Photo question

Peewiglet wrote

Quoted message said:

I've recently bought a new camera: a Canon A95.

Quoted message said:

I'm not a sophisticated photographer ... are there any other
particular parts of the manual that I should be concentrating on? Any
tips or techniques likely to make a significant difference?

Snap, in all particulars. Plus this is my first experience with digital
photography rather than the traditional kind, so much of what I'm about to
write may seem jejune as it's based on impressions of digital photography
per se as well as the camera; if so, apologies!

I've found that batteries are easily consumed and now try not to use the
screen unless I have to, to conserve battery life. If you're wanting to do
macro stuff, which I haven't tried yet, then you're probably going to have
to use the screen because of the parallax error between the lens and the
viewfinder. The screen is also not easy to see in direct sunlight; another
reason not to use it. I've also found the delay between pressing the
shutter button and the shutter clicking off putting, but that this can be
rectified by pressing the button half-way first to pre-focus.

I've been taking images at high resolutions (because I might want to print
out 10x8's on the printer I don't have yet, all recommendations considered)
and if I carried on doing that and was away for any length of time I'd want
a very large memory card, or a spare. I can get about 200 high-res images
on my 512 mb card. Of course you could take lower res images and get more,
but you never know which ones you're going to want to print until you see
them on screen!

I have been enormously impressed with the photo stitching software that came
with the camera and have used this a few times. The widest angle of the
lens isn't terribly wide so this is very useful for panoramic images. I'd
definitely read up on this bit of the manual (p49) and have a play before
you go.

I've also been impressed with the SCN functions (p51) and it would be worth
trying the indoor and foliage options before you go and possibly the snow
one too if there's likely to be some where you're going.

The landscape function seems straightforward and effective. The 'P'
function works well but I've found pre-focusing essential. I imagine that
shutter/aperture priority do what they say on the tin, although the range of
apertures is restricted; I want to have a play with these for photographing
waterfalls and the like sometime.

My next bit of revision is going to be on white balance, as a number of my
pictures from last weekend had a blue-ish cast. Could have been the day of
course, rather than the camera! But I want to get to grips with that soon.

And is it just me, or does owning a digital camera mean that you have to
start to learn photoshop elements more or less immediately? The program
used to sit on my PC doing nothing but it's got a lot of use since the
camera arrived and I've just ordered some books to stop me floundering
around and start working effectively with it. To think I used to live in
happy ignorance of histograms! Very useful things to know about now though.

Best of luck!

T.

Peewiglet said:

I've recently bought a new camera: a Canon A95.

I'm not a sophisticated photographer, but this is a step up from my
previous camera and I'd really like to be able to get some good
piccies with it. I know that stuff like composition is up to me, but I
have a few days to look at the manual before I go away and I'm
wondering whether there are any particular things I should read up
on/practise which might make a real difference.

I'd like to be able to get some closeups of insects and things, so
presumably I'll have to read the macro part, but are there any other
particular parts of the manual that I should be concentrating on? Any
tips or techniques likely to make a significant difference?

Many thanks for any help.

Hang on I'll just have a peruse of the review at
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona95/
V

V

V
Right. It says in "cons" in the conclusion that it doesn't handle wide
dynamic range very well on bright days. I can't be bothered to read
the whole thing to find out exactly what they mean but I wouldn't mind
betting (based on my experience with an A40) that it has a tendency to
blow the highlights in auto mode. One of the display modes will bring
up a histogram http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona95/page3.asp
So if you use that in conjunction with manual exposure or exposure
compensation you should be able to check that the histogram doesn't go
off the right hand edge and keep the highlights.

You might want to set the camera up to not use the AiAF and make it
use just the centre focus point. That way you can decide what to focus
on - half-press the shutter to get a lock on the object you want in
focus and then reframe before fully pressing to take. Alternatively
there is a manual focus involving a few button presses with a magnify
option available to see better what you are focusing on.

As with all digicams the optical viewfinder is likely to be horrible;
best stick with the LCD screen.

