# Advice on taking Photo's



## Mike.C (2 Sep 2007)

As some of you will know I upgraded my camera from the Fuji Finepix 2200 to the Fuji S9600 with the hope that my photos's would improve, but as you will see from below this does not seemed to have worked, so can someone please tell me where I am going wrong?

First of all there are a couple of my best buddies "Gunner the potty Rottie" and the boss of the house "Mischief" (who lives up to her name) the Jack Russell.
The other photos are of the harbour, which is just over the road from us.

Sorry that the photos are so big, but the AOL site where these particular ones are stored, won't for some reason allow me to reduce them today.







































I cannot explain what I mean, but for want of a better word, the pictures just look "dead" to me.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Chris Knight (2 Sep 2007)

Mike,
A little post processing to bump up the contrast, sharpen it etc. will improve things. For example here:-






You may be able to make these adjustments in camera but I am unfamiliar with your model.


----------



## Mike.C (2 Sep 2007)

Thanks Chris, that certainly does make a difference. I have just been looking at a software called Photoshop CS3, which gives you a 30 day free trial, would something like that help?
The only trouble with that particular one is it costs a few hundred dollars for the full program, so can you recommend a cheaper one, if of course that is the sort of program I need.





> Chris,
> 
> You may be able to make these adjustments in camera but I am unfamiliar with your model.



You can make a hell of a lot of adjustments, but the only trouble is I have not got off automatic yet, and I am still going through the 160 page manual. :roll: 

Thanks for your advice.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Chris Knight (2 Sep 2007)

Mike,
Photoshop is the 600lb gorilla for working with images and it is not at all necessary unless you are deadly serious about photography. There are plenty of freebies out there including Picasa (from Google) and this one http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm that I used to use when in living in PC hell (I'm now a Mac User and use other things that aren't on the PC). These will allow you to do the very basic sort of adjustments I applied to your picture and more besides.

Moving up a couple of notches you can try Photoshop Elements or Adobe Lightroom both of which handle the categorisation and library management tasks that become important if you take lots of photos - easy with digital!


----------



## Mike.C (2 Sep 2007)

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the link, I will download that one and see how the photos look then. Theres one thing for sure they cannot look any worse :lol: :lol: 

Cheers

Mike


----------



## TonyW (2 Sep 2007)

Post processing as mentioned will certainly help - but requires as you know quite a lot of time to get used to the application and just what it can do.

Just a couple of comments (not criticism):

1. Pic of Rottie. Does not look dead sharp. Reasons could be either focus or camera shake.
Focus - automatic focus does not always lock onto the area you want in sharp focus. In this case (portrait) the eyes I believe should be the sharpest. Do not know if you can use manual focus on your camera. On most digital cameras I have played with the centre of the screen is the area the camera focusses on using autofocus. You can also lock focus by holding the shutter button partly down. So in this case you would centre the camera over the eyes press shutter button in partially (until you here focus click!!) then still holding the button recompose and finally take picture.

Camera shake. If this is the case then if possible try and use a higher shutter speed or consider a tripod for static subjects.

2. Other pictures. Some look a little underexposed - can be recovered by post processing.
It may be that your camera metering is being fooled by taking into account too much of the sky thereby underexposing the main interest. If you can override this and open up by a stop then all ok. If not you may be able to use the shutter button technique similar to above for focus and lock onto an area of interest first (ideally something mid grey).

I do not think your pictures are too bad - you just picked some poor days to shoot.

Hope this of some help
Cheers  
Tony


----------



## Keith Smith (2 Sep 2007)

Most digital cameras underexpose, this is because it is easy to enhance an underexposed photo. Whereas if a picture is overexposed the detail is gone and post production can't bring it back. I agree with Tony your pictures are not bad at all but a bit of post production may give you the images you want. I picked what I considered the most awkward and spent a coupe of minutes with Nikon's Capture NX.


----------



## kafkaian (2 Sep 2007)

A couple of tips from me would be: 

1) Apply the two thirds rule to landscape composition. Sometimes a striking picture can be sought by applying 2/3 to the foreground and 1/3 to the sky, using the horizon as the datum (obviously). In portraits, this can be applied horizontally so two thirds of the person or background. This time you envisage the datum being perpendicular to the horizon.
2) Focus on the eyes of animals and pets such that even when large apertures mean less is in focus, at least the 'soul' of the subject is caught through the focussed eyes.
3) Where backlighting is so bright, say on bright sunny days, such that the foreground underexposes, force on the flash (or use a reflector like a large sheet of paper). This techniques actually enlivens an otherwise static image where people are involved without losing any possible drama in the bright sky.

