Making the most of your digital camera

[revengeofthecat]

Hopefully, this thread will be of use to someone and be a good place to share tips (or the mods will delete it and spare me any embarrassment!).

 

I'm going to start by admitting that I'm an amateur. Also I'm going to admit that I suck with point & shoot (P&S) cameras.

 

What I can do is take reasonable photos - not the best (by any stretch of the imagination) but good enough (sometimes) for me! One thing I have realised is that no matter what camera you have, it probably takes better photos than you. In other words, most of us (me included) do not use the full potential of our cameras.

 

I started photography with film cameras and quickly came to realise that often I was wasting ?? getting my photos developed! Simply, I was unaware of the components that I needed to take good photos. I'm going to quickly go through what I consider the important bits! Please excuse me if you already know all of this!

 

Composition

Lighting

Focus

Exposure

 

Composition and lighting belong to the "creative" side of photography - making your photo look good - and being as I'm still not there yet, I can't really talk much about that!

 

Focus is hugely important. Unfortunately, we need to consider three things to stop our subject from being blurry - correct focus, subject movement and camera movement. A normal (P&S) camera will lock focus on what you point the centre of the lens at - they don't usually (in my experience) have manual focus or selectable focus points. The ability to autofocus usually depends on the contrast of the subject - your P&S isn't likely to focus on a black cat against a dark background. A little light helps greatly (so most will have an autofocus assist lamp built in - but this is usually for short range only). So if your photos aren't in focus, this may be the problem! Subject movement is not something we have much control over, but we can hopefully compensate for this by using an appropriate shutter speed (Exposure). Camera movement is often dealt with by using a tripod or beanbag. But sometimes we need to handhold - this is where the guideline of using a shutter speed not slower than 1/focal length* (for cameras with zoom lenses that use this measurement) comes in. So if I want a focal length of 50mm my minimum shutter speed is 1/50th of a second. We can help matters greatly with Image Stabilisation* (which even some P&S cameras have) which enables us to use a slower shutter speed than what we would usually use.

 

*For "crop" cameras (DSLRs with small sensors) multiply the indicated focal length by the crop factor (so for canon 1000D to 7D multiply by 1.6, for Nikon crop multiply by 1.5

**Called IS, OS and VR by different manufacturers

 

Exposure. This is made up of three different elements, shutter speed (1/seconds), aperture (in f-stops) and ISO. Each of these affects the final image. Shutter speed - the faster your shutter speed the less light is recorded. Aperture - the larger the aperture of the lens (indicated by a smaller f-number e.g. f2.0) the more light is recorded. ISO - the higher the ISO the more "sensitive" the sensor is (in simple terms).

 

Often, we let the camera decide what to do. This doesn't always work very well. The camera has no way of knowing whether you are taking a photo of a moving object or landscape. So we can help it along a bit. Your camera should (hopefully) have automatic modes (shown with different icons) for sports, landscape etc. This isn't always enough. So we're going to hope that the camera has (at the least) the following two modes, Av and Tv. Av is aperture priority (chose the aperture that you want and the camera sorts the rest out) and Tv is shutter priority (chose the shutter speed...). These two modes give us that extra control over the final photo!

 

Say for example, you want to take a photo of a cricket ball as it leaves the bowler's hand - you need (ball park estimate) a shutter speed of around 1/1000sec - or even quicker. That class 66 may only require a shutter speed of 1/250sec - or may be even slower.

 

If we are going to take a photo of the class 66 - we are probably going to want most of the train in sharp focus. This is where aperture comes in. The aperture affects the depth of field which is basically how much is in focus. The wider the aperture (smaller f-number) the less will be in sharp focus (I'm going to chicken out and refer to the Wiki link!). Basically, an aperture of f2.8 is not likely to be much use for our example. We will probably want an aperture setting of f8 or thereabouts. If we are using the Tv mode to keep our shutter speed high enough, the aperture that the camera wants to use may be too large - leading to a spoiled photo. This is where ISO comes in! We can basically increase the ISO setting to make sure that the camera uses a small enough aperture to capture the scene we want.

