General Photography Thread

[Fawkesfan1]

Lady Elven, that's some beautiful photography that you posted there . Especially love the picture of the wolf.

I want to learn how to take pictures better myself, did an ok job using a friends' camera recently... but only due to the fact that it had a view finder that let you look at the picture first.

If I'm using a disposable camera, I don't take as good photos . Usually my thumb or part of my nose ends up in the pictures at times .

So if anyone knows of a way that I can take pictures without having either of that kind of thing happening, let me know. I'd be glad to learn from it .

[Hysteria]

I know it sounds really lame but I think it's just practice. If you're using an SLR it does help to have some understanding of things like white balance, exposure etc. It also helps if someone can talk you through using the camera itself. A lot of it is common sense but modifying settings can get a bit tricky if you're not familiar with your way around a camera.

Thought I'd share some of my recent stuff. I got to shoot Soundwave Festival (Adelaide, Australia) again this year (two weeks ago now) which was amazing fun. I got to shoot some of my musical idols which was pretty amazing.

Slipknot:    

---

Marilyn Manson:    

---

Coal Chamber:    

---

Motionless In White:    

---

[Alastor]

I'm afraid that the move from disposable to SLR ( single-lens reflex) is a rather big one to take in one step. Especially as SLRs cost a few hundred bucks. There is an abundance of much cheaper but still quite usable digital cameras with a screen on the back side where you can see what came of the picture. So if there is a thumb or a nose, just take a new pic and hope for better luck. I believe that most of them are sold with the software to install into your pc enabling you to download pics directly from camera to pc.

But, of course, if you can afford it and are sure you want to learn to take advantage of it an SLR is always the best choice.

And, as Hysteria said, it's a matter of practice. With a (not disposable) digital camera failed pictures don't cost you anything - just delete them.

[Fawkesfan1]

Originally Posted by Alastor

I'm afraid that the move from disposable to SLR ( single-lens reflex) is a rather big one to take in one step. Especially as SLRs cost a few hundred bucks. There is an abundance of much cheaper but still quite usable digital cameras with a screen on the back side where you can see what came of the picture. So if there is a thumb or a nose, just take a new pic and hope for better luck. I believe that most of them are sold with the software to install into your pc enabling you to download pics directly from camera to pc.

But, of course, if you can afford it and are sure you want to learn to take advantage of it an SLR is always the best choice.

And, as Hysteria said, it's a matter of practice. With a (not disposable) digital camera failed pictures don't cost you anything - just delete them.

Probably is. I'm just looking into getting one that isn't that expensive and isn't a single use one. Those you can't delete .

I was looking into getting one that's no more expensive than maybe $200 at most, no higher than that. The one that my younger cousin let me try out is way too expensive ... I think it was a $800 one. A nice one, but one that's way out of my league in terms of cost and what not.

@ Hysteria: Nah that isn't lame . Practice is always good to do. Still got a lot to learn about that kind of thing. I mainly take pictures to help relax and just have fun. about the modifying settings... heck my cousin was better at that than I am. Learned quite a bit from him.

Really nice pictures, Hysteria. Especially the Marilyn Manson one. Love the use of black and white, it really works for the picture.

Hysteria or Alastor: Either of you, know of a good inexpensive camera (non disposable) to start out with?

[Alastor]

I'm not familiar enough with the variety of digital cameras to recommend anything. When I went digital a few years ago after not touching my old camera (a wonderful thing named Canon F1) for many years, I bought a Canon PowerShot A 560. Good enough for what I needed then. That model doesn't exist anymore I think, but here's a link to compact Canon cameras for sale in the US today: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...igital_cameras

The cheaper models are at the bottom of the page. There are lots of other reliable manufacturers and I don't think there are much differences between any of the big Japanese brands. Or Korean for that matter.

About a year ago I decided to want more and bought an SLR from the cheaper end and paid about 500 € for it. And I don't regret it.