I actually like the Jack Russell picture which seems to have character and depth

I like this from Steve's Digicams site






Two thirds rule applied to the edge of the pitch, with the heads bobbing above into the open space that represents the crowd and sky/upper stand. The great thing about this picture is that it draws your attention to look more closely and discover the band playing near the photo's pictorial horizon. The otherwise boring crowd scene is dramatically punctuated by the media/press box at the top


----------



## aisuru (2 Sep 2007)

my tip would be to invest in a tripod, as many of your pictures feature water defying gravity and running downhill!

sorry, just kiddin.  

try out the GIMP. it does pretty much everything Photoshop does, but it's free. there are tutorials freely available on the old electric interweb as well, regarding the post-processing treatments advised above.


----------



## Argee (2 Sep 2007)

You've got plenty of camera there, Mike, you just need to get familiar with it and its settings.

The problem for cameras that meter using averaging is that they do just that - average over the whole picture, rather that on the subject you want. You may have spot metering - if so, change to that and see if that improves things. Try not to change more than one thing at a time though, otherwise you may not discover what change did what.

Use the viewfinder, rather than the screen, to compose your shots. First look _through _the viewfinder, then look *at *it - check for level horizons, poles growing out of heads, etc. If you've got a choice of programmes to work with, try exposure priority then aperture priority on the *same *subject, then compare your results.

Ray.


----------



## brianhabby (2 Sep 2007)

Hie Mike,

Plenty of good advice above.

You don't need Photoshop CS3 at almost £600.00 but Photoshop Elements will do everything you need and more for about a tenth of the price. Post processing may not be necessary if you can improve your pictures in camera. Try experimenting with manual focus as the pics of the dogs in particular definitely appear a little soft to me.

Check to see if your camera has effects settings, if you have something like 'vivid' this will increase contrast and saturation which will have a dramatic impact on your photos.

If you are serious about improving your photography then you could do worse than joining a local camera club. They are seasonal and should be about to start their new season in September. If there is more than one locally then visit them all so you get a feel for the one best able to help you. (some camera clubs can be a bit clicky).

Keep taking lots of photos and experiment, making careful note of what you do.

Hope this helps

regards

Brian


----------



## TonyW (2 Sep 2007)

Had a look at your pictures again. I really do think they are not bad at all -just need a little tweaking with some post processing as others have shown.

Hope you dont mind but could not resist a quick tweak myself. I would do something like this with the images (this is just my personal pref of course and you may not agree)



Cropped and removed distracting background




Rotated about 3 degrees, cropped and brightness and contrast changed




Rotated, cropped brightness contrast and colour balance changed




Rotated, cropped, brightness contrast and colour balance changed. Lightened grass area. Bit more work could be done on this I think

The changes made are all fairly simple and only took a couple of minutes - any photo editing package should be able to offer these facilities.

One thing I would suggest is copying the files to your computer and saving them as Tiff images if you are going to play about editing and saving. The reason being that every time you save/resave an image as jpeg you will loose some image information. Tiff allows you to save images without any losses.

Cheers  
Tony


----------



## Mike.C (2 Sep 2007)

Thanks you *all* very much for your advice guys. I am sure with that and some software I will get there in the end.

I will try messing about with the software and then let you see what I have come up with. Also if the weather is better tomorrow I will put some of your tips into practise.

Thanks again, I do appreciate it.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## RogerM (2 Sep 2007)

I agree with the majority of the advice you have been given. Everyone needs a tripod for those "timer" family gathering shots, so why not choose a subject and try lots of different settings on the same subject. Play around with exposure, aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc, as well as average metering, spot metering etc and analyse the difference. See what improves the image and what makes it worse.

The great thing with digital photography is that you can play and play and play and it costs you nothing. Have fun!


----------



## Mike.C (2 Sep 2007)

Tony sorry mate, I do not know how I missed your improvements, they are a million times better then mine.

Roger I think that is the key, practise, practise, practise, and of course a tripod.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## RobertMP (2 Sep 2007)

It is difficult to offer advice without knowing what settings you are using on the camera. Pictures usually contain exif data that has all the settings.