 

We can also use a completely manual mode (M) to control all aspects of exposure - but if you're still reading this post, it's probably not a major consideration - at present!

 

Your camera probably has two metering modes (at the least). The common modes are evaluative metering and centre weighted average metering.

 

Basically evaluative uses the whole area of the photo to decide what the correct exposure should be and centre weighted gives more attention to the centre of the photo. Wiki link here as this is a better explanation that I can write!

 

Basically, not all metering modes will work well in all scenarios (e.g. train with sun behind vs train with sun in front) - I'm going to suggest that it's best to try out each one to see which one works best for different scenarios on your camera! This will help us to pick the correct metering mode for the situation we find ourselves in.

 

But what if you are still unsure whether the exposure is correct? This is where we bracket our exposure. This means that we start with what we think is the correct exposure (e.g. 1/250sec f8 ISO 400) and then vary one of the three components (e.g. 1/250sec f8 ISO 200 then 1/250sec f8 ISO 800). This means that we have a much greater chance of getting the photo we want!

 

Of course, there are still other considerations - your camera might still underexpose the photo even if you have done everything correctly! My camera underexposes by 2/3 of a stop (so I need to overexpose my photos compared to what my camera thinks) because it doesn't want me to lose detail in bright areas. If you have a dSLR or a good "bridge camera" you can compensate for this with what is called exposure compensation - you can tell the camera to always overexpose/underexpose (I really can't emphasise enough that the best place to start here is with the camera manual!)

 

If I get time, and if people would like me to, I will post on why, if you camera has the option to use the "RAW" format, you should probably use it

 

I have realised though that I have missed out something very important - but that may or may not apply to those of us that use P&S cameras.

 

This is relativity. Not the complicated stuff(!) but the simple fact that the eye-brain interface is far more advanced and able than anything man can develop. This affects our photographs in several ways.

 

As regards exposure, the main problem is that we look at a scene and decide what the "mid tone" of the scene is. If we are outside in our garden (say) looking at our model railway (keeping on topic!) we will see (for sake of argument) a white fence, fresh concrete (light grey), older concrete (slightly darker), grass, wood and the shadow of the tree & bushes. The concrete is (in this example) the mid-tone, the white fence represents the highlights and the shadow the lowlights. What you may (or may not realise) is that the grass is usually a mid-tone (as far as luminosity/luminance is concerned)!

 

Now, our camera will probably decide our exposure correctly in this case (i.e. will "meter" correctly) if set to the evaluative metering mode. Why? Because the camera has a reference "mid tone" built in - this is commonly referred to as 18% grey (although it's actually more like 13% grey in reality) which is close to the actual mid tone of the scene we are photographing.

 

[Note here that you don't really need to know what 18% (or 13%) grey actually is, but if you do want to know, please see this link which is to a "grey card" - note that the grey of the grey card is not simply grey paint(!) but a grey that reflects equally all colours of light (before you try making one!)]

 

What does this mean in other situations? It means that if the mid tone in the scene that you are metering is not equivalent to this grey reference your camera will expose incorrectly! A scene that is highly reflective or that is predominantly white will be look too dark and a scene that is mostly black or dark will look too light as the camera is metering so that the mid tone of the scene is equal to the grey reference.

 

Now that we know this, we can (if we're not using manual settings) use the exposure compensation ability on our camera to tell the camera to overexpose for light scenes and underexpose for dark scenes.

 

Let's take this one step further. Hopefully your camera has a spot metering setting (or a centre area only metering setting). We can use this and aim the centre of our viewfinder at a patch of what we know to be roughly approximate to our grey reference. This could be a patch of grass or a particularly light bit of wood. If we then note what aperture and shutter speed settings are suggested by the camera (e.g. 1/100sec @ f8 @ ISO200), we can then switch the mode of the camera to "M" (manual) and enter these settings! Now when we move back to the scene we want to photograph the exposure should be correct. As we are in manual mode, we will want to bracket our exposure manually (say by varying our aperture from f8 to f11). Now, while you are getting used to this, I suggest reviewing the photos on the LCD screen (this should only be used as a guide).

