About: photography...

I start this topic, prompted by questions about photography (mostly in technical aspects), which we can discuss here and help each other, in order to make better pictures of... our pets. Or plants, houses, yards, accidentally passing cyclists... maybe mates, or families... I arranged them randomly in order of importance.
Anyways ... let me start this with a fundamental question - why not to be different from the masses, and although slightly strange, but charming old-fashioned? Just like a panda. And still to use a film camera, instead some sort of digital junk! Oh my! ...the old photos look so cool! (Open the clamp to say, all kidding aside: I love the film photography and film cameras, it is still a first love; and didn't see anything wrong with that to shoot on film - just the opposite!)
Well, the're at least two possible answers why the old photos look so cool:
Answer A / because we were a young and wild and as we know - everything from that time look better;
Answer B / technically, there's a purely objective reasons.

As I said to Dlane- If you do the same with digital camera - the result will be good! I mean - only technical, without interfering with composition, light, or feeling that gives us the image.
Here is the place to say one main thing, something I believe in: not the camera makes the picture - the photographer is the one who makes it. Secondly, as a consequence - the hardware is simply a tool by which to capture and convey the moment, the feeling, the emotion...
Explore this tool, however, will help us to do that as we see in our imaginations, and will save us some frustration. So - it is not just desirable, it's necessarily. Here I feel I'm starting to sound a little mentoring ... sorry - I'm not that type, and also still exploring. As will become clear (if not already) I would recommend the digital camera - despite its imperfections - if you know what we're dealing with, we will be able to mitigating the disadvantages, while benefit of the advantages. Win-Win. Almost (And the wolf - still hungry, and the lamb is eaten away.)*
*a bulgarian proverb.

Why recommend digital, after the film looks better?
Yes - technically, there's a purely objective reasons.
Firstly - a inequality, that sometimes we do not take account: usually we viewing the photos from film, copied on paper. "Wow, these look great!" While digital pictures - looking at full screen on the monitor in a huuuuuge size, in which any defect is obvious as a pimple on the face. Still talking about quality, not artistic value.
Some pictures, that we don't like much, in the postcard-size will look at least acceptable.
A much easier to make good looking 5x7 copy on paper from film, because:
- firstly - the size; to interpolate from 24x36mm to 130x180mm is easier and better as a result, rather than from 1/3.2-inch sensor on the phone or average consumer camera. Here, the comparison of the two sensors:

The small one is iPhone5, the largest is FullFrame (the size by the standart 36mm film).
In other words - a 36mm frame of ISO100 regular film is assumed that contains equivalent of 20 million pixels. Film is an analogue medium, so it doesn't have "pixels" per se; but in order to make a comparison, it is estimated... (I'm afraid going into too deep with that) the film is made of microscopically small light-sensitive silver halide crystals, coated in a thin layer on plastic film. The sizes, respectively - the number of these particles on a certain area of the film determines the resolution. To imagine it - very similar to sandpaper. So - an ordinary fine-grain ISO100 film are capable of resolving as much as 7000 pixels (3500 "line pairs") over the width of a 35mm frame -- about 5000 dots per inch. Even if you reduce these limits to about 3200 DPI, or around 4300 pixels - on a 4:3 frame, that means a bit under 14 million pixels. What this means is that a 4000 x 3000 digital camera would produce a shot as good as a quality 35mm camera in most conditions. But! - this relates only to the resolution. Film does not record just 256 greyscales or the corresponding 16 million colours, so the colour accuracy is much better than the modern digital camera; also - the film itself tends to be able to hold much wider dynamic range...to detect much more detail in shadows, and provide more contrast.
So - there is a lot of information in film, true - not all of it is usable information, but still...
This is why, in the hardware aspect, the film is able to give us better results, even if sometimes we have not done the best settings, or count on auto, just "point&shot".
In addition - digital cameras make us lazy, perhaps because of the ease with which we can take a photo now, but ... is not "assimilate" so the frame as before. And when we rely too much on the camera often the result is disappointing, because of the inability of the electronics to compensate for everything in the best way.
So my humble advice is - - the starting point when choosing a camera is: THE larger sensor! Not the MegaPixels, which apart from the rest is just a marketing trick, a number, which combined with small sensor gives only disadvantages. And the next (there are many more, of course, we have not even mentioned the optics, but one by one) - If the photography is interesting to you - the camera must to have also a manual settings, the more - the better!

