~ Cambridge in Colour Tutorials Clarifications ~

[laptopcamera]

im looking over all the tutorials. currents facts so far (will update along the way).

edit:
finished everything
solved stuff moved to bottom

===

[UNSOLVED SENSOR & MTF]
* mtf looks like the best metric to guage how "quality" a sensor is, and being dependent on aperture, optimal seems to be towards the middle
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm
* it also seems like you want a better digi sensor as it seems to affect sharpness, which in turn affects perceived quality --
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

[UNSOLVED EXPOSURE]
* what is the optimal for each of the three spec like in mtf (lens quality) : aperture ratio?
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm is incrediably wordy and confusing and doesn't seem to address that

[UNSOLVED TECHNICAL THEORY]
* was there any practical implications i missed from cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm ?
after finishing reading it, i was stumped at what was the point of this apart from explaining differences and giving an understanding of the topics it talks about, so i looked back at the start of the article -- "Why can't I just point my camera at what I'm seeing and record that?"
the simple answer is that you can. the technical answer is that it won't be 100% accurate (nor does it need to be) due to various reasons outlined in the article, though for regular or even stylistic usage, there seems to be a bunch of complexities that are unnecessary.

[UNSOLVED CAMERAS]
all answers are meant to solve this problem --
cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread20013.htm

===

[SOLVED APERTURE]
* lower aperture is better -- what others have said -- and "smaller apertures often improve sharpness by minimizing lens aberrations"
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Large aperture = small f number
Small aperture = larger f number
"smaller aperture will give you a greater depth of field"
so since small aperture is better, you want a large f number?
geofflawrence.com/shutter_speeds_and_apertures.html
"select an aperture based on the desired depth of field"
most people want larger dof, so go with smallest aperture = largest f number

[SOLVED FOCAL LENGTH]
* i've been advised that higher focal length is better. is that correct? --
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
looks like you want a medium, the standard 35ish
"Normally the camera is sold with an 18-55mm lens, which is called a mid range zoom. A mid range zoom is the most useful lens you’ll ever buy for general photography"
geofflawrence.com/choosing_lenses_for_you_camera.html
"focal length affects dof.
longer the lens = more restricted the depth of field.
wide angle lens = almost limitless depth of field."
"A longer focal length is much much much better ... if your subject is far away and you need to magnify the image to give the illusion of being closer. Shorter focal length images are much much much better if you have a wide-angle scene that you need to capture."

[SOLVED ZOOM]
* optical zoom seems important for quality (Optical zoom allows you to capture more information; digital zoom doesn't.) if you use zoom a lot
"Digital zooms simply enlarge the pixels in your shot which does make your subject look bigger, but it also makes it look more pixelated and your picture ‘noisier’ (like when you go up close to your TV)."
digital-photography-school.com/how-to-buy-a-digital-camera

[SOLVED ISO SPEED]
* what is the recommended iso speed number to have set when taking most shots to reduce noise?
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm
looks like you want a medium
or doesn't seem to matter much

[SOLVED SENSOR SIZE]
* sensor size is mainly about taking different shots, and not necessarily higher quality shots. is that correct?
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
"Sensor size is mostly about cost. Bigger sensors cost more -- smaller sensors cost less. Smaller sensors give you an apparent focal length increase (typically 1.5x or 1.6x), but at the expense of also being longer at the wide end of the focal length range."
sensor size is a ton of marketing and most likely terrible for price : benefit ratio

[SOLVED FLUFF]
* not relevant or important for regular usage (feel free to make any corrections)--
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-autofocus.htm
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm
Shutter Speeds

[Colin Southern]

* lower aperture is better -- what others have said -- and "smaller apertures often improve sharpness by minimizing lens aberrations"
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Not sure what you mean by "lower aperture". A SMALLER aperture will give you greater depth of field, whilst a larger aperture will give a smaller depth of field. I would suggest selecting an aperture based on the desired depth of field - not because of greater or lesser lens aberations or diffraction considerations, as a sub-optimal DoF will have a far greater degradation on a real-world image.

* it seems like you want a better digi sensor --
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

Really depends on what the objective is.

