Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / August 2005
Veeeeery Newbie question regarding focusing manually
|
|
Thread rating:  |
GC - 25 Aug 2005 00:39 GMT All-
I mentioned a while back that I was about to begin a Photography 101 course at the local college. Well, class has strated and the time has come to begin shooting our assignments and there is something that is extremely frustrating to me so far.
The instructor, for obvious reasons, wants us to shoot in full manual mode with no flash. We are to use the different settings on the camera as well as manual focus to take good pictures. The one thing that is frustrating me is that I can never focus as good as auto focus. I was under the impression that going full manual would be better because it would give me more control of the camera, but when taking very simple pictures I realized very quickly that there were some shots I simply could not focus manually. If I had something very close to the camera and something very far it would be very easy to get the nearer of the tow objects into focus, but impossible to focus the further of the two objects. I thought it was the limitation of my lens (using the 18-55mm that came with my Rebel XT) but when I switched to auto I could focus without fail.
Am I simply doing something wrong? When I focus manually all I seem to do is zoom in and out I don't ever get to focus different parts of my frame.
AS you can see, I am pretty new to this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Gil C.
Colin D - 25 Aug 2005 01:35 GMT > All- > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > AS you can see, I am pretty new to this. Any help would be greatly > appreciated. I suppose you are using the focus ring, at the very front of the lens, it turns the whole front element of the lens, and not the zoom ring?
But generally, autofocus cameras do not have a very good viewfinder for manual focus, as they are oriented towards maximal brightness and less towards critical focus viewing. Also, while the 18-55 kit lens does creditably well image-wise, the manual focus action leaves quite a lot to be desired, being 'touchy' and the image tends to jump around due to the looseness of the focusing barrel.
As for focusing near and far objects at the same time, you can't do this in the viewfinder, as the lens is always wide open while viewing, therefore with minimum depth of field (dof). There is a small button low down on the left side of the lens mount (looking from the rear) which is a dof preview button. It dims the image, but lets you get an idea of the dof at your chosen aperture.
Focus and dof go hand-in-hand, and your instructor should cover this aspect thoroughly.
Colin D.
GC - 25 Aug 2005 03:08 GMT >> All- >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Colin D. Thanks for the info. I still have a lot to learn about my camera, and I will undoubtedly learn more as I shoot more, but with the portfolios due in the next couple of weeks I wanted to get a head start if possible. It isn't the right time of day to experiment now, but I will be sure to give your suggestions a try tomorrow.
GC
Chris - 25 Aug 2005 01:56 GMT Have you practiced focusing manually before?
Most camera manuals (or atleast most I've read) have instructions for composing your picture manually. It can be tricky, but if the viewfinder has a central crosshair, or reticle, you should have no problem focusing. Whatever is DEAD CENTER of the viewfinder will be in focus. There are cameras that have other focusing options, but the good old tried and true center-metering focus is your basic setup.
Basically focus the lens until MOST of what you want to shoot is in focus, if you're trying to shoot multiple ranges, an average of distances can be used. It's very easy to focus one object at one fixed range, but yes it can be tricky to shoot pics of different objects at various ranges in one scene.
There are really two options here. You can either try to focus most of the scene, as I say above, trying to compose an average of the different ranges. Or, you can opt to focus on one particular object within the scene, drawing creative attention to it. For instance, zooming in on a flower growth on a hilltop. The other elements may be abit hazy in relief, but that can draw more attention to the flower's detail.
Experiment on your own with different variations. See what you like.
GC - 25 Aug 2005 03:12 GMT > Have you practiced focusing manually before? Aside from the shooting I've done in the short time since I bought my camera, no. I went walking around town today shooting all I could until my 1GB card was full, but some of the shots that I thought were cool ideas wouldn't focus the way I wanted them to. I'd switch to AF and voila! the focus would work.
> Most camera manuals (or atleast most I've read) have instructions for > composing your picture manually. It can be tricky, but if the viewfinder > has a central crosshair, or reticle, you should have no problem focusing. > Whatever is DEAD CENTER of the viewfinder will be in focus. There are > cameras that have other focusing options, but the good old tried and true > center-metering focus is your basic setup. I do admit that I am terrible at R'ing TFM. I plan on flipping through the manual in more depth soon.
> Basically focus the lens until MOST of what you want to shoot is in focus, > if you're trying to shoot multiple ranges, an average of distances can be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Experiment on your own with different variations. See what you like. I plan to...thanks for the help.
