Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Wolfy's learning thread 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
I thought I'd made a thread but can't find it. Anyway, I decided to be a bit more proactive in taking pics and trying to develop the skills especially with composition.

We went to Stratford-upon-Avon this weekend. Loved it and took a few pics. Am after criticism, advice and tips to get better pics. The pics were mainly taken with the camera in P mode and I tried to set white balance each time I went into the shade/indoors etc.


Image
So this is a pic of a workhouse type thing with a cart in front. It was very washed out and I don't know why.

Fiddling with things in Lightroom produced:

Image
How would you have taken the pic? I was aiming for the cart to be visible as well as the house but really all I seemed to have done was get a boring pic of railings.


Image
This was supposed to be a pic of some fairy on top of a arch that was lined with
funhouse style mirrors. Again, I've no idea why it was so dark.

Image
Again, messing around in LR produced a brighter pic but I was concerned as to why I had to do this.

Image
This was a close up of the arches lined with mirrors. This one had marbles set into it. I really thought I'd taken this from pic to photo but it still looks like a pic.

Image
This was a guy who had dressed up as Shakespeare. I mainly took it just to show there was a guy dressed as Shakespeare. Again, how could I improve it? Looking at it, I might've centred him on the left 1/3 line.

Image
This was a closer pic but again seems very boring.

Image
This was some flowers I'd spotted. I was trying to mess around with the macro function on the camera.

Image
I mvoed a bit closer. Should I have tried to keep the entire flower in frame?

Image
This was when I noticed a bee coming out of the flower. How could I have taken the shot so it looks like it was emerging rather than just sat there?

_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:48 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
We can't tell you what is right and what is wrong about framing, that should be something you have your own ideas about when you are actually taking the picture.
Better framing and composition will come with practice.
There are general rules/guide lines to follow, such as the 'rule of thirds', but these 'rules' are by no means to be adhered to rigidly.
Frame how you want, and if you don't like what you get as a result, think about what you don't like or what you would like the picture to be, then try again.
It doesn't have to be in the exact same place with the exact same scene or subject.
Similar situations can provide different desired results.

You might want to think about changing your viewpoint.
Try getting closer to the ground, or just changing your angle of view on your desired subject.
Just crouching down can sometimes provide that little bit of extra something that would be lacking if you just stood in front of your subject and took the picture.

Regarding the cropping of the flower … I've previously been criticised by friends for cutting off the edges of things like clocks or plates.
It's what ever you as the photographer see fit. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the flower photo that you took that didn't include the whole of the flower.
What I might have done in that situation is instead of isolating just the one flower, tried to include the one next to it in the same frame … just move your view point over to the left of the group of flowers.

The guy dressed as Shakespeare would have been a bit of a challenge, as the background is very busy with all the vertical lines of the house behind him. Maybe tried a shallower depth of field to isolate the subject (Shakespeare) from the background.

The bridge with the fairy on it looks like it was metered for the sky in the original pic. If your camera can do spot metering balance the camera on the subject, though with such a strong backlight (the sky) it wouldn't have been an easy shot to get without blowing the highlights in the sky.

It really is just about learning what your camera can do, how it can do it, and then using that to the best of your abilities to achieve the results you want.
You are doing the right thing just by going out and shooting stuff.
Just keep doing what you are doing and asking as many questions as you think you need to.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:03 am
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
I agree with everything the Rocking Egg Dude says there.

First principles: Learn what all the settings and functions on your camera do and are for. When you are happy you know how it all works, go out and make pictures.

I found my understanding of exposure was limited. I bought a book. It was written for film photography, with a nod to digital in an update, but the basic principles remain. The book is "Understanding Exposure" by a chap called Bryan Peterson. I recommend it.

Another point I'd make is while the P mode is a good way to begin to use the camera - certainly a step up from full on automatic green square - I would be happier if you started investigating aperture and shutter priority. I wouldn't recommend completely manual at this stage.

By the way, would you mind telling which camera it is you have, so we have a better idea of the capabilities it has? Ta.

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:56 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
I think the camera is a Canon G11/G12 if my memory serves me.

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:59 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Depth of Field is worth knowing too. The top photo might have worked better with a narrower DoF. Wide DoF is one of the factors making it feel 'flat'. Smaller f-stops produce shallower depth of field but mean slower shutter speed.