Photoshop 'save for web' removes all this useful data to save file space. The first picture has exif which just says photoshop CS3 edited it but none of the usual information. The others appear to have no exif at all.

If you want the best picture quality you can get then shoot in RAW not jpeg. the editing software that came with the camera will then let you produce a jpeg with all the contrast, saturation, sharpening etc. that you are looking for.

To get the look you want straight from jpegs saved in the camera is possible but not to the same quality as from RAW. There will be parameters you can set for sharpness contrast and saturation and you need to play with these settings to get the look you want.

Finally, if you are not already, start learning to use the more manual modes - aperture priority and full manual. It will be a struggle at first but once you master them the camera will be doing what you want not the auto programs best guess.

Some of your compositions are a little weak but some are good. So I don't doubt that will improve once you are confident with the camera. The rule of thirds mentioned above is a great aid to composition. Rules are made to be broken but it is a great start and works for most things. The forum where I moderate has a great write up of the rule.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=24859


----------



## devonwoody (3 Sep 2007)

If you are going to purchase imaging software, I recommend Paint Shop Pro X1.
Adobe elements is all right but the program does treat its users as infants!


----------



## MrJay (3 Sep 2007)

Some of those photos are just plain bad. That's a good thing. If you don't have a nice big media card in your camera stuffed full of photos fit only for the bin then you're doing something wrong. The trick is knowing which ones to throw away and what went wrong with them and which ones are alright and what went wrong with them. I suppose one should never say never, but you should never expect to take a digital photograph that doesn't need post processing.

As you take more bad photos and understand what went wrong and why the more you'll start to anticipate problems and improve your technique accordingly.

The picture of Gunner is nearly a nice photo. He's nicely composed with his eyes being nicely off centre (someone's already mentioned the rule of thirds). Unfortunately it just isn't sharp, it would be nice if his eyes and nose were in sharp focus; it's over exposed by a country mile, hence the white background on the right and the background we can see on the left is a bit busy (simple is key to good composition) but it is out of focus which is good because that helps hide the fact that it's a bit busy. If you're not already, the Aperture Priority mode lets you control depth of field (how much infront and behind of your subject is in/out of focus). Playing with Aperture is great for portraits.

You might need to practice with the auto focus with your camera. You may have twigged that there's a conflict of interest between getting the composition so the subject is off centre _and_ sharp, because auto focus will focus on whatever is in the centre, which is where your subject isn't. Centre the dogs face, hold the shutter button half way to lock the focus and then (keep the button half depressed) move the camera (keeping distance from the subject constant - focus is fixed, not 'locked on' so to speak) to compose the shot and shoot. Go take Gunner outside so you've got lots of light (no point making life hard) and practice.

That the picture is over exposed (too much light) could have worked in your favor. You could have used a faster shutter speed and reduced the danger of camera shake. The camera probably got confuseled because the dog is dark and over compensated. Some cameras have an auto bracket mode. Use it. It will take three photos in quick succession with different exposure settings. You'll soon learn what works and what doesn't. Some cameras allow you to lock the automatic exposure settings with an AE lock (point at something roughly mid tone and then AE lock and then compose your shot on your subject). Some cameras will let you adjust the exposure setting and others you'll just have to do the old way using shutter speed and aperture. Go practice.

A couple of the Dock photos are just bad subject/composition (the first of the three is better to my eye). Photography and how we see things when we're out and about looking at stuff are fundamentally different. Thinking, ooh that looks interesting and taking a photo simply doesn't work. Sometimes you need to find something specific that captures the 'interesting' in some way and take a photo of that. Ah, the art of interpretation. The lighthouse that Keith tweaked on the other hand is very nearly respectable.

Post processing is beyond the scope of this post (A chap called David Nightingale has posted a nice little primer about curves and tonal range) but very quickly...

Here's your original of Mischief (nice shot)







A quick look at the levels dialogue in Gimp shows a wee gap to the left of the histogram. Shifting the little black arrow (the 'black point') right a bit (I went a touch too far) so it's under some image data helps balance the tonal range. The spike at the far right (white) of the histogram (over exposure again) is a bit of a problem - that's why there's some glare on the fur on Mischief's head. There's not much you can do about that as the data simply doesn't exist in the image to get the detail back. It's off the scale so to speak.





