|
Saggitarius
2 posts
12 months
|
tenohfive said: I'm in a fairly similar position myself. I've got good enough kit that I can take some sharp photo's (granted, within a limited focal range) so I've only got myself to blame for bad photo's. Reading up on here, internet guides and a landscape photography book have given me a grasp of exposure and depth of field - fairly easy things to get to grips with. PP is a nightmare I'm struggling with but again, a basic grasp isn't too difficult to achieve. What I've found to be most difficult is composition. It doesn't come naturally to me and there aren't any real rules for what works and what doesn't. Personally I'm just trying to look for good shots constantly (especially when I don't have a camera) and looking at plenty of good shots so that I can 'borrow' the idea later. As time goes on I find myself seeing more opportunities and I've actually taken a couple of shots I'm quite proud of now. Each time I take the camera out I find the shots slightly better but I still find myself having to do the groundwork - the only shot's I'm proud of were taken at 5.30am and having got cold wet and muddy to find that right spot. Oh, and I'm sure the Tokina 11-16mm wide angle I'm shopping for won't do my photography any harm  Actually when I started photography many years ago, I didn't bothered about aperture and time, just focused on right values. I were young and had no time to deciding which value is most important at settings. I forgot to mention, I had a hard start with a full manual film camera, where I needed to use external, handheld light meter, then set time and aperture, thereafter set the focus and shoot, so for a newbie impossible to use as a point and shoot Now I have a DSLR where much easier to focusing on theme, but before shoot need to decide what part be important speed or depth of field, also shooting in Tv or Av mode, or at least in P mode, when I need to change very quickly. I mean you looking your theme through the finder and have no time to switch between modes, just turn the wheel which shifting the balance between aperture and time according to actual ISO setting. (I use a Canon EOS-20D). If I can advice you, just walk around and shoot, try to make more picture from different angle about same theme, then you can evaluate at your monitor what's "wrong" with the picture and learn about that. And don't forget, don't stick to 1/3 rule every time. Sometimes you have to breach this rule. The real photography, as art, not about proper technical settings only. It's much more.
|
|
|
ChipsAndCheese
1,250 posts
33 months
|
Simpo Two said: I first wrote this guide over 10 years ago for a girlfriend and whilst it has evolved to encompass digital it was never really finished. In hindsight perhaps I should have completed it and sold it on Amazon! Thanks for sending the guide John. Only had a quick look so far, but looks very good. Will have a good read of it and hopefully take some decent pictures to post up!
|
|
|
NinjaPower
2,324 posts
49 months
|
tenohfive said: Oh, and I'm sure the Tokina 11-16mm wide angle I'm shopping for won't do my photography any harm You won't be disappointed in the slightest. I wanted an ultrawide about 6 months ago and everyone raved about the Tokina, but I hadn't even heard of Tokina! Long story short, I bought one a few months ago new from WEX and I absolutely love it. I use it for loads of stuff, especially my nightclub work! It's fast, mega sharp, great colours, quick focusing, and is really good at portraits in enclosed spaces surprisingly! Absolutely built like a tank as well. A cracking lens for the money, or at any price for that matter. Tokina 11-16 shots from this weekend:    
|
|
|
tenohfive
3,667 posts
51 months
|
In the interests of fairness I should also mention that I'm putting in cheeky bids on Canon 10-22mm's again. I'm in no rush, so if I'm able to pick up either for £350-360 I'll be well chuffed.
As for modes etc, I've started backwards: I had a basic bridge and learned what aperture, shutter speed and ISO meant then. When I got a 400D I went straight into manual and that's where it's stayed. I already had a grasp of depth of field before I even touched aperture priority. Might sound a bit odd but I wanted to grasp the complicated bit before I switched into 'lazy' mode. It usually only takes me a couple of shots to get the right exposure, and now I've got a good idea of when I'll need a tripod etc if using aperture priority (relevant for sunrises and sunsets.)
|
|
|
markmullen
12,405 posts
103 months
|
tenohfive said: and now I've got a good idea of when I'll need a tripod etc if using aperture priority (relevant for sunrises and sunsets.) I use a tripod for 99% of my landscapes even if there is enough light to handhold, it slows you down, lets you get composition absolutely cock on (with wide angles on full frame that is equally about what to exclude as to what to include) lets you perfectly level your horizon etc.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Gemm
1,626 posts
84 months
|
Tampon said: Gemm, what would you recommend ? I tried working with the thirds rule (except for the flowers) and "thought" there was a leading line in the one with the girl, the first three were boring house shots with a eye to try and use the bracketing function and work on exposure at night, with a eye to seeing what HDR was about later.
The fire one took about 45 minutes to get, 10 minutes trying to figure out the settings, then 10 minutes of running around shooting everything, everywhere, then I wanted to catch some of the sparks when I threw some wood on, cue me throwing large rocks at the base then trying to snap the ensueing sparks for 20 minutes, getting the fire on one side of the picture and the sparks to the other with the wind changing meant repeated shots and tonnes of duffs.
