I've always liked taking pictures. I would like to be able to take my own pictures of nature like that. I'm not sure what it is in me, but I like to play with the colors, the setting, etc. Maybe I should learn some about such things and then someone can hire me to run around and take pictures. That makes me want to go review the pictures I took a few years ago.

Wow, that is a way cool photo.

There is TONS of free helpful photography info available on the web. I've been reading quite a bit lately.

One site I really enjoy is "Fro Knows Photo". The guy's real name is Jared, but he has a huge afro. He's funny and goofy, but he seems to know his stuff. He has some videos on concert photography, and when I was taking pics Saturday night, I was remembering things from his video which I'm sure helped me get better shots. His site is at froknowsphoto.com

Another one I like is phototips.biz . He does a weekly video podcast. He has 75 videos archived here: vimeo.com/channels/phototips . He did one a while back where he took on the challenge of getting shots of his son in a very boring environment (the kid's school). With using angles, blurred backgrounds, etc, he was able to get some really good shots. Even if you're not "into photography", I think most everyone who takes occasional candid pics of friends and family would get some good out of that episode: vimeo.com/channels/phototips#15425039

A search for "photography tips" on Youtube has the potential to keep you busy for hours.

Hey Web, quick photography related question that I think you might have read info on recently:

How do you keep from getting a blurry photo without using the flash? Use a tripod or work on being perfectly still?

I notice that if I use the flash in an instance where I don't need it, everything looks too bright and unnatural. But if I turn the flash off, the lighting is perfect, but half the time I move too much, or someone in the picture does, and it comes out blurry. Is it the camera? Or is it more complicated than that, and I need to read up on my ISO settings?

It's a Kodak C190 (http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/C190_Digital_Camera/productID.158853100), a point and shoot, but I can do some adjustments, like ISO speed and exposure compensation (http://resources.kodak.com/support/shtml/en/manuals/urg01031/urg01031c4s1.shtml).

-- Edited by MzHartz on Thursday 23rd of December 2010 10:07:11 AM

That's why I bought this camera. It's basically a point and shoot for when I'm lazy. But although it's buried, I do have some limited control over more advanced settings.

You have what is called the lighting triangle . . . aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.

Aperture is basically the size of the hole in the lens with relation to how much light is let in. The lower the "F" number, the bigger the hole and more light it lets in. Yes, the numbers are backwards to what it seems like it should be.

Shutter speed is how long the shutter stays open and exposes the sensor to the scene.

ISO is the speed of the "film".

Getting a good light exposure is adjusting all three of those things to find a combination that fits the light you have and effect you want.

In a point and shoot, you probably don't have much control over the aperture. That leaves shutter speed and ISO.

Changing to a higher ISO will mean you can shoot in lower light, BUT higher ISO settings also mean more "grain" or noise in the photo. There is no free lunch, the higher ISO compromises image quality. You just have to find how high you can go to where you're still happy with the quality.

If you're getting blurred shots in a dark area, your camera is holding the shutter open longer to give the sensor a longer exposure time to get it the light it needs. If you or the subject moves during the shutter being open, you get blur. A tripod will help if your subject is not moving, but if you're shooting live subjects, they can move too which then won't matter if you have a tripod or not. If either you or they move while the shutter is open, it will blur. With enough light, the shutter is so much faster than what your or they move, it's not an issue.

With the flash on, your camera "should" compensate for that extra light and not over expose, but it may not be doing that. If you are getting over exposed shots with the flash, then there are ways to cut the flash back. Many cameras have a setting where you can dial the strength of the flash down some. If that don't work, then you're looking at ways to physically knock the flash back. Some people literally hold a piece of tissue or something like that over the flash to diffuse it. I picked up a little thing for my popup flash called a "puffer". It slides into the flash slot on top of the camera, and holds a plastic diffuser in front of the popup flash to mellow it out some.

If there is not enough light for your camera to get good (or non blurry) shots, then you've just reached the bottom limit of how low that camera can go and your only choice is to add light.

Looking at that link you gave, it doesn't look like you can control the strength of the flash, just that "compensation" setting (which may be doing the same thing).

I think first I'd turn the flash back on and play with the compensation setting if the flash is making shots too bright. Try dialing that compensation back to -1 or -2 and do some tests and see what happens.

You'll probably not be able to leave it that way depending on how far away the subject is from the flash. If you're shooting across a room, you might find you need to leave that compensation back at 0 where shooting a person just across the table, you might have to have it set a little negative.

If that don't work, maybe try looking at creative ways to use something to diffuse the flash light a little. Maybe a little piece of milk carton plastic in front of the flash, something like that?

Another thing to look at is the "Exposure Metering" setting. That tells the camera where to get the info to tell how to expose the shot. If your your camera is looking at the entire scene, it may be trying to lighten up something across the room which is making the person right in front of you too bright. If you change that metering to be a single spot, then if the person is in that spot, they should be exposed correctly and everything else will be ignored.

So, there is no one answer. You just have to play with those settings and find the combination that works best. The problem is that you can't "set it and forget it" because conditions always change. After a while, you just start to get a feel for what you'll need to get the results you want.

Donuts.

That helps Web, thanks!

It's not that it's over-exposing, which is what my old camera used to do. But often I find that shots with ambient light look better than with the flash. The shadows are less intense, for one. Plus, with the flash off, I can get more candid photos, because people don't know I'm taking their picture!

MzHartz wrote:

---

I find that shots with ambient light look better than with the flash. The shadows are less intense, for one.

---

Oh, ok . . . that is just the nature of "on camera" flash. Even expensive SLR cameras have that issue of flash being intense, cold, light.

That is why you sometimes see someone with a big SLR using a flash with an adjustable head that is pointed up at the ceiling. They are bouncing the light off the ceiling to give an all over wash of bounced light, without that harsh "in your face" stark white flash.

Portrait photographers use "off camera" flash through some kind of diffuser like an umbrella or screen to spread that flash light out more evenly and make it more natural. It is a much better way to do it, but of course you can't set up like that in the real world.