A little bit of unsharp mask (actually way too much unsharp mask, the default is a bit harsh but hey, this is only quick) and a bit off the top (rule of thirds - mischief's eyes)...





I'm not sure it's any better, I think the over exposedness in your original is a happy accident. If I had all day I'd try to edit the weed under Mischief out.


----------



## Loz_S (3 Sep 2007)

This might be taken the wrong way... I hope not... but I suggest you read this link from Ken Rockwell. Anyone who thinks they will take better pictures by upgrading their camera is misguided. Yes, you may need Photoshop Elements (or even the full-on package if you want to turn pro) to tweak your shots. But buying a fancy camera and some software will not guarantee Pro results. I'm afraid that will only come about through correct technique, understanding exposure, having an "eye" for creating images and lots of practise. All of which cannot be bought.


----------



## Adam (3 Sep 2007)

What is your white balance setting Mike? They look very blue to me. Might be worth checking its not set to something other than "Auto" or "Daylight" if you are taking pictures out and about. They all have a coloured tinge which could be the misapplication of a white balance setting internally to the camera.

Adam


----------



## Mike.C (3 Sep 2007)

Before I reply to you all, are these two any better  











   

Cheers

Mike


----------



## aisuru (3 Sep 2007)

i'd say so.


----------



## devonwoody (3 Sep 2007)

Do I detect a red cast on jackie?

Make a freehand selection on that chest area then go to levels, select red and adjust the arrows again!


----------



## MrJay (3 Sep 2007)

Actually, I quite liked the original of Mischief, it's a nice shot. I didn't pick on it because I thought it was in special need of attention, just an exercise in going through the process. By being somewhat lost against the background you get a sense of height in the picture, which is sort of nice what with her being all small and on the ground and trying to get up and everything. There's no accounting for taste.

Sadly the photo of Gunner belongs in the bin though. Best not wasting any more time with it and starting over.

Also, what Adam says.


----------



## TonyW (3 Sep 2007)

Mike, seems you are getting a lot of advice and opinions from your initial post e.g.
Post processing - Focus - Camera shake - Exposure -Rule of thirds - Use a Tripod - Familiarise with camera - Use RAW not jpeg - Composition - White balance etc etc :? 

Generally I agree with the suggestions put forward so far. I do feel however that all this may be a little too much information to try and act on in one go. In my view you need to address the issue you raised in your first post "..the pictures just look "dead" to me. " first. In other words back to basics. Listed below in my view are the key points you need to address.

1. Familiarise yourself with all the functions of the camera. Read the manual then read it again. Take lots of pictures (only show the good ones  )while familiarising yourself and have fun 

2. Invest in or borrow a tripod and cable release. This will make the world of difference in getting sharp detailed images. Take some pictures of the same subject both on and off the tripod and compare in your photo editing package.

3. Using both manual and auto settings experiment with hand held shots. How slow a shutter speed can you use without noticeable shake? (I always used to be surprised just how many professionals claimed they could hold a camera rock steady at 1/8th second :shock. My preference would be to use a shutter speed of 1/125 second or above where possible for hand held and sacrifice some depth of field. If greater depth of field required or lighting conditions do not allow this - can you use a tripod or can you brace yourself on something?

4. Practice focussing both manually and letting the camera decide -take pictures and check results.

5. Try the various manual exposure modes. Find out exactly what part of the image is being read i.e. is it averaging the whole area? is it weighted to read the bottom of an image? What happens in portrait mode to exposure reading ? Can you use spot metering - if so where is the sensor reading from etc.
Suggest that you may find the Shutter Priority mode your best bet for hand held

To sum up I would say that you should concentrate initially on getting the correct exposure, accurate focus on area of interest, and holding the camera steady. Without these as your firm foundations no amount of photo editing, composition tricks etc is really going to help. 

Cheers


----------



## Mike.C (3 Sep 2007)

> TonyW,
> 
> Generally I agree with the suggestions put forward so far. I do feel however that all this may be a little too much information to try and act on in one go. In my view you need to address the issue you raised in your first post "..the pictures just look "dead" to me. " first. In other words back to basics. Listed below in my view are the key points you need to address.



Tony your spot on. When I say I am a novice, I mean I am a complete novice. This is only the second camera I have ever owned, and between the 2 of them I must of taken no more then 100 photos, and most of them were rubbish.

So instead of wasting all of your time, I will try and practise a bit more before I post anymore photos.

