If you post a link to the online manual, I or someone else, may be able to help?..
Since I am using a tripod, the lenght of time is not a problem so Iwant to set the aperture to as low as possible which is 8. I assume Iam going to get the same picture but with more depth. However,virtually everything has changed,especially the background color..
The colour shouldn't change just because you stopped down, so that's a bit strange. But hey! Don't worry. We know how to fix it. .
Is ther any way to get more depth without cahnging everything else?.
Yes. You were right to stop down to a smaller aperture (higher f/number) but don't stop down any more than you NEED to, because that leads to a loss of sharpness overall (diffraction)..
I also noticed that as I changed the mode setting from "Auto" to anyother mode the color dramatically changed in the image finder..
Yes. That is to be expected. Evidently your camera presently has other colour balances attached to those exposure modes (ones suitable for other lighting colours) so that is what you see. .
Part 2I am wondering is color balance has anything to do with it. I amunable to determine if white balance is "off" in the "auto mode" but"on" in the "aperture" mode..
Yes. It has been a colour balance matter all along.... not an exposure one..
Furthermore, in "Auto" mode it is highly likely that colour balance is also set to auto [known as 'Auto WB' or AWB]. Unfortunately, most cameras do a pretty poor job of AWB in Tungsten light conditions (as may be seen in many of the camera reviews on this site)..
The Finefix manual is a little vague on this subject.QUESTIONS:1. Can I turn on white balance in the "auto" mode..
For the reason stated above you DO NOT WANT any Auto WB under tungsten conditions. Therefore you should use either.......
A "Preset" from the list.... the correct one being "Tungsten"..
Or, even better, use the "Custom White Balance" facility if you have it. You probably do have Custom WB, but see your manual to find out how it is done on the Finepix..
2. I am using halogen 50 lights which are described as "brilliant,white light"..
They are tungsten halogen lamps... sometimes known as 'Quartz Halogen' or even Quartz Iodine. They have been around about 50 years. The light is notably whiter than ordinary tungsten light bulbs, and they do no become yellow with age,... but it is still "Tungsten" metal that the filament is made of..
I have a variety of white balance choices but halogenisn't one of them..
As you may have gathered by now, you should use the tungsten preset.... (or perform Custom White Balance and use the resulting balance... it will be tailored more precisely to the specific light you are shooting under)..
Wouldn't "daylight florescent" be the best choice?.
No. Halogen lamps are tungsten lamps..
I guess I can anser this one myself by experimentation..
Well, yes.... but it is better to get headed in the right direction to begin with, eh?.
3. How di I get the white balance the same in "Auto" and "Aperture"mode?.
By setting the colour balance separately when in each respective mode... see your manual..
A more general understanding of these matters will always help to make the manual to make sense.......
There are lots of good books around, so if you want to do your own photography for your jewelry business, it may be worthwhile getting genned up! You will also gain knowledge of exposure, and improve your lighting skills.... which are absolutely crucial to good jewelry shots.Regards,Baz..
Thank you for demystifying and clarifying my problem..
The problem was that I had all the modes except "auto" on a WB of florescent..
There is no "tungsten" WB mode on the S7000. Daylight was a good choice but I set the camera up with a custom WB and it looks just like the auto WB in the "auto" mode..
I normally would start a new post but you brought up the subject of sharpness degradation vs. aperture setting so I thought that I might ask one more question here..
You mentioned not closing the aperture too much because it reduces sharpness. I have an eye problem and have trouble ascertaining through the lens when the image is at it's sharpest. I have choices of 2.8 to 8. My camera lens is 6 inches away from the subject (earrings). I could get closer but then the camera interferes with the lighting. I then enlarge the image using the zoom feature.
1. Under these circumstances does the aperture setting make a great deal of difference and is the sharpness degradation as you go to a smaller aperture that great?.
2. I there a mathematical method of deciding the best aperture setting under these circumstances..
I appreciate that these questions are very subjective especially if you don't have the "environment" (camera, subject, lighting, etc. in front of you..
Thank you for demystifying and clarifying my problem..
I had all the modes except "auto" on a WB offlorescent..
Errr... ahh.. [??].
There is no "tungsten" WB mode on the S7000..
Actually, there is, but it is travelling under an assumed name! .
Please see the S7000 review on this site......
.... lists the available WB options as follows....
" Auto" Manual preset 1" Manual preset 2" Fine" Shade" Fluorescent: Daylight bulb" Fluorescent: Warm White bulb" Fluorescent: Cool White bulb" Incandescent.
Because there is no "Tungsten" setting there, you should use the "Incandescent" one instead..
This is because the devices you are using are "tungsten halogen incandescent electric lamps" to give them a fuller name. However, they are most often known as "tungsten" lamps, sometimes "incandescent" lamps, or maybe just plain old "light bulb".... which is why any icon associated with this WB will look like a light bulb with 'rays' coming from it..
Err... to be frank with you, I am just a little surprised you didn't know incandescent and tungsten were the same thing.... no more did Fuji bother to explain it in the manual, either... I'm assuming (shrugs).
Never mind. I hope it is clear now..
Daylight was a good.
Choice but I set the camera up with a custom WB and it looks justlike the auto WB in the "auto" mode..
Errr.... So what are saying? Is the colour balance STILL wrong, or are the whites and greys now appearing nice and neutral in your estimation??Please clarify. Thanks..
Also, it seems to me you are confusing *exposure modes*, which determine how the meter takes it's light readings to set exposure and alter the lightness/darkness of the image......
