the_log_ride
Member
subscribed
Learning Photography
- Thread starter phisheep
- Start date
- Status
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
If we're talking about high end digital cameras they could be considered even. You could start talking about film latitude but then you start delving into the realm of splitting hairs. There are differences in tonality though, where one is clinical and the other gentler but that's even more ephemeral than talking about latitude and pixel peeping.
On the flip Film SLRs, the better ones, really lend themselves to the manual focusing experience. So in this regard they could still be considered better than the modern digital SLR.
With all that said there's one thing old film SLRs allow that is nearly impossible with digital at this point in time due to price of entry. Larger format photography. You could buy a Pentax 645 (Medium Format) for around $400 and get a look that is different than a good portion of what's being created currently.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Nice thread - thank you
Picked up a D7000 and must learn to shoot like a pro !
Picked up a D7000 and must learn to shoot like a pro !
Pixel Pete
Member
while this is true, DSLRs use very little battery when not shooting, using a live view or the lcd.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
If that's important to you, get a focusing screen for your DSLR, they exist. Despite using manual focus a lot, I'm content to stick it out without one.
If you use Canon Speedlites, you're in luck. If not, there is still a tonne of useful information within the pages of Speedliter's Handbook: Learning to Craft Light with Canon Speedlites.
Indeed. The extreme cold will reduce the capacity of any rechargeable battery, and this can be worked around by using spare batteries and hand warmers.
The earlier comment that film SLRs are superior in the cold as they don't need batteries is affected by the fact that while this may be true, any light meter in the camera will not function without a battery. Also, the noise from a digital camera's sensor is reduced the colder it is, so enjoy that if you're shooting in the cold with a DSLR.
You would need a FF body and pentaprism to get close to film SLR's MF experience. Fortunately 5D1 is cheap enough for the amateurs.
Pixel Pete
Member
Interesting! Do you have any more info or know where I can find examples?
My Googling ability isn't the best today, but:
- Here is an experiment that took place to demonstrate this fact using a cooled 350D.
- Here is a much more crude experiment, involving sticking a camera in the freezer, demonstrating the same thing.
- Here are some pre-modified products designed to cool the camera sensor, with some examples of the results shown.
If you look at the 5DII's video which doesn't have an auto-shutoff feature (for heat reasons), you will see that the amount of noise in the image will increase up until the point the video cuts out due to the unrelated time restraint applied.
It depends on what kind of noise you're talking about. There are some heat patterns that appear when the sensor is stressed, but that's different from ISO noise.
Pixel Pete
Member
yeah ive seen the modifications available to allow the camera to perform well over a long period of time, like a overnight long exposure timelapse. These can make the sensor hot.
Heat patterns usually manifest in a grid-like pattern, and some cameras have particular hot spots. You can tell them apart from random ISO noise after a few examples.
Not sure what mods you're talking about, but I can tell you one trick to avoid overheating the sensor is to stack exposures.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
Figured I'd put this in here rather than in the gear thread, feel free to yell if it's more appropriate elsewhere. I've generally been spending my time with my D90 since getting it taking available light photos of friends at events and other such things - even though I had a SB-600 speedlight it went fairly unused.
Now, though, I'm interested in learning how to better control added light rather than just working with what's there, which is taking me into some new things. First is trying some light tent work, since a friend of mine wants me to do some product photos for her for her side company. Second is doing some portraiture making some fairly moody light, again for the friend of mine.
So for the first task I built a light tent and did some experimenting with it tonight. The tent is about 24 inches wide by 16 inches deep by 30 inches high - sized to accomodate the largest product my friend needs photographed. Unfortunately, I haven't bought any new lamps, so the only ones I had available were a bit too low power for the size of the tent and diffusion created by the muslin over the frame - I used these lower wattage lamps on the sides and held my speedlight over the top of the tent to get the top lighting. The best results below:
Tifa is flatter and more "marketable" perhaps on ebay, but Baret came out more interesting imo (sorry he's so dirty, I didn't even realize it until I was processing the photos). Both required some processing in Lightroom to "white out" the background properly. Even with fairly long exposures (though still under a second) the low-power lamps I had available just couldn't drench the backdrop in light due to the size of the tent. So, my first order of business is to get some shop lamps that support much brighter bulbs, and I'll probably end up just doing all of the light tent work with static lighting rather than using the speedlight. I think it's just easier for this application.
