Canon Powershot S5is settings?

[Jay]

Just wondering if anybody knows the optimum settings for Indoor Snake photos on a Canon Powershot S5is

[TeaNinja]

nope, but i wish i did O.O
my camera is going to take the eternal dirt nap pretty soon lol.
do you have the manual? i sadly never read the manual for my camera until a few months ago and i spent like 15 minutes going "O.O omfg, is THAT what that does?????" lol

[sickvenom]

Just wondering if anybody knows the optimum settings for Indoor Snake photos on a Canon Powershot S5is

I'll reply in depth later this afternoon.....

[Jay]

ok thanks. I dont have the manual

[sickvenom]

Ok let's start with this.....

Turn off the flash, set your white balance according to your main light source, the mode should be manual, adjust your aperature and shutter speed until your exposure looks good. These settings will vary depending on your main light source. Try to keep your shutter faster then 1/60. Let me know the results.

[Wolfus_305]

I have a canon camera and love it (Canon powershot G9) Good luck with the photos!

[Jay]

I cant figure it out this is as close to good as i can get with sickvenoms help
he is due for a shed in a week

[Wolfus_305]

I think this could be what you're looking for
Canon U.S.A. : Support & Drivers : PowerShot S5 IS (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/digital_cameras/powershot_g_series/powershot_s5_is#BrochuresAndManuals)

If you scroll down you should find pdf files of manuals. make sure it's for your camera and then there's basic and advanced

Hope this helps :)

[Jay]

I like this photo using sickvenoms advice im trying to upload it so it shows full size

[Jay]

http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m517/jay0133/IMG_6924.jpg

[Jay]

http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m517/jay0133/IMG_6924.jpg

[sickvenom]

I like this photo using sickvenoms advice im trying to upload it so it shows full size

that looks..... great!

the colors may be off a little, due to the color temperature of your light source. that is what the white balance control is for. cameras can get tricked up by the light temperature, so some post processing corrections may be needed. to make it pop a little more, i'd up the 'contrast' setting. what were your manual settings?

[Jay]

Thanks for the advice. I always used auto setting, the pictures were ok but not the cameras potential. I can't remember the settings I used for that picture. There are down arrows you can use when your in manual....F/10..9....8 ect I fiddled with them until i got the right picture. What do they do in technical terms ? In my uneducated terms they increase and decrees the brightens.

[sickvenom]

Thanks for the advice. I always used auto setting, the pictures were ok but not the cameras potential. I can't remember the settings I used for that picture. There are down arrows you can use when your in manual....F/10..9....8 ect I fiddled with them until i got the right picture. What do they do in technical terms ? In my uneducated terms they increase and decrees the brightens.

f stop is the aperture. that is the size of the hole in the middle of your lens, that lets light in. f2.8 is a big opening, used to let more light in, f22 is a small opening, used to let less light in. and your shutter speed is how long you want your shutter to stay open for your exposure. longer shutter speeds will over expose and shorter shutter speeds will under expose. your aperture will also control depth of field. the smaller f stop (2.8) will give a nice shallow depth of field. f22 will give you a deep depth of field. depth of field is when you focus on a subject and everything behind it is blurred.

next, maybe set your f stop to 2.8 (or whatever is 'wide open' for your camera), then use the shutter speed to find the correct exposure. compare it with your first photo. you might find that more of the background will be out of focus. this shallow depth of field keeps the eye on the subject, which will be in focus.

[Max713]

Thanks for the advice. I always used auto setting, the pictures were ok but not the cameras potential. I can't remember the settings I used for that picture. There are down arrows you can use when your in manual....F/10..9....8 ect I fiddled with them until i got the right picture. What do they do in technical terms ? In my uneducated terms they increase and decrees the brightens.

F/10 etc is the f-stop, or aperture. Aperture is what controls how much light your camera takes in. The smaller the number, the more wide open the aperture, or the more light the lens lets in.
Welcome to the world of photography :)
For now I would leave it on the "P" setting, this mode allows you to change all the setting, but automatically controls shutter speed and f stop for you. Playing with manual mode is definitely a good thing, but can be very difficult to get down for new users.
In P mode, leave your white balance on auto, you can always adjust that later in even the simplest photo editing software. Set your ISO to a nice low level, the lowest possible in high light situations, maybe bump it up to 200 or 400 if you really have poor light conditions. Just remember, the higher your ISO, the higher chance you have for noise in your shots. Other than that, just start taking pictures and experimenting! You know how I got good at taking pics of Scarlett? By taking thousands upon thousands of pictures...

There are many shooting styles, entire frame in focus (standing farther back, zooming in), just the subject in focus (getting close, zooming all the way out), wide open aperture (subject crystal clear, background slightly blurred), closed aperture (subject often times slightly less clear, more of the frame in focus.
You will find the farther you are zoomed in, the less wide open you can set your aperture, at least I'm guessing so with your camera, as I'm not particularly familiar with it. But most base level cameras have a variable aperture, the most wide open setting slowly decreasing as you zoom in farther.

