Focussing in the dark.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's Christmas, almost, and therefore my house is lit up like, erm, a Christmas
tree. So I decided to take a photograph of it. Tried a few different settings
but they all seemed out of focus.
At least I think it's a focus problem, it doesn't look like camera shake.
www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc140023.jpg
See what you think.

The camera was on a tripod, and I used the timer. It's a Olympus C-750, and it
was in program mode, auto focus. It thought it had focussed correctly, the green
indicator was steady.
That shot IIRC was f2.8 1/1.6. I was also using a wide angle adaptor, but the
result was the same without it.

I tried the manual focus, but it's very difficult to use. The centre of the
display shows an enlarged version of the centre of the image, but there's no
noticeable change from infinity until I get to about 4 ft.

(comments about the 'tastefulness' of the lights will be ignored. It was my
wife's idea)

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Christopher Pollard" <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:h510s0thpqpaq463c690o6ketfgdddg9o1@4ax.com...
> It's Christmas, almost, and therefore my house is lit up like, erm, a
Christmas
> tree. So I decided to take a photograph of it. Tried a few different
settings
> but they all seemed out of focus.
> At least I think it's a focus problem, it doesn't look like camera shake.
> www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc140023.jpg
> See what you think.
>
> The camera was on a tripod, and I used the timer. It's a Olympus C-750,
and it
> was in program mode, auto focus. It thought it had focussed correctly, the
green
> indicator was steady.
> That shot IIRC was f2.8 1/1.6. I was also using a wide angle adaptor, but
the
> result was the same without it.
>
> I tried the manual focus, but it's very difficult to use. The centre of
the
> display shows an enlarged version of the centre of the image, but there's
no
> noticeable change from infinity until I get to about 4 ft.
>
> (comments about the 'tastefulness' of the lights will be ignored. It was
my
> wife's idea)
>
> --
> Chris Pollard

Was it at all windy when you took the picture? If so, it's possible the
tripod wasn't completely steady ...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christopher Pollard wrote:
> It's Christmas, almost, and therefore my house is lit up like, erm, a
> Christmas tree. So I decided to take a photograph of it. Tried a few
> different settings but they all seemed out of focus.
> At least I think it's a focus problem, it doesn't look like camera
> shake. www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc140023.jpg
> See what you think.
>
> The camera was on a tripod, and I used the timer. It's a Olympus
> C-750, and it was in program mode, auto focus. It thought it had
> focussed correctly, the green indicator was steady.
> That shot IIRC was f2.8 1/1.6. I was also using a wide angle adaptor,
> but the result was the same without it.
>
> I tried the manual focus, but it's very difficult to use. The centre
> of the display shows an enlarged version of the centre of the image,
> but there's no noticeable change from infinity until I get to about 4
> ft.
>
> (comments about the 'tastefulness' of the lights will be ignored. It
> was my wife's idea)

Seems to me the barricade is in pretty good focus. Just ever-exposed and
blooming, my view.

Where do you live? Whose idea was the barricade? Just curious.


--
Frank ess

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Christopher Pollard" <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:h510s0thpqpaq463c690o6ketfgdddg9o1@4ax.com...
> It's Christmas, almost, and therefore my house is lit up like, erm, a
> Christmas
> tree. So I decided to take a photograph of it. Tried a few different
> settings
> but they all seemed out of focus.
> At least I think it's a focus problem, it doesn't look like camera shake.
> www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc140023.jpg
> See what you think.
>
> The camera was on a tripod, and I used the timer. It's a Olympus C-750,
> and it
> was in program mode, auto focus. It thought it had focussed correctly, the
> green
> indicator was steady.
> That shot IIRC was f2.8 1/1.6. I was also using a wide angle adaptor, but
> the
> result was the same without it.
>
> I tried the manual focus, but it's very difficult to use. The centre of
> the
> display shows an enlarged version of the centre of the image, but there's
> no
> noticeable change from infinity until I get to about 4 ft.
>
> (comments about the 'tastefulness' of the lights will be ignored. It was
> my
> wife's idea)
>
> --
> Chris Pollard

It looks to me to be an over-exposure of the lights. Look past the lights
at the building, which is much darker. That part isn't much - if at all -
out of focus.

The image has a very large range of intensity. Try to fill in the
background with a floodlight, then reduce the exposure.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christopher Pollard wrote:
> It's Christmas, almost, and therefore my house is lit up like, erm, a Christmas
> tree. So I decided to take a photograph of it. Tried a few different settings
> but they all seemed out of focus.
> At least I think it's a focus problem, it doesn't look like camera shake.
> www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc140023.jpg
> See what you think.
>
> The camera was on a tripod, and I used the timer. It's a Olympus C-750, and it
> was in program mode, auto focus. It thought it had focussed correctly, the green
> indicator was steady.
> That shot IIRC was f2.8 1/1.6. I was also using a wide angle adaptor, but the
> result was the same without it.
>
> I tried the manual focus, but it's very difficult to use. The centre of the
> display shows an enlarged version of the centre of the image, but there's no
> noticeable change from infinity until I get to about 4 ft.
>
> (comments about the 'tastefulness' of the lights will be ignored. It was my
> wife's idea)
>

You have the classic problem of trying to photograph a scene with WAY
too much contrast.
Try shooting near dusk. Take a picture every few minutes before sunset.
At some point you will be able to get the right ratio of ambient light
to decoration lights. Also your camera wil be able to focus more
accurately with more ambient light.
Most cameras are notoriously bad at focusing in the dark.
However, I don't think your focus is off that much. It was obviousy a
long exposure and the lights probably moved a little bit in the wind.
Bob Williams