IMO, there are two factors to good photography, the creative and the technical. The creative is being able to look at the world and see what will make a good photograph. The technical is then being able to balance exposure, aperture and shutter speed to get exactly the right image.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:32 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
It's always a little tough to give advice on framing and composition when you weren't there - what I've got in my mind for a different shot might not have been possible because of the physical limits of the location. The same goes for light conditions.
So that in mind...

cloaked_wolf wrote:
So this is a pic of a workhouse type thing with a cart in front. It was very washed out and I don't know why.

Fiddling with things in Lightroom produced:

Image
How would you have taken the pic? I was aiming for the cart to be visible as well as the house but really all I seemed to have done was get a boring pic of railings.


I'm going to guess that the exposure's just a little too long on the first shot, and the light looks really flat. So I'm guessing a grey overcast day?
To my eye, I think you've done a good job of pulling it back in LR, perhaps a touch too much blue for my tastes though.

The railings do ruin the shot somewhat - but again, without getting some steps out and moving to a much higher vantage point I can't see an easy way to lose them.
But there we are - that's part of training your eye, seeing what's really there and not what you'd wish for.

cloaked_wolf wrote:
This was supposed to be a pic of some fairy on top of a arch that was lined with
funhouse style mirrors. Again, I've no idea why it was so dark.


I'll also go with the explanation that the camera's exposing for the sky. If you can switch it to a spot metering, you might get better results. Ultimately though, you can check the shot on the camera, and as you get to know the camera you can then start thinking 'Hang on, that's hugely underexposed. I'm going to have to slow the shutter down/open the aperture up.'

cloaked_wolf wrote:
This was a guy who had dressed up as Shakespeare. I mainly took it just to show there was a guy dressed as Shakespeare. Again, how could I improve it? Looking at it, I might've centred him on the left 1/3 line.


My first glance made me think he was wearing antenna. So, again, I'll second Mark's suggestion of a shallower depth of field to lose some of the detail in the back ground and focus our attention just on him.

cloaked_wolf wrote:
I mvoed a bit closer. Should I have tried to keep the entire flower in frame?


I think, generally, that if you're photographing something like that it's easier on the eye to keep the whole thing in the frame. Unless, as you were doing, you're trying to get in close on some detail - like the stamen. Then I'd suggest coming in, losing some of the edges so that the flower becomes it's own back ground.
It might be pleasing though, once you've got better control of the depth of field to then go on and throw the (presumably) green background, or part of the flower, out of focus and hold our eye on the stamen.

cloaked_wolf wrote:
This was when I noticed a bee coming out of the flower. How could I have taken the shot so it looks like it was emerging rather than just sat there?


I think you needed to be a little lower, to separate the bee from the flower. From that position there's not enough depth to it. By moving lower and perhaps closer, you might have got some light between the bee and the flower, and just helped to lift it away from the petals.

One of the big things to learn is to just slow down. Stop and think for a moment about what the shot you want is, and then how your camera needs to be working to get it.
Hope that's some help!

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:35 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
Smaller f-stops produce shallower depth of field but mean slower shutter speed.
Wait, what?
It may just be my slow brain right now … I've only been up 50 minutes, but shallower depth of field using a lens wide open mean faster shutter speeds than if you used a narrow depth of field in the same situation, no?

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:38 am
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
timark_uk wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
Smaller f-stops produce shallower depth of field but mean slower shutter speed.
Wait, what?
It may just be my slow brain right now … I've only been up 50 minutes, but shallower depth of field using a lens wide open mean faster shutter speeds than if you used a narrow depth of field in the same situation, no?

Mark


Yup - small f-stop means wide open aperture, letting more light in, which means faster shutter speeds, and yes, a shallow depth of field.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:48 am
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
Okay, I have the Canon G9, which will be sufficiently similar to the later models I think.

Having just played with the camera on P (program) mode, it's very limited. My suggestion to move to shutter priority (Tv) or aperture priority (Av) will immediately improve control over the camera.

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:54 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
timark_uk wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
Smaller f-stops produce shallower depth of field but mean slower shutter speed.
Wait, what?
It may just be my slow brain right now … I've only been up 50 minutes, but shallower depth of field using a lens wide open mean faster shutter speeds than if you used a narrow depth of field in the same situation, no?
Mark

Whoops, quite so. 'Scuse me.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:25 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
timark_uk wrote:
We can't tell you what is right and what is wrong about framing, that should be something you have your own ideas about when you are actually taking the picture.
Better framing and composition will come with practice.

