# Some inept attempts at shooting in low light. :(



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Umm I know these pics shouldnt have been shown publicly, but I need some advice which is why I have posted them, I know the pics are horrible. I tried to take these pics in candle light and every one of them is blurry. (Yes I know the composition or whatever it is called is terrible, but I was more like trying to see if I can take pics under the light of a candle.) I do not have a tripod so I put a couple of bags on to the seat of a chair and put the camera on top of the bags, hoping it would be steady enough but I guess my hands are too shaky. I would like someone's opinion about what might have caused the blur? Could it be camera shake or does it look like I actually did not focus clearly enough? (The camera is a Nikon D-40, I tried to use the focus ring to focus but I couldnt bring my eye close enough to the view finder and there is a very big possibility that I did not focus sharply enough. But the little dot which shows whether the subject is in focus was flickering very rapidly, and I could not actually get it to stay on, so maybe that is the problem?) I know it is something wrong with the way I was shooting and not a camera problem, so I would like opinions about the blur. 
































I do have a couple of questions, if I may ask. I plug the camera to the pc via USB port, is it possible for a virus to get into my camera and mess it up? I guess the camera must have some sort of software running it, so could a virus infect the camera? 

I tried to use the rule of thirds a little, did I succeed even a little bit? (If I didnt, please do tell me so, so that I can try again until I get it right.)

I suppose I really should get a tripod if I want to shoot in low light, especially as my hands are so shaky I couldnt hold the camera still at speeds of 1/20th of a second? Are they really costly? I saw some comparatively cheap ones I could buy if I save up a bit, but would those be any good? I saw a few ones as low as US $ 55, from Benro or Vanguard (I dont remember correctly, sorry.) 

Again, sorry for those terrible pics. Please do send replies


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

Quit apologizing, you're out there taking shots, that's what counts.

Regarding the blurring: some suggestions
1) Make sure you're in manual focus mode. Often auto focus has trouble finding the subject in low light. If possible, turn the lights on --> focus and compose -->turn them off.
2) you were on the right path supporting the camera on bags. Many professional photog's carry bean bags for just that purpose. Make sure the camera is sitting in them solidly. Then try using the self timer to activate the shutter rather than your finger. 
3) Add a little light to the scene. Not enough to change the candle lit mood but enough to gain a few shutter speeds.
4) shoot in full manual mode with the lens wide open.
5) purchase a wireless release LINK
6) Bump up the iso 

We can get to the rest later.


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

Hi buccaneer :wave:

To start at the end-questions first:

No, a PC can't send a virus to your camera, the virus would need to be written specifically for that make/model of camera, as it has a custom Operating-System for that camera.

#2 & #3 are good poses, though the feet have been chopped off. The 'Rule of Thirds' is only a general guide in reality, the subject can be in any 1/3 of the frame or 2/3 (or anywhere in between :grin - It depends entirely on what appeals to your eye.

Re: Shooting in low-light, try setting a spot-lamp or side-lamp on the subject for setting up and focussing, then turn the light off for the actual shooting.

To get rid of the handshake, set the camera on a bean-bag, pile of books or whatever then when you get the camera set and ready to shoot, use the self-timer set to 2 seconds (or shortest time) and remove your hands - Just make sure the camera won't move or fall over when you let it go :wink:

If you're mostly shooting indoors, a table-top tripod would suit most of your needs (*Link*, sorry for UK prices). You'd need one sturdy enough to take the weight of your camera though, some of the very cheap ranges can bend and flex with a just a light 'Point-&-Shoot' pocket-camera on 'em - Otherwise, Hama and Velbon make good tripods (I've had my Velbon since the mid-80's and it still works like new). Manfrotto make the most practical for getting to any angle possible, but they're also amongst the most expensive :sigh:

PS - Another recommendation if your budget allows it, pick a tripod with a 3-way pan-head or Ball-head, you'll have full control of the camera's angle then.


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Thank you for the replies  
I tried again using full manual mode, with an extra candle but I forgot all about bumping up the iso :banghead:. Have to try that again now. 

@yustr: Thank you for the link to the remote shutter release gadget sir, I'll get that as soon as possible. I couldnt try the self timer thing as my camera tends to shift around once I take my hand off it- my bags arent solid enough support, I'll have to get a tripod when I have saved up. The I set up my bags, it is a pain to focus correctly- cant get my eye upto the viewfinder properly, and it's a wobbly platform. 