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Christopher Pollard" <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:h510s0thpqpaq463c690o6ketfgdddg9o1@4ax.com...
> It's Christmas, almost, and therefore my house is lit up like, erm, a
Christmas
> tree. So I decided to take a photograph of it. Tried a few different
settings
> but they all seemed out of focus.
> At least I think it's a focus problem, it doesn't look like camera shake.
> www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc140023.jpg
> See what you think.
>
> The camera was on a tripod, and I used the timer. It's a Olympus C-750,
and it
> was in program mode, auto focus. It thought it had focussed correctly, the
green
> indicator was steady.
> That shot IIRC was f2.8 1/1.6. I was also using a wide angle adaptor, but
the
> result was the same without it.
>
> I tried the manual focus, but it's very difficult to use. The centre of
the
> display shows an enlarged version of the centre of the image, but there's
no
> noticeable change from infinity until I get to about 4 ft.
>
> (comments about the 'tastefulness' of the lights will be ignored. It was
my
> wife's idea)

The tilt of the photo suggests the problem lies with the photographer's
getting into the eggnog a bit early.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christopher Pollard wrote:

> It's Christmas, almost, and therefore my house is lit up like, erm, a Christmas
> tree. So I decided to take a photograph of it. Tried a few different settings
> but they all seemed out of focus.
> At least I think it's a focus problem, it doesn't look like camera shake.
> www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc140023.jpg
> See what you think.

I think you're over exposed to begin with.
Set lens to three stops closed from widest aperture.
Spot meter one of the the white lights.
Increase exposure two stops from that reading (eg: slower shutter, not open up
the aperture). If you shoot RAW, three stops is probably possible.
Use of tripod/cable (or timer as you say below) is right on.
Manual Focus on a light directly in front.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

GLC1173 wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> Use of tripod/cable (or timer as you say >below) is right on.
>
> WAY too complicated. I photo "Christmas houses" by just propping
> the digicam on the car's door with the window down - and that works
> fine!
>
>> Manual Focus on a light directly in front.
>
> ESSENTIAL.
>
>> Set lens to three stops closed from >widest aperture.
>> Spot meter one of the the white lights.
>> Increase exposure two stops from that >reading (eg: slower shutter,
>> not open up the aperture).
>
> I just use automatic and flash. It works fine for these photos -
> with a little afterward PhotoShop.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mine were tripodded, no timer.

Seems to me you can't get all the things you want in one exposure. Pays
you money and makes you choice.

http://www.fototime.com/inv/0A11C3DE4D0B5E4

--
Frank ess

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 16 Dec 2004 02:16:27 GMT, glc1173@aol.com (GLC1173) wrote:

> WAY too complicated. I photo "Christmas houses" by just propping the
>digicam on the car's door with the window down - and that works fine!

Except that this one is on a narrow road, and I have to be on the other side of
that road with a wide angle convertor to fit it all in.

And no, I'm not going to try a panoramic...

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:49:58 +0200, Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote:

>Couldn't he set up on tripod and do the focus before dark, then
>leave it manually focussed at that setting?

That's an option, assuming the camera remembers the setting next time I tiurn it
on.

I'm going to try the twilight thing next, I was too late last night.

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christopher Pollard wrote:
> This seems better:
> http://www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc170041.jpg (387k)
> 2.5s at F8 manual focus somewhere between 26ft and infinity,
> 1200x1600 5:50 pm. You'll see the trees didn't move at all during the
> 2.5 seconds.
>
> Then I changed to a higher resolution, 2288 x 1712
> http://www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc170042.jpg (866k)
> It's a bit yellower, but still ok.
>
> Still, they're not as sharp as I expected. I know that camera can
> focus really well, take a look at
> http://www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/croc.jpg to see what I mean.

Chris,

I think you may be getting towards the limits of the camera. One
observation, one suggestion:

- there are small dots peppered all over the image. This is probably dark
current noise in some of the pixels and could be reduced if your camera
has a noise-reduction function. It will double the taking time for a
given exposure time.

- it might be better to try even earlier in the evening so that the sky is
a brighter blue. This would reduce the exposure from 2.5s and thereby
reduce the dark current spots.
Perhaps the pictures will be subjectively sharper with shorter exposure of
the lights (so that they look smaller) and you rely on more daylight for
the building?

As to the yellow, you could correct this easily enough in Paint Shop Pro
(and reduce the spots come to that!), but you might also want to try
setting your white balance to "incandescent" if your camera allows that.
I'm unsure how the evening sky might come out with what white-balance,
though. Nothing to stop you trying, of course!

Cheers,
David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:17:03 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Much better with the sky still having some light. F8 is helping make
>the lights into little star-shapes, very pretty.

Hmm, if you want stars, I have a star filter... but I think it might be _too_
much... and it wouldn't fit the wide angle converter either, Ithink that's
72mm...

>I think you'll find the problem is not a focusing issue any more -
>it's sensor noise due to low-light.

I think you might be right. I deliberately closed it up to F8 to minimise focus
errors.

I must do it again, with my Xmas present... :-)

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:17:03 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>First I thought Cool!, you even got some stars. Then.. weird, the
>stars are so bright, they can be seen right through the house.This
>must be a really bad case of sensor noise/hot pixels.

Well, I ran it through photoshop's dust and scratches filter...
http://www.xmastree.34sp.com/images/pc170044better.jpg
Much better.
Ironically, the 'despeckle' filter made almost no difference.

>Also remove the power/phone/catv cables.
Yep, done that too, almost... If you know where to look you can still see some
trace, but the first impression is clean.

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net