File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Was trying out my friends new 10mp camera, trying to take a picture of a catepillar crawling up a thread connected to a palm frond, when suddenly this muthafucka came out of nowhere and ate it!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The blood, the blood!!!
>> Anonymous
nice capture, but it's a pretty horrible jpg
>> Anonymous
>>355795

Awesome picture, but that camera is noisy as all hell.
I'm not too keen on most Olympus cameras, and that 400 ISO probably didn't help much, either.
Still, cool picture
>> Anonymous
>>355813
>>356020

Thanks. Yeah I agree on the noise, then again not my camera, and my friend knows jackshit about picture quality when she sent them through.
>> Anonymous
>>356096
Nah, that's not the problem. That ISO number has to be at the lowest it can in order to get the best outta those hi-res shots. I would assume your camera can go to about ISO 80 or lower.

PROTIP: ISO is another way of saying film speed, so the slower it is, the more precise the picture, pretty much.

>>356020knows what he's talkin aboot.
>> Anonymous
>>356099
Some of the stuff you said was either confusing or outright wrong.

Most point and shoots allow you to go in the ISO range of 80-1600 or maybe (big maybe) 3200. A lower ISO means that the "film" is less sensitive to light, so you'll have to have more light or a longer shutter. Try reducing the ISO to as low as possible, turning off the flash, and making the shutter go to several seconds in a pitch black room. Take a picture and move some lights around in the dark, and you'll see an illustration of how it works.

A higher ISO rating means that the "film" will be extremely sensitive. This is useful late at night when you don't have a tripod, because using a "regular" ISO setting( 200-400 produces a decent enough picture with a short shutter speed usually) will require you to have a longer shutter speed to get in enough light to make a clear image. Again, try the previously mentioned technique, except make the shutter flash short, and don't show any lights. You'll see silhouettes of the things in the frame, but not clear images. If the shutter was significantly longer, you'd get a brighter, blurrier picture because it was talking in all the light over all that time.

This is getting tangential. The point is that if the caterpillar was moving quickly, you'd probably need a high ISO rating and a quick shutter speed so that it wouldn't come out too dark or too blurry. If the thing was just sitting there, and especially if you had a steady hand/tripod, you could use a lower ISO and get away with a shutter speed of something like 1/30"

So in summation: 80's as low as point and shoots will go, and it depends on the situation to determine whether or not you should have used a higher ISO, forced a quicker shutter speed, flash, or all of the above or some mix.
>> Anonymous
>>356126
Well, most of that is what I was saying, I'm just wayyyy too fucking lazy to type that much. But my idea would still work. OP was outside, so ISO 80 would still be a very manageable shutter speed.

>PROTIP: ISO is another way of saying film speed, so the slower it is, the more precise the picture, pretty much.

OK, that was actually just a stupid thing for me to say, lol, but it made sense to me at the time. My point still stands though. With a point-and-shoot digital camera, the lower the ISO, the less grain, and the higher the ISO, the grainier the picture. Lol, fuckit, I'm tired.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
On topic of wasps, i took this bad boy yesterday.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Crazy red spider, pity i couldn't get a better shot but it didn't like me getting too close.
>> surozaki
>>356126

FINALLY I KNOW WHAT ISO MEANS!
>> Anonymous
bump for: I love hr bugs.