 

Now, as we are presumably using the JPEG format which can be edited in photoshop or GIMP (etc) to lighten/darken the photo you may ask where the problem is - why should we expose correctly? The issue is, that with the jpeg file format, you have lost data when the camera converted the electronic signal from the sensor into the jpeg. This means that there is only a limited amount of editing that can be done with editing light/dark/contrast, so it may be impossible to get your photo looking good.

 

If our camera can use the "RAW" format, this is not such an issue as this contains all the information that the sensor recorded! Now RAW files need to be decoded and edited by special programs (ufRAW and rawtherapee being acceptable third party software that won't cost you a kidney!) - it makes sense to use the program supplied by your camera manufacturer though (DPP is Canon's offering) as this will often do a better job at getting rid of unwanted noise and compensating for optical aberrations caused by the lens.

 

I've already mentioned camera shake as something that can spoil an image. Something else that can ruin our shots is something called "noise". I've added a link so you can peruse at your leisure should you so desire!

 

We get noise from electronic circuitry when we read the sensor (when the camera records the light falling on the sensor) and when we amplify the signal (increase the ISO) (Wiki link). We need to be aware of this, especially when dealing with dark areas!

 

Now, before we look at how to deal with noise, and reduce it, we are going to touch on something a little more contentious (perhaps) and slightly more technical (sorry!). The problem is that light is not a digital medium. It is made up of a broad spectrum of wavelengths which means that any attempt to capture it with 1s and 0s is going to involve compromise in terms of what is recorded. It works out that the camera is more sensitive to brightness than darkness, as the information is recorded logarithmically - "for a 12-bit sensor, 2048 values of the integer number space is for the top brightness level, 1024 values for the next below that, and so on down to the darker shadow values, for which there is only the tiniest range of integer values" (partial quote from a post on a photography forum) - technical but hopefully you get an idea of what is going on - there are more bits of memory being used for bright bits than dark bits (it's a logarithmic scale) so more informations is recorded for highlights than shadows.

 

What does this mean in the real word? In a scene where there are very bright areas and very dark areas, your eyes can see detail in the bright and dark bits (because of how your eyes work). The camera can't. The camera does not have the same dynamic range as our eyes. But we can help it! What we need to look at now is the histogram* that the camera produces. See here for some good information on understanding these (simple too!). So how does this help us? We can quickly check our histogram after we've taken our photo to ensure that we have taken the best photo we can - given the circumstances! We will also use this nifty little feature later

 

*Time to check the manual I'm afraid!

 

If we look at the histogram of a photo that we've taken, hopefully all of the peaks will be evenly spread along the horizontal axis, meaning that we have captured all the information we can without losing any. If the peaks are bunched up to one side or the other we can use exposure compensation to underexpose (if the peaks are to the right [picture overexposed]) or overexpose (if the peaks are to the left [picture underexposed]). If there is a peak right at the left or the right of the axis, this shows that we have lost information in either the shadows or the highlights (clipping) which we can deal with just as we did with normal over/underexposure. Hopefully we won't see this on both sides at once! Another useful link. Now if we are using JPEGs still, note that the correct exposure may not be the one with all of the peaks centrally placed!

 

Now we get to noise! This is usually a problem with low light photography. If we want to take a photograph at night, we need to have the shutter open for a long time (usually). Because the sensor is recording for a long time, there is more noise than if the shutter had been open for a short time. If we increase the ISO setting, we can reduce the length of time that the shutter is open for (as the camera is amplifying the available signal). Now you remember that amplifying signals causes noise, so the trick here is to not use the ISO setting where this noise becomes a significant problem (this is camera specific I'm afraid - you will need to experiment with high ISO settings on your cameras).

