Home Forums Gear Photography tell what camra takes a pic just the way i see it

I have a A550 powershot, I try every setting to try and get a pic, that looks like i see it... in the light/sun etc... and it don't cut it.. the mtns have to much light in the back etc. but to my eye (& the miss's) the pic would rule ..if only the cam would take the same pic we see... (i will post some pic's, when my pc at home "gets well") but let me know what works for you.

A canvas, brush and paints.

No camera can, because no mechanical lens can duplicate what the human eye sees and how the human brain interprets that data. I suggest you learn to see how your camera sees--I did this when I was shooting alot of black and white film. After a year or so I could "see" in monochrome; that is to say, I could compose pictures and select exposures that would produce a negative consistent with my visualisation of the subject.

It takes time, alot of pictures, and familiarity with your equipment until you begin seeing consistently with what your equipment can capture.

Not all bodies are equals(P&S/DSLR both).

I find it rather easy to dope C.Fn functions,to reliably yield what I'm seein'.............

Sounds like the issue mostly may be the camera sensor's limited dynamic range compared to the eyes' If you expose for the mountain then the sky/sunset is blown out: if you expose for the sunset then the mountain is too dark
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/eye-camera.shtml

You might use your histogram to help adjust the camera to capture most of the range and data.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
But do expose to the right of the histogram
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

The only thing I use an LCD for,is to [bleep] histograms.

I'm a JPEG SOOC Slut...............

There are about a bazzilon photo editing programs on the market, some can be had for free on line and others cost well over $1K. They all exist because no camera can "see" the same way you eye sees. Even after you use that software to "correct" a digital image you still need to calibrate your mointor and printer to reflect that correction so the print will be the same. That used to be done in a wet darkroom back in the film days now it is all done inside you computer. The "see as your camera sees" comment is spot on BUT you still need to learn how to adjust that to reflect real life.

As a curiousity,which DSLR bodies are you shooting and with what glass?

This could get good................(grin)

Along these lines, my wife has Nikon F4 SLR's and assorted Nikon lenses from fish eyes to 600 mm. Do the new DSLR accept the old Nikon lenses? I'm just the pack animal for it all so don't know a lot about it.

Most lenses that will work on an F4 will work on the pro model DSLR's, though some may have some limitations. If they are autofocus lenses, I think they are all compatible with the D1 through D3's. The consumer level and pro-sumer camera bodies I am not sure about.

The Nikon DSLRs will accept older Nikkors, with certain exceptions. There are tables online that will give you compatability.

I have a Nikon D1x and it will accept all my manual focus Nikkors except those that are non-AI. It will operate in aperture priority with those lenses, but not matrix metering.

I had a Nikon D70 that would accept manual focus Nikkors, again, not those that were not AI (automatic indexing, introduced in the early 1970s), but would not provide metering with those lenses.

If your wife wants to use her older lenses, her best bet would be to buy a used Nikon D1X or D2H, both of which can be found for under $600 at www.keh.com in varying condition. That would give her full, or nearly full, compatability. The fisheye may not work if it is the older model that required the mirror to be locked up when installing the lens.

I love my D1X as I have a large collection of manual focus lenses that, to my mind, are alot tougher than what's on the market today. I also think autofocus is unnecessary for anything but highspeed photography of moving objects.

Simply can't be done.

Did all day again today.

If only for conversation...............

Thanks Oregon 45

THANKS, for the infoe so far i did not take any pic's this weekend as it was -28 with a 10-15 mph wind.........i did not even look at the windchill chart to see how much it sucked to open skin.

Once you seperate your metering from the AF detection point,you gain far more control.

Hint.................

I shoot a Canon 5D and a 5D II. Walking around lens are usually the Canon 50mm 1:2.5 Macro and the 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS. Shoot RAW on both and carry both using the Cotton Carry system. Also use the Canon 100mm 1:2.8L IS Macro and the 85mm 1:1.2L II USM for studio work mostly. I also have a Tamron 28-300mm 1:3.5-6.3 Macro XRDi that I don't use very much. I don't like that it is an external zoom rather then internal. Think it has been over 2 years since I've used it. Recently rented the Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS USM and the 500mm f/4L IS USM; nither is a real "walking around" lens. Of the two I liked the 400 best and if I buy it will be the 400. I've been think about a wide angle ever since someone here asked why I didn't have one. Strangly enough recently I really needed one to get some interiors of some old homesteads so I'm looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. I'll rent it first before I buy.

I couldn't go DO on anything and would greedily grab the 500 over any of the 400's,the 6 or the 8.