@Werebo: It's a relief to know I neednt be scared of viruses hehe. As to the feet, I tried to leave out the bottom part as the figures rest on a sort of prop up thing. I've tried to improve on that. The bag I use isnt too sturdy, so I would have to wait until I get a proper tripod. Thank you for the link Werebo, I will look around at our local camera store and see what these things cost in my money. Ty for pointing out about the 3-way pan head/ ball head, I will look for that when I have managed to save up some money. 

I am putting in a few more shots that I took today. I am using a bottle full of water placed in front of the candles to sort of 'concentrate' the light into a streak. The pics with Yoda does look more blurred that the others, I dunno why. Possibly camera shake again, arrrrrgh! I'm still trying to comply with the rule of thirds as I dont know enough to improvise on the rule.:sad:


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

You can make a 'bean-bag' easily enough, you need a close-woven cotton-bag (approx twice as large as your camera when laid on it's back) and fill it 1/2 - 2/3 full of Basmati-rice (cos it smells nice), then stitch it shut - Voila, 1 bean-bag ready for use :grin:

The bag needs to be larger than the camera so, on the off-chance it does fall over, it has a soft landing :wink:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Aha! So that's the way to make a bean-bag. Ty so much Werebo, I'll make myself one hehe. 

I went to the local zoo thinking I would take some pics unnoticed but everyone else were taking pics with their mobile phones, and I felt awkward. I did take some pics though, but in my hurry, I often ended up with tails or legs cut off.:facepalm: 

I'll (fearfully) post a few of 'em so folks can tell me the mistakes they see in them. 












































^^^ There seems to be some odd extra colouring in that pic, I dunno where that came from.


























The big cats were all in their cages and this one was the only guy(or girl) who wasnt sleeping. I do hate how the cage bars come up in the pics though. Is there a way to avoid the cage itself showing? Perhaps if the subject is far enough away from the cage, and I focus correctly on the subject, maybe the cage bars in the front will fade out?? I think Werebo has taken pics of raptors in cages without the cage bars obscuring the birds, how did you do that Werebo?


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

I can see you've been practising, they're much better shots









Firstly, never feel awkward or self-concious about using your camera (unless there's lots of signs that say 'No Photography' about :grin - Most mobile-phone cameras are OK for instant-snaps, but it's only the very top-end phones that start to come near a 'real' camera's capabilities and picture-quality. They might have the top-of-the-range phones with lots of bells and whistles, but your camera's going to take better quality pictures.


#1 is a great portrait but a tighter cropping would make it an excellent one, along with a slight tweak to the 'levels' ('Levels' are used in photo-editing software, you can adjust the upper, lower and mid-tones to enhance a photo to a more natural light - (See Donald's mini-tutorial *here*).

Ditto with #2, the background lighting makes a good backdrop to show the monkey, but a tighter crop would lose some of the distracting leaves etc.

#3 and #4 would be great shots, but the unavoidable wire-fencing loses it - Unless you can get very close to the fencing i.e. the lens is almost touching the wire, it's almost impossible to work around it :sigh:

Re: #5 with the odd colouring, it looks like you managed to shoot through the wire-fencing, and the colouring is the out-of-focus green wire - Great pic :wink:

The rhino in #6 is almost perfect, the background is nicely blurred to highlight the rhino and it's eating gives a point of interest, the only slight snag is it's rear-end cropped off :laugh:

#7 is much better, the 'Depth-of-Field' (Background/foreground blurred with the subject crisp and sharp) is spot-on, the light is excellent and it's crisp enough to see the ground texture.

#8 - I agree, @#*! bars!!! :grin:

A handy tip for when the animals look bored and refuse to co-operate, is to jangle a bunch of keys just before pressing the shutter-release. It's an unusual sound for them and they'll often look around curiously to see what's happening - It can be tricky though if you're using both hands to hold the camera, but with a bit of practice (and the keys on a large key-ring) you can hang the keys on a convenient little-finger and waggle it without shaking the camera :wink:

A bit more on shooting through fencing: - Get as close as possible to the wire and try to position the camera so the lens is looking through a hole. Manual-focussing is a lot easier than auto-focus here, the auto-focus can still get confused by the different distances.

