This is what I not-so-affectionately call the “digital wait”. It is mainly a problem with “point and shoot” (aka “compact”) cameras. It is dreadfully annoying and, more often than not, makes us miss the shot we really wanted to take.
The explanation is quite simple, but what to do about it is not. Basically, the problem is that the camera is thinking. And evidentally, not fast enough, eh. So, what do we do about it?
I have tried all kinds of close ups, and none of them were really worth much. What is the problem? What was I doing wrong? The flowers were not crisp. The rocks were dull. Just about everything lacked the detail that makes this kind of shot so compelling and breathtaking.
Well, I sure hope this is not just some excuse, but I really think the solution to all my bad close up photos is my lenses. My lenses are not really made for this. I have a 50mm f/1.4 with a closest focusing distance of 1.5ft (0.45m), and an 85mm f/1.8 with a closest focusing distance of 3ft (0.85m). I think that is my problem. I just cannot get close enough.
I took this photo a while back, and though the photo itself does not really say all that much, the editing really brought out a different perspective. It was really just a test shot to play with my circ-polar filter and how the wet surfaces showed up. Back in the computer, I briefly played around with it in my raw image editor, UFRaw, and a very different image began to appear.
I have run into a nasty problem the past few weeks: printing my digital photos. They just do not look the same as they did on my computer. Usually, they go from vibrant to dull. It is always some problem with color.
I recently took a couple photos of my newborn son—I have taken much more than a couple, obviously—which I wanted to print out for the grandparents. I had already spent a good amount of time on my computer adjusting the color and contrast to get the photos just were I wanted them, especially for the supple skin tones on my little boy’s face.
Why did I switch to digital? You would almost never hear this question actually asked in publiic anymore. It is just an assumption that everybody would switch. Yes, there are many good reasons to do so, but for me, it was fiercely practical.
In a sentence, film and processing in China are unreliable. In one of the copy cat capitals of the world, you never really know what is real and what is fake in China, including that Kodak or Fuji roll of film on the shelves. Most people ask, “How can film be fake? Film is film.” Not true. Film is specific chemicals at specific amounts on specific “papers”, and trickster Chinese film makers cut costs on chemicals. Though most people have never thought about the effects of these chemicals, they would still very easily notice the difference if they compared photographs taken with genuine and fake films. The color is washed out, giving them a bluish or gray tint, and often grainy.
But that is not all! The processing stinks too! Somehow, even the most beautiful photos turn awful in Chinese processing. My guess is the same. They cut costs by using a below standard amount of chemicals, thus leaving your photos abou the same as bad film.
Good question. Ever wonder why your photos turn out way too blue or red? Well, unless you were shining a red flashlight on the scene, it is undoubtedly a problem with the white balance setting. I will not get too much into the nasty details of white balance here, but try to give a quick primer on how I set my white balance. We all have different solutions to problems, and this is my solution.
My solution is specifically tailored to a digital SLR, but even if you use a compact camera (point-and-shoot), you may well come to the same conclusion I did.