[Fawkesfan1]

Originally Posted by Alastor

I'm not familiar enough with the variety of digital cameras to recommend anything. When I went digital a few years ago after not touching my old camera (a wonderful thing named Canon F1) for many years, I bought a Canon PowerShot A 560. Good enough for what I needed then. That model doesn't exist anymore I think, but here's a link to compact Canon cameras for sale in the US today: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...igital_cameras

The cheaper models are at the bottom of the page. There are lots of other reliable manufacturers and I don't think there are much differences between any of the big Japanese brands. Or Korean for that matter.

About a year ago I decided to want more and bought an SLR from the cheaper end and paid about 500 € for it. And I don't regret it.

Thanks Alastor.

*goes to look at the selection*

[Sinistra_Furze]

I recently bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ25 (known as the DMC-ZS15 in the USA). It's last year's model so was cheaper at less than £200. It allows some manual choices, close-up shots and panorama. It doesn't have GPS or a touch screen but I didn't want those anyway.

I would have as easily bought the Canon PowerShot SX240 HS, but trying it in the shop I realised the rotating wheel to change functions was too fiddly for me.

The pictures are not as good as my DSLR, but I knew that before I bought. I just wanted something small to take on short trips - to photograph flowers mainly.

[Goddess_Clio]

A little sampling of my very amateur photography. All shots were done with either a Canon PowerShot S90 (a point and shoot type camera) or a Canon Rebel XS with either an 18-55mm lens, a 70-300mm zoom lens or a 50mm fixed lens.

Kitties (Canon Rebel XS):    

---

Rudy's Birthday Portrait (June 14, 2012) Riley's Birthday Portrait (June 14, 2012) (This was taken with a Canon PowerShot S90) (2009)

Orana Wildlife Park, New Zealand (Canon Rebel XS):    

---

Bengal Tiger (Novmeber, 2011) African Lion (November, 2011) Please forgive the blurriness, I didn't exactly have time to compose a nice shot with this one. Reticulated Giraffe (Acutally, mostly its tongue) (November, 2011)

Italy, (Canon PowerShot S90):    

---

Piazza del Polpolo, Ascoli Piceno (2007) (It's amazing what you can achieve with good timing and great atmosphere!) Piazza di San Marco, Venice (2007) Basilica di San Marco, Venice (2007)

My goal in the future is to improve the quality of my DSLR work since I've very out of practice. I've been thinking that I need to take a photography class again to get the hang of working the settings once, and I need to relearn the fact that the camera doesn't "see" the same way my eyes see.

We'll see how things go in the future.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

My goal in the future is to improve the quality of my DSLR work since I've very out of practice. I've been thinking that I need to take a photography class again to get the hang of working the settings once, and I need to relearn the fact that the camera doesn't "see" the same way my eyes see.

We'll see how things go in the future.

I love the Tiger shot
You may find Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson a good book to learn from (it's my photography bible, I have the latest edition on my Kindle).
As for the camera not seeing how you see ? You can always try a 50mm prime lens. I use the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII alongside my Canon L lenses.
http://kevintaphousephotography.me/2...-day-part-one/

I'm currently taking part in an Exhibition at Oxford Uni's Botanic Garden entitled "The Botanical Eye" runs until the 20th of September 2012 http://www.botanic-garden.ox.ac.uk/e...eye-exhibition
My Entries -

Botanic Garden Greenhouse square crop by taperoo2k, on Flickr


Flowers in the Botanic Garden by taperoo2k, on Flickr

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I love the Tiger shot

Thanks!

You may find Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson a good book to learn from (it's my photography bible, I have the latest edition on my Kindle).

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look it up on amazon.

As for the camera not seeing how you see ? You can always try a 50mm prime lens. I use the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII alongside my Canon L lenses.

It's not a lens issue (I have a fixed 50), it's more of an exercise in relearning all the stuff I've forgotten about composition of the image and the functions of my camera and how coax it into giving me what I'm looking for. I could own every lens on the planet and still take mediocre photographs if I don't understand how to make good compositions or what changing the depth of field can do for me, if I want a fast shutter speed to sillhouette an object or a slow shutter speed to burn out the bright background but bring out of the color of my foreground subject...