Depth-of-Field is a matter of trial-and-error at first, depending on how close/far the subject is from the fencing - 'Bracketing' a shot (the camera takes 3 shots, 1 at recommended settings, 1 shot at a higher f-Stop and 1 at a lower f-Stop) can help show the differences between the settings - You need to get the fencing in the extremely blurred close-foreground, so it's almost invisible.

Also in some cases, if the subject is not too close the fencing, zooming in for a tightly-cropped shot can completely lose the fencing entirely but, for some reason, animals are rarely that accommodating :laugh:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Thank you Werebo, for the kind words.  
I did do a little bit of level tweaking as explained in DonaldG's tutorial hehe. I was using the manual mode and manual focus, but the cages have railings around them to keep people away so I couldnt get real close. The smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field, right? I used the biggest aperture my lens could do- it is 4-5.6, it's a cheap lens. Thank you for the tips about getting the cage out of the way, Werebo.


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

I must admit that railings are a photographer's biggest frustration :banghead: - Years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the 'Viewing-Gallery' (50th floor) of the Canary Wharf Tower (when it was the tallest building in London) with my 35mm Praktica - 3 rolls of 36-frame colour-film were shot with mostly beautiful shots except for 1 major problem with every one.

The windows were slightly angled outwards and safety-railings were fitted approx 6' from the glass - All 108 photos were hazy and 'blue-tinged' from that *!#*ed glass!!! - What really 'rubbed salt into the wound' was that I had to wait 2 weeks for the films to be posted, process and posted back at some cost :sigh:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Werebo, shooting on film is harder than shooting on digital sensor isnt it? I mean in digital cams you can atleast see right away if something went wrong with a shot.
Arrrrgh! No film for me hehe. I would be broke if I had to send the film to be processed and printed. And unlike you, most of my shots would be terrible anyways lol. I really feel bad hearing you had to wait for 2 weeks and then see that your shots were ruined by the bloody glass. 

Btw we have a professional photo studio near where I live and the guy always does too much 'artwork' on the photos you take there. My cousin sister went there and he drew her wonderful eyebrows and fiddled with the face so much, she ended up looking like a seductive ghost or something. :rofl: She's never gone back to him lol. Some of our 'pros' do such things, I dunno why.


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

It's not just film shooters or even just your local guy...PHOTOSHOP FAILS :facepalm:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Thank you for the link sir, those are some real shoddy work indeed.


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

Nice pics there Buccaneer - You'll have to edit the thread-title to remove the 'inept' bit :grin:

I like the play of light and shadow in #1, and the hippo carrying either it's bedding on it's back or it's trying to tempt the one behind into it's lair :laugh:

#2 is nicely subtle, with the pigeon strolling along behind the stag, you've caught the ground-textures very nicely too, with the wet and dry patches :wink:

#3 could do with a slightly larger 'depth-of-field' (smaller aperture), to bring the animal's hind-quarters into sharper focus, but the composition is very good.

#4 is a nice balance of the 'Rule of thirds', it's a shame the zebra and bird are in the shade though, but there's not much that can be done about that except possibly a bit of flash to 'fill in' the darker bits.

All in all though, your pics are improving nicely


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

I agree with Werebo, they're nice shots.

Two suggestions: 
1) this would have been a time to bump up the iso setting to give you one or two stops more light capture
2) this shots could have used some post-processing. #4 for example would look better (IMO) if you were to crop out the fence and lighten in the foreground. Both actions are readily accomplished using most software (including GIMP which is powerful and FREE :dance: )


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Thank you for being so kind and nice, both of you.

@ Werebo: That thing on the hippo's back is it's food I think. There was a guy standing up on the top of the den throwing down stuff. I umm actually didnt sit and think about the light and shadow, I just focused and clicked. I think I have yet to develop the 'eye' for pics hehe.
Oh I could have just used a smaller aperture and got the hind quarters of the buffalo looking better huh? I didnt think of that! :facepalm:
Again, with #4, I didnt make any conscious decision to apply the rule of thirds. Oh gawd there are a lot of things to think about before making a shot isnt there! Thank you for saying the pics are nice, but honestly, they just happened, I didnt actually ponder about the variable going into the shots or anything. I was kind of in a fidgety mood as there were so many people around.