GC
Richard H. - 25 Aug 2005 06:22 GMT > All- > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > AS you can see, I am pretty new to this. Any help would be greatly > appreciated. Gil,
Either the course has not covered some details yet, or the instructor is sending you out to struggle so you can understand the issues first. (Both are good techniques - the latter is frustrating, but very effective.)
First, you will be challenged because AF cameras are not designed for manual focus - that is, the viewfinders are manufactured without the classic focus screen features needed for good manual focus (e.g., split prism). That said, this is more of a finer point, and it sounds like you're having more fundamental problems.
A cheating point that may help... I think some cameras (the Rebel comes to mind) have a feature where the AF zone selector in the viewfinder will light up when that spot comes into focus in manual mode. One worth reading the manual for.
What you describe sounds a lot like depth-of-field (DOF), which determines how much of the foreground & background are in focus. It sounds like you are shooting with a very shallow DOF (background out of focus).
* DOF is determined by the aperture (f-stop). * Bigger f values = deeper DOF = tiny hole (aperture) = more light needed (or slower shutter speed, or more sensitive film [bigger ISO number]) * Conversely, smaller f values = shallower DOF = large aperture = less light needed (or faster shutter speed, or lower-ISO film).
If you're shooting without a flash, indoor photos are usually tough. You're often pushed to the largest aperture (shallowest DOF) to keep the shutter speed fast enough so things don't blur. The trick is adding more light so you can increase the f-stop - this is much easier outdoors in good daylight.
Try to keep the shutter speed at 1/60+ to prevent blur, and use high f-stop values to increase your DOF. Here are some close-up test shots that show how the aperture affects the DOF... http://www.pbase.com/hornbaker/macro_tests
Good luck!
Richard
PcB - 25 Aug 2005 09:57 GMT <<If you're shooting without a flash, indoor photos are usually tough. You're often pushed to the largest aperture (shallowest DOF) to keep the shutter speed fast enough so things don't blur. The trick is adding more light so you can increase the f-stop - this is much easier outdoors in good daylight.
Try to keep the shutter speed at 1/60+ to prevent blur, and use high f-stop values to increase your DOF.
Don't forget that you can "boost" the sensitivity of the camera by making the ISO value higher. This means, for the same amount of light, you can use either a faster shutter speed or a smaller (higher number) aperture. Or a combination of both, of course.
I believe the Rebel XT is the same as the 350 (which I use), in which case there is a button on the back (marked ISO) which allows you to do this.
HTH Paul
 Signature Paul ============} o o
// Live fast, die old // PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
UC - 25 Aug 2005 14:59 GMT Why are you using a DIGITAL, AUTOFOCUS camera for such a course?
What planet are you from?
OF COURSE you are having problems! The cameras are pieces of sh.t! You cannot focus them very well manually, because the viewfinders are not designed for that!
Moron......!
> All- > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Gil C. DBLEXPOSURE - 25 Aug 2005 15:30 GMT Hey Richard,
You got some good advice here with the exception of this idiot top posting troll. You can set your news reader to ingnore him, if you haven't allready.
> Why are you using a DIGITAL, AUTOFOCUS camera for such a course? > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> >> Gil C. UC - 25 Aug 2005 16:42 GMT This idiot gets a cheap autofocus digital camera for a photo class?
> Hey Richard, > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >> > >> Gil C. dadiOH - 25 Aug 2005 17:13 GMT > This idiot gets a cheap autofocus digital camera for a photo class? 1. It is a *beginning* class.
2. He is probably using a camera he already have.
3. Nothing wrong with what he has. It can do manual.
 Signature dadiOH ____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
DBLEXPOSURE - 25 Aug 2005 18:17 GMT $899.00 Yeh, that's cheap...
The rebel XT does have a focus indicator as all EOS cameras do. Works in Manual as well as auto..
Did somebody piss in your Cheerios this morning or are you always an abrasive a.s?
> This idiot gets a cheap autofocus digital camera for a photo class? > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >> >> >> >> Gil C. UC - 25 Aug 2005 18:31 GMT > $899.00 Yeh, that's cheap... > > The rebel XT does have a focus indicator as all EOS cameras do. Works in > Manual as well as auto.. It's cheap for a digtal.
Try a REAL manual-focussing camera. What are you doing in a PHOTO class with that piece of sh.t?
