DSLRUsers.com

Focus!

its actually a mistake I have made on a number of occasions, whether it be a incorrectly selected focal point or accidently left it on manual focus from the last shot (done that plenty of times) The number of shots I have bombed due to this has been fairly low, mainly since I try and take a couple of shots of the same frame to nail teh exposure and often water movement.

So, tip #503 is? check you focus regularly throughout your session and you can avoid this - one and only shot of this possie and its fing blurry.

actually the resize is ok, however in teh full res, the image is as blurry as that bit in teh FG.

Great tip....one that I should use more often

2 other good tips to remember (having made these mistake countless times!)
- Check if bracketing is still on
- Check ISO

And the list goes on...

Is exposure compensation on?
Is flash exposure compensation on?
Is white balance appropriate? (I have solved this one by doing most if not all my white balance adjustments in post processing.)
If the shutter speed and/or aperture what you think it is? (This is a fairly common mistake I make with my underwater photography where the limited view of the viewfinder makes shutter speed and aperture less obvious. I usually set the shutter speed and aperture before the dive to the most appropriate value for macro (e.g. 1/125s & f/16) and then change if required depending on the subject. I have got less than satisfactory results when changing to f/8 for some reason and forgetting to change it back.)
Accidentally turning on red eye reduction when adjusting flash exposure compensation
etc.

Assuming we are only talking about DSLR:

Make sure you have your RAW/JPEG settings correct and are not just shooting JPEG
You have your AF selector on C or S as required (I have inadvertantly left it on C and wonder why focus was shifting.)

For SLR:

Make sure you change ISO setting when changing non-DX film.
Make sure you check your aperture when changing lenses.
Make sure you don't have multiple exposure lever ON.

Reschsmooth wrote:Make sure you change ISO setting when changing non-DX film.

I would include DX film in that. I found that on all my film cameras (well, at least the F-801s and FE2) that the light meter was out such that it would over exposed by 1/3 to 1 stop. That's fine if you shoot negatives but not when shooting slides. I then used the Sunny f/16 rule to set the ISO on the camera.

For example, and if I remember correctly, when I was shooting Kodachrome 64, the F801s was set to ISO100 and the FE2 to ISO80 (could have been the other way around). (Not that the FE2 knew about DX film).

biggerry wrote:accidently left it on manual focus from the last shot

I'm so hearing this...

Remorhaz wrote:

biggerry wrote:accidently left it on manual focus from the last shot

I'm so hearing this...

By the way, the D300 has a great feature which is sorely missing from the D7000. On the D300, there's an "AF-ON" button that sits between the AE-L/AF-L button the and rear command dial. There's a menu setting to disable AF from the shutter button and you use this button to turn AF-ON. This gives a good compromise between MF and AF without having to switch the camera or lens to full MF.

The AF-L button can be used to sort of perform the same function but it is more difficult to press a button to stop AF than it is to press a button to AF.

Agree.

I have left JPG only by mistake which is a nasty surprise when you get home.

surenj wrote:I have left JPG only by mistake which is a nasty surprise when you get home.

But not as nasty a surprise as when you suddenly realise you are up to shot 41 on a roll of 24. Happened to me in Cairns once. The film didn't engage the sprockets & I just didn't notice

On to Tip 504.5
Remember to put the card in (and turn off the shoot anyway "feature")

Mr Darcy wrote:

surenj wrote:I have left JPG only by mistake which is a nasty surprise when you get home.

But not as nasty a surprise as when you suddenly realise you are up to shot 41 on a roll of 24. Happened to me in Cairns once. The film didn't engage the sprockets & I just didn't notice

At least you had film in it instead of taking what would have been wonderful portraits of the kids and then realising that there was no film in it. In fact, forget that - the result is the same and frickin annoying.

Mr Darcy wrote:

surenj wrote:I have left JPG only by mistake which is a nasty surprise when you get home.

But not as nasty a surprise as when you suddenly realise you are up to shot 41 on a roll of 24. Happened to me in Cairns once. The film didn't engage the sprockets & I just didn't notice

I pretty much did the same thing on 26 January 1988. We had tickets to the Opera House Area with a fantastic view of the harbour. I'd successfully taken 2-3 rolls of film of the tall ships and other harbour festivities. When evening came I put a roll of ISO800 (or it might have even been ISO1600) in the camera to shoot the fireworks. I believe I would have got some fantastic shots - and it was the first time they did the cascade off the Bridge. It was a roll of 36 but when I got to 42 or 43 I started to get worried. I wasn't going to open the camera there so I waited until I got home. As with Greg's, the film didn't engage and I didn't have one photo of the fireworks.

I think that was the last time I ever attempted shooting fireworks.

ATJ wrote: As with Greg's, the film didn't engage and I didn't have one photo of the fireworks.

I think that was the last time I ever attempted shooting fireworks.

Thank god for chimping on a dSLR, hey

Another tip to add to the dSLR list:
Don't format your memory card until you're sure you have all the photos saved onto your computer.

I very recently deleted all files on our Sony video camera and the very next day i was editing some photos of the kids for printing and my wife told me not to forget the photos that she'd taken with the video camera.

Thank god (again) for recovery software. As i had only deleted the files and hadn't formatted the internal hard drive i was able to recover them quite easily.....but otherwise i would have been in severe trouble.

Lesson WELL learned!

Dave

Reschsmooth wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:

surenj wrote:I have left JPG only by mistake which is a nasty surprise when you get home.

But not as nasty a surprise as when you suddenly realise you are up to shot 41 on a roll of 24. Happened to me in Cairns once. The film didn't engage the sprockets & I just didn't notice

At least you had film in it instead of taking what would have been wonderful portraits of the kids and then realising that there was no film in it. In fact, forget that - the result is the same and frickin annoying.