Now I get to enter the world of TTL or manual speelights which are a bit confusing (not so much the concept of either, but rather just learning the controls between the camera and the off-camera flash). Here's to hoping. I'll probably try some experimental self-portraiture to test off-camera flash work before doing the photos for my friend.
Now, though, I'm interested in learning how to better control added light rather than just working with what's there, which is taking me into some new things. First is trying some light tent work, since a friend of mine wants me to do some product photos for her for her side company. Second is doing some portraiture making some fairly moody light, again for the friend of mine.
So for the first task I built a light tent and did some experimenting with it tonight. The tent is about 24 inches wide by 16 inches deep by 30 inches high - sized to accomodate the largest product my friend needs photographed. Unfortunately, I haven't bought any new lamps, so the only ones I had available were a bit too low power for the size of the tent and diffusion created by the muslin over the frame - I used these lower wattage lamps on the sides and held my speedlight over the top of the tent to get the top lighting. The best results below:
Tifa is flatter and more "marketable" perhaps on ebay, but Baret came out more interesting imo (sorry he's so dirty, I didn't even realize it until I was processing the photos). Both required some processing in Lightroom to "white out" the background properly. Even with fairly long exposures (though still under a second) the low-power lamps I had available just couldn't drench the backdrop in light due to the size of the tent. So, my first order of business is to get some shop lamps that support much brighter bulbs, and I'll probably end up just doing all of the light tent work with static lighting rather than using the speedlight. I think it's just easier for this application.
Now I get to enter the world of TTL or manual speelights which are a bit confusing (not so much the concept of either, but rather just learning the controls between the camera and the off-camera flash). Here's to hoping. I'll probably try some experimental self-portraiture to test off-camera flash work before doing the photos for my friend.
In my experience, the power of the bulb doesn't matter so much if you have a tripod. Since nothing is moving, you can put on really long shutter speeds like even 10 seconds if you have to (although you do increase noise due to long shutters).
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Oh my goodness. I had forgotten how gigantic the Camera Equipment thread is!
There's some good beginner tips in there, mostly down to rentahamster (for example at #264, #722-#761 and around the #1600 mark) which I pulling out to slot in here, but I'm only about a tenth the way thought so far. Hang in there folks!
There's some good beginner tips in there, mostly down to rentahamster (for example at #264, #722-#761 and around the #1600 mark) which I pulling out to slot in here, but I'm only about a tenth the way thought so far. Hang in there folks!
Buckethead
Banned
I'm sure people will be smug fucks about it but there's nothing wrong with editing things in Photoshop.
That being said, realize you're fucking yourself over with sloppy technique, poor lighting, etc.
Also if you Photoshop women please don't over-blur their skin.
Chuckie
Member
Depends on what you mean by editing. Working on your RAW file has just replaced the process of developing in the dark room.
Totally photoshopping something (adding clouds or trees) could be considered cheating although I'd rather consider it an art in itself.
I think it depends a bit on the intention behind it I guess.
A bit of both, but more of the latter, and the former is not what you think.
As Danoss touched on, you have to ask the question: What is a photograph "supposed" to be?
When faced with this question, most people respond to me, "it's supposed to reflect reality." But what is reality? Further elaborated, people often continue "what you see".
However, a super fast snapshot of a racing car around a track with frozen wheels and a blurred background is not reality nor what you see. A portrait photo with a narrow depth of field and out of focus background and foreground is not reality or what you see. Heck, a poor photo with underexposed subject against a whited out bright background is not reality or what you see.
In the first instance, the lens itself bends and focuses light according to specifications the photographer chooses, and thus is neither reality, nor what you see.
Secondly, the settings changes the image.
And lastly, the camera sensor simply records light. A processor actually processes it into an image. The camera uses settings to process according to both the user and preset by the manufacturer in software. For example, a portrait-style image by a digicam may decrease sharpening and increase saturation. A landscape might have more sharpening. Most point and shoot images are processed such that colours and contrast are high.
So I ask, what is the difference rather than using what the camera has processed, using what YOU have processed? In that way, is it not MORE creative?
Why would it be considered 'cheating' to do it yourself, but not when you let the camera do it at its default?
So to answer the question, it's not really cheating. There is no such thing as 'reality' when it comes to making photos. It becomes slightly cheating when you use it to cover for lack of skill or mistakes made, such as covering for poor exposure. But not really - the goal is always to make a cool photo, and the entire process are simply tools at your disposal.
And for the second part - yes, it is kind of necessary, particularly if you shoot RAW. Most default RAW processing engines, I find are much more lacking in saturation, contrast and sharpness compared to the jpeg straight out of camera.