Composition shouldn't be too hard to get my hands back around as I have a background in fine art, it's the camera functions and being about 10 years out of practice with a "manual" camera - one that does more than a point and shoot camera does.

[Lady Elven]

wow I haven't posted here since feb. I've taken a ton of pictures since then all of which you can see at my blog http://fromdreamingtoreality.wordpress.com/ *shameful plug I know *

I would love some of your feedback, wordpress it great and all but no one really gives feedback.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Lady Elven

wow I haven't posted here since feb. I've taken a ton of pictures since then all of which you can see at my blog http://fromdreamingtoreality.wordpress.com/ *shameful plug I know *

I would love some of your feedback, wordpress it great and all but no one really gives feedback.

Just checked 'em out (and commented on the August 5th photo - amazing!). I really like the composition of the graffiti photo with the dragon in it - the one with the dragon on the right side. Also like the top photo of the neon sign, nice effect.

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I could own every lens on the planet and still take mediocre photographs if I don't understand how to make good compositions or what changing the depth of field can do for me, ...

Basically it's about fiddling with the background. If you want to blur out the background, use a big aperture and if you want it sharp, use a small one. I believe that a learning method as good as reading books might be to take a series of shots with different apertures of a single flower. Preferably with something in the background likely to draw the attention away from the flower. That should give a good idea of how various degrees of background blurriness affects the result.

When I took photos of my mum's orchids I mostly used a Canon FD 85 mm 1:1.8 lens. Considering the crop factor to compare with modern digital cameras that's almost the same as the 50 mm lens Kevin mentioned. Which, btw is a very good lens for portraits too.

[Lady Elven]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Just checked 'em out (and commented on the August 5th photo - amazing!). I really like the composition of the graffiti photo with the dragon in it - the one with the dragon on the right side. Also like the top photo of the neon sign, nice effect.

thanks this one is one of my favourites too. the zoom on the neon sign was just a way to edit me out of the photo.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Alastor

Basically it's about fiddling with the background.

For me, personally, fiddling with the background isn't enough. Without having some intention behind fiddling with the background blurriness and understanding what kind of story you're wanting to tell (a story of isolation [a single flower against a blurred background] or a story of scope and vastness [any Ansel Adams landscape]) than what you're doing really is fiddling and hoping dumb luck will give you a good photo.

Really great pictures, to me, also encompass good or unique compositions, good lighting, interesting and/or compelling atmosphere, interesting and/or compelling subject matter and a fresh way of looking at that subject matter in some combination, the blurriness of the background is only one component of what goes into making a good photo to me.

Elephant Dust Bath; the lighting is fairly boring, the composition isn't anything to shout about but I love this photo for the unique moment that was caught on film.:    

---

Oregon Coast; a subject matter that is old hat to me but the lighting is compelling to me and the atmosphere enhances the photo.:    

---

Barn Owl; Lighting, again, isn't that spectacular (the owl's face looks a tad underexposed to me, or maybe that the bright background needed some burning in post processing) but the subject matter and the moment caught by the photographer are both compelling to me and I just like the slightly whimsical composition of the photo with the owl's head tilted:    

---

Vintage Ford Fire Truck; I like this photo partly because of its mundaneness of subject matter, it's not an elephant or a coast line or anything particularly special, it's just an old fire truck. The soft overhead lighting, I thought, highlighted the curves of the truck body and cropping down to just the nose and the grille of the truck made the beautiful scrollwork and the rustified paint stand out much more than any of the photos I took of the whole vehicle.:    

---

(This is the only photo of the four here that I took)

While blurry backgrounds can enhance some photos you have to know when to blur the background and when no to (Yes, blur the background of the owl portrait, no, don't blur the background of the coast line), what your intention for the photo will be (isolate the owl against its background verses capturing the rocky foreground and the atmospheric background of the coast) and whether using a shallower DOF is appropriate or not. I know how to make the backgrounds of my photos blurry but that doesn't mean I'm going to get great photos. There's so much more to photography than that to me and it's all the other stuff that I need to work on.

