will freeze movement is more prominent. Balancing the two may be possible in post.
Go to
Oct 22, 2023 16:02:25   #
(Photo Analysis)
Outdoor Monolight
Golden Rule wrote:
I have a sharpness problem that I'm not sure how to solve. Used a monolight to expose dog but had to set camera exposure for dark forest. Settings: ISO 400, f 10 aperture, and .4 shutter speed and used a tripod. I know shutter is the problem but I had to have the forest exposure so the background was not black. Any suggestions on how not to make this mistake again?

I'm unclear as to what you consider a "sharpness problem"? There are parts within the image, mostly seen around the basket that are absolutely sharp, some may even consider too sharp. There are a few areas around the dog fur that appear as if there was wind/movement but that would not be a sharpness problem but movement that could be arrested with a faster shutter speed.

What did you focus on?

With respect to settings, I would question whether you wanted/needed the deep DoF, and if not you could have gained some speed and/or drop in ISO. A reduction in DoF would have isolated the dog and reduced the business of the scene, just an option.

For info, I downloaded both images and looked at them in PS at only 1:1.
Go to
Oct 21, 2023 18:19:48   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Unexplained Shadow in Photos
larryepage wrote:
If a loose iris blade (or a rogue ribbon cable) is causing a problem at a wide open aperture, it would be a simple task to look into the lens and see if there is something visible in the light path.

Folks...this is all rudimentary diagnostic troubleshooting. It's part of life, not just photography. And for it to work, you have to be open to the evidence supporting a reality that may be different from your initial presumption.

Fully agree.

Basic 'fault' investigation whilst the 'cause' is unverified should look at all probable reasons and eliminate those where possible. The degree to which this is done is generally determined by the consequences of it occurring again.

One of the significant problems in trying to find out 'why' is obtaining reliable and adequate information from those who were present when it occurred.
Go to
Oct 21, 2023 03:26:12   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Unexplained Shadow in Photos
SuperflyTNT wrote:
So if it’s wide open then it couldn’t have stuck.

I think you'll find I've made no reference to it being "stuck" and my reference to wide open is with respect to 3.5 being what was used which is max for that lens (assuming the exif is correct again).
SuperflyTNT wrote:
And yes, if you understand how lenses work you cannot get a shadow like that from an aperture blade.

If one aperture blade were to be 'loose' and partly hanging in the area e.g. lets say where it would normally be at f/11 wouldn't you see a darker (less exposed) area on the resultant image but still detail of the scene? Loose aperture blades and pics of are often reported and can easily be found on the web, unfortunately I've not found any picture that shows the result.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
It’s a shadow on the wall. And if he was getting that exact shadow every time it’s more indication the flash was firing. The light in the scene also looks like light from a flash.

Yes that is a possibility, but, the Op has stated no flash.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Also, shooting with and without the flash won’t determine anything unless that strap or whatever caused the shadow is still in the same place.

Did you not understand that taking a shot with and without flash will provide clear evidence of the accuracy and reliability of the exif data pertaining to its use?

Edit, a look at the exif of another image taken by the Op with the same camera and lens where flash was very unlikely to be needed shows 'flash in auto, did not fire'. This suggests exif flash info is likely correct.
Go to
Oct 21, 2023 00:49:36   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Unexplained Shadow in Photos
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Well it’s obviously a shadow on the wall and NOT something internal.

Whilst it appears as a 'shadow on the wall' caused by an uneven light source I don't believe that something internal in the lens can be counted out totally, yet.

If we consider the shadow on the wall scenario we have to consider possible light sources, external or 'possibly' flash. If external, e.g. a room light (ceiling/spot/table.lamp) what are the chances of getting the exact same shadow in different locations in the building as confirmed by the Op. Zilch.
jaymatt wrote:
Lens hood, yes. Tripod, no. Exact shadow or whatever in different locations in the same building. Intermittent occurrences. Turned camera off and on between occurrences. Puzzled.

Which brings us to flash, of which the op states was not used but exif states it was. But we all know exif is at times incorrect. Hence my earlier suggestion which was to totally eliminate any ambiguity regarding flash, which you consider a waste of time.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Some have said stuck aperture blade but that makes no sense at all. First of all, if there was an aperture blade stuck out during exposure it wouldn’t look like that. If that were the case closing the aperture down would cast shadows instead of just affecting exposure. A stuck blade might have a slight effect on exposure and change the shape of the bokeh. But just looking at how a lens works it’s not possible. When you’re looking through the viewfinder, framing and focusing the shot, the lens is wide open. When he presses the shutter the aperture closes down to the proper setting before the shutter fires. If it was a stuck aperture blade it would be stuck open, not closed.
Some have said stuck aperture blade but that makes... (show quote)

The shot was taken at f/3.5, that is wide open for the lens. Have you seen any information that describes the affect of what a non fully opening blade can have?
Go to
Oct 20, 2023 17:10:59   #
(Main Photography Discussion)
Unexplained Shadow in Photos
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Sounds like a way to waste time.

What you may consider a "waste of time", to some others will be the obvious way to alleviate the questions and suggestions regarding flash use.

Not only, will the visual results with or without flash be obvious, the corresponding exif (observed by some) will categorically demonstrate the correctness of the flash use data within it.

When you are getting nowhere fault/cause finding, elimination is a basic procedure.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 140 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.