Am I right in thinking that this camera is going on the TGO across
Scotland? In which case you are fine for batteries as it will take any
AA you care to throw in it.For long term use I would recommend a
couple of sets of high capacity NiMh's as you will probably get more
use out of a set of them than a set of alkalines - something to do
with the high current drain apparently. I used to get about a week's
worth out of my 200mAH NiMh's in my A40 taking about 200 pics with a
bit of review (aka looking at the pics on the LCD) as well as using
the screen to compose. If you are /really/ desperate to conserve
battery life you can turn the screen off and use the optical v/f only.

Get as big a CF card as you can afford. If you set it to "large fine"
it will give a huge amount of pics on a 1GB card. I wouldn't bother
with smaller resolution files - but then I hate to throw information
away I used to use my A40 at largest and finest unless I was away from
home for extended periods. I only had a 128MB card though - they were
relatively expensive when I bought mine.

2592 x 1944 JPEG Fine (average file size 1,790 KB) so about 700 images
on a 1GB card.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

The infamous Peewiglet was quoted in the papers as saying in
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'd like to be able to get some closeups of insects and things, so
presumably I'll have to read the macro part, but are there any other
particular parts of the manual that I should be concentrating on? Any
tips or techniques likely to make a significant difference?

Many thanks for any help.

For Macro work, depends on how you define macro... Either way if it's
insects then a flash (try experimenting with a bounce flash using the
cameras on board flash, ie a bit of plastic card and tape it to the top
to bounce light down) and a tripod is a requirement especially if you
are going 1:1. If it's flowers then a tripod is again essential and a
plamp can prove useful to hold the stems. Also use the remote capture
feature to minimise shake on the body.

Since the A95 has issues with dynamic range you may want to consider
double exposures ie exposure for the bright area and then the dark areas
and then blend them in Photoshop.

Batteries, get NIMH higher the better (2000mHA or better) and a charger.
If you travel by car then get a dual source charger. 7DayShop.com do
some good deals on batteries.

Memory cards, since the file sizes are only 3Mb get 2x 512 cards, this
means if one fails you don't lose all your shots. You may consider more
cards might be useful. For memory cards, try WarehouseExpress.com for
decent prices.

Shoot the highest resolution always, you never know when you will get a
shot of a lifetime (trust me I missed one!).

Photographing insects means you will be out early in the morning when
it's cold and insects are least mobile... This means low light, practice
in your garden, local woods to get a feel of your camera and how it
responds... You may have issues focusing and/or image noise.

Final tip, shoot within your shot. Shoot a landscape then zoom to a
mountain, shoot a whole flower then shot just the head. Take more shots
than you think you will actually need. the best shot is often the one
you didn't think that would work.

Could go on, but that should keep you going for now ;o).
--
One man, One Camera and a Demented Vision:

www.CelticShadows.co.uk

Simon Caldwell said:

Tony Buckley said:

I've found that batteries are easily consumed and now try not to use the
screen unless I have to, to conserve battery life.

Better to buy a spare battery or two, and the means to recharge
wherever you happen to be (if poss). Not using the screen is fine in
theory, but you get a different view through the viewfinder so you're
never quite sure what you're taking.

Especially with closeup work, where the parallax error is greatest.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Phil Cook wrote

Quoted message said:

Especially with closeup work, where the parallax error is greatest.

Which is what I said.

Having tried a few shots with the macro function over the weekend, I think
you'd be hard pressed to get a good image without using the screen as (a)
parallax and (b) you'd probably end up flat on the ground when taking the
picture. Initial thoughts: the focus adjustment function works a treat,
playing around with ISO ratings can help a lot if the close proximity of the
camera cuts out light (mind you, it was quite dull when I was trying this)
and it's worth playing with apertures to get a nice blurry background.

Simon Caldwell wrote, on the subject of learning photoshop elements,

Quoted message said:

Not at all - most of my digi photos are fine without any
post-processing.

I've found that simply adjusting levels (to tweak the histogram, and not
forgetting to flatten the image afterwards) and playing with unsharp mask
can make a good deal of difference, and for the time it takes it's worth
doing. I shall get to the more advanced stuff when the self-help books
arrive.

T.
No, not *that* kind of self-help books.

Tony Buckley said:

I've been taking images at high resolutions (because I might want to print
out 10x8's on the printer I don't have yet, all recommendations considered)
and if I carried on doing that and was away for any length of time I'd want
a very large memory card, or a spare. I can get about 200 high-res images

I've been looking into a decent photo printer recently as well. I have yet
to find a website with really useful information and reviews. Something like
dpreview for printers! Do you know a good source of information? Anyone?