I seldom shoot my 70-200L 2.8,as it's seemingly a "tweener" focal length for me. The 85 1.2 do sorta appeal for inside Sports with the kids,as our gyms are dungeons and then some. As for copies I've shot in the flesh,I'd greedily take the 24-105L over the 24-70L,happily trading a stop for IS. LOVE my Tammie 28-75 2.8 macro,it is simply incredible. Find myself often toting the 17-40L in the field,due to how it fens weather,especially aboard one of my 1D-series bodies. Prefer it's perspective on my croppers,as opposed to my 1Ds.

Am going to try and shoot this whole R&R with the new Sigma 50mm 1.4,as a means of R&D and thus far have largely refrained stopping it down. Should mount it on the 1Ds,but can't seem to leave the 1D3's buffer rate and FPS at home.

I pretty much live in AI Servo,back button focus,meter separate from the AF point(Evaluative),keep things in high speed drive and in AV Mode as per the norm. Pretty much just run & gun...............

I would personally stay away from the D2H. (I've never shot a D1X, so I can't comment on that one.) I have a D2H and it is a total POS. We bought seven or eight of them when they came out. (UUgghhh.) Lots of noise in lower light, skin tones are bad, struggles to correct light in certain circumstances and the repairs are double in numbers over our D2X's. My D2H became a lens and spare battery holder after I got the D2X. If you want to go used pro-level on a budget, I would go with the D2X. The two don't even compare.

I tend to go with more open lens because of my subject of preference which is abandoned tobacco barns, pack sheds and homesteads and mushrooms. Many times I find that I have to prop my cameras to get the shot inside these structures or in dense foliage so the 2.4 is a better choice for me. I know that IS is supposed to give you 1 maybe 2 f stops but that hasn't been my experience. I've carried tripods which turned out to be a royal pain as most of the buildings are overgrown and many of my mushroom subjects always seem to be in the nastiest, darkest crap growing in the area . I find myself on hands and knees easing through blackberry thickets to get inside. I now carry sandbag shooting rests filled with those polly beads that are in beanbag chairs. I used to carry a bunch of craft mirror tiles with light wire stands. I'd line these up to bounce light into the areas of the mushroom flush but now I carry a small 3 watt LED flashlight and a 14 inch collapsible silver/white reflector as a light source. That doesn't work inside a tobacco barn so those shot ends up being a wide open, long timed shot with the camera on bags many times. If someone made them and I could afford them I'd go with 1:1 lenses. To old to "run and gun" now. I mostly creep and carefully select because I only have so many get down and get ups in a day.

I often use a Filson hat as a makeshift rest,or a pack,etc. I'm a fan of IS,but get by shooting from hand,until things slow below 1/10 or so.

The Sigma 105 2.8 is a 1:1 and often lauded,in it's IQ abilities...but don't know if the focal length would do you in or not,for your pursuits. They make a 50mm 2.8 version that's 1:1 as well.

Do you shoot any extension tubes? What are you using as a timer/release?................

A canvas, brush and paints.

Short answer: none of them. In the simplest explanation, the human eye and cameras "see" light differently. It takes a considerable amount of study and practice to come close to capturing what your eyes see. If you're serious about it, I would suggest enrolling in a basic photography class. You can also pick up a lot of pointers with all of the basic digital "how to" photo books on the market now.

Pretty easy to [bleep] an LCD.

Just sayin'..............

OK. What does that mean?

After the poke,gawk the histogram to get a feel for exposure. If stumped,one can bracket themself or gun a bracket in auto via preset.

Folks is making this [bleep] seem a lot harder than it is.

How/where you meter,is the money maker too...............

For some, yes. For others, not so easy. That's why I advise starting with the fundamentals, as in... gaining at least a basic understanding of light, exposure, compensation, etc., not to mention the finer points of composition, manipulating color saturation, etc. After all, some folks DO spend a lifetime mastering this stuff.

Just sayin'

No excuse for slow learning,in the Digital Age. Results are instant and all stares one in the face.

Starting with a great camera,will yield the most,the fastest.............

Assuming they even know what a histogram is... and how to adjust.

Many don't.

Neither take a lifetime to locate or learn.

If my 9yr old can do it,I'm sure some here can too.

Just sayin'................

Olympus M-System here and some Pens for 2 fers Advanced stuff ain't it?
I recken I can hit what I'm shootin at..

Common sense is a wonderous thang...................

Yeah. F8 and be there..and time marched on!

Ansel was onto something with the Group F/64 Thang...though I tend to shoot far closer to WFO on the average.

Main thing is,just shoot..............