Hey Patrick have you ever left the double exposure lever down on your Bronica? I have

Mr Darcy wrote:On to Tip 504.5
Remember to put the card in (and turn off the shoot anyway "feature")

thats actually a good one and the single reason i have never enabled this.

Remorhaz wrote:I'm so hearing this...

yeah it blows eh...

ATJ wrote: I believe I would have got some fantastic shots

lol, yeah yeah... and teh fish was how big when the shutter/aperture was out

good lot of tips coming out - i was venting cause i ruined the one and only shot because of focus - the best way to learn is often teh hard way

phillipb wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:

surenj wrote:I have left JPG only by mistake which is a nasty surprise when you get home.

But not as nasty a surprise as when you suddenly realise you are up to shot 41 on a roll of 24. Happened to me in Cairns once. The film didn't engage the sprockets & I just didn't notice

At least you had film in it instead of taking what would have been wonderful portraits of the kids and then realising that there was no film in it. In fact, forget that - the result is the same and frickin annoying.

Hey Patrick have you ever left the double exposure lever down on your Bronica? I have

Thankfully not, but that is almost inevitable as I have the polaroid back which requires the multiple exposure lever to be down. The novelty of the polaroid back has well and truly worn off [my dog, my spelling and grammar has well and truly gotten not goodest]

But, I just developed a roll that had 3 exposed frames on it (but I expected something like that)

Here's another tip...

Make sure you know where your eye cup is before the lawn gets mowed.

It looks very much like the eye cup came off my D300 while I was out the back taking photos yesterday and I only just noticed after the lawn has been mown.

This was an eye cup I bought through the forum in 2005 (originally for the D70 but it went to the D300 and then to the D7000 and now back to the D300). They don't make them anymore and I have not been able to find anything as good after much searching.

ATJ wrote:Here's another tip...
Make sure you know where your eye cup is before the lawn gets mowed.

nope, that one is not gonna make teh cut, how often does that happen to the average punter?

biggerry wrote:how often does that happen to the average punter?

Well I don't know about about eyecups, but Pam loses about three pairs of glasses a year that way. Mind you, she is far from average!!!

Remember to take the lens cap off when setting up to do star trails, or for that matter any unattended shoot.

(Yes Cam I tried out your lens for star trails tonight.Oddly enough all the frames were black.)

Mr Darcy wrote:Remember to take the lens cap off when setting up to do star trails, or for that matter any unattended shoot.

(Yes Cam I tried out your lens for star trails tonight.Oddly enough all the frames were black.)

Doh!

aim54x wrote:Doh!

It got worse.
The next step was to take off the lens cap but forget to turn off Long Exposure noise reduction. So because I was using an external trigger to fire for 30seconds on bulb, wait a second and repeat, I ended up with a 30" shot followed by a 0.5" ( do the math) one then another 30" shot and so on until the battery went flat. That was sooner than it had to be as I also forgot to turn off image review. Not that it mattered as the mist came up after about half an hour, then the moon came up about another half hour after that. The first half hour or so was OK, but I ended up with Morse Code. Sigh. I did get some real spooky mist lit by moon shots though.



Still, I now know form the early photos that the 17 f/3.5 does not have the visual acuity for this work. strong chromatic aberration, visual distortion etc. Did you know that some stars are shaped like F1-11 aircraft? The Southern Cross for example:


I think a visit down to DDP will be in order real soon now.

Mr Darcy wrote:Did you know that some stars are shaped like F1-11 aircraft? The Southern Cross for example:.

run and hide...aliens..

I believe in astro imaging circles seagull shaped stars are attributed to poor collimation combined with poor focus. In your image there seems to be a fair amount of coma as well.

I have found that even excellent camera lenses often do poorly (or so so) for astrophotography. They are simply optimised for a different set of criteria (such as focussing distances other than infinity, flat field at all distances, bokeh, etc). Refractors for astronomy (viewing or imaging) are much simpler, usually 2 to 4 elements max, and no moving parts. But they are single-trick ponies and couldn't do a lot of the things a camera lens can do.

EDIT I should add that despite all this people are getting excellent results with camera lenses, usually simple designs like 35mm to 100mm primes. Anything more complex and things like zoom, CRC or VR tends to introduce issues that are magnified by the unusual subject matter (tiny but bright dots on a dark background).

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:poor collimation

But this is a lens defect, not my technique.

Steffen wrote:fair amount of coma as well.

As is this.

Steffen wrote: poor focus

Yes this could be me, but the effect is only visible towards the edge of the frame. This would point to lens quality as well.

Steffen wrote:Anything more complex and things like zoom <SNIP> tends to introduce issues

the above WERE taken with a simple lens - 17mm f/3.5. albeit outside your 35...100mm range

For comparison I took the following a few weeks ago with a 14-24mm f/2.8. A much more complex zoom but it gave much better results. It provided a much brighter image too. I have knocked it back somewhat for this post to make the Southern Cross easier to distinguish. Apart from that I have left it pretty much untouched so you can see the aberrations such as they are.


The goal is to take a horizon to horizon shot of startrails. To that end, I plan on a trip into the deep dark in a week or five. Hopefully with something approaching a fisheye. So far the 14-24 is my best bet. I was hoping the 17mm would give a better image because it is a simpler lens. The results indicate I am better off with the zoom.

I don't know the 17mm f/3.5 but it's almost certainly not a simple lens. No ultra-wides are. Nikon's 18mm f/3.5 has 11 elements.

It's interesting to know that the 14-24mm f/2.8 does better, and it confirms that this is a truly exceptional lens (also sporting 2 ED and 3 aspheric elements, 14 elements all up).

Cheers
Steffen.