BTW, Kevin, I bought Understanding Exposure and, while I find that I already know most of the technical content, it's a good referesher and it's written very well and very understandably. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

For me, personally, fiddling with the background isn't enough.

Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to know what the depth of field can do for you and gave you an answer and suggested a way to make yourself familiar with how it affects the result. One of many good things with digital cameras is that the problem with wasting film is eliminated.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Lady Elven

the zoom on the neon sign was just a way to edit me out of the photo.

Either way it's a cool effect.

Originally Posted by Alastor

Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to know what the depth of field can do for you and gave you an answer and suggested a way to make yourself familiar with how it affects the result. One of many good things with digital cameras is that the problem with wasting film is eliminated.

(In my example I was using composition to stand in for understanding the artistic side of photography and using depth of field to stand in for understanding the technical side of photography. I understand what the technical stuff will do for me, I'm struggling with the artistic side right now.)


A couple new photos I took today on my lunchtime walk. Any critique or suggestions for improvement appreciated.

Steel Bridge, I knew it'd be a tough shot, a bright sky, a black bridge... Overall satasfied with how it came out since the sky isn't totally blown out like some of my other photos and the bridge isn't totally lost in silhouette. Of all the photos I took to try and get the best exposure, the best one was my first one. (This photo would have been much better had I had my camera with me yesterday when the clouds were smaller and prettier.):    

---

The Esplanade, wanted to capture the bright red color of the anchoring posts and the blue sky, coupled with the flyover freeway. The best composition of the couple photos I took but the best thing about it remains the colors for me; I love my polarizer!:    

---

[Lady Elven]

these are great Clio. I really like composition in the second one too. those towers make your eye move up that's great.

[Kevin]

The steel bridge photo is good clio, your eyes are led up by the steel beams towards the sky. The second picture is good, though it might have benefited from you getting a bit lower to the ground and pointing your camera up. The artistic side of Photography is sometimes hard to get a grasp of, but you done quite well with those two photographs.
Technical aspects of photography do help with the artistic side, the rule of thirds being an example of that.

Long exposure - Canon EOS 50D, 17-40mm f/4 USM L at ISO 100, f/22, exposure 25 seconds, lens at 22mm (A sturdy tripod is required) -

St Giles - Night Photography by taperoo2k, on Flickr

For this one - ISO 100, f/11, 10 seconds, 17mm -

St Giles - Night Photography by taperoo2k, on Flickr
More here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/8076308...th/7932553312/

It's important to use your camera's lowest ISO setting when shooting long exposures at night on a tripod. As it reduces noise, as funny as that may sound. Of course if you have a Canon EOS 5D MKIII or the Canon EOS 1DX you can shoot hand held at extremely high ISO's without noise being too much of an issue. Made possible in part by the DIGIC 5 processor, which will eventually filter down the Canon line up.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The steel bridge photo is good clio, your eyes are led up by the steel beams towards the sky. The second picture is good, though it might have benefited from you getting a bit lower to the ground and pointing your camera up.

Thanks for the comment. I might have tried that if this wasn't a common spot for dogs to stop and pee which I know it is...

Biked to work yesterday down this esplanade in the opposite direction as the red tower photo above and totally wished I had my camera with me; the dark red posts were a gorgeous pink in the soft pre-dawn light and there's a bridge and the buildings of downtown right behind them. Too bad I don't have enough will power to get up at 4am to truck it into town and get the shot, I've already lost too much sleep over the last week.

For this one - ISO 100, f/11, 10 seconds, 17mm -

St Giles - Night Photography by taperoo2k, on Flickr
More here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/8076308...th/7932553312/

I really like this one, I like the colors and the composition a lot.

It's important to use your camera's lowest ISO setting when shooting long exposures at night on a tripod. As it reduces noise, as funny as that may sound.

That doesn't sound funny at all, in fact I know it to be absolute fact! I have a Canon Rebel XS, the lowest of the low end DSLRs that Canon makes (why by a $5000 hobby camera?) and when I was playing around with night shooting in preperation for a vacation I was taking to the southern hemisphere I got very familiar with noise in my photos at high ISOs.