 

Lets consider a photo where there is detail that you want to see in the shadow. You may notice that your histogram has that dreaded peak at the left - we've lost data in the shadows. Now, we can overexpose the photo to get the peak away from the left. But, you say, I've metered the scene correctly so we don't want to overexpose as the jpeg has lost information! This is where the RAW file format comes in! As the RAW file contains all the information that the camera recorded, we can safely overexpose and then use the RAW file editor to reduce the brightness of the image to how we want to see it. We can then use the RAW editor to convert the file to JPEG and edit in GIMP/photoshop etc.

 

Now you may be asking, since the RAW format is so awesome, how come I can't just increase the brightness using the RAW editor. Now the answer is, you can! But, (and there's always one isn't there!) remember that noise is generated every time the sensor records the light. The less light that is recorded, the more noise there is compared to the actual signal representing what the camera sees. This basically means that if you underexpose the RAW file and make it brighter in the RAW editor you will end up with more noise in your final image than if you overexpose the file in RAW and make it darker in the RAW editor. In addition, as there is more information stored for highlights than shadows, it makes sense to overexpose the scene than to underexpose it.

 

The important thing to note, is that if you do overexpose, don't clip your highlights (unless this is what you want to do!)

[revengeofthecat]

Just a quick post to a couple of other good articles that are related to my previous waffling.

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/histograms1.htm

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/28_exposeright-1.stm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

 

Now I just want to quickly suggest some more reasons for using the RAW file format.

 

Adjustment for lens distortion - if you use Canon, DPP has a built in toolkit that adjusts for barrel distortion and pincushion distortion.

Noise reduction functionality

Greater ability to adjust for lighting issues than using JPEGs

Control over how much sharpness is applied (I use sharpening of 0 or 3 in DPP)

 

Now there is one thing that you will want to do after you convert your RAW file to a jpeg. In whichever graphic program you use, find the tool called "unsharp mask" (often referred to as USM) (in GIMP it's under filters/enhance) and run it with a radius of 4.0, amount of 0.4 and threshold of 0. This is unfortunately required (to get the image nice and clean) due to the technology that is used in the camera sensor!

 

Ok, now we all know that without pics, this thread is worthless(!) so I'm hopefully going to post some samples...

 

(Incidentally, if you're going to be serious about digital photos, it's worth getting a device to calibrate your screen so it actually shows what it's meant to)

 

The first pic is a screen capture from DPP showing the noise present on a photo taken at night using ISO 6400. It's shown at full size, so you're only going to see part of the image.

 

 

The next pic shows what happens when we try to increase the brightness in the RAW editor - the noise is going to increase - dramatically! (I've pushed the brightness up to 2 from 0 in DPP)

 

 

The white noise is luminance noise, and the coloured noise is chrominance noise. Now we're going to apply noise reduction in DPP. Note that even though the noise is reduced significantly, the photo isn't looking good (the photo is still "lightened")

 

 

Now, if we reduce the brightness of the image, we'll see that things have improved - a lot!

 

 

Here's the whole photo

 

Or if you want to look at it slightly bigger, go here

 

So if you're going to take photos like these, it's worth overexposing slightly and compensating in DPP/RAW editor as it will greatly reduce the noise in your final image!

 

[Please note that all images have been resized and compressed for web and will not represent the quality of any final print!]

 

[bertiedog]

Nice to see the thread continued, I had posted about contrast control and posted some samples. Unfortunately the cameras I have now both have TIFF files as the max output, and the Fuji 4900 uses a propriety method of interpolation on their "Super CCD" to achieve the highest setting, which oddly, confirmed by original reviews, gives a "softer" but grain free, look than the best Jpeg output. The Nikon compact returns TIFF files as highest option as well.

 

But a quick dust off in the Gimp restores the Fuji range and the sharpening can be improved without clumping. No RAW facility, but is the only super option. Trouble though on file size, it leaps from about 2/3meg to 12meg minimum, so real card fillers with the old limit of 128meg on compact flash media.

 

Stephen.

[revengeofthecat]

Bertie, do you want to give a guide on stacking images with different exposures to give an HDR image as the ones you posted previously were great

[bertiedog]

Bertie, do you want to give a guide on stacking images with different exposures to give an HDR image as the ones you posted previously were great

I'll sort out a reply here if this is all right with you as soon as things settle down, it is taking forever to find posts and replies, much longer than before. Whatever is said by the mods the last posts do not show in the request for that listing, you have to open it to check each and every one.

