Settings 'Sweet Spot' . . . ?

[Sutton Warrior]

I've had my suspicions for a few weeks, that there is an ideal . . . perfect . . . general setting on my Nikon D80/18-200VR combination? also seems to extend to the Sigma 10-20 as well?

 

Been hosing around recently with gay abandon, having found the pleasures of 'Center Weighted metering', histogram confirmation and colour curve adjustment. With the superb weather, I started to play with ISO settings, ISO200 in good light seems to promote F8-F11 aperture and a shutter speed from 125th up to 500th. Thats set on 'Auto P', fixing the aperture at say F8 for general walk about photography seems to get good results.

 

The reason I have finally decided that there does seem to be a sweet spot. I have this morning gone through the photographs I took on my friends yacht last week, about half were taken using the Nikon 18-200VR super zoom the rest, taken with my Sigma 10-20. Sharpness and colour were excellent, requiring minimal post processing to send a set of 10 via email to Harmony's owner.

 

Super zooms are not noted for their sharpness, and although light conditions did change through the day, I was able to compensate easily with the help of the histogram, requiring F1/3-F2/3 minimal changes. Even the less than perfect shots were not so far off as to be unretrievable had I not got 'F' compensation right.

 

I presume it is me, and the penny is finally dropping on this photography thing . . . or is there a settings 'sweet spot'?

 

Its strange, when I used to take pictures for my magazine articals, back in the days of film, I always, as did the magazine, prefered the Fuji ISO200 film . . . ? Nikon have often favoured ISO200 as the minimum speed setting on its modern DSLR's . . . ????

 

SW

[Hellbelly]

I think they've all got "Sweet Spots" SW. I think usually around the F8 mark but you seem to have gone the extra mile and really sussed your out.

 

Here's a link that talks about it too.

 

http://digital-photography-school.com/find...lens-sweet-spot

[Westie]

Hi SW

 

I've been out of action for a bit - raging vertigo and now tinnitus in my right ear - off to ENT I go tomorrow, in the vain hope of trying to get it fixed.

 

Spinning head has not been conducive to either (a) looking at my monitor or ( taking photos. I'd need to have the damn camera permanently attached to a tripod and even if that kept things level, I'd still end up falling over. LOL.

 

On the sweet spot issue, as I understand it, the usual rule of thumb I have used is that a lens will usually hit its sweet spot 2 stops down from its largest aperture up to about f8-11. At around f8, you probably wouldn't be able to see much difference in sharpness between most lenses (consumer, 'prosumer', and pro (max aperture of f2.8 or greater)). You might be able to see differences in colour/contrast, but again, you'd probably need to be pixel peeping at 100% to really see it and not many of us hobbyist photographers will be doing that.

 

On the camera settings, it is more a matter of personal taste. Sometimes you will want colours to be brighter and more vivid. Sometimes, more 'natural'. I've got 4 custom set banks on my camera, with settings defined for "Point and Shoot" (which I use 98% of the time), Portrait, Landscape and Sports. There is precious little difference between most of them, though (hence why I use my P&S settings most).

 

Interesting about you now using centre weighting with more success. I play around with the metering too. Matrix does it well most of the time, but I do use centre weighting and occasionally spot, if I'm taking a picture where there are big contrasts in light conditions e.g. portrait shot inside with face in shadow, but direct sunlight on the wall behind. Not ideal, as matrix/centre will try and even things out to get the neutral grey colour that the camera thinks is 'good' across the whole image. Spot weighting allows me to get the exposure on the face fine, but with the inevitable consequence that the background has blown highlights. It's a question of when it is time to accept that fill flash is needed, rather than just relying on ntural light. Having said that, I much prefer the look of photos taken with natural light.

 

Apologies if that repeats what HB has posted in his link - the screen is spinning and I can't get the mouse to sit on the link, let alone read it! Apologies for any typos or genera rambling too. I can't look at the screen for more than 10 seconds without feeling sick, so I'm boogered if I'm gonna spell check.

 

Glad you have found some custom settings that suit your palette.

 

I've managed to have a quick squizz at the photo comps - some good stuff by the clan in there, as usual. I'll have to pass on my congrats to everyone here in this thread though.

 

Hope to be back soon.

 

Andy.

[Sutton Warrior]

Hi SW

 

I've been out of action for a bit - raging vertigo and now tinnitus in my right ear - off to ENT I go tomorrow, in the vain hope of trying to get it fixed.

 

Spinning head has not been conducive to either (a) looking at my monitor or ( taking photos. I'd need to have the damn camera permanently attached to a tripod and even if that kept things level, I'd still end up falling over. LOL.