Wolfie, I enjoy when people talk/write about subjects they are both passionate and knowledgable about, so thanks for doing that.

My dad was a pretty good and very prolific amateur photographer, all on film of course,
and developed the majority on slides. I guess because he liked to see his images a little larger than life? We had dinner guests often, and every gathering concluded with the quiet hum of the manual slide projector in a semi dark room and my dad sharing photos of our latest outing or vacation. People did not seem bored, I think in part thanks to the power of the big screen and the projector.

I think the appeal of film (or the look of film reproduced digitally) is not as much about nostalgia for the good old days as it is nostalgia for the days when photographic images were more like art and less like cold, clinical reality. In Los Angeles once I went to a taping of a major tv show and they explained to the audience that they recorded the show on film to get the lush, warm and, let's face it, more expensive looking texture that film provides ( this was many years ago). The current technology to make digital look like film must surely exist because the look of film is indispensible in some cases, but without the huge expense of using and editing celluloid.

I think the brain picks up the relatively subtle difference in texture that makes film seem just a little larger than life, like art. What do you think?

Firstly I must say that I'm an absolute amateur. For me, photography is just a hobby (and passion) from years ago,
something that I like - to relax, and to explore.
I'm not good or talented, and noble envy those people (to which kind your dad seems belongs) - photographers who are able to see a good shot and the beauty all around us.


This was said in jest. Serious topic in which I'm afraid I get into - whether the ease and accessibility of photography these days does not lead to profanation and tastelessness?
I don't think that photograhpy, or any other art, must be elitarian art in some way
This would be minimized one of the major powers of art - upbringing of good taste via the beauty.
For me, irritating and harmful is not a zillion photos, flooding from everywhere -
pretentiousness is irritating, when people overestimate themselves or their work; also when somebody imposes "This is an art, and the other - trash" Sorry, but for me the baby's little hand, photographed by a friend of mine carries more emotional content than wrinkled babishker* in desert on the ass of nowhere! (and it is rewarded with all sorts of "The best photo of ...")
_____
*babishker is slang, a little offensive, mean "old woman"


Usually film actually gives us a different feeling - but it's more from force of habit. All that impresses - the softness, the way that recreates the light, sense of depth and volume - all this may be different, vice versa, depending on the idea of ??the author. All these are desired effects, and can be the same in a digital photo. Finally - the picture just is beautiful, exciting us, or not - no matter the media.

I agree that you can capture color better with a digital camera, Wolf. My objection is that my photos have no depth, and that may be because my digital camera is first or second generation and doesn't have the bells and whistles that the later ones do.

Let me show you what I'm talking about. The hibiscus was photographed with a digital Nikon and the dahlia with an old school Pentax. I vastly prefer the way the Dahlia looks, but that's just me, I guess.

Cryptic, I like the photo on the left much better then the one on the right. The hibiscus is an awesome photo.

Thanks, Cincy. I'm probably just nuckin futz. :/

I knew that by my English - will become misunderstanding
No, Cryptic, I supported your position - I mean that in the color rendering, the film also has an advantage. Sorry if I misled you with something, what I wrote wrongly.
At the moment i don't have much time, because the whole family is waiting for me to make something for dinner. Just a quick look at the pictures, and yes - you're right; this depth is the key term called DOF - Depth of field, and is one of the great advantages, however doesn't relate to film technique only, but to this with interchangeable lens. We can discuss it later, sorry.

Last night I fell asleep, tired and ill, and unable to continue on the question later. Now, I am more free from the obligations and will try to answer.
To be clear, Cryptic - I do not mocking, that you have a desire to shoot with film camera! I'm sorry, forgive me if I sounded that way! Nor trying to dissuade you in that.On the contrary - would be glad to do it, and then show the result - I think we'll have what to admire.


Not just you - the option to play with DOF is highly desired by anyone who has an artistic sense in photography.
Usually it's pretty quick-coming question from people with ideas, creativity, curiosity - "Will I be able with my camera to get the desired DOF, how, and if not - what I need"?
Factological - this is a property conditioned by the optics, but appears also a powerful artistic tool by which the photographer can express their idea, aesthetics, in the photo - separating the different plans, the main object/subject from the distracting background, focusing on it, or on a certain thing in the frame, etc.

