Forum

My camera's fairly primitive, but I can sometimes get decent focus on things like a cobweb by just holding the "shoot" button halfway down on a suitably chunky target, watching where the green focus beam is landing, and then swivel the camera across to the thing I really want and click the rest of the way down.

Great idea. Even tho I have a fairly simple camera which I usually use on Automatic, even cameras such as mine have a few manual setting capabilities which I would, at times, appreciate tips on using.

Love the idea of a tech tips and advice section.

Compacts.

I have a Panasonic compact DMC-TZ11, I love it, yet it took me 3 years to find the "vivid" setting! I have never turned it off since finding that setting.

Compacts do have user selectable settings, yes, Example: The above make/model has a dial that pops up some icons on the screen, when shifted off auto, what the hell do they mean? What do they do?

One is a little man running or known as 'sport' ... fast moving action ... so shifts the camera to a High shutter speed priority/auto selection of aperture "MAY" decrease to allow 'more' light to facilitate the higher shutter speed? meaning more blur foreground/background [DOF].

To access the description of each of these little icons : select 'scn1/ scn2' .. select the 'icon' you wish to review ... select 'display' the camera will then display a brief description of what that particular setting will do. Be aware if you save the selection, selecting the 'scn#' the camera will remember your last setting. You will need to change your selection each time, if you wish a different result.

While there is no 'technical' mumbo jumbo in those descriptions of what the camera shifts to facilitate those settings? The understanding comes from how shutter speed/aperture/ISO all interact in the desired result that you want to achieve, EG: night/starlight Icon, this most likely shifts the ISO to a higher value? This makes the ''film/sensor'' so to speak, more sensitive to "Low Light" applications. [draw back in my opinion, is what was known as "Grain" with high ISO values, that pixely fuzzy look.]

Waffle Complete, but can add more jibber jabber mumbo jumbo if required.

Hmmm, my weapon of choice is the DMC-TZ70. I must look for the "vivid" setting! .

Yeah, the problem with those icons is that the description is very brief and not particularly detailed.

Did these cameras come with a 'user manual'? If they did I cant remember if I have one or not? or was it fly by the seat of your pants?

A quick google yielded an "advanced" user manual in PDF for your model, as well as a normal user manual.

Yes the hard part is to decipher from the clues what will do what, when? from those meager descriptions. A little easier if you grew up on a SLR, though, and learnt all the mumbo jumbo from a book in a library.

I'm using an Olympus PEN Mini E-PM2. It's a compact mirrorless sort of "baby" DSLR. I got tired of lugging my clunky Nikon around, and am very happy with it so far. It's a long way from my trusty old Canon AT-1 . I appreciate your photos F-stop, and your obvious expertise.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with compacts/phones, as I have stated before I do use a compact at times and before I bought a DSLR it was my entry level camera into the Digital age. [in celluloid days I did start with a SLR, at the top you could say, and worked my way down, with a LOT of fails, 5 in 500 were not good averages and expensive in celluloid.]

[linked pic] is from said same Compact. I love this shot, I was actually hunting the sunset, the sun had gone down, so I thought? Upon leaving where I was, driving away, the sunset became more stunning than any of 90 shots taken in the last half hour?

While I love the pic, my opinion is it fails with the sun dead smack bang in the center?

[linked pic]https://www.allombo.com/p/00/00/06/669083658.jpg[/url] This pic is a direct copy from a 25 year old celluloid transparency taken using a SLR camera.

[linked pic] This one ? AHEM! A DLSR, pointed direct south, the sun does not set in the south, heavily edited, and being a pic I took, as I am my own worst critic, CRAP!!!

The blurble above and examples, I hope demonstrate, there are basic 'guidelines' to photography that do make photos more or less appealing, no matter what camera is used? One of these is 'Rule of Thirds'. Yes even camera makers include a "Grid" that you can turn on or off that divides the screen in to ..... wait for it ..... Thirds. [center spot auto focus destroys this, unless you half hold the shutter to auto focus, then shift the subject in the frame, before releasing the shutter.]

I am by nature a very symmetrical person, hence the thirds go against my very inherent nature, the first pic shows thirds top to bottom, yet not side to side, thats the reason to me that is fails my eye as a picture? Even if the color pops. [OldmanEmu, thats "vivid setting"]

The middle one, obvious in those years with no instant review/editing, I may have taken more time to Compose it?

The third one ..... AHEM!! DSLR or not is not going to matter, its not a good photo.

An exercise in photography was to use a cardboard disposable camera, they had a shutter button, thats it! The art was in composure, lighting and all the very basic ''Guidelines'' that could make or break a photograph. Another exercise was the moon, this yielded a lot of white blobs, why? The moon is 100% reflected full sun light, so, even though its night, one must use shutter and aperture as though in daylight.

I am not perfect, I do get disgusted at my own work, or my own impatience when I think I should have got it right.

I live on a shoe string thus DLSR's have been out of reach for me for a long time, I could pay on the weekly but resent the idea of possibly falling behind on payments and getting into debt.

I intend to get one in the not too distant future but my simple Kodak Digital camera has served me so well for years. I get the most out of it because I have to and due to the fact I am forced to I managed to learn so many little trick with it.

Some of getting the best out of any camera that you have is getting to know it like a friend, not so much a friend you want to throw into the sea though.

While I can agree with this?
I would like to add that getting to know basic "guidelines" to photography will help? [the word 'rules' will be replaced by 'guidelines' ] Then break the guidelines where applicable to great effect? Why do some photos appeal more than others? You may be surprised if you shift the main subject to a spot in the frame thats NOT directly in the center? [one of them pesky "guidelines"]

Another tip? Avoid flat light like the plague, AKA midday sun. Lighting at times can and is very important to overall image appeal.

If all else fails? Post process the crap out of it! Even the most basic free programs can CROP, color/contrast, straighten/level or make a bland picture more appealing?

I did actually read some books in a library, on photography, before the internet, a lot of that stuck over time and became second nature. I also looked at what pictures appealed, then tried to emulate them? With the knowledge of why they appealed and why my pix looked flat lacking that wow factor.

Photography is in the eye of the camera holder, not in the camera.