Its very similar to what has been done in the dark room for years, as far as I'm concerned I try not too edit too much and will usually just try and fix any mistakes I may have made (Even after years shooting I still have a habit of shooting slightly off angle). In the past on film you would have added a grad filter before shooting, now you do it in lightroom afterwards. If the photo wasn't as evenly exposed you could burn in sections for more time when you exposed on paper, now you do the same in lightroom. Just a new way of doing old techniques.
It all comes down to personal taste I think, there is definitely an art to editing photos and there are some incredibly talented people out there who can transform an image in way I cant fathom yet
maxheadwound
Member
Great thread,
I have been using adorama tv as they have a free podcast for photography and video. Nice to sit back with your device and look at how they get the different shot.
http://www.adorama.com/alc/category/AdoramaTV
Also to get out and take shots. There was a good 15min photo shoot tip.
"go into the garden/park and sit and observe to 10 min then only start taking the photos in the last 5 min."
I find myself rushing out to get shooting but dont take time to look around and observe
I have been using adorama tv as they have a free podcast for photography and video. Nice to sit back with your device and look at how they get the different shot.
http://www.adorama.com/alc/category/AdoramaTV
Also to get out and take shots. There was a good 15min photo shoot tip.
"go into the garden/park and sit and observe to 10 min then only start taking the photos in the last 5 min."
I find myself rushing out to get shooting but dont take time to look around and observe
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Whether you think of it as cheating or not, it's a very good way of learning and experimenting with things.
Like white balance for example. If you're shooting RAW, you can fiddle around with white balance afterwards - and if you do it systematically you can learn quite a lot about how white balance works in the comfort of your room rather than in the freezing cold outside. Especially if you've got a shot with a mixture of lighting in it.
Also, on some (most? dunno) cameras you can play around with the picture settings too, and it certainly beats the hell out of reading the camera manual in understanding what they do.
Same sort of thing goes for shooting JPEG. Most (all?) cameras these days have different picture settings that will let fiddle with sharpness/saturation etc etc in-camera. But it is a whole lot easier and quicker to learn what these things do by fiddling with pictures at a computer. If you find, for example, that you prefer your pics a bit more saturated and a bit more sharpened than your camera normally gives you then you'll know what to tweak in your camera settings. Again, a couple of hours playing with it beats the hell out of reading the manual.
Composition too. If like me you start out being rubbish at composing pictures in-camera there's a lot you can learn by cropping/rotating and generally mucking around with things on the computer. And gradually you'll get better at doing it on the street or wherever.
This is right on the money.
The photographer chooses what to show the viewer, so even before any processing has begun the image has already taken on how the photographer sees the world or how they want to present it.
Look at this image, it was not altered or processed in any way. It was shot on film, developed and sold, nothing more. It is a very powerful image, it won a Pulitzer for the late Kevin Carter and rightly so. What does this image convey to you?
What it looks like to me is that this child is dead or dying. That a vulture will pick his bones dry in the not too distant future. It makes me realise how horrible famine is and how helpless I am to help this child and others like him or her. I can feel fortunate that I am not in this child position, nor am I likely to ever be. I can also feel guilty because what right do I have to have what I do, when children like this one suffer so much and so on.
What it cannot convey is that the juxtaposition of these two creatures was absolutely intentional, that a telephoto lens would have been used, making the vulture seem closer than it really was. It doesn't tell you that vultures being around the area was commonplace because of a food aid station nearby. It doesn't tell you the fate of the child (though Carter received much criticism for not helping). You wouldn't know that Carter chased the bird away after getting a number of shots, that the white thing on the wrist is to signify the child was to receive treatment for malnutrition or that the boy went on to live for another 14 years.
Even in this unaltered image, Kevin Carter chose which part of the world to show you. He and many other photographers are manipulating your emotions, and to some that could be considered 'cheating'.
Photography is an art form, a way to tell stories, a way to remember things and a way to make people feel something. However they want to do this is up to them. Sure it may not be to everyone's tastes, but what form of art is? The only way I would consider a photograph or image 'cheating', is if someone is claiming something about that isn't true.
When I was doing my Euro travelogue, some people were disappointed upon learning that I touched the photos in post at all, because that meant the photos were "no longer real."
Had a good laugh at that. All eyes, digital or biological, are subjective interpreters of reality. And a camera spitting out a jpg is doing a full set of post work on the spot, it's just automated based on the camera's internal parameters, so you may as well be doing it yourself if you want to be more in control of the end result.
