I took this shot using a Sony Xperia SP with OpenCamera, here are some details:   Exposure: 1/800 ISO: 50 Aperture: f/2.4 focal length: 3.0   The photo was taken out of a train, at around 160km/h, the truck was moving in the opposite direction with approx. 90km/h.  The distance that the truck moved withing the 1/800th of a second should be somewhere around 10cm (~1/3 foot), but the distortion is clearly higher. It also does not look like it's related to the lens distortion as the it's speed dependent (look at the car and guardrail as a reference).    looks similar and is caused by line-wise image creation of a crt-tube. Could it be that the sensor is reading the pixels line-wise as well?  Almost forgot the most relevant detail: the shot was taken on the Storebæltsbroen. ;-)
30812
In answer to , Adam Davis writes:     Your camera complicates this by using   a rolling shutter above a given speed   (usually around 1/200. This means that   only a portion of the image sensor is   exposed to the scene at any given   time, so if the light changes during   the exposure, the color change will   only affect a portion of the image   sensor.   Rolling shutters often are also mentioned in the .  However, I am yet to see a discussion of what a rolling shutter is, how it works and when it is important.  What is a rolling shutter?  What are the implications of using one for my photos?
23608
I took this photo of the blood moon this morning and I am finding many of my photos, especially landscape photos, have a significant lack of clarity. I'm not looking for a photo critique because I know this particular photo is crap. I'm looking to identify my source of failure to nail a significantly clear photo.     Setup  Canon EOS 70D with a 100-300 telephoto lens (I'm sorry I don't know the exact model. It's from Canon but not one of their professional quality lenses.)   Aperture: f/5.6 Shutter: 1 sec. ISO: 1000 Focal Length: 300mm Metering mode: Spot White Balance: I manually set the WB to 5500 kelvin, it looked fine in live view. Focus Mode: Manual Drive: 2 sec timer delay   Mounted on a decently stable tripod  Process  I turn on live view, and square up the target in the display. I then set my focal length, focus in using live view, adjust the focus as sharp as possible and take the pic. I've noticed that in this case, the picture was incredibly grainy, which doesn't translate to the final photo, but wonder if it has anything to do with it.  This particular shoot I found it difficult to balance out the variables with a dark sky and a moving moon that starts blurring after 1-2 seconds of exposure, which is why I had the aperture wide open and the ISO cranked up.  I can't tell where I'm failing:  Equipment:  The 70d takes great photos but the telephoto is not great when it's totally zoomed in. My wallet doesn't hold enough cash for a motorized mount to track objects in the sky.  Circumstance: I've seen great photos of the moon with the use of a camera and a tripod, so I know this is possible. Although, I keep seeing pictures of this big gorgeous moon over the landscape, and when I use my wide-angle, the moon shows up as a dot. What the hell are people doing to get the moon so big?  Beginner skill level: I know this is the biggest culprit, but being the beginner, I'm unable to know where to adjust.
65931
I took a bunch of photos at my son's martial arts club using a D90 with a 50mm F1.8.  The club is lit with overhead fluorescent lighting, and I was getting some weird results where some shots are "white", others have an "orange cast", and still others are partly white and partly orange in the same shot.  I suspect it has to do with the combination of the frequency of the light flicker and with the camera shutter speed. Here is a sequence of 3 shots that show the problem.  The shots were taken with 1/500s at F2 and ISO-800 and with Auto-WB.  First shot ("white/normal"):    Second shot ("orange cast" at top):   Third shot ("orange cast" at bottom):   These were taken in burst mode within a second of each other.  Can anybody tell me what is going on?  And, how I can avoid this?
5190
If I change the ISO settings on my camera, obviously the gain of the system is increased, amplifying the signal from the sensor. What's not clear to me is where the amplification takes place. I see several possibilities:   In the sensor, by increasing voltage or some other mechanism Via an analog amplifier outside of the sensor Digitally, after the signal has been digitized, but before storing data in the RAW file As a parameter applied solely in creating an image from RAW   If #4 is true, then you could take a 4-stop overexposed RAW picture at ISO 1600, and then in post processing produce a JPEG at ISO 100 that would be the same as if the original photo had been shot at ISO 100.  If #1 or #2 is true, then a RAW file shot at ISO 1600 would actually contain more information about shadows, and an ISO 100 RAW would contain more information about highlights.
100059
Ever since I've heard of extension tubes I've been curious if they somehow crop the image that appears on the camera sensor.  Based on , the answer is "no" (at least not that I can tell).  Now that I know that, why not?  It seems like they would somehow muck up the image that appears on the sensor, and while they obviously do alter the DOF, it looks like the image still appears on the entire sensor. Obviously my understanding of how the lens forms an image on the sensor has something wrong with it, but what is the actual effect on the light when using an extension tube?
13212
How can I take a photo like the ones below? The problem is that my photos (taken with a bridge, Sony H2) will get blown up at the highlights. Is it because I'm using a weak camera? Is it because I'm shooting in JPG (can't use RAW)?  Is this dynamic range achieved by greater cameras + RAW? Or is it by post-processing?  Is there a pattern to this type of photos like: wide apperture (&lt; f5.0), RAW, ...?  Examples:   or  or
45517
I'm modeling a car driving along a road(speeds up, slows down, and stops at traffic lights to wait till the lights turn green, etc.) What is the best way to animate the camera path for the following scenario?   The camera starts moving from point A, and it takes 500 frames to get to point B. During this 500 frames, the camera first gradually speeds up, then moves at a constant speed, and finally slows down to a complete stop at point B. The next 50 frames, the camera will stay at point B. From frame 551, it takes another 500 frames to get to point C from point B. The camera experiences the same motion as described in #1 (speeds up, constant speed, slows down, then stop.) Again, the camera will stay at point C for another 50 frames.  Point C to D is a curve path ( added using Shift + A -> add path). I want the camera to move along the path from frame 1101 to frame 1200. The camera should have the same motion as before(speeds up, constant speed, slows down, then stop.)   What is the best way to animate the camera path in this case? Is there any Python scripts available and can be applied to case like this? Thank you all in advance for your replies.