Concerning the technical part ...coming soon. After a while I start it

Wolf, it's more likely that my reading comprehension was at fault than your English, which is really coming along, btw. Sorry you had a rotten evening and thank you for your efforts to educate the mechanically disinclined (me).

If you don't mind my asking, what camera do you use?

With a little delay, again - the technical part comes.
When I spoke earlier about the film vs digital camera, Cryptic, I didn't mean to make you leave the shooting on film, but that for the your frustration in this case is not to blame digital technology. Or at least not generally. (The shown examples with flowers are an excellent illustration of the advantage to control DOF and its impact on the expression of the image, as well as your views on the matter).
The "Flat" image is not the result of weakness of digital technology in general - is a weakness of the specific device. And stand out even more because of inequalities with his rival - Pentax. Just couldn't expected entry- to mid-level consumer camera to be worthy rival to good film camera (don't know which exactly the Pentax is, but they have a damn good lenses, and if was equipped with such a laureate - it's much more high-end device does not have a chance).

And to start with the main, yet: DOF is only optically conditioned, there is no difference - DOF doesn't care about the type of matrix, catching the image. (And there is not so simple, but refers to the extraordinary for our needs cases, so I ignored them as practically unimportant for us).
So if you have a digital camera (grading in order of quality and price) with interchangeable lenses, good / large matrix, appropriate lenses, or at least if it is compact - to have control over the aperture, then you will not have difficult to get just the kind an image, what you want.
Why it is not possible, to get shallow depth of field images with a compact camera, that are so easy on the DSLR or film?
Because:
- the imaging chips on most consumer digital cams is very small; This means that the actual focal length of the lens for these cameras is very small. The camera with a smaller sensor must have a smaller focal length. The smaller focal length also increases the depth-of-field of the camera with a smaller sensor.
The two things are connected and dependent, especially when should to comply the size (to keep the camera "compact"), the price of course, as and be usable yet (to keep usable field-of-view). Typically a compact camera with a 3x zoom may have a focal length range of 5-6mm to 18mm; And since the depth of field is dependent on the actual focal length of the lens - this is not well suited for obtaining those classic shallow DoF portrait shots.

I'll try to help with some basic guidelines to deal with this, through what we have.
There is still a chance to get a satisfactory results, even with an ordinary camera.
The main we need to know - things that mostly depends to have accented the main subject, and that one pleasant blurred background are:

- The distance between the main object (this in focus) and objects visible in the background, must to be as much as possible greater.

- The closer you are to the object, either physically or zooming using the optical zoom - you'll have more blurred background;

- The larger zoom lens has, the greater will be blur-effect.

- And as objects in the background are farther away - they will be blurry.

In brief - use the telephoto end of the zoom range and get as close to your subject as possible, while trying to maximise the distance between them and the background.

To illustrate it in a way that is easy to remember, I will give the following example.
Stand on one hand from the monitor and do the following exercise:
1. Stretch out your hand with your thumb cover the end of the current sentence and focus your sight on finger; try to read the text aside. It is almost impossible, but you see a few letters, albeit blurry.
2. Move your thumb to 1 span from the eyes, focus on it and try to read the text on the monitor. Not a chance, because the image on the monitor is just a splash of colors to your brain while the thumb is in focus.

Keep this example in mind when shooting "in the field".

And to repeat:
- To be closer to the object of focus;
- We use maximum "zoom" of the lens (if a zoom lens, and if the optical quality of the lens in this range does not drop too much);
- The objects in the background are more remote;
- diaphragm is more open.*

*If you have manual control of the aperture, it would be the most usable method to achieve the desired effect. If you have it - great! if you haven't - the possibility of a blurred background remains only one - the ratio between the distance from lens to the object in focus, and from the object of focus to objects in the background (example of thumb).
However, even if you do not have manual control - remains an additional option: There are 2 modes in which the camera automatically makes the aperture is wide open. These modes are "macro" or "portrait". So - try to use them.
In a nutshell - try, try again and again.The practice teaches us.

Wow, I looked and I was afraid how much I wrote. Chukchi - writer!!

Here's an opportunity to play with the settings and see the result in numbers:
www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Your Nikon is present, select it from the drop-down menu and try different settings - Focal length (mm) from 5.7 to 17.1 ; f-stop... you can leave it to f/5.6, and then, entering different values for *Subject distance* - see the box on the right and on picture below how the values changes dramatically.