 

Stephen.

[revengeofthecat]

I'll sort out a reply here if this is all right with you as soon as things settle down, it is taking forever to find posts and replies, much longer than before. Whatever is said by the mods the last posts do not show in the request for that listing, you have to open it to check each and every one.

 

Stephen.

 

That'd be great! Yeah, it's a steep learning curve (but I'm sure it's worth it)!

 

Quick shout to all that may read this, if there's anything touched on (or not!) that you would like explanation (or whatever) on, please feel free to ask

[bertiedog]

I only came across your reply by accident, this forum is not as user friendly in it's present form, but it may be just the server issues behind it.

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

Getting the best output files from more basic Digital Cameras.

 

Just a few notes, I hope it does not duplicate, I worked in Photographic specialist sales and optical manufacture of lenses and specialist equipment.

 

It was mentioned on this photographic RM web posting about getting the most from Digital RAW image files, and the related image file sizes etc., in Digital Camera Photography.

 

Raw files are commonly used on DSLR cameras, and semi-reflex big lens compacts made over the past few years.

 

But I think the main difficulty for lots of people, is getting the best from the more usual types of Digital Camera, the compact and big lens semi-reflexes, which may not always offer the RAW format as a storage option.

 

Most Digital cameras save the image to memory, in an easy to transfer type of file, the JPEG, whose size is related to the image produced by the camera imaging system. The more detail in the image, the bigger the file. When finally saved the file size may range in size from say 400k to several megs.

 

Do not confuse this with the pixel count, the resulting files are produced from the basic CCD readings, and the software in the camera does the donkey work of make the CCD image into a Jpeg Lossy file.

 

The most used way of quoting the detail possible from any camera is the image size, in pixels, say 3 Meg or 4 or more, which is basically the width times the height of the CCD target in the camera.

 

For the highest quality the "best picture" output must be chosen, usually via the menu within the cameras settings. The de-fault setting may not be the best that the camera can produce, they will be the best for point and shoot operation.

 

RAW is often referred to as The Digital Negative, and that is true, but even with RAW files processing is applied by the camera or the software in the computer. RAW files are large, very large, with modern 10mega pixel cameras. They were not popular with the designers of compacts etc, as the memory requirements are enormous, and until recently the memory cards required, (several gigs size), were very expensive, or the simpler cameras could not cope with the large size.

 

So makers went for basic storage at an acceptable resolution, with far greater emphasis placed on the Pixel count, rather than the real size of the image file stored and pasted on to the computer.

 

We all want to get the best from our camera, and of course the bigger the file size, the better image details that has been stored, so RAW seems better , but may not be easy to use compared to JPEG or TIFF.

 

Now, it is often a bit confusing with most camera makers as to what to set, and exactly why, but it can be simplified, and a couple of traps noted to be wary of.

 

Most makes behave about the same, because of an often missed point, that cameras chassis are often the same basic models sold under many different labels. Makers like Casio and Samsung etc., make the internals of other makers cameras, and the makers just write the software to control the actions from fairly standard camera chassis.

 

Some makers, like Canon and Nikon, have developed all the items on the camera, some like Pentax have used Casio chassis with Pentax designed lens systems. People like Sony, who never made optics before, developed the electronics, but bought in the lenses etc.

 

What this boils down to is that it is worth checking out the instructions of the camera very carefully as there are one or two catches to getting the best out of the cameras.

 

It is quite common to have two maximum files sizes, one for the ???Simple Point and Shoot??? settings on the camera, and a higher file size for the ???Manual???, ???Program???, or ???Semi Automatic settings???.

 

An example would be the Pentax S40, a 4 mega pixel compact camera, where, if the max quality setting is chosen on the ???Point and Shoot mode???, a higher setting can be made separately on the ???Program settings???. Files size increases are made by the software, with the camera JPEG output about 50% higher on the program settings than the point and shot ones.

