Need to learn how to use new camera

NUDIES!!!!

A fat, overweight lardass, and a ugly hoe, so what?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
you're shooting stands really still...

Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
light, and you'll get much better results.

Dave Head

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
you're shooting stands really still...

Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
light, and you'll get much better results.

Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PriscillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

Whoops, spelled her name wrong. Had to change the file name.
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PriscillaJohn.JPG

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
you're shooting stands really still...

Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
light, and you'll get much better results.

Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.

A flash _might_ have helped, but I took some blurry pics in a gym like that
with a flash anyway, since the amount of light coming in the window was still
enough to allow some rapid movement (a wrestling match) to cause blur. Of
course, you're standing there like a rock, so yes, probably you could get a
sharp picture that way, too.

Dave Head

John Hanson said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some
more light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second.
Only way to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be
to put the camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and
make sure what you're shooting stands really still...

Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
light, and you'll get much better results.

Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.

What kind of camera is it?

If you can change the ASA, that works better than using the flash for
this kind of picture (strictly my opinion - I hate the way flash light
flattens everything out, I think it's ugly). Shooting at a higher ASA
would give you a faster shutter speed, which would allow you to capture
more of the available light and reduce the tendency for blurriness. I
mess around a lot with indoor, low light situations and I frequently
have to set my ASA to 1600 in order to keep any kind of decent focus
going on; it's either that or set up a tripod and I'm far too lazy for
that most of the time.

If you can't change your ASA, then yeah - flash. Does it have a fill
flash? That would produce a less harsh result.

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:09:12 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
>blurry. Sheesh!
>http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG
>
>You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
you're shooting stands really still...

Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
light, and you'll get much better results.

Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.

A flash _might_ have helped, but I took some blurry pics in a gym like that
with a flash anyway, since the amount of light coming in the window was still
enough to allow some rapid movement (a wrestling match) to cause blur. Of
course, you're standing there like a rock, so yes, probably you could get a
sharp picture that way, too.

That's the other thing. I do have a setting on the camera for action
photos but didn't use it. Nearly every picture I took of the lifts
today are blurry. As in really blurry. Now, I took action shots of
animals moving down in Florida and didn't have that problem but they
were outside in the bright sunlight.

Quoted message said:

Whoops, spelled her name wrong. Had to change the file name.>

It shoulda been http:northernlinks.com/Yohan/UgleeHoe/Fatass.Jpg

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:09:20 GMT, [email hidden] (The Queen of
Cans and Jars) wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

John Hanson said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
>blurry. Sheesh!
>http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG
>
>You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some
more light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second.
Only way to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be
to put the camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and
make sure what you're shooting stands really still...

Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
light, and you'll get much better results.

Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.

What kind of camera is it?

Panasonic FZ-20.

Quoted message said:

If you can change the ASA, that works better than using the flash for
this kind of picture (strictly my opinion - I hate the way flash light
flattens everything out, I think it's ugly). Shooting at a higher ASA
would give you a faster shutter speed, which would allow you to capture
more of the available light and reduce the tendency for blurriness. I
mess around a lot with indoor, low light situations and I frequently
have to set my ASA to 1600 in order to keep any kind of decent focus
going on; it's either that or set up a tripod and I'm far too lazy for
that most of the time.

If you can't change your ASA, then yeah - flash. Does it have a fill
flash? That would produce a less harsh result.

Now you lost me. I know two things about using this camera, jack and
[censored]. Here are two action photos from Florida:
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/GolfSnake.jpg
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/snake.jpg

On 30 Apr 2005 19:12:01 -0700, [email hidden] wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whoops, spelled her name wrong. Had to change the file name.>

It shoulda been http:northernlinks.com/Yohan/UgleeHoe/Fatass.Jpg

That comes up file not found.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:11:51 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:09:12 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
>wrote:
>
>>Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
>>blurry. Sheesh!
>>http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG
>>
>>You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.
>
>Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
>light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
>to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
>camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
>you're shooting stands really still...
>
>Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
>tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
>light, and you'll get much better results.
>
Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.

A flash _might_ have helped, but I took some blurry pics in a gym like that
with a flash anyway, since the amount of light coming in the window was still
enough to allow some rapid movement (a wrestling match) to cause blur. Of
course, you're standing there like a rock, so yes, probably you could get a
sharp picture that way, too.