115061
I recently upgraded from a standard compact digital camera to one of the newish "halfway cameras", hoping to get a bit better at taking photographs through having a little more control over the settings.  Trouble is, the camera has so many settings that I'm having difficulty figuring out which to concentrate on learning about!  I think it's best to start with the basic settings, by which I mean those that actually involve something physical in how the photograph is taken, rather than with the vast array of post-processing that the camera seems capable of.  So, my question:     Which settings on my camera are "real"?  Meaning that they have an effect on the information initially read by the sensor, not post-processing.   (I would be surprised if this varied from camera to camera which is why I haven't specified my exact camera.  Also, I'm not asking for an explanation of what the settings do, though a "sound bite" that I can easily remember when I'm out with my camera would be a welcome extra.)  Standard apology: if this question has been asked before, I apologise and would appreciate knowing which question to look for the answers in.  Also, I didn't have a clue what to tag this!
82701
So,  (credit to mattdm for pointing it out) says:     Firstly, when you turn the lens around you obviously lose the CPU connection between the lens and the camera, so say goodbye to autofocus, metering (in most cases) and aperture control (though I’ll come back to that)   Then:       The advantage of this old lens is that it has a manual aperture ring, which neatly neutralises the loss of automatic control mentioned above.   So, since G lenses don't have an aperture ring, aperture can't be controlled anyhow if we reverse the lens?    Secondly, is it practical that we set the metering and the aperture (manually) before taking the lens out and reversing it?  Is there any other way to get around this problem in G lenses (assuming that the camera bodies have the manual focus, aperture, metering controls)?
99387
Have a look at these snaps. On the first one the church has the right exposure but the tree is too dark. On the other hand in the second one the tree is perfect but the church is too bright.  Is there any technique/parameter setting i should use to capture both things with the right exposure?        Thanks!
73721
I've been seeing these dark spots in my pictures. They appear a lot more on some pictures than others, but they are in the same place in the image and independent of the lens being used. Is this dust? I've also heard that you can get oil spots on the sensor.  The image is from a Nikon D7000.
19152
I recently bought an LG G4, whose camera can shoot in an auto and both manual mode (I can manually set the iso, aperture). I shoot 100% of the time in auto.  It takes better than average photos at night but when in Seville one night the photos it took were a disaster. Please see this example:    I find the background lighting was captured very well, but the light sources totally screwed up the photo.   Why is this happening? The lens was clean.  What can I do to improve the quality of the future photos in this situation?  Attached 2 other photos taken before and after this problematic one (couple of hours distance). They seem fairly in the same conditions (direct light) yet the photos are decent.
51936
Yesterday I took photos of an event at school.  The lighting was poor so I increased the iso to 3200, shutter speed was between 80 and 250 and the aperture between 2.8 and 4.0.  Canon EOS500  about 10% of the photos got this weird horizontal black area. The position of the black area is not the same,  Sometimes it is in the middle, sometimes it is in the upper or lower part of the frame  Is this an artifact from the lighting frequency? or can it be a shutter problem?
52111
I have a really nasty looking piece of dust on my 550D's sensor, situated in the top right-hand corner of each image I take with anything higher than f/11. I am going to get a decent sensor cleaning kit, but I'd like to know which corner of the sensor should I focus on to get rid of this annoying particle?  In other words, does a lens flip the incoming light from left to right and turn it upside down? I think that's correct, so that means the answer in this diagram will be A, correct?    And before anyone asks - yes, I will clean the entire sensor while I'm in there, but this will help me focus on this particular (pun intended) problem. Thanks in advance!
45366
This is another perspective distortion question. I understand that perspective distortion is primarily a function of capture and viewing distance, but I am still working on fully understanding the causes of the "flattening" of scenes that is credited to telephoto lenses.  This seems to refer to our ability to discern the differences in size attributable to differences in distance from the lens for subjects beyond a certain distance from the lens. If this is correct, then is it just that with the longer distance from the subject when using a telephoto lens, this compression happens closer to the foreground, rather than in the mid- or background with a wide lens?  Is it fair to say that the compression effect occurs at a certain distance from the photographer regardless of lens, but the field of view influences how close to the foreground this effect takes place? Can you share any information to help people like me understand this?
58804
I recently saw that the red lights on some of the focus points are blurred.  The lights in this picture are lights shown during the selection of focus points.  As you can see the lights in the lower parts are blurred.  This blurring was not there earlier.  This is a Canon EOS 600D with no lens attached.
1246
My friend asked me to create a photo like this:    I noticed that its shadowless and my first question is whether it was setup to be shadowless, or was it made shadowless in post? How many lights are involved here? I think there's one for the background, and one above the product pointing something like 30 degrees down, and then some reflectors to the side. Just guessing.   I did some Googling and came across . How could that be shadowless? Looks like the product is a few feet above the ground, which is a white seamless background, and the camera and all the lighting are all pointing down. How could there be no shadow on the ground?  Thanks!