Many thanks to you all for your advice.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## MrJay (3 Sep 2007)

Actually, I disagree with a few of those things.

The .RAW format has dubious advantages. If you're shooting for print then it's the format to use. By the time you've resampled your images from 10 billion megapixels down to something more appropriate for piccies to post on the web or print out at home though it's advantages are lost entirely. That and .RAW pictures are rather raw. The camera does a lot of post processing like noise reduction when you shoot in .jpg that it won't do with .RAW shots, leaving you with a lot of extra work in post processing. (oh and .RAW piccies eat hard drives for breakfast and if that wasn't enough .RAW isn't a standard format either, each manufacturer has it's own system, and as such is no use for archive).

Share the good and bad. It's the bad one's you learn from and if you can't put your finger on what's wrong with them or how to avoid the problem then you're best asking.

Learning basic post processing is every bit as important as learning the basic camera method. You need both.

Tripod is definitely handy, cable release is optional as any half respectable newish camera will let you set a 2 second fuse, eliminating shake from man-handling the shutter button. Which isn't to say that sometimes a 2 second wait isn't a chuffing nuisance. Cable release is handy if you can find one that'll work with your camera (they're not standard anymore), but not the necessity they used to be (more's the pity).

But yes, it's a lot to take on board. The best advice is keep practicing the basics and looking and learning from the shots you take. I'm somewhat in favor of setting myself assignments. A week of nothing but dog portraits for example.


----------



## TonyW (3 Sep 2007)

Mr Jay, to a degree I agree with some of your sentiments - particularly where a novice is involved but would like to comment on the points you raised


MrJay":3op5zmd6 said:


> The .RAW format has dubious advantages. If you're shooting for print then it's the format to use. By the time you've resampled your images from 10 billion megapixels down to something more appropriate for piccies to post on the web or print out at home though it's advantages are lost entirely. That and .RAW pictures are rather raw. The camera does a lot of post processing like noise reduction when you shoot in .jpg that it won't do with .RAW shots, leaving you with a lot of extra work in post processing. (oh and .RAW piccies eat hard drives for breakfast and if that wasn't enough .RAW isn't a standard format either, each manufacturer has it's own system, and as such is no use for archive).


RAW format in my opinion should be seen as the digital equivalent of the film negative. Jpeg could then be seen as the prints you would get from your chemist or photo shop. Quote from a great American landscape photographer "I have often said the negative is similar to a musician's score, and the print is the performance of that score. The negative comes to life only when "performed" as a print" (Ansel Adams).
Most professionals and many keen amateurs would prefer to process their own to get the exact image they visualised when taking the picture. Camera manufacturers have done a lot of work on post processing algorithms to produce the normal jpeg you see - most are very good - but as always there can be room for improvement.
I agree with what you say about the extra work involved in post processing, and the large file sizes, and the lack of standard format between manufacturers (perhaps Adobe .dng will help resolve this) but still maintain for the enthusiast who wants to get every ounce of image this is the way to go.
For most however (including me - at the moment) jpegs are generally more than adequate.



> Share the good and bad. It's the bad one's you learn from and if you can't put your finger on what's wrong with them or how to avoid the problem then you're best asking.


Agree with this - that's one of the reasons for the success of forums such as this. So share the good and bad with those of similar interest and reserve the good just to impress your friends and relatives  



> Learning basic post processing is every bit as important as learning the basic camera method. You need both.


You do need both skills to develop your imaging expertise and get the final visualised result but I believe that it is too easy to put too much reliance on post processing to get you out of sloppy habits. 



> Tripod is definitely handy, cable release is optional as any half respectable newish camera will let you set a 2 second fuse, eliminating shake from man-handling the shutter button. Which isn't to say that sometimes a 2 second wait isn't a chuffing nuisance. Cable release is handy if you can find one that'll work with your camera (they're not standard anymore), but not the necessity they used to be (more's the pity).


Using the kind of flimsy tripod most people buy without using a cable release is asking for camera shake problems at slow shutter speeds. It is all too common to transmit shake in the physical action of pressing the shutter release by hand. If you light the 2 second fuse this will probably not be long enough to eliminate shake 10 seconds or more would be better. Of course by this time anything other than a static subject will have got up and walked away  I know that they are no longer standard (and when available expensive!) and some cameras do not have the facility - but I still maintain they should be looked at as a necessity.



