OneGuyFromBarlick

Here's a telling pic. A Nikkormat with a long lens and the new Canon. I kept two bodies, a Nikkor and Nikkormat, possibly the best high end amateur cameras ever made. I preferred the Nikon F when I was snapping seriously but these are the two bodies I kept.....

I've noticed a few articles recently covering something called "back button focusing". A lot of wild claims around sharper images...

Bottom line is you assign a different button, other than the shutter, to control the auto focus. I've had a play and will let you know how I get on.

Big Kev wrote:I've noticed a few articles recently covering something called "back button focusing". A lot of wild claims around sharper images...

Bottom line is you assign a different button, other than the shutter, to control the auto focus. I've had a play and will let you know how I get on.

Didn't do it for me, I can see it would benefit sports or wildlife photography but the majority of what I do is studio based. I've reassigned focussing to the shutter button, nothing moves around much or very quickly for it to be of benefit

I'm a point and shoot man these days Kev..... I can remember the days when the keen amateurs were arguing about film grain size.....

Stanley wrote:I'm a point and shoot man these days Kev..... I can remember the days when the keen amateurs were arguing about film grain size.....

That was a common discussion for me too over a pint of beer. I remember experimenting with Kodak Ektar, a 1000ASA film, back in the 1980s. Got some cracking 'arty' portraits when printed onto Ilford Gallerie.

My subjects don't move about much either - with geology as a hobby things move a few centimetres a year! Unless they are volcanic or earthquakes and we don't get much of those here.

Got some new toys at the weekend, I don't know how I've managed without these Posing Tubs

Graduated from beer crates then, eh?

Tizer wrote:Graduated from beer crates then, eh?

Beer crates and a blanket box

Using a dog worked and didn't cost anything...... Warley Wise a long long time ago! (1957)

Are they your "babies"?
I remember those stout slippers with the zip. Very warm and practical. (Proper slippers they were)

Stanley wrote:

Using a dog worked and didn't cost anything...... Warley Wise a long long time ago! (1957)

Zero cost is always a bonus but a dog would probably get a bit upset in the cupboard when I wasn't using it

Take no notice of the price of the posing tubs in my link, I didn't pay anywhere near that for them...

Maz, no, they were two daughters of a farmer I used to deliver groceries to each week......

As well as sitting on them, the posing tubs come in handy for containing small boys who insist on trying to climb up your cloth background...

I would say he's working out his escape strategy......

Kids are great for photographs, aren't they! This is Mrs Tiz's nephew's daughter at Halloween. The photo won her mum a prize from a retailer for a best entry in their competition.

Notoriously difficult subjects but usually good fun. As long as you end up with the 'money shot' it's worth it.

I'm a sucker for kids...... I still remember that laughing baby advert for baby food......

The lighting boom arms have been reinstated in the studio which has freed up a fair bit of floor space, need to make a custom background support pole now to fit up into the ridge space. Current set up with the straight pole limits me to sitting poses only.

I've a question for you, Kev. Whatever camera I use I often find that photos of `vegetation' such as a garden or landscape end up with that vegetation looking less crisp than I expect. It's as if the camera gets confused by all the leaves! Is this a known issue? I can get absolutely crisp pics of individual plants but if I photograph a tree and then zoom in on the pic the leaves are not well-defined. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the camera and the auto focusing can't handle leafy trees?

Tizer wrote:I've a question for you, Kev. Whatever camera I use I often find that photos of `vegetation' such as a garden or landscape end up with that vegetation looking less crisp than I expect. It's as if the camera gets confused by all the leaves! Is this a known issue? I can get absolutely crisp pics of individual plants but if I photograph a tree and then zoom in on the pic the leaves are not well-defined. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the camera and the auto focusing can't handle leafy trees?

It'll just be image resolution, your individual plant pic for example on an aps-c sensor would be 6000 x 4000 pixels (24mp), lots of detail hence the sharp image. With the wider shot you would need to zoom into the image to see the details, let's say 10% of the wider image and you'd only be looking at 600 x 400 pixels. Viewing this on the same screen as your 6000 x 4000 pixel image will give a softer image. I trust I've understood your queztion correctly?

Yes, Kev, thanks. I'm probably expecting too much from cameras! In these days of high megapixel sensors it's too easy to forget some of the fundamental factors controlling resolution.

If you have the option to shoot RAW images you'll keep a lot more information. If you shoot jpeg in the camera it'll make a good job of processing the image as is but will discard a lot of data which will limit the ability to enlarge without a lot of degradation.