Oh my gosh, thanks a million for going to so much trouble. I don't see my outdated little Coolpix 5600 POS listed. However, a kind friend is lending me a much more versatile Fuji to experiment with. That should be fun. Thanks again, Wolf.

I have Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D
www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d

Old as model, but ... love at first sight! At the moment I caught her in my hand, I knew - this will be my camera.
Even if i get something new one day, always will keep her - just for the pleasure.
The short description: "Inspired From Genius"
Long Description: "The finest DSLRs ever designed, the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D is much different experience handling wise than any DSLRs
The 7D had the most intuitive controls of any camera, ever...buttons are located in such a manner that they become second nature to use and operate."

One very important addition: lenses are more important for image quality, the camera, I would say, it is more important for the convenience of its operation

youtu.be/Nn-dD-QKYN4

Great topic! I belong to a few photography clubs and we love to discuss techniques. We were just talking recently about using the old cameras. And I do mean old. I mean ones that you can pick up at flea markets for a song. Sometimes you can't even tell what the picture will look like when you're trying to take it. But the results are phenomenal.
The new cameras may look fancy and prestigious around someone's neck, but that doesn't mean the final product will be always be good. The picture that is taken is what is in the eye of the beholder.
The camera may cost thousands of dollars, but that doesn't mean jack, quite frankly. It's what the photographer "sees" that's important.
Next comes the imaging. And with today's products, there's a slew of products out there. Products are available for phones, for PC's, for laptaps and for tablets. The main focus tho, is on having fun, and going at your own pace. Don't let anyone intimidate you. Be creative from within. And don't worry about the cost of your camera. Many great photos are taken nowadays with so-called "point and shoots" or even with cell phones. Just remember to have fun, educate yourself at your own pace while learning to be creative.
And DPREVIEW.com is a great place to view galleries, learn techniques, view camera models, etc.

It seems as if every time I photograph a perfume bottle with a curved front I end up with an ugly white vertical line. I assumed it would disappear if the photo was taken from an angle instead of straight on, but it doesn't. Do I need to get lens filters? Would that help? Thanks for any advice.

You know it will be difficult for me to explain in English the way I want, but I'll try at least
to give some guidelines about the basic things

Exif data of the file missing but as far as I can see - for this picture, fill flash was used?
These reflections are a result of direct flash lightning.

Now, the lighting, and in particular - artificial or the additional lighting are a vast topic...

I will try to be helpful with a few simple things

As a general rule and most often, should be used flash-diffusers to avoid this "effect".
If you use an external flash, it usually has one built-in - a thin plastic film that is retracted into the housing and which must be pulled out in front of the flash when do we need.
Or otherwise - has included in the set diffuser - such as cap or dome - something like that:

The aim is to avoid these glares by direct pointed flash and to provide a mild and uniform illumination.
Also, with or instead of the diffuser, is often used a photographic trick or technique known as "bounce flash" - rather than firing your flash directly at your subject, you point it elsewhere - up or at an angle, bouncing off a wall or ceiling, in order to “bounce” light to soften it before it hits your subject.

When is used a white card or other light transmitting material such as paper or lightweight fabric, attached to the flash, but did not cover it entirely as the diffuser, and reflects light output completely or partially, then we have something between both the techniques.

For bounce flash to be applicable, however, you must have:
- an external flash - they are designed to be able to adjust the angle of the flash head at different angles, as well as to rotate;
- It is powerful enough;
- you have something to bounce off within a reasonable distance.

When using the built-in flash of the camera - the most common case - then you can buy one of many offered diffusers, OR -
- you can use your imagination and adapt any suitable material that you have at hand - cigarette paper for hand-rolled cigarettes (I am a smoker and always have handy), or some kind of plastic, or a piece of cloth... you will see sorts thinkable and unthinkable ideas, if only ask google about "DIY flash diffuser"

It is only necessary to be matt, in any case not very dense, so as not to reduce luminous flux drastically.

Also a tip aside from the flash - nice would happen if the window (or in general - the entrance of natural light) is covered with a light curtain or a light transparent paper - for the same reason - will soften the light in the room and will get smoother shadows.

So grateful for your help, Wolf! Yes, it only happens when I use the flash. I either end up with glare blobs or those nasty vertical lines. I didn't make the connection between the lines and the flash (duh!) but I did with the glare spots and I was always having to choose between a murky photo and one with *glaring* flaws. Awesome tip about the diffuser. I'll either track one down or rig one up.