> But yes, it's a lot to take on board. The best advice is keep practicing the basics and looking and learning from the shots you take. I'm somewhat in favor of setting myself assignments. A week of nothing but dog portraits for example.


Like the idea of setting assignments - after a week of dog portraits I bet you feel a little ruff  
Sorry I am getting my coat on now

Cheers  
Tony


----------



## Mike.C (3 Sep 2007)

Tony, would I be right in saying that a cable release is for want of a better description a wire that is used instead of the shutter button   
If so, how do I find out if I can use one on my camera, because it does not mention anything about one in the manual?

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Bodrighy (3 Sep 2007)

devonwoody":2r4geozm said:


> If you are going to purchase imaging software, I recommend Paint Shop Pro X1.
> Adobe elements is all right but the program does treat its users as infants!



If you look in ebay you can often get Paintshop Pro 8 or 9 for peanuts and it'll do anything that you are likely to want. I use it to teach graphic manipulation to hobbyists at college. If it's any use i can see if I can send my notes to you that will describe how to use most of the basics, its one I put together so there's no copyright problem.

Pete


----------



## TonyW (3 Sep 2007)

Mike.C":32k52spv said:


> Tony, would I be right in saying that a cable release is for want of a better description a wire that is used instead of the shutter button


Yes it is a wire mechanism either mechanical or electronic that trips the shutter.

I do not know your particular camera but have seen reference to the fact that it has a threaded shutter release to accommodate an inexpensive cable release.

Not sure exactly where this is but looking at a picture of the camera it seems there is a hole in the shutter release button. If it is a hole and threaded then that is the connection you probably require - check it out in photo store just in case.

Try not to buy a cable release too short (10-12" should be ok) because there is still a chance of inducing shake when you trigger the release. Something like this should do fine http://discountfilmsdirect.co.uk/shop/acatalog/Cable_and_Air_Releases.html

I prefer the air release type as less chance of transmitting vibration. You can always cut the tube to a reasonable length.

Do make sure it is suitable for your camera though before you try and attach
Cheers  
Tony

BTW You mentioned the fact that this is only the second camera you have owned and you have not taken many pictures before. I think that under these circumstances you should be very pleased with your first pics


----------



## Mike.C (4 Sep 2007)

Pete thats brilliant, I have set you a pm.

Thanks Tony, you right the shutter button is threaded. I think that I will contact Fuji to make sure I buy the correct cable.

Once again thanks for your help.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## devonwoody (4 Sep 2007)

The fuji 9600 does have a screwed socket for the cable release on the shooting button already, but I dont myself know which make of cable is satisfactory, (the threads vary)


----------



## Keith Smith (4 Sep 2007)

If this is only your second camera I think you'll find lugging a tripod round and trying to use a shutter release a bind.

My advice like some of the previous posters is to just use the camera, digital shots are free so take loads. I've taken over 2,500 this year with one camera and I'm still learning how it ticks.

As a generalisation blurred shots are primarily caused by too slow a shutter speed; if you are taking hand held shots make sure the speed is greater than 1/60sec. You may need to set the aperture manually to do this, so get the manual out and find out about the different exposure modes. It isn't rocket science and you will soon pick it up. 

The other problem that causes blurred shots is depth of field. If you take a close up shot it will have a very short depth of field so the dogs eyes may be in focus but the nose will be out. There are ways to reduce this, the easiest is to stand further back and crop the shot on the computer later.

Just my 2p


----------



## gidon (4 Sep 2007)

Mike
Lots of useful advice, but don't worry you don't _need _a tripod and cable release to take decent photos.
I would find the fully automatic mode on you camera (and ensure exposure compensation is set to 0) and then check that you are happy with the pics - take some outside on a sunny day so camera shake won't be an issue and white balance shouldn't be an issue. With an advanced camera like it will be very easy to change a setting that will make your pics not look quite right.
After you're happy the camera can take decent pics, then play around with composition more - and the thirds rule someone mentioned ealier is a very useful place to start. 
After that you may want to look at the advanced features of your camera.
FWIW - when I hand my DSLR to my wife - she always switches it to fully automatic mode and often takes far better pics than me!!
For more specific advice on your specific camera try posting on:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1012
Have fun.
Cheers
Gidon


----------



## Mike.C (4 Sep 2007)

Keith


> ,
> 
> As a generalisation blurred shots are primarily caused by too slow a shutter speed; if you are taking hand held shots make sure the speed is greater than 1/60sec. You may need to set the aperture manually to do this, so get the manual out and find out about the different exposure modes. It isn't rocket science and you will soon pick it up.