 

On the sweet spot issue, as I understand it, the usual rule of thumb I have used is that a lens will usually hit its sweet spot 2 stops down from its largest aperture up to about f8-11. At around f8, you probably wouldn't be able to see much difference in sharpness between most lenses (consumer, 'prosumer', and pro (max aperture of f2.8 or greater)). You might be able to see differences in colour/contrast, but again, you'd probably need to be pixel peeping at 100% to really see it and not many of us hobbyist photographers will be doing that.

 

On the camera settings, it is more a matter of personal taste. Sometimes you will want colours to be brighter and more vivid. Sometimes, more 'natural'. I've got 4 custom set banks on my camera, with settings defined for "Point and Shoot" (which I use 98% of the time), Portrait, Landscape and Sports. There is precious little difference between most of them, though (hence why I use my P&S settings most).

 

Interesting about you now using centre weighting with more success. I play around with the metering too. Matrix does it well most of the time, but I do use centre weighting and occasionally spot, if I'm taking a picture where there are big contrasts in light conditions e.g. portrait shot inside with face in shadow, but direct sunlight on the wall behind. Not ideal, as matrix/centre will try and even things out to get the neutral grey colour that the camera thinks is 'good' across the whole image. Spot weighting allows me to get the exposure on the face fine, but with the inevitable consequence that the background has blown highlights. It's a question of when it is time to accept that fill flash is needed, rather than just relying on ntural light. Having said that, I much prefer the look of photos taken with natural light.

 

Apologies if that repeats what HB has posted in his link - the screen is spinning and I can't get the mouse to sit on the link, let alone read it! Apologies for any typos or genera rambling too. I can't look at the screen for more than 10 seconds without feeling sick, so I'm boogered if I'm gonna spell check.

 

Glad you have found some custom settings that suit your palette.

 

I've managed to have a quick squizz at the photo comps - some good stuff by the clan in there, as usual. I'll have to pass on my congrats to everyone here in this thread though.

 

Hope to be back soon.

 

Andy.

 

Westie, sorry to hear you are not 100%, explains why have not see much of you recently. Look forward to seeing more of your valued input soon, which means you will be on the mend

 

I understand the F8-F11 setting on lenses, but it was when I started to combine F8 with ISO200 on the Nikon 18-200VR super zoom, thats when I started to notice every thing coming together consistently well. As I have said previously, super zooms have long been put down for their compromise in performance. Pixel peepers will always find something to criticise, thats what makes them happy But as a hobbyist photographer, I am finding great satisfaction recently in being able to extract good results from a relatively economic setup. Thats, economy and quality by my relitivly simple standards of course, the camera is doing its bit, all I have to do is get my act together

 

Thanks for that link Hellbelly, I will give it a proper read later, off to B&Q for an hour, need some stuff for the garden, then back in time for a bacon sarnie and glass of cider in front of the TV watching the Spanish Grand Prix . . . tough life . . .

 

SW

Edited May 10, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[J.K]

Stupid question but if you bump the ISO down to 80 (or lowest setting you have) what difference do you get ? Is it just a duller looking image due to less light ?

 

Having had my set up for 3 odd years I am finally learning what settings are required to get the best out of the given situation. This has come with experience and a heck of a lot of messing around with the settings lol.

[Janet]

Westie,

 

Sorry to hear that you're not at your best at the moment, but good to see that you are still around! Hope things improve for you shortly, and we'll see more of you on the forum.

 

I won't pretend to understand half of the stuff that's been posted on here, but I'm slowly learning, so keep it coming. Eventually some of it will sink in!

 

Janet

[Sutton Warrior]

Stupid question but if you bump the ISO down to 80 (or lowest setting you have) what difference do you get ? Is it just a duller looking image due to less light ?

 

Having had my set up for 3 odd years I am finally learning what settings are required to get the best out of the given situation. This has come with experience and a heck of a lot of messing around with the settings lol.

 

 

ISO is about the sensitivity of the 'film' or in modern digital terms sensitivity of the sensor that now replaces the film. Low ISO = less grain on film, in digital talk thats 'noise', you will have seen the examples in camera reviews, when the talk about and show how increasing ISO increases noise and how well noise is controlled by a particular camera as ISO increases. The higher the ISO the lower the light levels a picture can be take in before flash is required or you give up So you get better sensitivity with highers ISO figures at the cost of increased 'noise' or in old terms 'grain'.

 

The amount of the available light that reaches the sensor is controlled by shutter speed and aperture size. So high or low ISO is not a direct function of 'dull looking images', its the aperture and shutter, they control light. Thats the simple explanation in my book? anyone want to take it to another level?

 

SW