Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 2, 2005, 8:52 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Default

I have attached three DX7590 pictures I took today. While I've been quite happy with the overall outcome of each picture (no blurry outdoor pictures yet; had 2 out of 16 blurry pictures indoors), some of them could've been better I suppose.

For instance, the flower pictures all turned out too bright. What am I doing wrong? Also, the last sample picture featuring a handicap sign appears too bright (taken using the full 10X zoom). Other than that,the camera seemslike agood camera so far.
Attached Images
 
Elphman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 2, 2005, 8:57 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Another one.
Attached Images
 
Elphman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2005, 9:00 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Another one.
Attached Images
 
Elphman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 12:29 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
bigdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981
Default

Sometimes when taking a photo of a white object in full sun light you need to under expose to prevent the reflective light from the white part of the object from washing out other parts of the photo. Also some signs , if they have reflective paint will apear much brighter. Just a thought.
I myself think the first photo is a keeper!!

Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 6:25 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Tom LaPrise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 324
Default

Actually, it's usually the darker parts of the image that trick your camera into overexposing the light parts. The camera will typically average the whole scene to 18% gray, so if there is a lot of dark in the scene, light parts will probably be overexposed. Conversely, if there is a lot of light stuff in the scene, dark parts will probably be underexposed. (It's known as "fooling the meter.")

The flower photos have lots of relatively dark grass and the sign photo has a large, relatively dark shrub. The camera averaged it out and the grass and shrub came out ahead. In situations like that, you can use some exposure compensation to make the scene a little darker, or if your camera has a spot-metering mode, use that and meter on the flower or sign.
Tom LaPrise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 6:33 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
DGehman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 319
Default

The dynamic range (from dark to light) is extremely wide in the flower photos. Our eye/brain combination allows us to see these scenes, but there's no correspdonding auto-dim (flower) / auto-lighten (grass & shadows) inside a digital camera.

You might try the same scene using fill flash... but that might totally burn outthe flowers.

Speaking of flash, the sign looks for all the world as if your camera's flash went off. If you took this using the Auto setting, in the Kodak world, the flash deploys surprisingly often... but usually with good results.

Both for composition and for reflective surfaces, you might point the camera so that the sign is toward the bottom or side -- in other words, so that you are not shooting it head-on.

Dave
DGehman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 11:19 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Thanks guys! I'll try again. Oh, I fogot to mention that when I blow up the pictures to 100% I can notice a tad bit strong JPEG compression level. But it's not really an issue for me as I don't plan on printing pictures larger than 8 X 10 (vast majority ofthem will be in the traditional 4X6 and 5X7 size.
Elphman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 2:13 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 164
Default

DGehman wrote:
Quote:

Speaking of flash, the sign looks for all the world as if your camera's flash went off. If you took this using the Auto setting, in the Kodak world, the flash deploys surprisingly often... but usually with good results.

Both for composition and for reflective surfaces, you might point the camera so that the sign is toward the bottom or side -- in other words, so that you are not shooting it head-on.

Dave
The flash did fire and could have easily overexposed that sign with as reflective as they are. At 10x zoom however I don't think that the sign was close enough to catch too much of the flash light. However I would turn the flash off next time you encounter a situation like that to try for better results. Also, you may want to shoot in P mode and move the EV value to -1/3 or -2/3 to try to keep the reflections off an object like that from getting washed out. There looks to be enough light in the rest of the image to allow you to do that.
Troy Carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 7:31 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
brianhare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 969
Default

reflective signs can do that,,,,,don`t see a problem there,,if you had moved slightly too one side i bet you wouldn`t have had that happen,,,signs are reflective only to certain angles....

If you used flash,,and it looks as though you did with one ofthe flowers,,,the camera will try to expose to the mostly dark scene,,,and the flower which is white will overexpose slightly,,,,all in all those flowers are very "fixable" in PSE3.0 though...

The reason i say it looks like flash use on one pic,,is that it looks as if the flower is under lit,,(light under the flower where shadow should be),,if i`m wrong let me know...

Try using a tripod with macros,,,,or increase the ISO a little to get the shutter speed up,,no flash,,,,,best time for flower shots is in the morning before the hot sun hits too hard,,the lighting is better,,,,and the flower has had all night to recover from the direct sunlight,,,they look fresher,,,believe it or not...

I rarely,,if ever,,use flash,,i prefer a tripod,,,or upping the ISO....you need a really good camera for the flash to work well....like a DSLR with a dedicated unit....

As suggested use center weighted metering,,,,i usually leave it there in PASM....

Brian

brianhare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3, 2005, 10:49 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 65
Default

Here are a few more sample pictures I took today. As you guys probably can tell, these samples aren't anything to shout about. I realize I have ways to go. BTW Brian, have you had a chance to test out the S1 yet (how about the FZ5?), if so, did you find the IS very helpful?I hear the new S2 is coming out this summer. (I'm a bit tempted to test it out - I hear it's superior to its predecessor;rumor has it that it's supposed to be better than the FZ5 since the FZ5 suffers from low-light gain). Anyhow, to my surprise, most of my pictures have been blurry free (I have yet to test it outin under very low-light situation). Stupid question, does a"soft" picture constitute blurry picture? Regarding the flower shots, I never assumedtaking pictures of them early in the day is better; I always assumed it's best to take pictures when there is ample lighting.FWIW, I've been relying mostly on the P mode; few shots have been taken using the auto mode.



Sample 1 (almost full zoom)
Attached Images
 
Elphman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:33 PM.