Quoted message said:

My next bit of revision is going to be on white balance, as a number of my
pictures from last weekend had a blue-ish cast. Could have been the day of
course, rather than the camera! But I want to get to grips with that soon.

[...]

Quoted message said:

around and start working effectively with it. To think I used to live in
happy ignorance of histograms! Very useful things to know about now though.

It's amazing, isn't it - with a bit of luck you can make ruined images look
alright! I'm playing with the Gimp, but it seems the functions are quite
similar to those of Photoshop.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

On Tue, 3 May 2005 12:47:01 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Rudi

Winter) said:

I've been looking into a decent photo printer recently as well. I have yet
to find a website with really useful information and reviews. Something like
dpreview for printers! Do you know a good source of information? Anyone?

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

I looked into this a few months ago, and decided not to bother. You
need to pay a reasonable amount to get quality comparable to what
you'd get professionally, and you'd need to be doing an awful lot of
printing to justify that cost. I use www.ofoto.co.uk for most prints,
plus others as and when they have special offers.

S.

--
Stop ID cards and the Database State
http://www.no2id.net/

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon Caldwell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Even on the widest angle
landscapes, there is enough difference between the viewfinder and the
screen to completely mess up the composition.

Hm?
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon Caldwell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Even on the widest angle
landscapes, there is enough difference between the viewfinder and the
screen to completely mess up the composition.

Hm?

The LCD on my A40 was about 95 percent the viewfinder more like 75 :-(
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

The infamous Simon Caldwell was quoted in the papers as saying in
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

In addition to that:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

Personally, Canon are the easiest and cheapest to run out of all of
them. I have a Canon i965 for soft proofing images. I am also intending
to buy a Kodak 1400 for client prints. Problem with the 1400 is that
there is no stock for Europe till July!!

Ok, if you are serious about prints get a 6 or 8 ink system. However
unless you really want the tonal range of such a set up then a four ink
(or a 4 ink + black such a i865 did or whatever the equivalent Pixma
printer is) should be fine. Epsons get a bad rep for clogging heads,
however the longevity of their prints is 'superior' to Canon. HP is also
a good candidate for longevity but is very pricey for their inks. Epson
printers can also handle a wider media base than Canon, and HP are
building their base after revitalising their printer range. TBH though I
have had prints in a hospital ward unprotected for a year and there was
no issues with fading. however all dye inks are prone to water damage,
pigments are a bit more resistant. Also Canon printers are the fastest
on the market (a 6x4 print in 45 seconds!)

Pick your poison as they say.
--
I see great shots, but the voices worry me...

www.CelticShadows.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon Caldwell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Even on the widest angle
landscapes, there is enough difference between the viewfinder and the
screen to completely mess up the composition.

Hm?

The LCD on my A40 was about 95 percent the viewfinder more like 75 :-(

Maybe I got it wrong but I thought we were talking about parallax not
apparent image size and actual t image size.

Not the same discussion point methinks.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Simon Caldwell said:

I looked into this a few months ago, and decided not to bother. You
need to pay a reasonable amount to get quality comparable to what
you'd get professionally, and you'd need to be doing an awful lot of
printing to justify that cost. I use www.ofoto.co.uk for most prints,
plus others as and when they have special offers.

Simon, Faolan, Chris - thanks for your pointers.

The no-printer option is one I'm considering as well. I just think I
need some more information on what's available. The sites you suggest
look as if they have that. I did know about luminous landscape (great
site!) but it had escaped me that they also did printer reviews.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Rudi Winter said:

Simon Caldwell said:

I looked into this a few months ago, and decided not to bother. You
need to pay a reasonable amount to get quality comparable to what
you'd get professionally, and you'd need to be doing an awful lot of
printing to justify that cost. I use www.ofoto.co.uk for most prints,
plus others as and when they have special offers.

Simon, Faolan, Chris - thanks for your pointers.

The no-printer option is one I'm considering as well. I just think I
need some more information on what's available. The sites you suggest
look as if they have that. I did know about luminous landscape (great
site!) but it had escaped me that they also did printer reviews.

