True Confessions

[mickeyobe]

For quite a while I have not been happy with many of my pictures' lack of sharpness. I tended to blame the lenses and/or the camera while knowing full well it probably wasn't them.

Very early this morning I got out my faithful old Canon T90 and my Canon FTb and very carefully repeated each step that I used to take in making a picture. I repeated the process several times slowly and deliberately.

It came to me gradually, not in a flash. I had become lazy and slovenly in my picture taking. I was relying too much on an unthinking machine when I should have been using that computer between my ears.

I wont list all the steps I went through but it boiled down to depth of field and setting the aperture (Av) rather than keeping my camera on Tv as I usually did. My preference to be able to release the shutter without getting the "in focus" signal was also a mistake. My eyes are not as keen as before and the K100d viewfinder is not as acute as the T90's.

I also concluded that I had to look at the readouts in the camera's viewfinder and/or LCD panel and determine what changes I could or should make to the settings.

I took 34 pictures today. All were technically good except one where I moved the camera.

Now if only I can stick to doing what I have learned and not regress again.

Mickey

[daveh]

Mickey,

I've always found that one thing trades off against another. Sometimes I get everything right, other times not. It's not really a mystery to me but, as you say, it often is a case of not really taking enough care. I am still waiting to take a perfect photograph. I think I may be a while.

I am not sure I noticed as much problem with your photos as you yourself did.

Dave.

[daveh]

I'm trying to get that perfect shot of a hoverfly in flight. Now, what hoverflies do well is hover. However just as one is nicely in place it immediately shoots off out of shot. This is about the best I have managed:

I ramped off the 'film' speed to give both a reasonable shutter speed and f-stop.

I have been thinking about it and I am coming up with a few potential answers:
1) use a proper macro lens, rather than extension tubes or close-up lenses, and so lessen the need to increase film speed.
2) have two panes of glass, so the hover fly has a largely contained flight path.
3) get an infrared sensor and pre-focus both it and camera and wait a few hours to see what I have captured.
4) stick a wire onto the body of the hoverfly and have it fly off no where.
5) take up bowls.

[mickeyobe]

Dave,

How about flash?

I am not familiar with hoverflys (hoverflies?).

How do you get one to agree to go between 2 panes of glass? Threaten it with that nasty wire?

On the other hand, they must get tired eventually or hungry. But then they wouldn't be hovering would they?

"get an infrared sensor and pre-focus both it and camera and wait a few hours to see what I have captured." One of them might never hover in the IR beam. You could wait for years. Meanwhile your camera will be tied up.

I do think a bowling ball is rather drastic and messy.

Best of luck.

Mickey

Elephants.

[nikonbob]

Mickey

Yea, my eye sight is not what it used to be, need cheaters to read, and I found the adjustable eye piece really helpful. I don't know if your Pentax has that or not but it is really beneficial to have it set right for your eyes. Just adjust it till the sf marks are as clear and sharp as you can get them. I have to agree with using aperture priority over shutter priority. Like you said the biggest thing is to pay attention to the details which is easy to say but equally easy to forget too.

Bob

[daveh]

MIckey, yes, thanks. Flash would be a good idea. I've got the possibility of high speed flash on the Canons. I looked at the instructions for the Pentax *ist DS and I see that has high speed flash too. I've got the AF360Z flashgun so I could have that permanently set up.

Bob, I need quite strong reading glasses. Recent cameras are fine as they have adjustable eyepices. I bought a Canon 1000 FN a few months back which doesn't have the luxury of adjustment. I cut up a lens from an old pair of glasses so it was a neat fit into the eye piece: I can now see the screen in perfect focus. However since then I have bought a more recent Canon film SLR, so I've started using that instead.. I did find a +3 dioptre eyepiece for the Topcon Super D (it's circular) at one of the big American S/H 'shops'. I would have paid the $18 ( or whatever it was) for it, but I certainly wasn't going to pay the $45 postage that all foreign transactions attracted. I'll make one sometime, unless I come across another that is reasonably priced. I can't wear glasses while using a camera. I never quite understood how people who need them for normal have managed using a viewfinder.