Some members have recommended that I keep the setting on auto until I get a bit more used to the camera. So with this in mind can I still make sure that the shutter speed is greater than 1/60sec, or will the auto mode over ride any setting I make?  



> Gidon,
> 
> I would find the fully automatic mode on you camera (and ensure exposure compensation is set to 0) and then check that you are happy with the pics



Cheers Gidon thats what I will do.

Thanks guys.

Mike


----------



## gidon (4 Sep 2007)

Mike in auto mode the camera will most likely use the flash if it can't achieve a decent handheld shutter speed without.
It may also increase the ISO or sensitivity (like using faster film). It varies what you can vary in different modes - you'll need to check your manual - but if auto wants flash and you don't - you may be able to change the ISO. If the full auto mode doesn't allow that there may be a P or Program mode that will. You can also open up the aperture to let in more light - but for that you'll need Av or Aperture Priority mode. (Some cameras will let you change Aperture and Shutter speed in P mode too). Maybe I'm just complicating matters. I'll shut up.
Cheers
Gidon


----------



## devonwoody (4 Sep 2007)

Gidon, the fuji 9600 can handle all of that 

Its only drawback to me is that it is a very heavy camera.


----------



## Keith Smith (4 Sep 2007)

Mike.C":1fdq1gjz said:


> Some members have recommended that I keep the setting on auto until I get a bit more used to the camera. So with this in mind can I still make sure that the shutter speed is greater than 1/60sec, or will the auto mode over ride any setting I make?



If you are in auto it chooses :lol: 

You should be able to see the speed setting in the readout, if it looks too slow you can try to get more light on the subject or change the camera settings as Gidon suggests.

I'd go out with the camera and take lots of shots, it has to be a pretty dull day to cause a problem with camera shake.


----------



## devonwoody (4 Sep 2007)

If it is dull, set the iso at 400 for a few shots.

When in shooting mode Push the F button (next to the screen) to set different Iso speeds. However higher speeds produce noise, which can be reduced in paint shop pro.


----------



## Mike.C (4 Sep 2007)

> Gidon,
> 
> Maybe I'm just complicating matters. I'll shut up.



Gidon don't do that, I may not be able to understand some of it now but I will get there in the end.

DW I forgot that you have a S9600 :wink: 

Cheers

Mike


----------



## RobertMP (4 Sep 2007)

If you don't have a grasp on the basics for camera settings have a read of this. http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/the_basics

It will help you understand how the settings relate to each other. Auto can get it right - it can also get it very wrong. Learn the basics and you can take control.


----------



## Mike.C (4 Sep 2007)

Thanks very much for the link Robert.

It must get really frustrating for you guys having to go over something that is childs play if you know what you are doing. :roll: 

Cheers

Mike


----------



## TonyW (4 Sep 2007)

Mike.C":35cqq7jo said:


> It must get really frustrating for you guys having to go over something that is childs play if you know what you are doing. :roll:


Not at all Mike. In my view this is what forums are all about - asking for help and advice and giving it freely where you can. At least I hope so cos I know I ask for some advice that is childs play to those with experience

Cheers  
Tony


----------



## DomValente (4 Sep 2007)

*TonyW wrote:*


> In my view this is what forums are all about - asking for help and advice and giving it freely where you can. At least I hope so cos I know I ask for some advice that is childs play to those with experience



Posssibly the most sensible side comment on a forum I've read in a long time.

Dom


----------



## Bodrighy (4 Sep 2007)

Mike, I've just tried that link I PM'd you and it works (except that it's big and on my steam connection takes hours  )

If anyone else wants a copy let me know and I'll put the link up on here.

Pete


----------



## Mike.C (4 Sep 2007)

> Tony,
> 
> Not at all Mike. In my view this is what forums are all about - asking for help and advice and giving it freely where you can. At least I hope so cos I know I ask for some advice that is childs play to those with experience



Cheers Tony you are right, it's just that I always seem to be asking techno questions, that turn out to have such simple answers, or simple for most other people that is.

Nice one Pete I got the download

Thanks for your help.

Mike


----------