The first thing I tell a new camera owner is to shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. Digital "film" is cheap. The second thing I tell them is to start practicing to see what you are looking at. You no longer have to wait for film developing turn around to see what you captured, gratification or disappointment is just a button click away. Even low end P&S cameras will have a dozen shooting modes on board. I've seen it over and over the camera is set on idiot mode and left there. I've answered the "why don't my pictures look like what I took" so many times that I now just give that person a printed step by step how to on learning about their camera and lighting.
Canon TC-80N3 is the timer I use now that I'm shooting 5s. Back in my film days it was a cable set camera to B and use a stop watch. I have a friend who uses extension tubes. I saw some of the stuff he shot with his 70-200 with tubes. I was surprised. I see it now as just more stuff to drag through the blackberries. I use the 50mm Macro alone for most of the macro stuff I shoot and the rest is wth the life-size converter and a Velbon focusing platform.

Every poke is a tracer and folks who cain't savvy that,are beyond help.

Was musing the 80N3 in both Canon and 2nd party versions. Also kicking around several higher zoot intervalometers and am kinda torn.

Tubes are fast/easy and light...as well as inexpensive............

Some cameras can create HDR images. HDR is High Dynamic Range, which more closely resembles what the eye can see. The other option is to create HDR images in post processing. With either method you will capture the details in both highlights and shadows. The sky won't be blown out and the mountains will show detail. This is accomplished by combining under, over, and 0ev exposed images into a single image. Ansel Adams created HDR images in the wet darkroom. Some NIKON cameras also have Active D lighting which helps with high contrast scenes.

Ansel's dodge/burn techniques,ain't the issue,nor the answer(thus far).

Pretty easy to [bleep]................

The question was what camera takes a picture of something, in this case a high contrast mountain scene, the way eyes see it. Since NO sensor or camera will capture the full dynamic range the human eye can see in one image that leaves HDR. Since the OP wanted to know what camera would capture the requested image you're left with in camera HDR image creation. Ansel used dodge/burn techniques to recreate the full dynamic range of the scene because the camera couldn't do it. Using the histogram and Ansel Adams/Minor White's zone system allow getting the best single image, within the limits of the camera. Still not clear on the [bleep] thing. That's a new one.

"Just sayin...."

One could only begin to imagine the length of the list,which denoted all the things you don't know about Photography.

You're on a roll!...............

High contrast JPEG SOOC,with just a light crop to preclude a dusty bunny on the sensor. You'll wanna hit "reply",to lay better eyes on it.




Just sayin'................

I was really hoping the photography portion of the campfire was devoid of egos, insults and arguments. I'm more interested in learning through discussion than I am at asserting self defined greatness. I'm sure that list is quite long. Apparently it won't get any shorter here without dealing with negative comments. I'm out.

Ones eyes and brain are far more capable of integrating a wide array of extreme color and intensity information than even the most complex of digital or film cameras. Even in Stick's excellent image above, one sees little to no texture in the black and cream realms of the photo. Mid tones, yes. In life, our eyes can sort it out, but the camera really has issues. My wife's greatest frustrations are things like black bears, bison, and white ish birds.

Where a camera really beats our eyes is in the focusing department. Take a moment to look around and one notices that his eyes can really focus on about 1 or 2% of his total field of view. All the objects remain in view and we can tell they're still there, but only a very small central point really has focus. Even when reading a line of text here, only 1 or two words can be in focus. One can not decipher a word 1 inch up/down or over without shifting focus. Fortunateley, we are equipped with relatively rapid scanners.

Here's one of the few blackish birds that my wife had some luck with (raven), and this was with a point n shoot and some fill in flash.


Here's one not so good. Essentially nothing in the black zones.

Black Labs are hard to get good pics of. Every year when the magnolias are in bloom I spend a bunch of time on shooting them. I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE SHOT THAT I SEE IN MY MIND'S EYE. It has been 7 years since I started the project. Don't know if I'll ever get it. I do have a shot that I titled "Essence of Magnolia" but that shot is so highly edited as to really make it a whole differen image than that which I orginally shot.

You are afforded the luxury of taking issue,though I couldn't recommend it...though hope you do.

If only for the humor associated.................

In fairness,I'd say the hues and their range as depicted upon the lowly Eider,are a very accurate representation of how they appeared to my eye. That both at the time I banged the shutter and now,after the fact.

For conversation:

SOOC JPEG Raven.





JPEG Swan.




Fair contrast MuskOx.





Not all monitors is equal. Nor are all cameras,nor lenses and that well seperate from their Operators...............

I'd play,but my Lab is Yellow and it'd be cheatin'..................(grin)