@ yustr: Oh yes sir, I need to play around with iso settings and get a feel for it, and then I'll have to adjust all the variables and composition for my shots, I have a long way to go yet to becoming a decent photographer. My D40 has a function button which, I just found out, can be set to alter some variables and I just set it to adjust the iso settings, so now I can adjust iso without having to go into menus.
Hmmm yes, that fence is a distraction isnt it. I understand about cropping the pic but how do I lighten just the foreground where the zebra is sir? I do have photoshop, but all I use is the levels function as outlined in DonaldG's tutorial. Should I select the foreground using the selection tool and then adjust the levels?


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

That's how you can usually tell you're on the way to being a good photographer, you see a scene, photograph it then realise how well it's worked out afterwards - It's becoming an instinct :grin:

It's very rare that I 'plan' a photo that much, I usually zoom in to the subject and, depending on the location, include or exclude some background scenery for interest/balance.


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

But Werebo, all your pics look really great- I think you probably think of everything without even realizing it. With me, it is like I see something and get it focused in a hurry and click and then go 'oh dang I forgot to set the iso' or 'heck, I didnt look at the light meter to see whether the lighting was proper'! :tongue: 
I dont get many interesting subjects around home, so I am thinking of going to the zoo again hehe. We have beaches but they are full of people. I think I should start looking at everyday scenes with an eye for whether it would look good as a pic. Sometimes some guys send in pics to our newspaper about stuff-like the eggs of a chameleon hatching- which look nice. I guess they keep their cameras handy whenever they stir out of the house just in case something interested pops up? Maybe I should start doing that too. 
Btw Werebo, you saw that pic of a kookaburra that Zuluclayman put up in the chat room right? Do you know what kind of lens he used for that one? Must have been one with a very long reach?


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

Hi bucaneer :wave: 

that pic was shot with using Canon 60d with a 70-300mm lens at 300mm handheld so not as sharp as it should be - I sway & wobble when standing still these days :laugh:

Your zoo pics are nice - just as yustr and WereBo say - try to make sure your composition is what you want when taking pics - we often just focus our view on the subject (person/item/animal) of the pic and forget to look at the whole of the image including what's in the background and/or foreground.

You can selectively adjust areas of images in Photoshop by using the quick mask & gradient tools or by selecting the area with the lasso or any other selection tool (rectangle, circle etc) then feathering the selection (Select>Modify>Feather) so the effect you apply to the selected area is graduated and doesn't have hard edges.


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

buccaneer said:


> But Werebo, all your pics look really great- I think you probably think of everything without even realizing it. With me, it is like I see something and get it focused in a hurry and click and then go 'oh dang I forgot to set the iso' or 'heck, I didnt look at the light meter to see whether the lighting was proper'! :tongue:
> I dont get many interesting subjects around home, so I am thinking of going to the zoo again hehe. We have beaches but they are full of people. I think I should start looking at everyday scenes with an eye for whether it would look good as a pic. Sometimes some guys send in pics to our newspaper about stuff-like the eggs of a chameleon hatching- which look nice. I guess they keep their cameras handy whenever they stir out of the house just in case something interested pops up? Maybe I should start doing that too.
> Btw Werebo, you saw that pic of a kookaburra that Zuluclayman put up in the chat room right? Do you know what kind of lens he used for that one? Must have been one with a very long reach?


Actually, the lighting etc. is the last thing I think of :laugh: - I set the camera's preset-settings to what I'm shooting (flowers, beach, snow, natural light, sport, night, night+tripod, fireworks etc.) and the camera sets itself when I 1/2-press the shutter-release. The only time I get 'fiddly' is when I use the 'Super-Macro' feature for extreme close-ups of insects, individual flowers etc.

I can set the camera to fully manual for aperture and shutter-speed, but it's fiddly to adjust through the menu system and, by the time I've guesstimated the settings, the conditions have changed (big cloud over the sun, subject got bored and walked/crawled/flown away)

Although you're not really into taking photos of people, a beach full of folks can make a wonderfully colourful picture, if they're in their swimwear etc. If you can find a quiet bit of coast, the waterline can also make superb shots (See Zulu's photos of Newcastle beach :wink

Even a street full of people can be dazzling, especially where you are if there's lots of ladies wearing their various coloured saris - You don't always need faces to make a crowd-shot, sometimes just catching the 'atmosphere' of a scene will make an excellent photo; for example, this was taken during Prince Edward and Kate's wedding celebrations a few years ago....











These were taken during the 'Celebrate the Heroes' Olympic Parade last year....



