Mike reviews all sorts of stuff in his own kind of way. Everything
from gimbal mounts to network storage.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/index.shtml

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

The infamous Rudi Winter was quoted in the papers as saying in
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The no-printer option is one I'm considering as well. I just think I
need some more information on what's available.

If you go down the no printer solution then I can recommend
Photobox.co.uk, as their support is one of the best I have dealt with in
the last few years for a company.

Just remember if you go to a photo kiosk they are just as likely to use
a Dye Sub printer as a Fujitsu Frontier system. Mitsubishi and Kodak are
the 2 main brands that's used. Dye subs are a bit more expensive than
Ink jets and lack some of the gamut that a ink jet can produce however
the quality and the fact that it's semi splash proof is a big bonus.
Plus it's a fixed cost printer unlike a ink jet.
--
One man, One Camera and a Demented Vision:

www.CelticShadows.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

Maybe I got it wrong but I thought we were talking about parallax not
apparent image size and actual t image size.

You might be but I'm not :-)

I'm just saying that if you use the viewfinder, the chances are that
what you think you're taking will be different from what you're
actually taking.
]
--
Stop ID cards and the Database State
http://www.no2id.net/

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon Caldwell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

Maybe I got it wrong but I thought we were talking about parallax not
apparent image size and actual t image size.

You might be but I'm not :-)

I'm just saying that if you use the viewfinder, the chances are that
what you think you're taking will be different from what you're
actually taking.
]

True - oh so true. One point not often mentioned is that when you use a
zoom feature, the effect is not seen in the viewfinder, but is only
evident on the LCD screen. This I find a bit of a nuisance after being
familiar with SLR through the lens stuff because I find the LCD screen
difficult to see properly if I haven't got my reading glasses on :-(

BTW how many digital convertees when "going back" to a film SLR have a
look at the non existent LCD screen to see the result of the shot ?

Old habits die hard :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Simon Caldwell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

Maybe I got it wrong but I thought we were talking about parallax not
apparent image size and actual t image size.

You might be but I'm not :-)

I'm just saying that if you use the viewfinder, the chances are that
what you think you're taking will be different from what you're
actually taking.
]

True - oh so true. One point not often mentioned is that when you use a
zoom feature, the effect is not seen in the viewfinder, but is only
evident on the LCD screen.

Eh? Is that because your camera is using a digital rather than an
optical zoom? Both of my digital cameras (Olympus mju410 and C70Z) have
a viewfinder zoom to match the optical zoom. I have the digital zoom
permanently disabled since there is little point in doing in the camera
what is easier to do later in a desktop editor.

Quoted message said:

This I find a bit of a nuisance after being familiar with SLR through
the lens stuff because I find the LCD screen difficult to see
properly if I haven't got my reading glasses on :-(

Do you have a diopter correction on your SLR? Surely if you need
reading glasses for the LCD you'd also need them for the viewfinder
of the SLR?

The LCD screen on my C70Z is better in daylight than my mju
410 but it tends to consume power more quickly. Usually for long trips
away from my recharger I use the cameras with the LCD turned off to
conserve power.

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark, C.U. Department of Pathology
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "a mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"<http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True - oh so true. One point not often mentioned is that when you use a
zoom feature, the effect is not seen in the viewfinder, but is only
evident on the LCD screen.

Eh? Is that because your camera is using a digital rather than an
optical zoom?

Yes - 3 x digital zoom on a cheapo Samsung camera.

My more sophisticated digital compact does have optical Zoom and the
zoom can be seen in the view finder.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This I find a bit of a nuisance after being familiar with SLR through
the lens stuff because I find the LCD screen difficult to see
properly if I haven't got my reading glasses on :-(

Do you have a diopter correction on your SLR?

Yes. I can see the screen well enough with my reading glasses on.

--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"Faolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The infamous Rudi Winter was quoted in the papers as saying in
<[email hidden]>...

If you go down the no printer solution then I can recommend
Photobox.co.uk, as their support is one of the best I have dealt with in
the last few years for a company.

I can vouch for Photobox, fantastic prints, and they recently did a special
offer of 10x8's (or A4) for 99p each (usually £1.99).