........ with *colour balance settings* (also known as White Balance options) which determine the lighting colours the camera sees as neutral grey-white..
In this regard it is well to remember that many cameras self select Auto WB when set to the "Auto" position, because that is the *granny* mode... and 'Auto' (green setting) is auto-everything, including colour balance..
Further notes about Auto White Balance itself.....
Auto White Balance (AWB) attempts to automatically set correct White Balance, and it does this individually and dynamically for each shot, whilst working ONLY from the colours reflected by the subject in frame at the time. Since, most of the time, the colours in shot are NOT AT ALL representative of the colour of the light itself, this is a bit of a *lucky dip* method of working. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't!.
Obviously, the ultimate accuracy of AWB will depend a great deal on WHICH colours happen to be in shot at the moment you press the button!! Consistency is not part of the deal in ordinary multi subject shooting..
Nevertheless, it is notable that AWB doesn't do a bad job under daylight... most of the time, anyway. Fluorescent lighting is also not bad with most cameras, I find... and AWB may be the only sensible setting when moving rapidly form one colour-of-light-zone to another.. from a tungsten-incandescent lit living room to a fluorescent lit kitchen, for instance..
AWB may be the sensible option when working under MIXED lighting, in which case it may pick up the most appropriate compromise setting... like a Custom WB, it may be a "between" setting a unique 50/50 fluorescent-daylight mix, for instance..
Unfortunately, as made clear in the earlier post, AWB never seems to work particularly well in tungsten (incandescent) conditions, even when presented with an ideally well distributed colour target to make it's best guess from meaning one where a wide range of colours are represented, and all are about equal in area in the frame..
Summing up on AWB....
Because AWB is unreliable for so much of the time, many people give up on it altogether, choosing to use either presets, or taking the trouble to do a Custom WB every time the light changes. Myself, I do think that AWB has it's place my comments above give an indication of when I'd use it but when colour is critical, I do a Custom White balance .... or process from RAWs.....
......but that's a whole different matter I don't want to get into right now!!.
(continued from part one......).
I normally would start a new post but you brought up the subject ofsharpness degradation vs. aperture setting so I thought that I mightask one more question here..
You mentioned not closing the aperture too much because it reducessharpness. I have an eye problem and have trouble ascertainingthrough the lens when the image is at it's sharpest..
Sorry to hear that... but, as it happens, electronic viewfinders are not noted for the ease with which ANYONE can focus with them, so it probably isn't just you. .
I have choices of2.8 to 8. My camera lens is 6 inches away from the subject(earrings). I could get closer but then the camera interferes withthe lighting. I then enlarge the image using the zoom feature..
Hmmm... Please note that enlarging by cropping will reduce image quality, sharpness included, AND magnify any softness that comes from inadequate focus accuracy. So be warned.... and always fill the frame as tight as you can. In fact, filling the frame is a general rule for best quality in nearly all photography, of course..
I amtrying to get a picture that is sharp as possible from the front tothe back of the ring which is about 1/2 an inch..
Hint: It helps to stand things up, or get the camera OVER the subject as it lies down, so that most of the subject falls into a plane closer to 90 to the lens axis, instead of obliquely to it. Obviously, keeping square-on to a flat object reduces Depth of Field requirement (DoF) and therefore how much stopping down is required, but it doesn't help greatly if the subject itself has a three dimensional form....
In other words, you will just have to pick the best compromises you can for each shot, and gain experience as you go....which, unsurprisingly, is pretty much the same as in any other human endeavour!! ))).
QUESTION:1. Under these circumstances does the aperture setting make a greatdeal of difference and is the sharpness degradation as you go to asmaller aperture that great?.
Yes, DoF is of great significance in ultra close ups, but be pleased that you have a small sensor camera, where DoF is greater without so much stopping down..
However, in most *macro* work, (macro = ultra close-up) it is necessary to maximise DoF, and even then there is sometimes too little depth to cover the whole subject ... (when that happens it is the BACK that should be let go) but, because of the risk of diffraction softening everything, we sometimes have to compromise. Therefore, remember that.......
The optimum sharpness obtainable from your lens this at the plane actually focused on is around f/4 to f/5.6 ..... so this is your *aim point* aperture when no OTHER considerations prevail..
As long as the closest parts of your shot are really clear, and REALLY sharp, a good deal of blur can be tolerated elsewhere. It may even be considered "creative", to see some blur other parts of the subject, as long as it doesn't look like a mistake! Check out some modern food photography (recipes in mags, say) to see what I mean. As stated, it is invariably the furthest parts of the subject you can let go out of focus (OoF)..
Extra sharpening can be applied in post processing, if general softening from diffraction has occurred. This works so well that diffraction has become much less of a worry compared with film days..
2. I there a mathematical method of deciding the best aperturesetting under these circumstances..
Yes there is, but the real problem is that many digital cameras, yours included, do not have proper focusing scales anymore, so whilst the information can be obtained from tables and DoF programs on the net, transferring settings to the camera is not easy.....
In any case, for macro work it is rather easier to confirm sharpness by examining images on a computer screen ... or you may find your camera has a magnifying review mode that can stand in for a large screen..
I appreciate that these questions are very subjective especially ifyou don't have the "environment" (camera, subject, lighting, etc. infront of you..
We all of us do our best, naturally, but you are right.... This mentoring business would be much easier if we were standing at your shoulder, eh? .
Let's hope this has been of some assistance. Good luck.Regards,Baz..