The flower ones are sickly sweet but I want to see how macro worked and trying to blur the pic (bokeh I think I have seen it called ? )
Hope that doesn't come across defensive, it isn't meant to, I would really appreciate some advise as I will try again in the same area to see if I can get something different.
Thanks again for taking the time
Ben Hi Ben, I think the biggest issue I had is the lack of focal point(s) (except for the last image). Fire shots can be interesting but I think you'd probably need something else in the shot. I guess these 2 children were watching the fire? Then the shot could work if we can see the fire in the shot (obviously without scorching them!)? I just didn't find the fire itself that interesting. The lighting is poor in the flower shots and I find them a bit messy. Focusing can be more accurate too. Again they are lacking the focal point and my eyes just wonder off all over the place. The last shot is good (and the best one of the lot by far) but it just didn't make me go 'wow'. Maybe it's the colour, or lighting or composition, I don't know..... But appreciating photographs is extremely subjective, as in any Art forms, so I'm sure there are plenty people who find them more interesting than me!
|
|
|
Tampon
Original Poster
2,968 posts
94 months
|
Gemm said: Hi Ben,
I think the biggest issue I had is the lack of focal point(s) (except for the last image). Fire shots can be interesting but I think you'd probably need something else in the shot. I guess these 2 children were watching the fire? Then the shot could work if we can see the fire in the shot (obviously without scorching them!)? I just didn't find the fire itself that interesting.
The lighting is poor in the flower shots and I find them a bit messy. Focusing can be more accurate too. Again they are lacking the focal point and my eyes just wonder off all over the place.
The last shot is good (and the best one of the lot by far) but it just didn't make me go 'wow'. Maybe it's the colour, or lighting or composition, I don't know..... But appreciating photographs is extremely subjective, as in any Art forms, so I'm sure there are plenty people who find them more interesting than me! That is brilliant feedback, as it stands criticism without a pointer as to how it could done just leaves me more confused. I was thinking after you said what you this this afternoon that fire spark thing would look great with the two kids looking up with the fire lighting there faces in the background. As for the flowers and bad lighting, too dark/bright/flat, what? Also which part would you have focused on? Really appricate the time taken to offer me help guys. Ok will try some more this weekend and try to take on board some of the things.
|
|
|
tim-b
1,005 posts
79 months
|
Tampon said: Gemm said: ..... Fire shots can be interesting but I think you'd probably need something else in the shot. I guess these 2 children were watching the fire? Then the shot could work if we can see the fire in the shot (obviously without scorching them!)? I just didn't find the fire itself that interesting. ..... ..... I was thinking after you said what you this this afternoon that fire spark thing would look great with the two kids looking up with the fire lighting there faces in the background. ..... Agree with Gem on all points. A couple of specific examples for more interesting kids/fire shots; you could silhouette them against the fire backdrop - depending on the angle and exposure, you might get a nice 'edge-lit' effect (with the fire lighting just the outline of the face). With a close-up you might even get a nice fiery reflection in the eye. Not necessarily a great photo below (just grabbed from flickr), but hopefully explains what I'm talking about;  Around the fire, Cassie by Mikey Down Under, on Flickr Changing the angle between yourself and the subjects should allow you to get more/less of the faces lit. Another idea is to shoot the kids through the fire - fully lighting their faces and having nice bright bokeh flames in the foreground. Again, not exactly what I was hoping to find  , but shows the effect I'm talking about.  Pyro by ElDave, on Flickr Hope that helps, and just keep at it - everything, from camera settings to composition to 'creative' thinking, comes with practise and experience (and also all the hints and tips from the fountain of knowledge that this forum is of course!)
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,274 posts
134 months
|
Blimey, sales are up today!
|
|
|
onesickpuppy
2,105 posts
26 months
|
Simpo Two said: Blimey, sales are up today! I've also sent a PM request for a copy! Much appreciated in advance. 
|
|
|
Shaw Tarse
19,186 posts
72 months
|
onesickpuppy said: Simpo Two said: Blimey, sales are up today! I've also sent a PM request for a copy! Much appreciated in advance. Check your mail, bloody quick response from John Will have a read & be getting a proper camera soon! Thanks.
|
|
|
Otispunkmeyer
2,810 posts
24 months
|
markmullen said: tenohfive said: and now I've got a good idea of when I'll need a tripod etc if using aperture priority (relevant for sunrises and sunsets.) I use a tripod for 99% of my landscapes even if there is enough light to handhold, it slows you down, lets you get composition absolutely cock on (with wide angles on full frame that is equally about what to exclude as to what to include) lets you perfectly level your horizon etc. Same, though I dont really do landscapes (I find it a bit boring usually). But when I do.... tripod. Also for the OP a very simple rule of thumb. For a good shutter speed that will give you blur ( that is blur introduced by you holding the camera...read shaky hands) free photos. You want to use a shutter speed around 1/effective focal length. Say you have a Nikon with a crop sensor, then you have a crop factor of 1.5 (i think). Say you have a 50mm lens, then your effective focal length is 1.5x50 (75) and so as a good place to start on shutter speed you might select 1/75th of a second. You might find you need a faster shutter speed or you might find that you have rock steady hands and can come up to 1/60th or something allowing you to get the shot you want... say something with motion, where you want to show that motion on the frame.