There's not a lot of faces showing, but they capture the 'feel' of the party....


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

Regarding setting exposures versus composition ...

Last night I was at a basketball game with my camera and new lens (photos to follow when processed). Before the game started I spent quite a bit of time and many shots testing shutter speeds, F-stop, iso, from the various shooting positions. That way, when the action started I could concentrate on the shot and not messing with the settings.

But I've shot a lot of BB games. 

So I suggest that when you go back to the zoo you do exactly the opposite.  Yes, find the image you want to capture. Compose it in your mind and then in the view finder. And only then begin to adjust the setting in the camera. For example, you may decide on a very narrow field of focus with a nice boken (blurry background) so the settings have to allow for a wide open lens. Or maybe you see a sign that would ruin the natural look of the animal enclosure - then move to a slightly different angle. Get to know the shooting locations at your zoo so you can move from one to the next and know what to expect. 

When you've got the image right, then take some test shots. Review them for exposure and adjust as necessary. Or just use the automatic settings. 


When all that is done...hope the dang animals cooperate. :grin:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

@ Zuluclayman: Thank you sir, for telling me about the lens. (I was too scared to ask directly hehe). Whee a 300 mm lens huh? *drools* My long lens is a 55-200mm, I wish I had the money to buy a longer one. The pic is really great sir, even if you say you wobble too much hehe. (My hands shake worse than yours I bet, so there!) You are right sir, I just look at the subject usually and dont think of the other things that are around the subject until I view the pic on my computer. I should be more careful. And thank you so much sir, for that tip about photoshopping.

@ Werebo: Oooh I gotta find the pics of the Newcastle beach. Btw Werebo, people here dont usually sport their swimwear at the beaches hehe. Too shy I guess. I am jealous of you, coz you make such lovely pics out of everything. Thank you for posting those pics Werebo, I especially love the second one.

@ Yustr : Please, post the photos in the forum sir, I'd love to see your pics. I saw your christmas pic in the photography chatroom, it was so wonderful! Thank you sir, for teaching me about photography. I'll do as you directed and try to come up with better pics. I think I'll have to take a lottttt of pics to find out what works and what doesnt. What you guys do by instinct, I have to remember one by one and apply. I want to become as good as you people waaaa!


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

don't be scared to ask questions here bucaneer - that is the very purpose this section was set up for - for all of us to learn from each other :smile:

More of my pics can be seen here


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

buccaneer said:


> .............
> 
> I think I'll have to take a lottttt of pics to find out what works and what doesnt. What you guys do by instinct, I have to remember one by one and apply. I want to become as good as you people waaaa!


What seems instinct now needed deliberate thought when we started out, plus we're still learning too, so give yourself time then you'll surprise yourself when you look back at your early pics :grin:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

@ Zuluclayman: Ty for encouraging me sir, and next time I will surely ask my question directly hehe. I love the pics in the link you sent me, especially the birds. I am amazed with the colours you captured in the 'Redwattle bird feeding in browallia' pics. How did you do that?

@ Werebo: Ty too for being so encouraging,Werebo. Maybe education in any field never ends, but to me, you guys are up at the top hehe.


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

I'd like to ask a question if I may, please. When I increase or decrease the size of the aperture in my D40, it doesnt show any difference in the depth of field. For that, I need a camera with the option of depth of field preview right? (Which the D40 doesnt have, I think.) Or have I got it all wrong? Just today I tried to take a pic of a flower in the backyard and some plants and leaves behind the flower were blurred. I decreased the size of the aperture but they were still blurred. With a depth of field preview option, I would have been able to see the blurred parts slowly coming into focus with a smaller aperture right? (Um do I have to go study the basics of photography or am I correct in my guess? Please do respond.)


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

Most digital cameras should show the 'DoF', but the little screen on the back might not be big enough or clear enough to actually see the effect, it might also only show when the shutter-release is pressed 1/2-way and the camera calculates the settings. It takes a bit of practice to find the correct DoF as there's so many variables that can affect it; the distance from camera to subject and the amount of zoom used, combined with the aperture settings all give different DoF - i.e. you could be 12 feet away from the subject and zoomed in, or 2 feet away using a wider lens-setting and you'd need a different f-Stop for each position to get the same DoF.