Agree. Some people have the photographer's eye. My dad did. My uncle did. My sister does. I don't. :(

timark_uk wrote:
Regarding the cropping of the flower … I've previously been criticised by friends for cutting off the edges of things like clocks or plates.
It's what ever you as the photographer see fit. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the flower photo that you took that didn't include the whole of the flower.

What I was aiming for was the flower to be the "background" and the bee/stamen to be the main focus. Should I have got in closer?

timark_uk wrote:
What I might have done in that situation is instead of isolating just the one flower, tried to include the one next to it in the same frame … just move your view point over to the left of the group of flowers.

I think I did a similar pic which I'll post up later.

timark_uk wrote:
The guy dressed as Shakespeare would have been a bit of a challenge, as the background is very busy with all the vertical lines of the house behind him. Maybe tried a shallower depth of field to isolate the subject (Shakespeare) from the background.

Yeah it was a difficult shot to isolate him and I can't a really right DoF with my camera.

timark_uk wrote:
The bridge with the fairy on it looks like it was metered for the sky in the original pic. If your camera can do spot metering balance the camera on the subject, though with such a strong backlight (the sky) it wouldn't have been an easy shot to get without blowing the highlights in the sky.

I was aiming for the fairy so wasn't worried about the sky. The camera can do spot metering so will try this next time I have issues.

HeatherKay wrote:
I found my understanding of exposure was limited. I bought a book. It was written for film photography, with a nod to digital in an update, but the basic principles remain. The book is "Understanding Exposure" by a chap called Bryan Peterson. I recommend it.

I saw that book, was about to click "buy" on Amazon when I read some of the negative reviews, which put me off. As long as cameras work the way they do, the basic principles will always apply. Will have another look into it.

HeatherKay wrote:
Another point I'd make is while the P mode is a good way to begin to use the camera - certainly a step up from full on automatic green square - I would be happier if you started investigating aperture and shutter priority. I wouldn't recommend completely manual at this stage.

I have toyed around with manual and it's really weird to be able to get the same exposed shot with differing ISO/aperture/shutter settings. But given I'm still learning, I've left it alone for now.

belchingmatt wrote:
I think the camera is a Canon G11/G12 if my memory serves me.

+1. G12 camera.

jonbwfc wrote:
IMO, there are two factors to good photography, the creative and the technical. The creative is being able to look at the world and see what will make a good photograph. The technical is then being able to balance exposure, aperture and shutter speed to get exactly the right image.

I'm trying to develop both, perhaps simultaneously. Is this a fault? I did see some scenes which I thought were nice but wasn't able to replicate it on camera.

ProfessorF wrote:
I'm going to guess that the exposure's just a little too long on the first shot, and the light looks really flat. So I'm guessing a grey overcast day?
To my eye, I think you've done a good job of pulling it back in LR, perhaps a touch too much blue for my tastes though.

The railings do ruin the shot somewhat - but again, without getting some steps out and moving to a much higher vantage point I can't see an easy way to lose them.
But there we are - that's part of training your eye, seeing what's really there and not what you'd wish for.

The day was a bit weird - sometimes overcast and sometimes stupidly sunny. I think at that point, there was a huge cloud in the sky. I wonder what would have happened had I waited a minute or two.

ProfessorF wrote:
My first glance made me think he was wearing antenna. So, again, I'll second Mark's suggestion of a shallower depth of field to lose some of the detail in the back ground and focus our attention just on him.

Yeah I didn't spot that until looking at the images on the computer.

ProfessorF wrote:
I think, generally, that if you're photographing something like that it's easier on the eye to keep the whole thing in the frame. Unless, as you were doing, you're trying to get in close on some detail - like the stamen. Then I'd suggest coming in, losing some of the edges so that the flower becomes it's own back ground.
It might be pleasing though, once you've got better control of the depth of field to then go on and throw the (presumably) green background, or part of the flower, out of focus and hold our eye on the stamen.

Will have a think about this. I was thinking of the flower petals as the pages of a book and the stamen/bee as the main action.

