Are photon light particles, the same as a digital camera flash??

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Reason:

 

I have this digital camera " sony" high quality good mega pixels that does not give great " clarity photos" when the photos are taken in doors, " regardless of the settings" IE, outside mode, indoor mode etc..

 

 

However:

 

When photos are taken outside or at the beach for example, the photos are crystal clear!

Again: " regardless of the settings"

 

 

I wonder if it is the flash that is low quality, but then again:

 

Isn't anything that creates ie " light flashes, light bulbs not including lasers, all " forms or light photons"?

 

 

 

[Strange]

All light is photons, in other words all light sources (including lasers) are sources of photons.

[Sensei]

Photon has energy

E=h*f

 

Frequency to wavelength equation is

f=c/wavelength

 

so

E=h*c/wavelength

 

also

E=p*c

 

In laser which has well known wavelength (like green laser 525nm), the all photons have pretty much the same wavelength/frequency +- small tolerance (like +-10 nm). And they are emitted in the same direction, photons are going parallel (in reality it's not perfect parallel but for small distances it can be ignored).

 

In contrary light bulbs are emitting photons with large range of frequencies, wavelengths from 350 nm to 700 nm and more in IR,

in the all directions.

If one range of photons is dominating over other then light bulb is emitting reddish, greenish, bluish etc. light.

If quantity is pretty much the same regardless of frequency/wavelength, then light is white or gray (if quantity is low).

 

Camera flash is emitting large quantity of photons at all visible frequencies in short period of time.

Maybe poor photos is result of desynchronization between flash and photo camera?

From mine experience I can tell flash should be turned on regardless of natural light, even in day light, if camera is detecting it has enough light to make good picture it's adjusting flash intensity, or automatically not using it (even if user requested it). That's at least in mine camera.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sensei

[Strange]

I wonder if it is the flash that is low quality

 

Note that a flash produces relatively light. It might look bright but that is because your eyes have got used to the low light level indoors.

 

Also, because our eyes adjust to a wide range of light levels, we don't realise how great the difference is between daylight and artificial light, in terms of light levels. I can't remember the figures now, but a sunny day is many thousands of times brighter than even bright electric lights.

 

(p.s. it was very unclear what you are asking ...)

[StringJunky]

Try taking pictures, at decreasing distances, of the same thing indoors and see if the quality improves with each shorter distance. If it does then you need a more powerful flash. From a fixed light source, like a flash or electric light, the rate of photons reflecting off a subject into the camera reduces with distance, so the pictures appear noisier and less saturated colours ie less clear...the sensor's performance is dependent on the rate of photons striking it and the spectrum of the light source.

Edited November 25, 2013 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

Pictures taken with flash probably have a longer exposure than ones taken outside, because the amount of light inside is less. Thus, your camera may move unless itis on a tripod or other solid surface. Such movement can be seen more in low light pictures than when there is more light (outside daytime). This kind of movement will blur pictures.

Edited November 25, 2013 by EdEarl

[Iwonderaboutthings]

wow! thanks for all the replies, I never thought that light bulbs produced light photons much less lasers cause they radiate in a straight line, I thought they were synthetic per say, and the knowing of the eye's mechanism to adjust light brightness helps much, I think I will try all suggestions...

 

I am thinking of low quality flash as being "cheap" maybe a better " brand " might help, but this is a sony, hymm...

 

Thanks...

Edited November 25, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[StringJunky]

What Sony model do you have?

[Iwonderaboutthings]

What Sony model do you have?

its a Sony DSC-S75

 

Here are some examples " rather issues" I am having. This is my painting of the Mona Lisa.

 

 

OUTSIDE IN THE SUN.

 

 

 

 

 

INSIDE BUT THE BACK IS FACING THE WINDOW WHERE THE LIGHT BEAMS COME INTO THE HOUSE.

THE FRONT AREA IS FACING ME, BUT THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM BEHIND THE ART WORK.

 

 

 

 

SINCE WE ARE HERE:

 

 

 

In this one, why is Mona Lisa's Shadow on the back of this card board??

 

What I do when I paint is lay the wet art piece in a box, and let it dry in the sun outside..

I assume the light photons from the sun outside left the shadow on the card board from behind " the canvas" while it was drying?????

Edited November 25, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Strange]

In this one, why is Mona Lisa's Shadow on the back of this card board??

 

I assume the light photons from the sun outside left the shadow on the card board from behind " the canvas" while it was drying?????

 

I would guess it is just the paint soaking through the card. However, it could be the effect of the light causing the cardboard to be slightly bleached.

 

Here is your opportunity to do some science!

 

Create three pictures as similar as possible.

Dry them in different ways:

1. As normal (facing the sun)

2. Reversed (back to the sun)

3. In the dark (either indoors somewhere warm, or outside in the shade)

 

Compare the results. Draw conclusions. Report here for peer review.