It's one of those things that's a lot trickier to explain than to actually do, so don't be put off by my explanation :laugh:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

My poor little D40 doesnt have a live preview screen, I can only view pics after they have been shot. Also, it doesnt have a Depth of Field preview button, by which I guess normally cameras need that button for you to see the DoF. I read your reply and I googled for the factors affecting DoF and ooooh, there seems to be so many factors affecting it. I read that even the sensor size affects DoF, so now I feel like taking photography as a hobby is like learning optical engineering or something!  Thank you Werebo, for pointing out that it is not just the aperture that affects DoF, I didnt know that.


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

The camera sees 'light' entirely different from the eye doesnt it? I went to the zoo again today and although the sun was out and there was lots of light (according to my eyes that is), the camera light meter kept saying there wasnt enough light. Wonder why that is? I even had a couple of photos end up being completely dark. This was with my lens aperture as wide open as it would go (4-5.6f), and I had the speed set to 1/160 so's there wouldnt be any blur from hand shaking. I'm not supposed to be operating the flash at noon am I? I suppose f4 or 5.6 is a tiny aperture and I need a lens which will open up much more? For a couple of shots I ended up shooting at iso 800- at one pm in the afternoon outdoors! Thats not normal right? I must be doing something terribly wrong but I dunno what.








See? There isnt enough light right? And it is blurred, not focused.:facepalm:








^^^^ Has a greenish tinge I dunno why, maybe because of the cage netting through which I shot, which is painted green.
























This one was shot at iso 800 (My D40 only goes upto iso 3200 hehe) But to be honest after tweaking the levels now it seems there is too much light. Something isnt right with the pic,right?


----------



## zuluclayman (Dec 16, 2005)

> The camera sees 'light' entirely different from the eye doesn't it?


you're right in saying this - our eyes are incredible instruments with a huge Dynamic Range, able to almost "see in the dark" whereas cameras need lots and lots of light to operate well - just look at how much light (how powerful the lights are) in studio situations. Whenever there is shade your camera is struggling to get enough light in to expose well enough without having long exposure times (shutter speeds) leading to blurring.



> Has a greenish tinge I dunno why, maybe because of the cage netting through which I shot, which is painted green.


It actually has a bluish tinge - the camera's Auto White Balance has been fooled a bit and has given you a coolish setting - if using Photoshop you can use a warming filter (Image>Adjustments>Photo Filter) to bring it back.



> This one was shot at iso 800 (My D40 only goes upto iso 3200 hehe) But to be honest after tweaking the levels now it seems there is too much light. Something isnt right with the pic,right?


The high ISO has led it to being slightly overexposed - when tweaking the levels you can use the middle slider control (after setting both the black & white points) to darken or lighten the image to your satisfaction.
The image is also very noisy, again from the high ISO - to denoise it you can go to Filter>Noise>Reduce Noise play with the sliders, top one you can probably go as high as 80-100, next one to 1.2-2.0 and leave the bottom slider alone. You just have to watch that things don't start to look too much like plastic - denoising smooths things out.

All are slightly out of focus, no doubt from having shutter speeds as low as 1/60th sec - it takes a bit of practice to hold a camera steady at that - try stabilising the camera either against your body, on a solid object or by leaning against something. Your posture also can help - legs apart, one foot in front of the other makes your body more stable.

hope this helps :smile:


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

Yep the eyes see light totally different from a camera, the brain compensates for different light levels without you realising it, similar to when your eyes focus on something interesting and ignores the surrounding distractions, which the camera can't do, it just records whatever is in front of the lens.

Re: the pics, your composition is developing nicely but I suspect you're being limited by your camera now, not having a preview-screen is a setback unless you really know your camera and can estimate the settings fairly accurately - Sadly, the focus can't be estimated and does need to be spot-on :sigh:

#1 could be tweaked by adjusting the levels, but it would still be out of focus and 'sharpening' filters are still a bit limited in what they can do, without adding more 'noise' (graininess).

#2 is absolutely spot-on, the darker background shows the white bird perfectly, the bird is in crisp focus and looks to be dead-centre of the DoF. Looking closely at it, I can't see any indication of any netting in the way - Superbly taken









#3 has a nice play of light and shadows in the background, but the subject being blurred does let it down a bit - It seems as if the auto-focus has selected the wrong bit to focus on at the moment of taking the pic.

#4 would be an excellent portrait except for the focus again and it's toes cropped out, a beautiful bird though.