If we accept that photography is art, which should be obvious enough, then the photographer manipulating the result at any point in the process is part of that art.
Had a good laugh at that. All eyes, digital or biological, are subjective interpreters of reality. And a camera spitting out a jpg is doing a full set of post work on the spot, it's just automated based on the camera's internal parameters, so you may as well be doing it yourself if you want to be more in control of the end result.
If we accept that photography is art, which should be obvious enough, then the photographer manipulating the result at any point in the process is part of that art.
CrudeDiatribe
Member
Have to edit ('develop') RAW.
Cheating? fuck that noise. Look up Ansel Adams.
Edit: for photojournalism, where 'truth' is actually a virtue, I wouldn't do any drastic editing, just cropping and small overall adjustments.
No. I don't see anything different between painting and photoshop. When I am cropping the photo I see sonething bothering the eyes (for example a ugly spot on the grass or some guy's arm in the background) I would use clone tool to get rib of them.
However I don't use photoshop to alter the face. I just don't do it. I think that cross the line.
Anything involving change level, saturation, curve etc is obviously not cheating. Because your photo's color space and latitude are narrower than your eyes, and the cheap moniter's color space and dynamic range are narrower still, so what you see on screen or on print are never going reproduce what you see from your eyes anyway. How can you possibly call that cheating?
Without any kind of knowledge of cameras in general, it has to be the greatest thing ive purchased in years.
If you shoot in RAW, you have to edit. If you shoot in JPEG, the camera has already edited it for you. It really depends on the goal of the photographer.
If it's an image for news or journal and the photographer post added things to convey a totally different message than than the actual fact, I think that is cheating. (However, even without editing, photographer can choose a setting or angle that will convey certain message he/she wants you to believe in, which can be totally different from the fact.) Otherwise, for the most part, I think it's an art form and people are free to use their imaginations. I am not sure about how I feel about advertisements. It kind of fall in between for me depends on how much the reality has been altered.
Luscious LeftFoot
Member
Subscribed... great thread!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
What I'm going to try for is to reshape the OP to cover the real basics - in terms of camera selection, exposure triangle, composition, shooting skills, post-processing and what to do if stuff goes wrong - accompanied by links to whatever books/online stuff seems appropriate without being too scary. Like I said it will take a while.
What would be really nice is if a few of us could come up with stories of how we started, what it felt like, what we had to learn - more than anything else that';s the sort of thing that is handy for newcomers.
Post 'em and I'll get them linked up in the OP somewhere.
What would be really nice is if a few of us could come up with stories of how we started, what it felt like, what we had to learn - more than anything else that';s the sort of thing that is handy for newcomers.
Post 'em and I'll get them linked up in the OP somewhere.
How about separating the OP into these sections:
"How to take good picture with a P&S"
"How to learn with a interchangeable lens camera"
"How to take good pictures in specific scenarios"
"You can take good picture with any camera" (discuss the possibility of taking good pictures with a phone and discuss the fundamental of light and exposure)
Ugh, you manage to say what I said in less than half the size and twice as eloquently.
I need to work on my communication skills.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Hehe, thanks for the rep, Phi
I'm glad those posts I made so many moons ago are still helpful.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
These threads were pretty useful too, but the info is rather outdated now.
Beginner DSLR AGE: What to start with?
RAW photo format
Beginner DSLR AGE: What to start with?
RAW photo format
yea. Its amazing photography has been around for so long but even now there's a lot of negative connotations. I do art festivals and get asked all the time "do you photoshop your photos," and for the most part its meant in a negative connotation.
Also some festivals make you designate your photos, even if you shoot film and edit on a computer, as "digital manipulation."
BigPickZel
Member
Here is my deal. I have mastered my camera. I understand all of its settings. I know what my lenses are capable of and when to use them. What I am sorely lacking is a compositional eye. I actually have the book from earlier in the thread about composition (The Photographer's Eye), and I find it helpful. But I would like more. I've started to see things in everyday life in the framing of a photograph and can even recognize a good shot occasionally. But when all is said and done, I am rarely happy with the results. I look at shots taken by my peers and they exhibit an effortless grasp of composition. I guess what I need is advice on finding a place for constructive criticism, composition advice, art snobbery, that sort of thing.
Subbed thread, thanks OP.