* though what is the best metric to guage how "quality" a sensor is? --
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

Sensors can be divided into 3 categories:

* "challenged" (as used in camera phones) - these CAN take a good photo, but conditions need to be reasonably ideal.

* "adequate for many things" (as used in bridge cameras / P&S etc) - better than camera phones, worse than DSLR.

* "Good" - as used in DSLRs

Any other "guage of quality" is only for boffins who only shoot test targets in laboratories - not real images in the real world.

* cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm is incrediably wordy and confusing. is there an optimal for each of the three spec like in mtf (lens quality) : aperture?

Who cares?

* i've been advised that higher focal length is better. is that correct? --

A longer ("higher?") focal length is much much much better ... if your subject is far away and you need to magnify the image to give the illusion of being closer. Shorter focal length images are much much much better if you have a wide-angle scene that you need to capture.

cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
looks like you want a medium, the standard 35ish

Depends on what you're photographing!

* sensor size is mainly about taking different shots, and not necessarily higher quality shots. is that correct?
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Sensor size is mostly about cost. Bigger sensors cost more -- smaller sensors cost less. Smaller sensors give you an apparent focal length increase (typically 1.5x or 1.6x), but at the expense of also being longer at the wide end of the focal length range.

* what is the recommended iso speed number to have set when taking most shots to reduce noise?
cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm
looks like you want a medium

ISO doesn't create noise per se. Noise is revealed in post-processing when under-exposure is corrected. Lower ISO setting do however give you the most dynamic range, which in turn gives you the ability to get your captured signal further from the furthest from the noise floor. But often it's a moot point. In a real world photo, which would ruin an image more (a) a little bit of noise that's only visible when you pixel-peep the image at 100% magnification in post-processing, or (b) an image that has a TRUCKLOAD of motion blur becuase you used ISO 100 to minimise noise when pixel-peeping, but ended up with a shutterspeed of 1/100th instead on 1/2000th?

* optical zoom seems important for quality if you use zoom a lot
"Digital zooms simply enlarge the pixels in your shot which does make your subject look bigger, but it also makes it look more pixelated and your picture ‘noisier’ (like when you go up close to your TV)."
digital-photography-school.com/how-to-buy-a-digital-camera

Optical zoom allows you to capture more information; digital zoom doesn't.

* was there any practical implications i missed from cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm ?

Who knows - we're not you.

after finishing reading it, i was stumped at what was the point of this apart from explaining differences and giving an understanding of the topics it talks about, so i looked back at the start of the article -- "Why can't I just point my camera at what I'm seeing and record that?"
the simple answer is that you can. the technical answer is that it won't be 100% accurate (nor does it need to be) due to various reasons outlined in the article, though for regular or even stylistic usage, there seems to be a bunch of complexities that are unnecessary.

Bottom line is that the human eye and a camera work completely differently. When you understand the differences then you can exploit them to create the type of images you want. Knowledge is power.

[laptopcamera]

When you understand the differences then you can exploit them to create the type of images you want.

need at least one example from anyone seeing this thread of how any fact(s) on that article can directly help you create an image you couldn't have otherwise create without knowledge of those fact(s). inclusion of photos would be nice. link is good.

[Colin Southern]

need at least one example from anyone seeing this thread of how any fact(s) on that article can directly help you create an image you couldn't have otherwise create without knowledge of those fact(s). inclusion of photos would be nice. link is good.

Sure.

This article explains extension tubes. If I hadn't read that article and bought an extension tube then I might not have known that I could use a non-macro lens to capture an image like this:

[Dizzy]

need at least one example from anyone seeing this thread of how any fact(s) on that article can directly help you create an image you couldn't have otherwise create without knowledge of those fact(s). inclusion of photos would be nice. link is good.

No offense, but may I ask what your intent is? You clearly have an in-depth, engineer
level knowledge of the subject matter. My experience says you're laying the foundation
for a debate over why one laptop camera is better, and I'm further guessing that you
just happen to represent the manufacturer of the "better" camera?

I again wonder why you are here asking these questions. CiC is a pleasant,
professional forum for photographers who are typically using quality DSLR equipment,
and this is clearly obvious from the sites content.

Perhaps your questions could be better answered by the staff at LAPTOPCAMERA
dot com, an on-line retailer of every known brand of digital lap top camera?

If Colin is game to debate you, or chase down information for you then perhaps I've
spoken out-of-turn and I apologize. Still, your posts beginning with the first one
have had me wondering your intentions.

BTW, awesome shot Colin.

[Colin Southern]

In return, here's a little exercise on "Real World" photography for you (and others) to complete.



This is an image I took yesterday. Below is a list of some of the factors that played a part in the creation of this image ... I'd like folks to put these factors into 3 groups: Totally Unimportant - Somewhat Important - Very Important:

- The studio lighting that I spent about an hour setting up

- The quality of the sensor on my camera

- The clothing & grooming of the model

- My knowledge & experience knowing how to pose the model

- My knowledge & experience knowing how to frame the composition

- My knowledge & experience knowing how to post-process the photograph.

- The MTF of the lens

- The size of the sensor on my camera

- The number of megapixels of my sensor

[Dizzy]

Totally Unimportant:

- The MTF of the lens

- The size of the sensor on my camera

- The number of megapixels of my sensor


Somewhat Important:

- The quality of the sensor on my camera

- The studio setup that I spent about an hour setting up

- The clothing & grooming of the model

Very Important:

- My knowledge & experience knowing how to pose the model

- My knowledge & experience knowing how to frame the composition

- My knowledge & experience knowing how to post-process the photograph.

JMHO, of course.

Mike

[enaiman]

I don't know about others but, for me, he is making some basic mistakes which makes me stay away from his threads in the future.
- lack of capitals
- lack of coherence
- incomplete links in his quotes
- including thread titles between ~

Sorry, but you are not making much sense at the moment and all the best, people willing to help you can do, is second guessing.
My suggestion: if you really need some help, put a little work in your posts.

[revi]

I'd say: (assuming reasonably modern standard equipment, no things like lensbaby)

unimportant:
sensor quality; The MTF of the lens; The size of the sensor on my camera; The number of megapixels of my sensor

important:
- studio lighting that I spent about an hour setting up
- clothing & grooming of the model
- knowledge & experience knowing how to pose the model
- knowledge & experience knowing how to frame the composition
- knowledge & experience knowing how to post-process the photograph.

I wouldnt know how to class the important factors: each contribute to the result, one that's off can ruin the result (the only one that might be slightly
less important is the post-processing, but only because that can be redone at any time)

In summary: with modern equipment, the tools aren't important for the result, the photographer is (as long as the job is possible with the tools at hand,
even the best photographer wouldn't be able to get a good pic of a 1mm insect with just a Canon 500D + kit lens )

Remco.

P.S.: I won't give my opinion of the original post (don't want to get censored )

[Colin Southern]

Hi Remco,

Pretty much how I'd list the factors too

[anita]

I just want to say something. It's my opinon. CiC IS A WONDERFUL SITE! I love it. First of it because i "feel" people who are willing to respond to you questions in very fast time with calm and LOVE.

I have also a little complaint about the content of the articles. For a begginer, i belive there are a little heavy to understand. I'm saying all these because i find CiC as my HOME and i want to give a hand in its EVOLUTION. If you want i can read them again and make a list where it's hard for me to understand. OR! maybe i'm a little stupid :P.

Take this post as a CONSTRUCTIVE critical, it's all that is.

[William W]

Your watch is 20 minutes fast and six days slow.

[Donald]

Your watch is 20 minutes fast and six days slow.

That's what you get if you buy cheap watches.

[bisso7]

I agree with you, Ana, some of the "basic" tutorials are a bit deep and difficult to understand. For a beginner, I'm sometimes ready to pull my hair out. Please don't misunderstand, though, CIC has been a great start for me. I appreciate everything I've learned so far. I think I'm trying to comprehend too much, too soon and it's starting to "get to me." LOL

[Colin Southern]

Your watch is 20 minutes fast and six days slow.

Is this one any better?

[Colin Southern]

That's what you get if you buy cheap watches.

It cost more than my camera