#5 can be re-tweaked, if you still have the untouched original (always make a copy to work with :wink, just slide the 'dark' slider up a bit to increase the contrast - Also, cropping the pic to just around the bird would lose the distracting background. It might be worth playing with the 'Sharpen' filter a bit, to try and reduce the 'noise' (grainy effect) from using a low ISO, though some of that might disappear after re-tweaking the levels.

Keep at it though Buccaneer, there's definite improvements showing in your work :grin:


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

Agree with my two friends - you're pic show much improvement in both composition and technique. Keep at it.

Regarding blur: as Zulu said, practice with proper hand and body position and you'll soon be able to shoot down to 1/30th easily or even 1/15th if you're really good. Here's my method: place the camera body on the pad of your left hand just above your wrist. That supports nearly all the weight. Now wrap your thumb and index finger (of that same hand) around the focus ring of the lens or the zoom ring is you're using autofocus. This helps stabilize the camera and allows easy turning without regripping each time. Get to know your lens so that you don't have to look to tell which ring you're on.

With the camera firmly in your left palm, tuck your elbow to the left-center of your chest so that the view finder is at eye level. Lock your wrist and arm in this position and place your right hand on the camera with thumb on the back, index finger on the shutter button and the other 3 fingers gripping the grip (where else would they go? :smile: ). Now move your right elbow to your chest and your eye to the view finder. 

You've now created a solid three point base (tripod) holding the camera steady as intergral part of your body. Now all you need to do is hold your body steady using foot placement, leaning against a (stout) support (rail, tree, building, ???) and 1/15 sec is achievable.

Try this - I'm sure you'll see improvement right away.


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Thank you all of you, for the instructive replies and the encouragement. I am so happy to hear that I am improving atleast a little bit hehe. But I must own to the fact that my shaky hands (from alcoholism!eeek!) werent really the cause of the out of focus pics I posted today, but rather that I keep everything in the manual mode and I didnt focus properly at all. I'll have to improve a lot there. 

@ Zuluclayman: Gawd now I cant even differentiate colours.:nonono: Yes sir, it is a bluish tinge, not a green one as I thought. I tried out the photoshop tricks you explained about, but possibly due to my eyesight being below average, the de-noising doesnt seem to make much difference. Hmmm I'll practice the proper stance, as far as I remember, I just stood in a casual way. Thank you for all the pointers sir, I love 'em!

@ Werebo: Yes, I understand Werebo, the pics being out of focus does really ruin it completely. Oooh, glad you feel atleast one pic is kinda ok hehe. But as I said, I cant blame it on autofocus as I focused manually. I need to practice focusing more. Thank you for being so kind and umm what's the word- teacherly? educative? instructive?, Werebo

@ Yustr: Oh ofcourse sir, with people such as you being so encouraging and illuminating, I am going to take pics whenever I can hehe. Thank you so much sir, for that detailed explanation about how to hold the camera properly. I am already trying it out, and hopefully, with practice, it'll become second nature to hold it so. 

May I ask a rather weird question please? Maybe it's only entry level Dslr's that have it, but my D40 has a dot in the view finder which is supposed to stay lit without flickering when the subject is in sharp focus. Do you folk use that 'in-focus' dot to help with the shooting? Also, my camera has just 3 focus markers or target markers in the viewfinder. Even in manual focus when the shutter release button is half way pushed down, one of the markers light up, so does this mean that the camera actually thinks the chosen marker which lights up is resting on the subject and thus calculates when then 'in focus' light should light up? (Oh dear I hope I havent said that in too muddled a way.) I'm asking because in some pics, the focus marker/pointer was pointing not at the animal I was shooting but something behind it. And I usually do use the in-focus dot as an aid so perhaps that's a reason why I got a lot of blurred pics? (I thought the focus pointers were only for autofocus but now I am wondering.) If you managed to make some sense of my rambling way of asking the question, please do reply.













































^^^^ Just a nutty shot of running water in the hippo cage.