EDIT: Was typing as venom posted, but he brought up a lot of similar points. Venom, are you into photography as well? I've never seen any of your work.

[Jay]

See I always had my ISO on 1600 thinking Bigger is better

[sickvenom]

Playing with manual mode is definitely a good thing, but can be very difficult to get down for new users.

i teach people to learn in manual mode. i like to have total control over my settings. if you learn in manual now, it will be easier later on. especially if you want to shoot in the field. that way, you're not fumbling around with your settings while a perfect photo op is ruined.

In P mode, leave your white balance on auto, you can always adjust that later in even the simplest photo editing software.

true, but to an extent. unless you are shooting in raw mode, correcting while balance, even in ADVANCED software can be hard and doesn't always look right.

Set your ISO to a nice low level, the lowest possible in high light situations, maybe bump it up to 200 or 400 if you really have poor light conditions. Just remember, the higher your ISO, the higher chance you have for noise in your shots.

i didn't touch on iso yet. but that does play a factor with exposure. low light iso is typically 800 and higher.

You will find the farther you are zoomed in, the less wide open you can set your aperture.

that depends on the lens. my pro lenses do stay at a constant aperture no matter what.

max713, nothing you said was really wrong, i was just adding to it. not trying to take away from your advice.

[Max713]

See I always had my ISO on 1600 thinking Bigger is better

Far from it. In the case of ISO, bigger is alost never better! Actually it will never be better, unless you have very low light conditions and you HAVE to raise it on order to get the proper exposure.
Photography is so complex and complicated, it is VERY easy to be overwhelmed, I'm overwhelmed regularly and I've been in this hobby for 2 years! JUst focus on taking one step forward at a time, and just shoot shoot shoot! Nothing will make you get better faster than taking pictures.

[sickvenom]

See I always had my ISO on 1600 thinking Bigger is better

iso is light sensitivity. the higher the iso, the more exposure you'll get in low light situations, but you'll also notice 'noise' and 'grain.' during daylight, you can use 100 or 200. low light you'll want 400+.

[Jay]

I am no Photographer I bought this camera because I have money it looked cool and its VERY durable I bring it hunting and biking i could not count how many time its hit the ground

[infernalis]

iso is light sensitivity. the higher the iso, the more exposure you'll get in low light situations, but you'll also notice 'noise' and 'grain.' during daylight, you can use 100 or 200. low light you'll want 400+.


Thanks man! I'm going to try that the next time I photo my lasers outside at night.

Matt, we have a random photo thread, show off your stuff.

[sickvenom]

Thanks man! I'm going to try that the next time I photo my lasers outside at night.

Matt, we have a random photo thread, show off your stuff.

i might do that. since i'm a working professional photographer (among other things), i always have to worry about copyright laws. i will share some stuff in due time! if anyone knows who bill and kathy love are, they are moving to az and i will hopefully be shooting some stuff with bill. he's a photographer as well.

[Max713]

i teach people to learn in manual mode. i like to have total control over my settings. if you learn in manual now, it will be easier later on. especially if you want to shoot in the field. that way, you're not fumbling around with your settings while a perfect photo op is ruined.
I agree, learning in manual mode is definitely the best way to go in the long run, I'm just sensitive to how overwhelming it can be to have all those settings starring at you when you have little to no idea what they all mean. Because of that, I usually tell people to start in P mode, to at least get the hang of the "secondary" settings, either way will work, although like I said your method is probably better in the long run.


true, but to an extent. unless you are shooting in raw mode, correcting while balance, even in ADVANCED software can be hard and doesn't always look right.
I didn't take that into account, if you only shoot in "fine" quality, etc, changing the white balance correctly will be much more difficult. I only shoot in RAW, I would suggest the same to everyone, although many simply don't have the memory space to store all the massive RAW files.


i didn't touch on iso yet. but that does play a factor with exposure. low light iso is typically 800 and higher.
On a professional/high end body, I'm sure 800 will look just fine/great. But even on my D60, 800 starts to really show some grain, I can only imagine the grain that would show up on his camera? Man do I want a D90...


that depends on the lens. my pro lenses do will stay at a constant aperture no matter what.
Yes, I'm well aware, I was mostly just making an assumption about his camera in this situation. I'd be very surprised if he has a built in fixed aperture lens.
I'm very jealous of the high end fixed aperture pro lenses, but I'm picking up a 35mm f/1.8 very soon, can express my excitement for that, especially in my automotive photography!

max713, nothing you said was really wrong, i was just adding to it. not trying to take away from your advice.
Thank you, I'm rather new at only 2 years of experience, but I try to only share info that I know to be true, and I love spreading knowledge when I can.