Dave.

[mickeyobe]

Dave,
"I never quite understood how people who need them for normal have managed using a viewfinder."

Years ago Nikon made a camera that they advertised as having High Viewpoint or High Eyepoint. I think it meant that one could keep one's eye a slight distance from the viewfinder and still see the entire frame. I believe it was intended for eyeglass wearers.

I can wear my glasses and still see the entire frame of both the T90 and the K100d but it is uncomfortable. Both have adjustable viewfinders.

I, too, made a viewfinder magnifier from an old pair of glasses. The plastic lens made it fairly easy to cut and shape. I first donned the glasses and looked in a mirror to try to determine the optical centre which I marked and then drew an oversized circle around it. I still use it.

Mickey

[John Parry]

Capturing practically anything in flight that isn't at infinity is a massive challenge for any photographer. To give yourself any kind of a chance, you need the brightest possible conditions to give yourself the maximum possible DOF, pre-focus, and - guess!

I've done a little work with hunting birds in a public display. They were trained to fly between two perches so the conditions were ideal. You know the distance from the camera to the flight path. The light is reasonable, so you can close the lens right down, so you're all set up for some awesome in-flight photographs providing you can just get the bird in the centre of shot, right? Wrong. Hunting birds don't fly straight - they'll move off the line by a couple of yards. The only decent shots I got were at take-off and landing.

Mickey - hoverflies are true flies that have adopted the protective coloration of a wasp. Dave's right - they are ideal subjects as they can hover in exactly the same spot for minutes at a time. But as Dave says - not only are you wrestling with the photographic challenges, but also with supernatural ones too. They have ESP and know exactly when you are going to press the shutter. As soon as you do, they are hovering beautifully a foot away from their original position.

Dave - the Yashica 300AF has a function giving just what you are looking for with your infrared idea. You can set it all up ready, and as soon as something is detected in focus in a sensitive zone of the field of view, it takes the picture. Trouble is, I've never managed to get it to work - something in the background is detected as being in focus and 'click' - an empty picture.

Bats are another subject offering endless hours of fun for the intrepid stalker - not only are they unbelievably fast, jinking more quickly than any bird or insect, but they have the added advantage that you can't see them coming.

All these techniques have one thing in common - they use a lot of film. I mean a LOT of film. Maybe if I ever get the LCD display fixed on my Pentax digital (so that I can make adjustments with some sort of confidence that I won't lose track of where I am and never be able to get back again), I'll take up in-flight photography again.

Meanwhile, I try not to think about it too much.....

Regards - John

[mickeyobe]

Dave,

From what both you and John have said it seems to me that the infra red detector is your best option.
However, if
"Trouble is, I've never managed to get it to work - something in the background is detected as being in focus and 'click' - an empty picture."
is the problem it should be simple enough to set up a plain background - a sheet of stiff cardboard of any colour, although close to 18% grey might be best, fastened to a pole stuck in the ground.

John,

"All these techniques have one thing in common - they use a lot of film. I mean a LOT of film."
That thing was broken when you were here yet you were able to use the camera. Just think of the savings compared to the cost of film.

Mickey

[Randy]

My biggest stumbling block has always been scanning my photos to put on the net. I doesn't matter what I do, it just takes away the quality on prints. I have tons of photo I'd like you guys to see, but they just turn out looking awful. I've got a flatbed HP Scanner, and a fairly new Canon Printer/Scanner, but they just don't do the job, and I can't afford anything else.

[daveh]

Mainly of the best in flight photos and movie film have been faked. There was one they did several years ago with the bird in a wind tunnel. They altered the wind speed to keep it flying alongside the camera. It was this that was behind my thinking of containing the fly in between glass.

Excellent advice, John. It is always good to hear from others who buy the cure-all system but can't get it to work. I think, though, I know what the problem is: microflies. They are so small that you can't see them and so quick that they are gone before you can say "snap".

Randy, I have complained a bit about lack of quality from the scanning process, but the result is usually usable after a bit of post-processing. I find the HP scanner worse than the older Epson in terms of the initial output.