■ The Photography Megathread ■

[BluetoothBoy]

Are you using auto focus or manual? And is your camera set to single focus on auto, or continuously focus? If its single focus, just moving your camera a little bit can kill the shot. Tip: if you're unsure or are shooting at a low aperture, manual focus and increment it slightly over a set of identical shots. Later, pick the best one.

[Ad Bot]

[PrototypeCow]

Are you using auto focus or manual? And is your camera set to single focus on auto, or continuously focus? If its single focus, just moving your camera a little bit can kill the shot. Tip: if you're unsure or are shooting at a low aperture, manual focus and increment it slightly over a set of identical shots. Later, pick the best one.

I never thought of incrementing it. Thanks for the tip! And I've been shooting in lowest aperture (5.6) and with manual focus.

[Quintano Man]

also sorry for double posting but how do you guys get ultra-sharp pictures like Quintano Man did? it seems that my focus is always off slightly even though it looks good in the camera sights.

Also, adding on to what BluetoothBoy said: with the type of photos you've been taking (still life, I think), if you use a tripod you can set up everything perfectly.

[Aware]

I don't see the lego man in the last picture, did you burn him?!

[Sirrus]

I never thought of incrementing it. Thanks for the tip! And I've been shooting in lowest aperture (5.6) and with manual focus.

There's not really a reason to use manual focus unless AF can't grab focus. Unless your camera has a focus aid. In Nikon cameras, the lower right half of the viewfinder will have a readout that looks like >O< except with only one shape lit up at a time. > means the subject (whatever is under the focus point) is back focused. O means the camera thinks that whatever is under the focus point is in focus. < means you're focused past the subject.

So, check it. I'm going to make you a table regarding when it's logical to use auto focus vs manual focus.

Autofocus: basically any/all times.

Manual focus:

• If the lens doesn't autofocus.
• Still life -shot from a tripod-. Zoom in on your LCD to make sure that the subject is in focus.
• Low light where your camera can't grab focus (but you should probably shoot from a tripod if you're shooting in this low of light).
• If for some reason your lens/AF system is malfunctioning and you have reason to believe your AF system is failing you.

I fairly regularly shoot with cameras that have to, by virtue of their design, be manually focused. It's a pain in the ass. There's no virtue or inherent value to using manual focus (except for in the above situations and maybe one or two I neglected). While there is virtue in using old technology for the processes, the experience, and the understanding it grants you to the general craft of photography, there's no reason to force yourself to use antiquated techniques on new equipment when those technologies afford you an easier, faster, and more accurate alternative.

I need to use a focusing loupe and a light meter when I'm shooting with a 4x5 view camera. Those have been replaced by an internal meter and AF system on my D700. So I use that.

[BluetoothBoy]

Great explination, Sirrus. But sometimes manual focus is helpful. It can be a bit trickier to focus on small stuff with a D50. It may not be required, but it is often helpful.

[PrototypeCow]

Yeah the reason I don't use auto focus a lot of the times is because it either focuses on the wrong subject or it's focused in the view but it won't let me take the picture because the camera still think its unfocused. I do use it when taking portraits though.

[Spiderpig]

DSC_0047(1) by GuitarSmashing, on Flickr

DSC_0049(2) by GuitarSmashing, on Flickr

DSC_0044(2) by GuitarSmashing, on Flickr

DSC_0043(2) by GuitarSmashing, on Flickr
I have color versions of these but I can never manage to make color look realistic and not overly edited, any tips?

[PrototypeCow]

-snip-

I love the first picture.
What I do is just slightly increase contrast, and slightly decrease contrast, then increase sharpness  (if appropriate).
HDR is not really neccessary most of the time

[Sirrus]

slightly increase contrast, and slightly decrease contrast

What.

[BluetoothBoy]

What.

Maybe he meant or...? I dunno...

[Spiderpig]

I love the first picture.
What I do is just slightly increase contrast, and slightly decrease contrast, then increase sharpness  (if appropriate).
HDR is not really neccessary most of the time

What.

[Sirrus]

Maybe he meant "or", "slightly increase contrast or slightly decrease contrast."

I have color versions of these but I can never manage to make color look realistic and not overly edited, any tips?

That's one of the advantages of black and white. Think about it, you can render a sky as almost any shade of gray from white to black and it'll still look basically "normal". When you edit in colors, you're kind of locked into literal values and hues, both by themselves and in relation to others.

[Spiderpig]

Maybe he meant "or", "slightly increase contrast or slightly decrease contrast."

That's one of the advantages of black and white. Think about it, you can render a sky as almost any shade of gray from white to black and it'll still look basically "normal". When you edit in colors, you're kind of locked into literal values and hues, both by themselves and in relation to others.

Thats true, and for the most part I never take a picture because of color

[BluetoothBoy]

I love this thread, as it is one of the most respectful and appreciative megathreads currently on BLF.