10 characters

[Max713]

iso is light sensitivity. the higher the iso, the more exposure you'll get in low light situations, but you'll also notice 'noise' and 'grain.' during daylight, you can use 100 or 200. low light you'll want 400+.
Really, I guess I was under the assumption that even at night the lower the ISO the better when you can get away with it. I've haven't done any substantial experimenting with substantially higher ISO at night, and when I did I felt my images definitely suffered from some grain. Looks like I may have to try a few new night shooting techniques.

[sickvenom]

I didn't take that into account, if you only shoot in "fine" quality, etc, changing the white balance correctly will be much more difficult. I only shoot in RAW, I would suggest the same to everyone, although many simply don't have the memory space to store all the massive RAW files.

that, and not everyone will have software that can edit raw files.

On a professional/high end body, I'm sure 800 will look just fine/great. But even on my D60, 800 starts to really show some grain, I can only imagine the grain that would show up on his camera? Man do I want a D90...

i shoot a lot of concerts and stage productions. i get acceptable results at iso12800. there is 'grain' but that's a cool effect for concerts.

I'd be very surprised if he has a built in fixed aperture lens.

some of the more advanced point and shoots do have that ability! but on the other hand, their glass is smaller and lacks the same quality as an slr lens.

I'm very jealous of the high end fixed aperture pro lenses, but I'm picking up a 35mm f/1.8 very soon, can express my excitement for that, especially in my automotive photography!

what brand do you shoot? i shoot all nikon and the 50mm 1.8 is an incredible piece of glass that cost under $100.

Thank you, I'm rather new at only 2 years of experience, but I try to only share info that I know to be true, and I love spreading knowledge when I can.

i'm all for it!!! me = 12+ years of professional experience, been published worldwide on 100s of occasions. worked for lots of famous people and musicians.

[infernalis]

i might do that. since i'm a working professional photographer (among other things), i always have to worry about copyright laws. i will share some stuff in due time! if anyone knows who bill and kathy love are, they are moving to az and i will hopefully be shooting some stuff with bill. he's a photographer as well.

correct me if I'm wrong, but if you shoot, then aren't you the copyright holder?

[sickvenom]

correct me if I'm wrong, but if you shoot, then aren't you the copyright holder?

yes. my problems are with people stealing MY copyrighted photos.

[Max713]

that, and not everyone will have software that can edit raw files.
Also, a good point, but I'm confident theres a lower level free photoshop "equivalent" available for free online.



i shoot a lot of concerts and stage productions. i get acceptable results at iso12800. there is 'grain' but that's a cool effect for concerts.
Thats a whole different subject, using grain for effect is one thing, having grain show up in an image when your looking for crystal clarity is another. To clarify, I'm not saying grain in a concert setting isn't an awesome effect!


some of the more advanced point and shoots do have that ability! but on the other hand, their glass is smaller and lacks the same quality as an slr lens.
Thats impressive! I had no idea there were point and shoots capable of that.


what brand do you shoot? i shoot all nikon and the 50mm 1.8 is an incredible piece of glass that cost under $100.
I shoot 100% nikon as well. I originally wanted a 50 f/1.8 (I would agree with the fact that its an incredible piece for the money), but for one, the current 50 wont autofocus on my D60. After further thought, for a lot of my work, I need the little wider viewing angle of the 35, especially in my automotive work. Also, many have told me the 35 actually provides a little better quality than the 50, although the reviews are split about 50/50. The 35 still only retails for $199.99, they are releasing a new 50mm f/1.8 in mid june that will be autofocus compatible with my body, but it will also retail for $270.


i'm all for it!!! me = 12+ years of professional experience, been published worldwide on 100s of occasions. worked for lots of famous people and musicians.
That's so relieving to here (although I did already assume it from you), it seems most photographer types are all too proud, and seem to be very hesitant to share their knowledge with others...


10 characters

[Max713]

yes. my problems are with people stealing MY copyrighted photos.

I'm an amateur an I have the same problem...

[infernalis]

yes. my problems are with people stealing MY copyrighted photos.

I see what you mean there, I do shoots with my snakes all the time. But I do however carry my camera always, so when something presents itself, I can take a picture.

So who cares if someone "steals" a picture of random subjects you encounter during daily life??

[Max713]

I see what you mean there, I do shoots with my snakes all the time. But I do however carry my camera always, so when something presents itself, I can take a picture.

So who cares if someone "steals" a picture of random subjects you encounter during daily life??

That's not necessarily a problem, but in the case that you make money off selling, distributing, and producing images, using someone's image without permission for your own benefit, or gain (whether it personal or financial), is no different than stealing a picture frame off the wall of a variety store...