ProfessorF wrote:
I think you needed to be a little lower, to separate the bee from the flower. From that position there's not enough depth to it. By moving lower and perhaps closer, you might have got some light between the bee and the flower, and just helped to lift it away from the petals.

I will try to remember that for next time. I was really concerned the bee would fly off so I tried to keep a distance, otherwise I'd have gotten in closer.

HeatherKay wrote:
Okay, I have the Canon G9, which will be sufficiently similar to the later models I think.

Having just played with the camera on P (program) mode, it's very limited. My suggestion to move to shutter priority (Tv) or aperture priority (Av) will immediately improve control over the camera.

What do you think of the G9, in particular its limitations for a novice? I have the G12 so a few extra fancy features.

Thanks for the advice guys. Will try again.

The previous week, we went to a manor house so I'll post pics of that too.

_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:10 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
Another pic from the same day.

Image

I tried to keep the top flower on the top 1/3rd line.

Image
This is the same flower but I had to hold it steady with my hand because of the wind (hence why it's at a funny angle).

_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:20 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 12143
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
cloaked_wolf wrote:
This is the same flower but I had to hold it steady with my hand because of the wind (hence why it's at a funny angle).
You say "funny angle" but I think the composition of the second pic is nicer than the first.
Nice depth of field on both of them though.

What I might suggest you do is adding a little sharpening to them in Lr before exporting.
It doesn't need to be a lot, but some sharpening applied will help the overall look of the image, especially if you are shooting RAW.

Mark

_________________
okenobi wrote:
All I know so far is that Mark, Jimmy Olsen and Peter Parker use Nikon and everybody else seems to use Canon.
ShockWaffle wrote:
Well you obviously. You're a one man vortex of despair.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:25 pm
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
The G9 is brilliant. It lets me have enough control to work at getting the image right, while still letting me just point and shoot if I want. The macro lets you virtually focus down to the front lens element. If there's a limitation it's relying on the screen to do everything - it's not always possible to see clearly in bright light.

I tend to always shoot in aperture priority. This is where I set the aperture I want and the camera works out the shutter speed. I also fix the ISO to 100 or 200 if I'm out and about. I don't trust the auto for that, as anything over 400 and it gets very noisy very quickly. Bear in mind this is a 4+ year old camera and more recent models handle high ISO better.

I agree that manual is a bit scary at first. You should see the exposure meter doodad on the right side of the screen. You juggle the aperture and shutter speed dials to get the pointer around the middle for a good exposure. In other modes, you can do what is called exposure compensation where you can move the pointer up or down the scale to over or under expose without changing other settings.

It's all a case of learning what all the functions do. Once you understand what they do and what they're for, you will worry less about the workings of the box and be able to concentrate on the creative side.

You say you don't have "the eye" for it. Well, I think everyone has something; you just need to find yours. Spend some time looking at photos on the web, or in magazines and so on. Work out what it is you like about an image and see if you can replicate it yourself. See if you can find themes that speak to you. It's a good way to learn. Equally, if you don't have a particular thing that interests you - a hobby, or place you love, or people who inspire you, etc - then you're always going to be just taking snaps of wherever you are. If you have a thing for flowers, then work at developing an eye for flower photos. Work on the macro, for example. Pick out the details that you may not see with the human eye and get in really close. Try to be different to everyone else's flower photos.

It's difficult to explain what I mean. I have several projects that I've been working on for years. If I visit somewhere new, I'll always keep an eye open for subjects that might fit one of those projects. I think Mark started one ages ago, where he is taking photos of numbers. His catch was he wanted to take them in numerical order, which is kind of restrictive in my opinion! I'm currently doing a 366 project, where I take a photo of my breakfast each day for the year. Trying to come up with creative ways to photograph two slices of toast and mug of tea is quite entertaining.

The thing is you should look on photography as a creative outlet. Don't be too hard on yourself. Let the muse come to you, and have lots of fun learning and playing. Showing your results and getting us to comment/critique them is also a good thing, but don't get hung up on the mechanics. It's okay to make mistakes. In fact, I'd argue some of my better photos have been born via a mistake.

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:58 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:17 am
Posts: 5550
Location: Nottingham
Reply with quote
I bought some books for 1p on Google Play the other day you might find useful. The Digital Photography Book, pt. 4 by Scott Kelby and Picture Perfect Practice by Roberto Valenzuela.

_________________
Twitter
Blog
flickr


Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:25 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.