Subbed thread, thanks OP.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
I'm exactly in the same situation and found help in a local photo enthusiast group. We go out and shoot, the older dudes give their recommendations and later we discuss the results (lighting, exposure and composition) while drinking red wine and whiskey. I prefer this concept to an online community because you get to know your critics personally which make their verdicts more human compared to the opinion of some anon avatars.
BigPickZel
Member
Red wine and whiskey, you say?
Art Teitlebaum
Member
One of the best things you can do to improve your own composition and the like is to look at and critique photos (even if just inwardly). View images and decide what you like, and what you don't. This helps you to build in your mind, and it affects your shooting.
Do it with your own photos. Cull photos that don't meet your standards, but more importantly understand why you don't. When culling, decide what it is you like about the image that makes it a keeper. Be very conscious with this course of action and with practice it follows in your work.
The difference between a bad photographer, as they say, isn't $10,000 worth of gear, or 10,000 books read. It's 10,000 shots taken, or 10,000 hours spent.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Might be worth giving the GAF photography challenge threads a try. I find it helps to have a specific task in mind, seems to focus your attention more on what you are trying to achieve, plus you get to see a bunch of other photos on the same theme that you've tried, gives you something to compare with and think about.
I know about the technical stuff with the doohickeys and the shutter length area, and viewspeeds or whatever, but I suck at composition
What looks cool in real life and what looks good as a photo--they don't always overlap
And I thought I was good at simple composition when I was painting
What looks cool in real life and what looks good as a photo--they don't always overlap
And I thought I was good at simple composition when I was painting
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Don't be so sure about that. One way that people run into limits is because they think they have already learned everything they need to know about their camera.
Spend more time pre-visualizing what you want in your photo. Spend more time looking in the viewfinder before the shot. Use the built-in guidelines if you must. Or take a bunch of shots, then spend more time after the fact looking at them, seeing which ones you like best, analyzing why a particular composition looks the best, then recognize that same pattern of thinking for quick recall later in similar circumstances. Develop a critique style that's more evolved than just, "that looks better for some reason". Really try to think why it does and how you can replicate that same feeling later.
Keep an eye out for objects in the field that naturally frame your subject better. Get a feeling for how a change of perspective (higher, lower, a few steps back, a few steps forward, etc) can alter the photo and why you would want to do any of those things. Know when and why you'd want to put a particular part of your scene in a particular quadrant of the rule of thirds grid. If you can't think that fast, just say to yourself, "fuck it", and put something somewhere on the grid and take the damn shot. It's not like your life is on the line. Just relax.
Keep your eye out for lines and how you want them to converge or interact with your subject or with the edge of the frame. Vanishing points can be used effectively if they are a prominent aspect of the composition. Look for areas of contrast and see how they can be arranged in a pleasing manner in your frame.
Capture photos from different angles. If you take pictures at an angle parallel to the ground at your eye-level, you're capturing scenes that everyone sees all the damn time. Get high. Crouch down. Lie on your belly. Angle up and angle down. Taking a picture of the same old shit isn't so boring if you do it in a way that makes people think about it differently.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I know about the technical stuff with the doohickeys and the shutter length area, and viewspeeds or whatever, but I suck at composition
What looks cool in real life and what looks good as a photo--they don't always overlap
And I thought I was good at simple composition when I was painting
Ah! Had the same thing here. Thing is with painting, you are actually making the composition. When photographing, you have to find it instead.
What worked for me to start with was to shoot wide then crop a lot. Use it as a process of discovery. The original of this one, for example, had a lot of boring river at the front and a lot of even more boring misty sky at the top, coming in close on the figure lost any sense of context - but the letterbox format just felt right (and it's what I would have done if I was painting it - but I didn't realise that until you mentioned it!).
IMG_0653-man-and-dog by phisheep, on Flickr
Well simple is fine as long as there's some imagination in the composition. Painting has its own unique character built in with the brushstrokes, colors and other little oddities that are created by the process, whereas photography has your eye + depth of field options - whatever information the camera subtracts (like dynamic range). It can make what you think is a pleasing visual situation flat, and your eye always sees everything in a much wider context. Google "portrait" and you'll see plenty of pictures that are at least competently composed and simple, but fail to grab you for more than a second. Lighting and subject expressions/poses are huge pitfalls.I know about the technical stuff with the doohickeys and the shutter length area, and viewspeeds or whatever, but I suck at composition
What looks cool in real life and what looks good as a photo--they don't always overlap
And I thought I was good at simple composition when I was painting
This photo below is also an exceptionally simple composition. Why do you think it works, or if you don't like it why do you think it doesn't?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll