Knee high phtography

[xpatUSA]

<>

That is, of course, assuming that the lens in question has all these fancy markings. The current Nikkor f/1.8 35mm G is devoid of any of these features and would take a lot of work and luck to zone focus with... This is not the exception, but the rule in many cases. A quick check of my lens inventory shows that I own five modern lenses that do not have distance markings.




I still shoot the old fashioned way and crouch down and lie on my stomach to get these low level shots using the regular tools that the camera has. Not as easy as in my younger days, but it changes the perspective and is a very effective way to get images that stand out from the rest!

Well done Manfred! Take an extra point for the Hoya UV [0] filter!

[Manfred M]

George - Have you actually looked at this camera?




Fixed lens 23mm on an APS-C sensor. No distance markings.

How do you zone focus without distance markings? Zone focusing is somewhat forgiving as you get towards the hyperfocal distance, but if you look at how close the dog is in the images, especially the first one, zone focusing would not be the first thing that comes to my mind.

Just in case you are wondering, the minimum focus distance for that lens is published at 10 cm, so the out of focus issue is not because the subject is too close.

[george013]

George - Have you actually looked at this camera?




Fixed lens 23mm on an APS-C sensor. No distance markings.

How do you zone focus without distance markings? Zone focusing is somewhat forgiving as you get towards the hyperfocal distance, but if you look at how close the dog is in the images, especially the first one, zone focusing would not be the first thing that comes to my mind.

Just in case you are wondering, the minimum focus distance for that lens is published at 10 cm, so the out of focus issue is not because the subject is too close.

Are we going together further in stead of helping Ole??

I still call it pre focusing. But like you said, the distance scale is unreliable. If you ever used that with lenses with those scales you where using it wrong. You focus on something with the wanted distance and use the result of that scale. You NEVER used the distance scale to set the distance directly.
By the way, going back to your advice, do you see a tilt screen? Are you able to focus on a specific subject in the blind, without using a viewfinder or screen? That means we've passed the use of AF?

Ole,
That camera has a manual focus button. Switch to it, set your focus distance in whatever way, select A-proitity so the diaphragm is fixed and continue shooting. Use a dof-calculator to predict the dof. Still guessing for what you've done.
When reading this article the camera has even a distance scale and dofscale, nearly exact as the old lenses, only digital.
http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x1...cus/index.html

George

[mugge]

I have used zone focusing on a number of occasions. Something like this: f8 or f11. The problems are obvious with regards to shutter speed and high iso so the success rate using that system is not good in my humble opinion.
Cheers Ole

[george013]

I have used zone focusing on a number of occasions. Something like this: f8 or f11. The problems are obvious with regards to shutter speed and high iso so the success rate using that system is not good in my humble opinion.
Cheers Ole

Ole,
With all respect but could you give us some more info. A picture with exif is the minimum. Further I don't know if you understood what is written. How did you use zone\pre focusing. How did you focus with these images? Did you know about that wonderful screen on your camera that simulates the old lens info and did you use that?
The exif will give some clarity about what shutterspeed, iso, diaphragm, etc. But the standard exifviewer doesn't give info about the focusing method.
Even if you know that the problems are based on shutterspeed and iso you should give that info.
I'm waiting.

George

[Manfred M]

I have used zone focusing on a number of occasions. Something like this: f8 or f11. The problems are obvious with regards to shutter speed and high iso so the success rate using that system is not good in my humble opinion.
Cheers Ole

I agree. I would not expect a higher success rate than you were getting using a more conventional approach.

My suggestion would be to refine your current technique as it is close but looks like it could use some refinement. Shoot at a higher ISO and don't worry about the impact that this approach will have on final image quality. With a modern camera, digital noise is generally not an issue with a well exposed image and dealing with that is a lot easier than having to deal with a focus issue (nothing can be done) and a motion blur issue (some very limited PP techniques).

With a 22 mm lens, you don't need a super fast shutter speed to freeze motion, but if you are not in a stable shooting position, a higher shutter speed will help overcome any camera movement. I would concentrate on the focus mode you are using and select on that deals primarily with the central area of the screen, as that is where your subject appears to be in the last two shots seem to have failed. Unfortunately, I've only shot with a small Fuji camera like yours once, so I don't know its settings at all. The one that I used did not have a hinged screen, so focusing low down would be challenging.

One other potential solution is one that I pull out on occasion; a table top tripod. That might be worth considering too. It gets you low to the ground, adds stability without being a tripping hazard all around. It can be picked up with camera to check the shot quality too. The camera sits at around 25 - 30 cm / 10 - 12" high.

[xpatUSA]

I was taking photos of dogs playing around. I had my Fuji X100F set at min. 1/60 max. 2300. I was expecting 20% of useable images but they were quite soft. Most of them was taken at between 1/60 and 1/250 and iso 200 - 400. I also had aperture set at f11

The compositions were fine considering taking photos at knee high level is not that easy but I did not expect so many photos to be so out of focus as they were. What did I do wrong?
Cheers Ole

There will many opinions expressed as to what you did wrong. Here's my 2cts:

Wrong aperture. f/11 gave too much DOF. (My calculator tells me f/8 is a good candidate.)
Wrong distance (mebbe). Does of course seriously affect the limits, near and far, at which acceptable focus occurs (a.k.a. DOF).
Wrong AF method. Spot is better for getting the dog's body without a kajillion other points interfering. PDAF - for speed v. CDAF accuracy - continuous of course.

Can all be figured out before shooting, I reckon:

X100F is ~24mm actual FL. FOV = 28mm (sensor diagonal). So shooting distance is FL/FOV x desired scene capture diagonal FOV ...

... say 24/28 x 2m = 1.7m. Focusing at that distance gets you just under 2m DOF, says my calculator. Since 1.7m is less than the hyperfocal distance of 3.9m, the background beyond about 1.4m will be blurred.

N.B. My DOF calculator is written by me for my purposes. Others will likely vary.

As to shutter speed v. dog motion, that is 'Photography 101' and nobody here should need lessons from me about that!

[xpatUSA]

There will many opinions expressed as to what you did wrong. Here's my 2cts:

<>
Wrong distance (mebbe). Does of course seriously affect the limits, near and far, at which acceptable focus occurs (a.k.a. DOF).
X100F is ~24mm actual FL. FOV = 28mm (sensor diagonal).

So shooting distance is FL/FOV x desired scene capture diagonal FOV ...

... say 24/28 x 2m = 1.7m. Focusing at that distance gets you just under 2m DOF, says my calculator. Since 1.7m is less than the hyperfocal distance of 3.9m, the background beyond about 1.4m will be blurred.

Some will not want to mess with tables or calculators while trying shoot speeding dogs ...

I've just found a rule-of-thumb (Ray: 1979) that might or might not help with "pre-focusing". Here it is:

"When a lens is focused on infinity, the value of Dn [near 'in-focus' distance] is the ‘hyperfocal distance’ H. When the lens is focused on distance H, the depth of field extends from infinity to H/2; and when focused on H/3 [the depth of field] extends from H/2 to H/4 and so on. This concept simplifies the depth of field equations considerably."

Now, if one chooses f/8 on a fixed FL 24mm camera such as the Fuji, H is about 12ft. So from the above we get:

Focus at 4ft: DOF is 6-3=3ft ... etc.

Probably too much mental arithmetic for some but much better than messing around with tables or smartphone apps, I reckon.

Source: http://www.dicklyon.com/tech/Photogr...Field-Lyon.pdf
.

[Stagecoach]

Ole,

The compositions were fine considering taking photos at knee high level is not that easy ........

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "taking photos at knee high level"?

a) Did you use the viewfinder or rear LCD whilst taking the shots?

[mugge]

Ole,



Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "taking photos at knee high level"?

a) Did you use the viewfinder or rear LCD whilst taking the shots?

I would bend down and holding the camera in my right and shoot. If I had a bit of time I would use the knight's position but I would then be shooting belly height. All the photos were taken really low say 20cm to 30cm off the ground. That is the reason I got myself into so much trouble.

[george013]

I would bend down and holding the camera in my right and shoot. If I had a bit of time I would use the knight's position but I would then be shooting belly height. All the photos were taken really low say 20cm to 30cm off the ground. That is the reason I got myself into so much trouble.

That's a start. And how did you focus? And what about the exif: shutterspeed, iso etc. Still not enough.

George

[Manfred M]

I would bend down and holding the camera in my right and shoot. If I had a bit of time I would use the knight's position but I would then be shooting belly height. All the photos were taken really low say 20cm to 30cm off the ground. That is the reason I got myself into so much trouble.

That is not a very stable shooting position and if you use it, you would need to go to an even higher shutter speed to reduce the risk of camera movement.

[george013]

That is not a very stable shooting position and if you use it, you would need to go to an even higher shutter speed to reduce the risk of camera movement.

Wonderful isn't it that extra info.😐

George

[Manfred M]

Wonderful isn't it that extra info.😐

George

And not something one can get out of EXIF data.

That still does not change the fundamentals that we see in the posted images; focus is off and there is movement. There are a number of ways of fixing both. Let me turn things another way, if the images had been sharp would you be asking for this additional data?

[george013]

And not something one can get out of EXIF data.

That still does not change the fundamentals that we see in the posted images; focus is off and there is movement. There are a number of ways of fixing both. Let me turn things another way, if the images had been sharp would you be asking for this additional data?

Continuing?
This one was not in the exif, it was in the title of this thread.
And no, if the photo's were sharp Ole wouldn't ask anything.
You're loosing ground.

George