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

After looking through the manual for your D40, it seems like there's 3 'Focus-areas' (the 3 sets of brackets) and an indicator (big dot) that shows when the bracketed subject is in focus - Unfortunately, the manual only explains how they operate in auto-focus mode, and not very well at that either :sigh:

I did notice that the viewfinder itself has a focus-adjustment to suit different users eyesight, have you adjusted yours to suit your vision? (P 14 of the manual *here*)


Those last pics are a lot better, I particularly like #3, with the bird looking as though it's tip-toeing so as to not wake the neighbours :laugh:

#5 would be better if the shot was zoomed in tight to just the water, but it's still a very nice shot with all the different textures and shadows :thumb:


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Hi Werebo

Hmmm the manual isnt too good is it! Perhaps even in the manual focus the camera uses the focus brackets to decide when to light up the 'in focus' dot. Oh I have adjusted the view finder thing to adjust for my bad eyesight, I set it to the max setting (in the minus side), not sure if that is enough to compensate though.(But the focus brackets are in sharp focus, so probably it's doing its job correctly)
Um the #3 was a bit difficult a shot for me as there is a brightly painted building just above the top left of the pic so had to move around like Yustr told me to, to get that off the frame. I think the animals are Cape Buffalos from Africa. 
Hmmm there are too many distractions in #5 you mean. My sense of aesthetics is a bit weird isnt it hehe. Btw the last bird in the post before isnt a zoo specimen, it's just some bird strutting around in the lion enclosure. (The lions were in their cages, werent let out into the natural setting enclosure.)

Oh umm do you actually use the focus indicator dot when you shoot in manual mode Werebo? I'm wondering whether the pros use any such aid or just rely on their splendid eyesight?


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

My camera is auto-focus only, no manual option :sigh: - Most of the time it works fine, but occasionally it locks onto the wrong subject.....

1st try.... :nonono:











2nd try..... :angry:










Finally, after lots more tries.....







(It's an 'Ash' tree key (seed), suspended by a spider-web thread :wink: - What made it particularly tricky was that it was spinning, as well as swing back and forth in the breeze. It took 10 minutes and over a dozen shots to get that 1 final pic :grin


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Hi Werebo
I just love that pic, I really do! Actually it made me come over all philosophical as if nature was saying that in time, everything dries up and falls to the ground or something like that. There is something about the pic that makes me look at it again and again. May I save it to my computer Werebo? Please? You sure did work hard to get that pic but it is worth the effort, it's really nice. How did you manage to get the subject at that precise angle? Just asking coz I love the way it is done. 

Oh I googled a bit for my question about focus brackets and the in-focus dot and this page: Tips For Manual Focus Shooting - D40/x/D60 Club Wiki , seems to say that the focus bracket should be on the subject while manual focusing. (Point number 4, that's what it means right?). So next time, I have to focus the subject first and then work on composing I think.


----------



## WereBo (Apr 5, 2008)

buccaneer said:


> Hi Werebo
> I just love that pic, I really do! Actually it made me come over all philosophical as if nature was saying that in time, everything dries up and falls to the ground or something like that. There is something about the pic that makes me look at it again and again. May I save it to my computer Werebo? Please? You sure did work hard to get that pic but it is worth the effort, it's really nice. How did you manage to get the subject at that precise angle? Just asking coz I love the way it is done.


Sure you can save it, if you want :grin: - It was pure luck that the leaf came out at that angle, either that or 'Fate' decided I'd worked hard enough for it :laugh: I originally posted it *here*, last year, if you want to see some more. This *link* is the photos of where they were taken... Oh, if you look carefully at the round seed at the top, you can just about see the single strand of spider-silk that's holding it up, parallel to the monument behind it :wink:




> Oh I googled a bit for my question about focus brackets and the in-focus dot and this page: Tips For Manual Focus Shooting - D40/x/D60 Club Wiki , seems to say that the focus bracket should be on the subject while manual focusing. (Point number 4, that's what it means right?). So next time, I have to focus the subject first and then work on composing I think.


That's how I read it too and from what I read on that page, it might be worth you trying the camera in either 'Dynamic' or 'Single Area' mode, then you can select which of the 'brackets' you want to use. When I had my old 35mm manual-focus Praktica, I used to compose the scene first, then focus on the main subject itself

Without seeing the actual camera and trying it though, it's hard to 'picture' using it, especially when working from the pics in the manual - All I can recommend is to experiment/play with the various settings and methods until you're fully familiar with them and find which works best for you.


----------



## buccaneer (Mar 3, 2005)

Thank you Werebo, I saved that lovely pic hehe. And thank you for the links too. 
Oh I do use the single area mode, but I didnt take any particular care to point the chosen focus bracket at the main subject while manual focusing. Yes Werebo, I'll play with the different settings and get more familiar with my equipment.


----------