> Did somebody piss in your Cheerios this morning or are you always an > abrasive a.s? [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > >> >> > >> >> Gil C. Pap - 25 Aug 2005 19:35 GMT And you're shooting with???
"UC" spewed his normal, immature bullshit by saying -
> It's cheap for a digtal. > > Try a REAL manual-focussing camera. What are you doing in a PHOTO class > with that piece of sh.t? UC - 25 Aug 2005 20:07 GMT > And you're shooting with??? Leicaflex SL-2, with the best focussing screen ever made....
$1200 in 1974. Still works perfectly.
> "UC" spewed his normal, immature bullshit by saying - > >> > > It's cheap for a digtal. > > > > Try a REAL manual-focussing camera. What are you doing in a PHOTO class > > with that piece of sh.t? Pap - 25 Aug 2005 23:24 GMT That thing is so old it's got caveman sh.t on it. Moron...
"UC" wrote in message
>> And you're shooting with??? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Try a REAL manual-focussing camera. What are you doing in a PHOTO class >> > with that piece of sh.t? UC - 26 Aug 2005 14:31 GMT > That thing is so old it's got caveman sh.t on it. Moron... ..and it's STILL better than anything EVER made by the Japs...
> "UC" wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >> > Try a REAL manual-focussing camera. What are you doing in a PHOTO class > >> > with that piece of sh.t? Pap - 26 Aug 2005 14:49 GMT That could be true, but it doesn't give you the right to be rude and obnoxious at every opportunity. Appears to me that you've got "small man's" syndrome. Meet me at a Nascar race or even a basketball game and let's see how that Leica does against my 1D MarkII.
> ..and it's STILL better than anything EVER made by the Japs... UC - 26 Aug 2005 15:02 GMT > That could be true, but it doesn't give you the right to be rude and > obnoxious at every opportunity. Appears to me that you've got "small man's" > syndrome. Meet me at a Nascar race or even a basketball game and let's see > how that Leica does against my 1D MarkII. With my 560mm Telyt? You won't stand a chance.....
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=919
On the print (you can't see it on this small scan) the sweat on the tip of the nose of the player tossing the ball is clearly visible.
> > ..and it's STILL better than anything EVER made by the Japs... Pap - 26 Aug 2005 17:47 GMT I think my MkII and Canon 600 F4 IS would hold its own. If you think otherwise, you're dreaming.
"UC" wrote>
> With my 560mm Telyt? You won't stand a chance..... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> > ..and it's STILL better than anything EVER made by the Japs... UC - 26 Aug 2005 20:11 GMT > I think my MkII and Canon 600 F4 IS would hold its own. If you think > otherwise, you're dreaming. I'd like to see you hand-hold it at 1/30 sec.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha..............
> "UC" wrote> > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > >> > ..and it's STILL better than anything EVER made by the Japs... Pap - 26 Aug 2005 20:25 GMT You're out of your league here sonny boy. And we both know it.
I was just going to add you to my filter until I found out how much fun it can be poking you with a stick.
> I'd like to see you hand-hold it at 1/30 sec. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > >> >> > ..and it's STILL better than anything EVER made by the Japs... UC - 26 Aug 2005 20:31 GMT > You're out of your league here sonny boy. And we both know it. Imebcile. You never were in any league. I was taking sports pics before you were thought of. I'm fast and I'm good. Better than most of those morons who call themselves 'pros'.
> I was just going to add you to my filter until I found out how much fun it > can be poking you with a stick. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> > > >> >> > ..and it's STILL better than anything EVER made by the Japs... Pap - 26 Aug 2005 20:35 GMT Randall Ainsworth - 26 Aug 2005 23:24 GMT > Imebcile. You never were in any league. I was taking sports pics before > you were thought of. I'm fast and I'm good. Better than most of those > morons who call themselves 'pros'. OK, you'd better let mom have her computer back now.
UC - 26 Aug 2005 23:36 GMT > > Imebcile. You never were in any league. I was taking sports pics before > > you were thought of. I'm fast and I'm good. Better than most of those > > morons who call themselves 'pros'. > > OK, you'd better let mom have her computer back now. I'd have to say you're a moron too... Anybody else?
DBLEXPOSURE - 26 Aug 2005 23:57 GMT >> > Imebcile. You never were in any league. I was taking sports pics before >> > you were thought of. I'm fast and I'm good. Better than most of those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd have to say you're a moron too... > Anybody else? He's a moron and you can hand hold 560mm @ 1/30th... Okay...