 

This system is used in lots of compacts, even the latest models, so it pays to move away from the basic Auto Point and Shoot, and try the Program Auto settings, which on most cameras are just as easy to use.

 

A catch is that some cameras also offer a range of pre-set Programs, like Landscapes, Sunsets,etc., and these may default back to the lower resolution, as the JPEG is stored on the cards. Some Ricoh and Samsung compacts use this setting system, aimed at making the memory card storage go farther on the card, rather than storing the image at maximum possible quality.

 

It can pay to study the instructions very carefully with some compacts like Nikon, as they offer JPEG storage on all image sizes, but keep a special ???hi-res??? top quality setting which delivers a TIFF file, not a RAW file, but more detailed that a JPEG.

 

Again usually Nikon and other makers, keep this option to the Program setting, or to manual operation only, moving the camera to the ???point and shoot??? setting sends it back the storing the image as a lower resolution JPEG image.

 

It can pay to check out your own camera, and a simple test is a series of shots at the various settings, of exactly the same subjects, and then check the real file sizes after transfer to the computer.

 

Find the largest files size and see what setting produced it. It usually reveals the ???point and shoot??? settings to be worse, and then the programmed presets to be larger files, and finally the manual, or program auto settings, to deliver you the largest files.

 

This can help with Second Hand cameras and no full instructions being available, or when the instructions are a bit vague.

 

Another example I have is a Nikon 4meg camera which delivers Jpegs on most settings, but reserves a special high quality Hi-res setting for Program Auto and Manual, and this returns a much larger TIFF file, doubling, or more, the size of the stored image. Well worth using, although it slows up the camera pace as it takes seconds extra to process each image, and the memory card fills up very quickly.

 

A oddity until recently is the Fujifilm system, where the meg count is a bit odd, with say, the Fuji 4900 semi-reflex being a 4 meg pixel camera, but it actually can deliver a TIFF file equivalent to a 6 meg CCD.

 

It also delivers high memory count Jpegs, using a unique proprietary interpolation system from their own design of ???Super CCD??? image target.

 

But if the camera is placed on ???point and Shoot??? all the hi-resolution options disappear, and de-fault back to lower settings. In the case of this Fuji camera because it has limited capacity Smart media card, that could not record today's latest mega pixel images so easily.

 

The Fuji 4900z (and equivalent later models in the series), delivers files that are way above what would be expected from a 4.5 mega pixel camera, and is more advanced than a compact, concentrating more on the lens and the image quality, every maker has offer these options on the more advanced, but not quite true DSLR types.

 

Fuji still used the Super CCD, but they have altered the operation to give super size files from both TIFF and Jpegs, and now use the cards that have no upper limit on size.

 

This means that some of the earlier cameras of the past few years can deliver very good results, as long as the right settings are chosen to ensure the max file size is delivered to the computer for further processing in Photoshop, or the Gimp.

With Digital Reflex Cameras,the whole thing is basically the same as far as Jpegs and TIFF options are concerned, the bigger the file, the more detail, but they often offer the option of RAW files, where the file size is very large, contains more detail and more colour information.

 

But, as usual, you have to know what to do with this extra information, and make use of it in the final image.

For day to day use, the RAW format is simply not needed, JPEGS will suffice completely, don??™t think that you are missing something vital by not having a camera that delivers RAW.

 

But the whole point of this article is to point out that you must check what the camera is actually delivering to get the best from it.

 

Extra tip........Do not set the camera options to extra sharpness.....use

The Gimp or Photoshop

to do this afterwards, once done in the camera it cannot be undone. It also increases the file size on the card.

 

Extra tip........Do not set the contrast options to extra high in the camera, it risks burn out in the highlights.

 

Extra tip........Do set the exposure settings a bit lower than needed, to prevent burn out of the highlights, experiment to find the right setting for your camera.

 

And if possible, move the camera settings from the Auto ISO/ASA, sensitivity setting over to the lowest manual ISO/ASA setting offered, it lowers the grain, and noise.

 

Hope this all helps tweak a bit more from the older cameras and show that the operator is the most important part of the equation, not just the very latest technology.