[John Cuthber]

May I add a few other quick suggestions?

Cut some shapes out of cooking foil and pin them to some card + leave it out in the sun.

The foil will be more opaque than any paint, but it can't "soak in" so any effect would have to be due to the sun bleaching (or staining) the card.

 

The usual problem with flash illumination is not the colour or nature of the light, but the position of the source, right next to the camera lens.

It means that any specular reflection messes up the image (red-eye is an extreme example).

[StringJunky]

If you notice, in the rear illuminated picture, the hair and face and hands are more transparent to the light which conforms with the 'image' on the rear. There was sufficient photons illuminating the surface fibres on the rear of the picture to cause them to darken. in those areas much more than the rest of the picture.

 

Your camera is 13 years old, it's worth getting a new one because they have advanced significantly since then and the indoor performance will be quite a bit better. Bear in mind, even with a new camera, the outdoor pictures will still look better than the indoor ones but if you compare the indoor shots of the current camera with those taken indoors with a modern one you should see better images.

Edited November 25, 2013 by StringJunky

[Iwonderaboutthings]

 

I would guess it is just the paint soaking through the card. However, it could be the effect of the light causing the cardboard to be slightly bleached.

 

Here is your opportunity to do some science!

 

Create three pictures as similar as possible.

Dry them in different ways:

1. As normal (facing the sun)

2. Reversed (back to the sun)

3. In the dark (either indoors somewhere warm, or outside in the shade)

 

Compare the results. Draw conclusions. Report here for peer review.

Hymm sounds interesting I will give it a try as soon as I figure out a "slight mystery" going on with another painting..

It seems that the geometry is off by 9 cm. At first I thought it was Barrel Distortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

 

 

In where digital images get slightly distorted, but this is not the case here, or can it be?

 

I have measured over and over again till I am dizzy! And some how feel even dumb asking about this.

But in a way I am excited cause I may have mistakenly created an " optical illusion on canvas??

 

When I look at this painting outside of the images the right lamp is still off by 9 cm, its not supposed to be like this.

I cropped the left lamp to compare the sizes.

 

 

However the very center is exactly one foot across.

 

 

 

 

Measuring within the boundaries from the photo above the length is 1 in 4 cm

 

 

However on the left the discrepancy should be 1 inch 9 cm, but in this photo I see it to be 1 in 6cm or 7 cm averaging, THIS IS NOT CORRECT, its off by 9 cm exactly outside of this photo.

 

 

 

On the OUTER REGIONS of the canvas, the length on both sides is a perfect 1in 7 cm

 

 

I have highlighted in green where the main problem of a 9 cm " right lamp area" difference is apparent..

The image on the bottom is the front view of the painting as perfect as I can get it with no distortion, and no flash taken outside. Perhaps my measurements are off, my eyes are tired, may be barrel distortion, or I created and optical illusion on canvas?

 

 

I am going to feel more than stupid if I did not notice something from that 9 cm difference outside of these photos, but I swear I measured over and over and over again...

 

Thanks for the previous suggestion..

May I add a few other quick suggestions?

Cut some shapes out of cooking foil and pin them to some card + leave it out in the sun.

The foil will be more opaque than any paint, but it can't "soak in" so any effect would have to be due to the sun bleaching (or staining) the card.

 

The usual problem with flash illumination is not the colour or nature of the light, but the position of the source, right next to the camera lens.

It means that any specular reflection messes up the image (red-eye is an extreme example).

I normally find this to be the case when I have placed a light source " parallel" with the camera.

The foil test technique sounds interesting, gonna do this tomorrow, Hymn, cant wait to see the results.

 

 

About red eye.

 

I have heard this to be a phenomena.

Could this be an issue cause the human eye also has photoreceptures as with the photorecepture of the digital camera?

 

Kinda makes logical sense I think.

If you notice, in the rear illuminated picture, the hair and face and hands are more transparent to the light which conforms with the 'image' on the rear. There was sufficient photons illuminating the surface fibres on the rear of the picture to cause them to darken. in those areas much more than the rest of the picture.

 

Your camera is 13 years old, it's worth getting a new one because they have advanced significantly since then and the indoor performance will be quite a bit better. Bear in mind, even with a new camera, the outdoor pictures will still look better than the indoor ones but if you compare the indoor shots of the current camera with those taken indoors with a modern one you should see better images.

I hope so, I know my sister has one that uses this matrix thing and calculates skin tones, detects exposures even, it even has this ISO, image movement sensitivity mode, I think thats what they call it. Do you think that since " oil " tends to blur on canvas that this may be the issue with photos?

 

 

I hope not if I need another camera, I will need at least 12 mega pixels..

 

Or better yet!

 

Is this a "digital" camera issue?

 

Are cameras that are non digital better??

 

I know that digital photoreceptures can be tricky to work with at times.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Iwonderaboutthings