Lol...
What a loon...
I'd have you ignored but it's just to entertaining.
Pap - 27 Aug 2005 00:57 GMT Haha... this is rather fun now, no!? lol...
"DBLEXPOSURE" wrote > >
> What a loon... > > I'd have you ignored but it's just to entertaining. UC - 27 Aug 2005 01:29 GMT > >> > Imebcile. You never were in any league. I was taking sports pics before > >> > you were thought of. I'm fast and I'm good. Better than most of those [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He's a moron and you can hand hold 560mm @ 1/30th... Okay... YUP!
The lens is relatively light and with proper technique (which I have) it can easily be done. I'll send you a scan if you wish...
Of course, with that cow Canon lens it would be far more difficult.
See:
http://www.wibergsfoto.se/images/leica/560telyt2482750.jpg
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/
f.cking moron.....
DBLEXPOSURE - 27 Aug 2005 07:58 GMT >> >> > Imebcile. You never were in any league. I was taking sports pics >> >> > before [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > f.cking moron..... What does that prove? It is not hand held, Even so, it gives you license to act like a six year old? You cast out disrespectul comments and think people are going to bow down to a f.cking half a.s photo? That's all you got?
I gota tell ya, we are all very impressed.
Dumb bastard.................
UC - 27 Aug 2005 19:23 GMT You amuse me...almost.
You use sh.t equipment and have no idea why I use something else that's better.
I don't have the images in question available on-line, so I will have to send them to anyone interested. I did it all the time with THIS lens, because THIS LENS is designed for hand-holding. It's light and easy to use.
> >> >> > Imebcile. You never were in any league. I was taking sports pics > >> >> > before [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Dumb bastard................. Randall Ainsworth - 27 Aug 2005 20:27 GMT > You amuse me...almost. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lens, because THIS LENS is designed for hand-holding. It's light and > easy to use. It's a shame when cousins marry.
UC - 27 Aug 2005 20:34 GMT > > You amuse me...almost. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's a shame when cousins marry. Oh, is it? I happen to know of two married cousins from Germany who were both PhDs at Ohio State University. Isedore and Rudolph Edse. I'll be sure to pass your comments along to their children.
Pap - 27 Aug 2005 23:23 GMT Say hello to your mom and dad for us, will ya...
>I happen to know of two married cousins from Germany who > were both PhDs at Ohio State University. Unspam - 27 Aug 2005 23:54 GMT >>> You amuse me...almost. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > were both PhDs at Ohio State University. Isedore and Rudolph Edse. I'll > be sure to pass your comments along to their children. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are cousins, deduce from that what you will.
PcB - 30 Aug 2005 22:37 GMT I thought ol' UC had gone away but he's back .... check out "waterfalls". Will he be as entertaining this time?
 Signature Paul ============} o o
// Live fast, die old // PaulsPages are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
UC - 31 Aug 2005 15:55 GMT > I thought ol' UC had gone away but he's back .... check out "waterfalls". > Will he be as entertaining this time? If I see any waterfalls photographs, I destroy them!
PcB - 31 Aug 2005 19:01 GMT Gotta admit that *some* of the things you say actually make some sense, but, well, I dunno ... maybe it's just the way you say them.
 Signature Paul ============} o o
// Live fast, die old // PaulsPages and galleries (no waterfalls yet) are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
GC - 26 Aug 2005 03:29 GMT > Why are you using a DIGITAL, AUTOFOCUS camera for such a course? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Moron......! OK, usually I wouldn't reply to such an imbecillic post, but since I started the thread and you have gotten everything about it wrong I feel the need to set you straight.
First, the course is all digital. The next class (PHO 102) is all manual.
Second, the fact that I was in Photography 101 should have indicated to you that I am very new at this. Obviously I have a lot to learn or I wouldn't have posted with the subject I did and I certainly wouldn't be in PHO101.
But really, we all appreciate everything you had to offer. HAve fun on the block list jackass.