[sickvenom]

So who cares if someone "steals" a picture of random subjects you encounter during daily life??

why should someone else be allowed to break federal law, take credit for MY work and potentially make money from it? i've sued many people and publications for printing my photos without permission. i've also caught certain bands/musicians and movie directors doing the same thing. as far as herp photos go.... same thing can happen.

[sickvenom]

Also, a good point, but I'm confident theres a lower level free photoshop "equivalent" available for free online.

then you actually have to learn the software! i agree with you. but the average photo taker may not be willing to do all this work. i can't even imagine shooting anything but raw at this point. although my exposures are usually accurate, i still want to control other elements of the photos. adjusting raw photos is like taking the photo all over again and getting different results.

having grain show up in an image when your looking for crystal clarity is another.

agreed. that is why i also recommend that a photographer choose their editing software of choice and then open and view their photos zoomed in at 100%.

I shoot 100% nikon as well. I originally wanted a 50 f/1.8 (I would agree with the fact that its an incredible piece for the money), but for one, the current 50 wont autofocus on my D60. After further thought, for a lot of my work, I need the little wider viewing angle of the 35, especially in my automotive work. Also, many have told me the 35 actually provides a little better quality than the 50, although the reviews are split about 50/50. The 35 still only retails for $199.99, they are releasing a new 50mm f/1.8 in mid june that will be autofocus compatible with my body, but it will also retail for $270.

and with the crop factor, your 35 becomes a 52.5mm. that isn't very wide. nikon does make wider lenses, but the prices jump drastically.

Digital Camera Lenses | Nikon Camera lenses | NIKKOR Optics (http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page)

it seems most photographer types are all too proud, and seem to be very hesitant to share their knowledge with others...


that is true. most photographers guard their knowledge similar to a fisherman protecting his favorite 'hole.' i don't mind sharing my knowledge on photography or herps. how else will people learn?

[sickvenom]

Just wondering if anybody knows the optimum settings for Indoor Snake photos on a Canon Powershot S5is

your camera also has a 'macro' setting for up close, and personal shots.

[Max713]

then you actually have to learn the software! i agree with you. but the average photo taker may not be willing to do all this work. i can't even imagine shooting anything but raw at this point. although my exposures are usually accurate, i still want to control other elements of the photos. adjusting raw photos is like taking the photo all over again and getting different results.
Yes the average photo taker wouldn't be willing, but I guess I was assuming that in the case that some one actually inquired as to improving their image quality (the OP for instance), they would be willing to learn the software.


agreed. that is why i also recommend that a photographer choose their editing software of choice and then open and view their photos zoomed in at 100%.



and with the crop factor, your 35 becomes a 52.5mm. that isn't very wide. nikon does make wider lenses, but the prices jump drastically.
Digital Camera Lenses | Nikon Camera lenses | NIKKOR Optics (http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page)
I took that into consideration as well, most of my "wide angle" photography was shot in the 20-30mm range on my 18-55, I'm not sure what that equates to in crop factor on the D60, but never the less I know the 35 would be a better fit for my style. Of course a wider lens would be better, but as you said the price jump is drastic!


that is true. most photographers guard their knowledge similar to a fisherman protecting his favorite 'hole.' i don't mind sharing my knowledge on photography or herps. how else will people learn?
I can understand not sharing brand new, revolutionary info, but being unwilling to share semi universal info with new photographers is pretty dam unreasonable. But I take the same stance as you, how can the inexperienced learn, without the help of the more experienced!?

10 characters

[TeaNinja]

i've never had someone use one of my pictures, but if i did see it posted by someone else i would be kind of flattered lol. if they were trying to claim credit and say they shot it or something that'd be different, but if someone was just saying "look at this cool picture i found on google" and it happened to be mine, i'd be like "yeeauh B)"

[Max713]

i've never had someone use one of my pictures, but if i did see it posted by someone else i would be kind of flattered lol. if they were trying to claim credit and say they shot it or something that'd be different, but if someone was just saying "look at this cool picture i found on google" and it happened to be mine, i'd be like "yeeauh B)"

As would I. But at the same time, if someone turned around and used one of my images on an event poster, some form of advertisement, etc, without my consent or recognition with an obvious benefit to themselves... I would be pissed!
You have to understand professional photographers are on another level though. They make their money by creating and distributing their images. If someone were to use their photo without consent, they are stealing any and all revenue that image could have brought otherwise.
There's a very fine balance between flattery and thievery when it comes to image sharing.

[TeaNinja]

well, in my theoretical instance they wouldn't be using it for anything that would be raking in cash. if it were on an event poster or a major company's label or something i'd definetly be pissed and want recognition and money. i definetly understand that point.

[infernalis]

A guy I know in Cali had one of his herping photos turn into a road sign without consent.

Copyright violations take many forms.