# Another Fiddle Around



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Eventually sussed out a few of the modes but maybe just not sharp enough ???? What say you all 



















It might get better :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

So where am I going wrong  I just can't get these super sharp pictures I see on here.


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

In your first pictures I think two things are happening: ISO too high and AWB going for fluorescent light or something (too yellow, so compensating for cold white light).

Also, that Alpha homage isn't much of a source for inspiration... 

What camera is it?

You need slower speeds, lower ISOs, the correct AWB (or RAW mode) and, because of that, longer exposures... so you need a tripod...


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

BondandBigM said:


>


This one was taken with a fairly low ISO 200, the white balance set by one of the functions rather than automatically, the exposure was set a couple of positions below the mid setting and I used a tripod but it just isn't that sharp. The camera is a Nikon Coolpix L110.

I'll try and use a better watch the next time :lol:


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

BondandBigM said:


> This one was taken with a fairly low ISO 200, the white balance set by one of the functions rather than automatically, the exposure was set a couple of positions below the mid setting and I used a tripod but it just isn't that sharp. The camera is a Nikon Coolpix L110.
> 
> I'll try and use a better watch the next time :lol:


Well, I think it's good enough... That Nikon is a semi-DSLR (don't know the 'official' name for that), you can't change the lens and that can be the problem... I can't think of anything else that might be the problem, sharpness and detail depends a lot on the quality of the lens and not how many MPixels your camera has (people usually mistake one for the other)... I don't know, a Nikon camera should be among the best but that one is pretty much a point and shot in disguise so turn every auto function you have (macro mode included) and, if you have that option, change the file format to RAW instead of a processed file like jpeg. Maybe the digital transcription is messing it up. With a RAW file it's easier to adjust the picture with something like Photoshop but I wouldn't know... it's hard enough thinking on speed, aperture, light, WB, etc, etc.. 

...or get something like the D90, it's an amazing camera! :yu:


----------



## MarkDavey (Jan 9, 2009)

Not sure if your camera has this, but if so, try using the timer delay function to release the shutter. Manually releasing the shutter, particularly when using slower shutter speeds can cause camera shake and produce less sharp images.


----------



## bridgeman (Dec 9, 2008)

Am not expert by any means but the camera seems to be getting into focus just one thing. The bezel or the strap/lugs. The slightly increased distance to the writing on the dial may be throwing it out of focus a bit. Back to 35mm stuff thats depth of field. So longer exposure with smaller lens opening? aperture priority setting? using self timer once set up sometimes helps.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

MarkDavey said:


> Not sure if your camera has this, but if so, try using the timer delay function to release the shutter. Manually releasing the shutter, particularly when using slower shutter speeds can cause camera shake and produce less sharp images.





bridgeman said:


> Am not expert by any means but the camera seems to be getting into focus just one thing. The bezel or the strap/lugs. The slightly increased distance to the writing on the dial may be throwing it out of focus a bit. Back to 35mm stuff thats depth of field. So longer exposure with smaller lens opening? aperture priority setting? using self timer once set up sometimes helps.


I should have said I used the timer and stood the camera a bit away the zoomed in a bit. It was in the evening whith the "big light" on which has an energy bulb. I might try today in natural light. But Big M goes off it if I make the table untidy  :lol:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Kutusov said:


> Well, I think it's good enough... That Nikon is a semi-DSLR (don't know the 'official' name for that), you can't change the lens and that can be the problem... I can't think of anything else that might be the problem, sharpness and detail depends a lot on the quality of the lens and not how many MPixels your camera has (people usually mistake one for the other)... I don't know, a Nikon camera should be among the best but that one is pretty much a point and shot in disguise so turn every auto function you have (macro mode included) and, if you have that option, change the file format to RAW instead of a processed file like jpeg. Maybe the digital transcription is messing it up. With a RAW file it's easier to adjust the picture with something like Photoshop but I wouldn't know... it's hard enough thinking on speed, aperture, light, WB, etc, etc..
> 
> ...or get something like the D90, it's an amazing camera! :yu:


Yep it is a glorified point and shoot and you can't change the lens but it does have a lot of functions to fiddle around with and what looks to me a fairly large lens compared to some I looked at. The only minor problem the instructions are a bit vague and I didn't see anything about "RAW". It's 12MP but I was using it on almost the smallest size or it takes forever to load onto Photobucket which automatically resizes them down for use on most forums anyway.


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

BondandBigM said:


> Yep it is a glorified point and shoot and you can't change the lens but it does have a lot of functions to fiddle around with and what looks to me a fairly large lens compared to some I looked at. The only minor problem the instructions are a bit vague and I didn't see anything about "RAW".


Canon and Nikon menus aren't all that different, on mine that option is within the "Quality" menu, meaning it's exactly in the MPixel settings...

Oh, and don't zoom in, keep the lens open wide and get there with the camera itself.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

Kutusov said:


> BondandBigM said:
> 
> 
> > Yep it is a glorified point and shoot and you can't change the lens but it does have a lot of functions to fiddle around with and what looks to me a fairly large lens compared to some I looked at. The only minor problem the instructions are a bit vague and I didn't see anything about "RAW".
> ...


Getting there, I used it on the maximum 4000 x 3000 setting on this with ISO80, manually set the WB and it's sort of daylight here.


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

BondandBigM said:


> Getting there, I used it on the maximum 4000 x 3000 setting on this with ISO80, manually set the WB and it's sort of daylight here.


Change of watch seeing as my cheap look-a-likie offends people :lol: :lol:










That being said it's amazing how much better the Sub has kept it's appearance compared to the GMT given they were bought at pretty much the same time and the LV has had a much harder life.


----------



## MarkDavey (Jan 9, 2009)

That's way better! - looking good Mr Bond :thumbsup:


----------



## martinzx (Aug 29, 2010)

Getting better :thumbsup:

Try it in macro mode, you should be able to improve

Cheers martin


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

This is cropped from that picture and a bit of a fiddle around with the colours and so on but only on a basic program that's on my laptop. Now that I have a base setting that seems to be there or there about's a bit more messing around is required 










Thanks for all the tips guys :notworthy:


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

An other crop from the GMT piccy.


----------



## oubaas56 (Nov 23, 2008)

Bond, for a so called novice, those piccies are getting pretty sharp.

Sort yourself a lightbox, only use a tripod & selftimed shutter release & you'll be surprised at the results you can achieve.

Nice one mate. :notworthy:


----------



## Kutusov (Apr 19, 2010)

Yeap, definitely better!! I have much catching up to do, I used to be a whole lot better with film cameras. I had fully manual VoigtlÃ¤nder that took pictures better than most cameras I see today and I learned a lot with it. Then I bought my DSLR and that was it... stuck it in the car's trunk never to be used again. And then car got stolen  so I was without a camera for a long while.

I always found better to learn about photography if you aim at a certain specific difficult objective... it involves all the same parameters so makes you think and learn about them. I used to love taking nightshots, driving around at night through roads I didn't knew and suddenly arriving at small village with this Roman bridge or to some vantage point of a whole valley. The car's roof was my tripod 

I'm still refreshing my memory concentrating on watch pictures and questions like your's really make me think how a camera works (+ all this new digital settings and mechanisms).


----------



## BondandBigM (Apr 4, 2007)

I'll work around the settings I have and see how it goes, it's not something I had any interest in at all. I've only ever really had point and shoot so a lot of this is new to me, the camera now I understand it a bit better is doing all the work :lol: It almost got thrown in the box and tossed into the back room as my old phone took better pictures 

A lume shot, again way sharper than anything I have managed to get before.


----------