That's the other thing. I do have a setting on the camera for action
photos but didn't use it. Nearly every picture I took of the lifts
today are blurry. As in really blurry. Now, I took action shots of
animals moving down in Florida and didn't have that problem but they
were outside in the bright sunlight.

Yep, more light will make better pics. The fun thing about this is that you
aren't buying and paying for a ton of film and developing. The
action-inside-the-gym with lots of light coming in from the windows is a tough
nut to crack. I never did get non-blurred wrestling shots.

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 only goes to ASA 400, so that would have only
given you a 1/8th second exposure in the shot we're looking at. Still would
probably blur. ASA 1600 might have helped, but that would be a different
camera.

Dave Head

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:25:34 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:11:51 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:09:12 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
>in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
>>>blurry. Sheesh!
>>>http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG
>>>
>>>You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.
>>
>>Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
>>light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
>>to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
>>camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
>>you're shooting stands really still...
>>
>>Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
>>tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
>>light, and you'll get much better results.
>>
>Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.

A flash _might_ have helped, but I took some blurry pics in a gym like that
with a flash anyway, since the amount of light coming in the window was still
enough to allow some rapid movement (a wrestling match) to cause blur. Of
course, you're standing there like a rock, so yes, probably you could get a
sharp picture that way, too.

That's the other thing. I do have a setting on the camera for action
photos but didn't use it. Nearly every picture I took of the lifts
today are blurry. As in really blurry. Now, I took action shots of
animals moving down in Florida and didn't have that problem but they
were outside in the bright sunlight.

Yep, more light will make better pics. The fun thing about this is that you
aren't buying and paying for a ton of film and developing. The
action-inside-the-gym with lots of light coming in from the windows is a tough
nut to crack. I never did get non-blurred wrestling shots.

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 only goes to ASA 400, so that would have only
given you a 1/8th second exposure in the shot we're looking at. Still would
probably blur. ASA 1600 might have helped, but that would be a different
camera.

Thanks! BTW, no windows in that gym. Most gyms I've been in don't
have them. These were taken in Kasson, MN earlier today at the Zumbro
Valley Open. That Priscilla sure is a cutie.

Another example action shot in sunlight of my dog running at the park
last weekend:

http://northernlinks.com/yohan/BudRavinePark.jpg

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:29:03 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:25:34 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:11:51 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:09:12 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
>>in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
>>>>blurry. Sheesh!
>>>>http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG
>>>>
>>>>You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.
>>>
>>>Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
>>>light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
>>>to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
>>>camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
>>>you're shooting stands really still...
>>>
>>>Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
>>>tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
>>>light, and you'll get much better results.
>>>
>>Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.
>
>A flash _might_ have helped, but I took some blurry pics in a gym like that
>with a flash anyway, since the amount of light coming in the window was still
>enough to allow some rapid movement (a wrestling match) to cause blur. Of
>course, you're standing there like a rock, so yes, probably you could get a
>sharp picture that way, too.
>
That's the other thing. I do have a setting on the camera for action
photos but didn't use it. Nearly every picture I took of the lifts
today are blurry. As in really blurry. Now, I took action shots of
animals moving down in Florida and didn't have that problem but they
were outside in the bright sunlight.

Yep, more light will make better pics. The fun thing about this is that you
aren't buying and paying for a ton of film and developing. The
action-inside-the-gym with lots of light coming in from the windows is a tough
nut to crack. I never did get non-blurred wrestling shots.

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 only goes to ASA 400, so that would have only
given you a 1/8th second exposure in the shot we're looking at. Still would
probably blur. ASA 1600 might have helped, but that would be a different
camera.

Thanks! BTW, no windows in that gym. Most gyms I've been in don't
have them. These were taken in Kasson, MN earlier today at the Zumbro
Valley Open. That Priscilla sure is a cutie.

Hmmm... with just the interior gym lighting to worry about, the flash will
probably do the trick.