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,274 posts
134 months
|
Could barely open the door on my Inbox this evening... will deal with latest orders tomorrow... running low on PDFs!
|
|
|
GetCarter
16,744 posts
148 months
|
Simpo Two said: running low on PDFs! I have a few I don't need... just let me know.
|
|
|
giblet
2,287 posts
46 months
|
Simpo Two said: Could barely open the door on my Inbox this evening... will deal with latest orders tomorrow... running low on PDFs! Another newbie who would do with a copy of the pdf, pm sent. Cheers!
|
|
|
Tampon
Original Poster
2,968 posts
94 months
|
tim-b said: Said stuff and took the time to show me what could/ should have been done Thankyou buddy, really. Simpo Two, thankyou, finished it and am "thinking" about the stuff constantly at the moment, might have to have a few sessions and concentrate on one section at a time then go for a complete picture. I like to condense things down to notes. So far the thing I have learnt is this. Foreground. Object ( could be in either section or by itself). Background. I am thinking that when taking a shot, make sure I have one of each in each shot not just one in each photo. Ben
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,274 posts
134 months
|
Tampon said: Simpo Two, thankyou, finished it and am "thinking" about the stuff constantly at the moment, might have to have a few sessions and concentrate on one section at a time then go for a complete picture.
I like to condense things down to notes. So far the thing I have learnt is this.
Foreground.
Object ( could be in either section or by itself).
Background.
I am thinking that when taking a shot, make sure I have one of each in each shot not just one in each photo. Thinking is good. Seeing a flower waving in the beeze for real is one thing, seeing that image frozen and stuck to a wall is another - it loses a lot in translation. And that IMHO is why one needs to explore the best way to capture that flower. You also have to decide if it has enough merit - it may be that no matter what you try, it will never make a good photo for some reason. A few years ago I was wandering round a garden centre with a D70 and saw some flowers in a tray. Apart from the fact I had a macro lens with me this is a straight shot:  I don't profess to be a 'flower photographer' but what makes it different from your flower photo?
|
|
|
Robbie B
5,344 posts
52 months
|
I started photography because of this forum and I spent the first year religiously watching the Random Photos thread (I still do actually ) and as many people are now glad is over, I used to message the tog who took a picture I wasn't sure how to achieve and ask how they managed it. Most people are helpful but occasionally someone has come up with something unique and rightfully wants to protect it. The standard of photography on PH at times is absolutely world class and that isn't really an exaggeration; we have NZ landscape photographer of the year and various car photographers who are in print regularly just to name a few. If you really want to improve, post photos and ask for help like you have, but also look at as many photos as possible and try to figure out how they did it. I found that 30% of the time it was equipment I didn't have (or 99% of the time if you go in the macro photography thread - don't go in there unless your wallets deep!) and 70% was technique. By the way, I really like the top of the bonfire shot, you got some lovely tones!
|
|
|
Tampon
Original Poster
2,968 posts
94 months
|
Simpo Two said: Thinking is good. Seeing a flower waving in the beeze for real is one thing, seeing that image frozen and stuck to a wall is another - it loses a lot in translation. And that IMHO is why one needs to explore the best way to capture that flower. You also have to decide if it has enough merit - it may be that no matter what you try, it will never make a good photo for some reason. A few years ago I was wandering round a garden centre with a D70 and saw some flowers in a tray. Apart from the fact I had a macro lens with me this is a straight shot: I don't profess to be a 'flower photographer' but what makes it different from your flower photo? Background, You have a nothing to take away from the flower. The focus seems to be about the same ( ie some of the flower is in focus and some out ), the background as well as being free form distraction is also black which makes the flower colour stand out more, even the out of focus sections.
|
|
|
Tampon
Original Poster
2,968 posts
94 months
|
Ok so went out today with the dog and tried again. Seemed to concentrate on the "blur" and background ( ie not ruining a pic with it ) today. Took a few of these but this one seemed the best composition. Does this work ?  Ones I like the most but don't know which works best. Dog blur or stick blur ? also any tips, wrongs, faults etc   Ok so it is a pic of the sign for the bogs, but when I saw the background I thought of Gemm and tried to take a pic. Again did I do it right ? does it work, which is better and why?   As a random one, there was a cow mooing away and I thought this might work when I saw it on the camera but it just looks s  te now.  Same as before lads (and girls if they are about), tell me what I did wrong and if you can what I should do instead. Ben
|
|
