More nature 56k heavy.

[Spellbinder]

Here's some new shit, i tried out the macro which worked quite well when i found out how to use it. I know i have a lot more to learn about taking pictures and maybe also how to manage them. But im satisfied with these anyway. Also i have giving up imageshack because i can't upload bigger then 1.5 or it resize them and i think a lot is missed then. So if you want to see more then this visit http://spellbinder.onesite.com/gallery/index.one?act=display&gal_id=1 and don't mind my Profile, i dont like blog sites and such its just to have somewhere to put my pics etc.

[e-freak]

why not scale down those pictures a little bit and higher contrast? would not have hurt...

[Spellbinder]

It does.

[TomWithTheWeather]

Besides making them easier to view, resizing them down would have improved the sharpness. As they are currently, they are somewhat out of focus. Resizing would have helped.

[Belgarion]

you should avoid using flash in nature photos at all costs. get a tripod if you need. it's definitely worth it if you want to take your photos further. you should also learn about exposure and depth of field. those two things can take your photos those extra few feet towards awesome photos instead of "automatic mode point, shoot, flash" photos.

I think they'd be good if you'd put more effort into them, but right now they're only average. the flash creates flat borring lighting, which is the most important aspect of photography. tweaked it can be good and very useful, but in nature photos as you have, avoid. I liked the first and last best. water shots are neat, and the last one is an interesting subject.

the last in particular i think could improve with a little bit of technique on your part. if you could narrow the F stop (higher numbers. you shot at F/2.8, which is pretty fast, and provides shallow depth of field) you would get a much deeper depth of field, making more of the photo in focus. Try again with F/5.6 or 8.

[e-freak]

he when would have higher the blendtime which may work with tripod but as those pics are taken with a flash so we can guess he shot from the hand it would'nt come out correct

ImageDescription -

Make - Samsung Techwin

Model -

Orientation - Top left

XResolution - 96.00

YResolution - 96.00

ResolutionUnit - Inch

Software - Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows <- What for?

DateTime - 2006:10:18 06:27:43

YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited

Copyright - COPYRIGHT, 2006

ExifOffset - 352

ExposureTime - 1/6 seconds

FNumber - 7.10

ExposureProgram - Manual control

ISOSpeedRatings - 50 <- ISO 50 O.O try out 200

ExifVersion - 0220

DateTimeOriginal - 2006:09:22 15:52:31 <- evening or morning (sunrise/fall) rocks more

DateTimeDigitized - 2006:09:22 15:52:31

ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr

CompressedBitsPerPixel - 3.71 (bits/pixel)

ShutterSpeedValue - 1/6 seconds <- Too slow for a quick fotography and to short for a real smooth water

ApertureValue - F 7.09

ExposureBiasValue - 0.00

MaxApertureValue - F 2.80

MeteringMode - Multi-segment

LightSource - Auto <- There is an option i think which allows shadow or something like this - could be the wb as well

Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode - Good one

FocalLength - 5.80 mm - Try out, as previous has been said, 8 or 16

FlashPixVersion - 0100

ColorSpace - sRGB

ExifImageWidth - 2048

ExifImageHeight - 1419

InteroperabilityOffset - 900

ExposureIndex - 1

SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor <- Can you adjust color range manually?

FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera <- o.O

SceneType - A directly photographed image <- Seems like you can switch something here?

ExposureMode - Manual

WhiteBalance - Auto <- Try out with some fine tuning

DigitalZoomRatio - 1.00 x <- NEVER use digital zoom (you didn't in here )

FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 35 mm

SceneCaptureType - Standard <- WTF?

Saturation - Normal <- try some greyscale for contrast learning

Sharpness - Normal <- Whatershot maybe with a softer mode?

[Belgarion]

I hope i translated that english properly.

The last shot would actually have been just fine at 5.6. He shot it at 2.8 with a shutter of 400. even if we bring it down two-thirds of a stop to 250, he could still have attained a 1/60 shutter at F/5.6, nevermind the two-thirds overexposure. so he could even have had a 7.1 Fstop. minus the flash which is probably a stop or two, that's easily 1/60th at F2.8, or F/7.1 with the flash.

Of course, he's already gotten the shot, and we can't just change the exposure and take a new one. I'm just trying to help him think about it a little so next time he's more prepared.

:edit: freak, i was talking about the last shot, 401.

[e-freak]

oops i was talking bout water picture so i didn't really got the flash -.- ok you are right

[Spellbinder]

Nice guys! Thats a lot of info to get me going in the right direction. I never knew what that F was (well i still don't kind of.) I dont have a tripod . Maybe i look around for prices. I shoot at freehand and thats why i'm a bit scared about the shutter. The water picture has really long shutter to get those lines and stuff. I know the flash sucks, but since i dont have a tripod i couldn't have the shutter open to long so i could get in that extra lightning. In anyway i thank you all for the information and i start to read about digital photographing more.

[Belgarion]

depending on how far you are zoomed, you should be just fine with shutter speeds between 1/60 and 1/250. Set your ISO to 100, maybe 200, and you can get a higher shutter speed, but I wouldn't go higher with a point and shoot cam. They use CCD sensors which produce a lot of noise.

[BlackPanther]

k the 3rd pic creeps me out... looks like a small hand is reaching out to strangle me...

[Spellbinder]

I should have done this a long time ago. But other stuff have occupied me. But here it is. e-freak helped me resize the picture, i didn't think it would turn out nice if i did. But its quite good so i post them here. Now i will go try by myself too.