HikeArizona.COM

I was wondering if anyone could give me some tips on how to take better pics with just a standard digital camera. what settings should i use for getting better color in my photos? how do i get better lighting? etc. Im not looking to become a pro photographer or anything just want to come home with some pictures that look somewhat like what i see in person.

@Patrick L: Go into your settings options and change the AF Assist mode(s). Aperture settings (F-Stop) will also affect the depth of field, reducing the amount of focus. A small aperture (higher F-number) reduces the depth of field. Try playing with it by using the Aperture mode on your camera and take several pictures of the same scene. You can also use photo editing software to sharpen things up.

@Patrick L
regarding a small P&S... on hikearizona.com go to a photo set that you like the quality and as you may or may not know, at the bottom of the page it will tell you the camera model. The camera model may or may not be a P&S but if you PM the member, I am sure they would be happy to share information. I do love my P&S Panasonic FZ35. It's not pocketsize but it is still small enough while providing the functions I most like such as super zoom. It also provides manual capabilities if you so desire.

All of the tips on this thread for taking quality photos are excellent in my opinion. Hopefully our young guns will put together another photo workshop and you can get some personal guidance. Sometimes it's just a matter of one tip at a time such as the one I got at that last workshop.

paulhubbard wrote:@Patrick L: A small aperture (higher F-number) reduces the depth of field.

Quick correction- A narrow aperture actually increases depth of field.

A quick way to see better front-to-back focus is to switch to Aperture Priority mode (as Paul mentioned) and set the f-stop to the f8 range. Keep in mind this will make your shutter speed longer, therefore making hand-held shots in low-light situations more tricky.

An interesting way to tell you're shooting with a particularly wide aperture is that most of the blurring is around the edges of the frame. F8-f11 should be the greatest edge-to-edge focus, while increasing that number (i.e. f16) will provide even better front-to-back focus.

Also important to note that the photo you posted really doesn't seem too bad. As Paul said, a bit of sharpening in a photo editing program would help.

azpride wrote:Quick correction- A narrow aperture actually increases depth of field.

I always get that mixed up... Thanks for the correction!

azpride wrote:Also important to note that the photo you posted really doesn't seem too bad. As Paul said, a bit of sharpening in a photo editing program would help.

I agree with this. This picture looks pretty similar to what comes straight out of my Canon G11. Something to keep in mind is that a camera may have a gazillion pixels, but the image is still meant to be viewed at a maximum print size. Zooming in to 100% (1 camera pixel to 1 screen pixel) will pretty much guarantee disappointment. I noticed in the jpg properties it suggests a dots per inch of 300 (I have no idea if thats really a credible number or not). Thats like 3 times as many dots as most monitors' native resolution. So viewing at 33% might be best.

I also noticed the camera was shooting at F/7. This is approaching the upper limit of whats recommended for point and shoot F/#, and in fact, the camera might not even let you go narrower (G11 won't go past f/8). So trying to increase DOF by narrowing the aperture probably won't be fruitful.

I would second the software harpening suggestion, and suggest trying to boost the contrast to make it look sharper.

First post!

Three quick tweaks with Paint Shop Pro produced this results:

What mode are you shooting with Patrick?

If you are using Auto it's probably focusing on near objects. Landscape should be more of an infinity catch all.

I was going back and forth between auto and landscape so I'm not sure which one that picture was taken with. A lot of the photos from that day produced the same results, though. I've also gone over the camera's menus and can't seem to find any aperture setting. Is there another fancy name for it?

A or Av
I don't see it on your mode dial for that model. Maybe there is a manual setting.

maybe it's not adjustable on yours
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/phot ... s8100.html

I'd take it back and get a Canon with M, Av,Tv,P on the dial...

Bummer! The pictures from today's outing seem pretty similar to my Kodak, which is good. I'm just looking for better.

I was considering a Canon S95 after seeing some of the other user's photos, but I don't know how much of the clarity is editing. Just need to make up my mind quick before my lousy 15 day return limit is up.

@Patrick L
Since you're using such a small camera, I have a hunch that the problem may be more with camera shake than anything else. With a tiny little point and shoot, there is no weight to absorb the tiniest movement, no matter which brand you get. Getting "as good" of pics as with your Kodak may be what you have to settle for unless you're willing to haul around a slightly bigger point and shoot with a bit more stability.

I know there was discussion about aperture and depth of field earlier, which is definitely important concerning shots that contain both close foreground subjects and subjects that are farther away, but I'm of the opinion that the shot you posted earlier may not have been a depth of field problem but a camera shake problem. Something else to try is shooting for a fast shutter speed, which will minimize the effects of camera shake. By quickening the shutter speed, the aperture in effect will have to widen, limiting your depth of field, but if you're not shooting real close foregrounds then it won't matter a heck of a lot.

Of course, you could just use a tripod, but if you're trying to use small, light gear, I doubt you want to do that.

I really like what Paul did to the image. Paul, what steps did you do?

That said, disappointed Canon S90/S95 customers are few. Its just a little bit more money.

The edited image does look crisper. Did you adjust the sharpness?

jochal wrote:I really like what Paul did to the image. Paul, what steps did you do?

Paint Shop Pro steps:
1: resize to 1680 pixels wide
2. Adjust contrast by; +5 (points?)
3. Adjust color by; -5 on hue, +20 on saturation, -5 on brightness
4. Adjust sharpness by; "sharpen more"

I always resize first, it seem to make the other adjustments make more of a difference.

You could just be a "machine-gunner." Take a couple hundred pictures, and a few are bound to turn out alright. That's my modus operandi

Jim Lyding wrote:Take a couple hundred pictures,

I love Digital Cameras. You can't waste Pixels like 35mm film

Jim Lyding wrote:You could just be a "machine-gunner." Take a couple hundred pictures, and a few are bound to turn out alright. That's my modus operandi

That's a given!