 

Stephen

[revengeofthecat]

Bertie, great post Thanks - it's always good to have info that helps with the older/non dSLR cameras out there!

[bertiedog]

Bertie, great post Thanks - it's always good to have info that helps with the older/non dSLR cameras out there!

 

Practicality I am afraid, I can't afford a digital SLR that would suit me, I use Leica, Alpa reflex and Olympus OM with film, so the big lens semi reflexs like the Fuji 4900 has to suffice for the time being, the lens is good, and files are detailed, as long as I put up with card filling!!..The camera cost ??27 on ebay!! because of the small card issue and lower pixel count than the latest types.

 

It is all down to squeezing a bit more than the makers intended, and I found the unique Super CCD that Fuji used, a bit controversially, is good at delivering sharp and well coloured results.

 

It took quite while to realise that most makes are much the same, as they are made by the same people!!!

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

">

 

Now this is by way of an experiment, a picture linked to Photobucket, and with the current image woes, I am not sure of course if you , the reader , will be able to see it!! The shot is by way of an example of contrast control, 2 layers combined in the Gimp, with each image exposed on for the high lights and one for the darker parts.

 

Loaded into seperate layers, and each part edited, and then overlaid and combined into one image with extended contrast range, ( flattened out histogram.).

 

This is near useless for railway shots as you have to have two or more identical shots to work with, but there is another approach and that is to manually mask areas and alter the contrast to flatten or enhance. Masking can be auto or manual assisted, depends on the program, but make sure the aliasing is set , with edges set to a wide "jitter", the term varies with programs.

 

As soon as the picture woes are sorted I will post more, tell me if you can't see the picture at the moment, which is showing on mine with Firefox and the workaround mentioned in Martin's postings about the issue.

[Oldddudders]

The picture works fine, thankyou. I have to say that while the results may indeed be better than any digital camera could manage with the limitations of contrast etc, it is a jolly long route to getting a better image, IMHO! It also implies use of a tripod, which may not suit all of us all the time. Since the method loses the "instant gratification" of digital, why not just use good old film, where, e.g. Fuji Velvia will do a cracking job with a single exposure?

[bertiedog]

Yes, I could have used film, but it is the cost apart from anything else, the shot was part of a sequence of about 20 shots, a bit costly on film stock,...er.. effectively zero on digital.

 

In fact for this one a tripod was not needed, as on mine, and most digital cameras, they can take a batch of bracketed shots in sequence as fast as the camera can fill the buffer.

 

I set the Fuji 4900 for 3 shots at minus to plus correct exposure, and with a subject like this nothing is moving in the milliseconds it takes to process the shots to the card. In fact I only used two of the shots and the processing in the GIMP took about three minutes to complete.

 

In relation to railways and models, the auto bracketing will work fine for all but fast moving subjects, and then the contrast can be adjusted,(IF NEEDED at all), by a mask, and widening the range to give a flatter range.

 

It is not needed all the time, most Railway shots would never need attention like this, and most Digital cameras have a similar or more extensive contrast range compared to film. I am aware this is not true technically, we are talking the real world here.

 

If I took the same shot on 120 with my Mamiya 6x9, using Fuji colour film or Kodak pro, yes the contrast range is better, and the overall quality far better, but at a considerable cost compared to Digital.

 

Glad the Photobucket link works, the image size was reduced as posted to Photobucket, but it looks as if a full resolution picture could be posted, with the click link to get at it. This helps circumnavigate the old restrictions on the image size.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

Of course, you can have an idle moment with a Digital camera and try an infra red filter....must find some railway shots that would suit IR !! The nearby Sittingbourne line in Kent might suit... landscape with Infra-red locos!

 

Most Digital cameras sensors are IR sensitive, the makers try to stop the function with internal filters, as it degrades the normal digital images, but enough IR response is left to give results with an IR 720 near black filter.

 

There was enough "light" left with the Fuji to allow the electronic viewfinder to work in bright sunlight, exposure was 3 secs and max aperture of 2.8.