You both look kinda familiar, although I'm older than dirt (57, almost 58) so
I've seen so many people that everybody is starting to looking familiar. You
don't do anything with SCCA Road Rallying, do you? I get up to Wisconsin for
road rallies usually once or twice a year, and some of the people that show up
are from Mn. Also, get up to Mn to go canoeing/camping/fishing in BWCA and
Quetico, at Seagull Outfitters at the end of the Gunflint Trail. Could we have
possibly run into each other?

Gosh, if you're someone I _should_ be remembering, I'm going to be
embarassed...

Dave Head

John Hanson said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

I think it'd look great if you'd just get T-BUFF out of the shot.

-----------
Proton Soup

"And all this peace has been deceiving,
I need some wind to get me sailing"

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

I dunno. Except for the big, goofy looking guy who sneaked into the picture,
it looks fine to me.

David

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:38:01 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:29:03 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:25:34 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:11:51 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:09:12 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
>in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:50:54 GMT, Dave Head <[email hidden]> wrote
>>>in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:22:20 -0500, John Hanson <[email hidden]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
>>>>>blurry. Sheesh!
>>>>>http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG
>>>>>
>>>>>You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.
>>>>
>>>>Your $500 camera _can_ do better than that but only if you give it some more
>>>>light to work with. Your shutter speed turned out to be 1/4 second. Only way
>>>>to get a good shot in that low light without blur is going to be to put the
>>>>camera on a tripod, set the self-timer, don't touch it, and make sure what
>>>>you're shooting stands really still...
>>>>
>>>>Otherwise, you can go outside where it is bright, have subjects stand under a
>>>>tree or some other shade to avoid the "sun squint" that people do in bright
>>>>light, and you'll get much better results.
>>>>
>>>Should I have turned the flash on? Or I should say, opened the flash.
>>
>>A flash _might_ have helped, but I took some blurry pics in a gym like that
>>with a flash anyway, since the amount of light coming in the window was still
>>enough to allow some rapid movement (a wrestling match) to cause blur. Of
>>course, you're standing there like a rock, so yes, probably you could get a
>>sharp picture that way, too.
>>
>That's the other thing. I do have a setting on the camera for action
>photos but didn't use it. Nearly every picture I took of the lifts
>today are blurry. As in really blurry. Now, I took action shots of
>animals moving down in Florida and didn't have that problem but they
>were outside in the bright sunlight.

Yep, more light will make better pics. The fun thing about this is that you
aren't buying and paying for a ton of film and developing. The
action-inside-the-gym with lots of light coming in from the windows is a tough
nut to crack. I never did get non-blurred wrestling shots.

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 only goes to ASA 400, so that would have only
given you a 1/8th second exposure in the shot we're looking at. Still would
probably blur. ASA 1600 might have helped, but that would be a different
camera.

Thanks! BTW, no windows in that gym. Most gyms I've been in don't
have them. These were taken in Kasson, MN earlier today at the Zumbro
Valley Open. That Priscilla sure is a cutie.

Hmmm... with just the interior gym lighting to worry about, the flash will
probably do the trick.

You both look kinda familiar, although I'm older than dirt (57, almost 58) so
I've seen so many people that everybody is starting to looking familiar. You
don't do anything with SCCA Road Rallying, do you? I get up to Wisconsin for
road rallies usually once or twice a year, and some of the people that show up
are from Mn. Also, get up to Mn to go canoeing/camping/fishing in BWCA and
Quetico, at Seagull Outfitters at the end of the Gunflint Trail. Could we have
possibly run into each other?

I haven't been to the BWCA since 1979 but I get around most every
other part of north central/eastern Minnesota. I don't do the road
rally thing either but like I said, I do get around.

Quoted message said:

Gosh, if you're someone I _should_ be remembering, I'm going to be
embarassed...

Well, we'll both be because although your name sounds familiar, I'm
terrible with names and I don't remember you either.

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:40:11 GMT, "David Cohen"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Had a picture taken today which is my new favorite and parts of it are
blurry. Sheesh!
http://northernlinks.com/yohan/PricillaJohn.JPG

You'd think a $500 camera could do better than that.

I dunno. Except for the big, goofy looking guy who sneaked into the picture,
it looks fine to me.

I suppose you won't believe that she came all the way from Washington
just to see me:-)