GC
sonsdad - 26 Aug 2005 07:29 GMT Hi And so if I buy the best camera I will become the best photographer. I never thought of that...... As others have said you got good advice here. Tripod, level and do not touch the camera when making the shot, use the time delay of cable.. These simple things added to using aperture priority for landscapes and shutter priority for action will give better results. Keep it simple and do not forget your friend Google for tutorials. Everything is out there! Good luck
On 26/8/05 3:29 am, in article p8vPe.62504$Ep.58328@lakeread02, "GC" <gilcintron@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>> Why are you using a DIGITAL, AUTOFOCUS camera for such a course? >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > GC Randall Ainsworth - 26 Aug 2005 09:52 GMT > Second, the fact that I was in Photography 101 should have indicated to you > that I am very new at this. Obviously I have a lot to learn or I wouldn't > have posted with the subject I did and I certainly wouldn't be in PHO101. > > But really, we all appreciate everything you had to offer. HAve fun on the > block list jackass. Coming from almost 40 years of film photography and many years of manually focusing soft-focus lenses in the low light of a portrait studio, I didn't think I'd like auto-focus when I went to digital. But the focusing screens are so fine it's hard to focus manually. And I quickly grew to love AF.
DBLEXPOSURE - 26 Aug 2005 14:19 GMT >> Second, the fact that I was in Photography 101 should have indicated to >> you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the focusing screens are so fine it's hard to focus manually. And I > quickly grew to love AF. Not to grow this into a debate, AF Vs. Manual, But sometimes AF can burn you. Shooting wildlife or sports or any thing where the moment can pass quickly, AF, will inevitably pick something other than you subject to focus on. By the time you get it shut off and refocus, the moment has passed....
UC - 26 Aug 2005 14:24 GMT > > Why are you using a DIGITAL, AUTOFOCUS camera for such a course? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > First, the course is all digital. Who gives a sh.t about digital?
> The next class (PHO 102) is all manual. You need a MANUAL FOCUSSING, MANUAL EXPOSURE film camera.get rid of that piece of sh.t and become a real man, fuckface.
> Second, the fact that I was in Photography 101 should have indicated to you > that I am very new at this. Obviously I have a lot to learn or I wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > GC Randall Ainsworth - 26 Aug 2005 15:56 GMT > Who gives a sh.t about digital? Everybody but you, apparently.
> You need a MANUAL FOCUSSING, MANUAL EXPOSURE film camera.get rid of > that piece of sh.t and become a real man, fuckface. Your mother must be so proud.
dadiOH - 25 Aug 2005 15:08 GMT > The instructor, for obvious reasons, wants us to shoot in full manual > mode with no flash. We are to use the different settings on the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > limitation of my lens (using the 18-55mm that came with my Rebel XT) > but when I switched to auto I could focus without fail. No lens - autofocus or not - can focus at more than one distance at a time.
In your case, you need to...
1. focus at the hyperfocal distance for the two points you want in relatively sharp focus. That distance is about 1/3 of the way from the closest point to the farthest point.
2. use the smallest f stop possible (aperture size, not number) so that you will have the maximum depth of field ("area of apparent sharpness")
3. #2 may necessitate using the camera on a tripod so that you can use a slow enough shuter speed to provide correct exposure with the small aperture.
When you do the above, the resultant photo will have the two selected points in as sharp a focus as possible. Whether or not they actually *appear* sharp depends on how far apart they are and the degree of enlargement of the photo.
There are ways to achieve great "depth of field" with large apertures but that requires changing the plane of focus with a swinging front...something not available to you and beyond your ken at this point.
-- dadiOH ____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Beach Bum - 25 Aug 2005 22:15 GMT > I mentioned a while back that I was about to begin a Photography 101 course > at the local college. Well, class has strated and the time has come to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > lens (using the 18-55mm that came with my Rebel XT) but when I switched to > auto I could focus without fail. First, I assume you're in manual focus mode and that you're twisting the end of the lens, not the zoom part.
Second, it is very difficult to focus manually because auto focus cameras don't have split prism focusing screens. If it was me I'd just shoot auto focus - that's what it's there for.
 Signature Mark
Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com
Drifter - 28 Aug 2005 05:49 GMT >All- > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Gil C. Gil: A lot of people have been giving you solid advice but there is one thing that has been skipped. The rebel XT has a diopter adjustment for the eyepiece and if it isn't dialed in for you then it is extremely difficult to judge when something is in focus (doing a manual focus).
So far the best method I've found for adjusting the diopter is to look at a brightly lit scene, press the shutter button down until your information display (shutter speed, light meter, et al) lights up, and then adjust the diopter until you can clearly see the information display. You should then be good to go.
Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..."
|
|
|