Re: Getting better photos -how?

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Arild P. wrote:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/great.blue.herons.the.kiss.JZ3F8149.f-700.html

Again, a fantastic, almost unreal picture!
Has it been manipulated in Photoshop, or did you shoot it that way?

It's the light. In real estate, it's location, location,
location. In photography, its the lighting, lighting, lighting.
The same pose from the same location done at noon would be
an awful picture. If I moved a few feet to the right, the
background was bright blue sky, and if I moved to the left,
the bush covered the birds. Only that one spot at that
one time worked. I actually got many photos of this kiss
(it was a long one), and the light peaked with the above image.
A few seconds before and the light was harsher, and a few seconds
later and the light faded.

"Kiss"?
Very interesting information! So the more you take photos the more you
"see" and "know" what time is right to get a good shot?
I seem to get the feeling that photography (or rather *creative*
photography) is based a lot on intuition once you master the actual
technical aspects (knowing how to operate the camera settings etc.).


The key in such photos is to have the subjects eyes be the main
focal point. This requires the widest apertures, but how wide
depends on how far back the background is. The above image was
at f/5.6 but the background are trees several times further away than
the birds.

I've noticed that I've gotten a lot of unsharp results. Unsharp in the
sense that a section of the flower is in focus, but a the edge of a
petal might be unfocused.
I'm using a 17-70mm lens. Are things very different if you have, say a
200mm lens and zoom in on a subject from a distance?
I guess that's what I meant when I asked about using the same aperture
from a distance or up close.


I generally use Av (aperture priority). I switch to manual
mode after I've determined the lighting and want to hold exposure
constant. For example, a meter on a white bird, set the exposure
and as the bird flies between blue sky, a tree in full sun, or
a shadow in the background, the exposure on the bird is constant
so manual can work best.

But this assumes more consistent lighting across everything you want to
shoot, doesn't it? If there are big contrasts you can't do that without
risking over/under-exposure, can you?

There's one situation where I've seen the above apply to me. I've been
interested in taking panorama shots, and have read that you really need
to find an average shutter value across all the shots, so that's what I
did, using a tripod and taking many shots next to another with the same
lighting/aperture. It turned out great!


This is the tricky part which I don't understand.
I've uploaded some examples. First, here's a sunset which is more or
less correctly exposed as far as I know (1/1000s, f/7.1):
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/exposure/IMG_1407.jpg
But if I want to see more of the building (i.e. not just as a
silhouette) and shoot with 1/250 f/7.1:
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/exposure/IMG_1408.jpg
the sky becomes overexposed.

Good example. I assume you looked at the image on your
camera and determined you needed to change the exposure to
get the image you desired.

I played around with many different settings that evening and looked at
the results in the LCD display right away so I could learn something. I
learnt that the meter interpreted the light wrongly, so I would have to
adjust the exposure a little to the "-" (left) side. In other words,
less time to make it darker.


I probably would have done a third
exposure at a shorter exposure time to see what the colors
were closer to the sun.

You mean take another shot even darker?


Sunsets are very difficult if you want to show the dark
parts in the scene too. The dynamic range is huge.
You can use a photo editor to select the dark parts and
brighten them. Photoshop CS has a shadow tool that
will brighten shadows. You can also buy a
split neutral density filter to darken the sky without
darkening the lower part of the image when you take
the picture.

Yeah, a filter like that might come in handy. A polarizing filter is
also something that I definitely need to get (I've used that in the
past and gotten great results).
Lots of stuff to buy....

A third example is a tunnel which I've shot from the outside. Here the
sky and the entrance looks properly exposed while the tunnel itself is
very dark: http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/exposure/IMG_1457.jpg (1/500s,
f/5.6)
But if I change it to 1/15s, f/5.6 the tunnel is visible, but the sky
and everything else is over-exposed:
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/exposure/IMG_1456.jpg

What I want to know is if there's a way I can get a proper expose for
the dark and light sections at the same time, or is this physically
impossible?

Again, this is a difficult photo situation. Again,
try the above digital tools. Another thing you can do is
merge the two different exposures if you have Photoshop
into what is called a high dynamic range image.

You mean take two shots at the exact same location (using a tripod),
but with different shutter settings, then use Photoshop to put the
different shots as layers on top of each other, mixing the best parts
of each shot together?
Wouldn't that be extremely difficult? I mean, even the slightest
movement of the camera on the tripod would make the alignment of the
shots imperfect and end up with an unsharp result.


Photoshop will automatically merge the two images
scaling them according to the exposure information.

You mean there's an automatic function that even adjusts the minor
alignment problems? I use Photoshop elements 2.0 which I don't think
has anything that advanced.


This is advanced stuff. While learning, I'd suggest simpler
stuff.

I agree. I also see that there's no end to being creative within this
hobby :-)



Moving on to contrasts, such as a black/white cat which I find hard to
shoot (to all the animal lovers out there; not literally ;-)
I believe this is one of those situations I shouldn't rely on the meter
as you talk about, but how?

The bright background confuses the meter. Try to not
have a bright background. A general guide is to have the
subject brighter than the background as the eye is drawn
to the brightest parts of the image. (Rules and guides:
you can break them for artistic tastes.)

Having gotten a darker background, should I lock the light meter at the
brightest (white) part of the cat? It's easier to correct an image
which is slightly under-exposed than over-exposed as far as I remember.


Here are some shots I've taken recently which I'm reasonably happy
with:
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/img_impr/
what do you think? What's good and what can I improve on?

I would ask myself, for each photo, what is the focal point (not
technical focus, but subject).
For example:
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/img_impr/IMG_1437.jpg
If you moved to the right, the background would have been
shadow, so the subject in focus would be brighter than
the background. I would crop the vertical thing
at the right edge so it was gone. Then perhaps a vertical
rather than a horizontal format.

Good point! I have to start thinking creatively from the start then. So
when I find something I want to shoot I'll ask myself what I want to
convey to the viewer.
I've gotten hold of the "Understandig exposure" book at the local
library. I can't remember who recommended it to me here, or in some
other forum, but this is *THE* book I should have bought to begin with
and not wasted my money on other "digital photography" type books that
explain everything from memory cards to cleaning and so on.
Apart from the additional user-manual replacement (the Magic lantern
series) for my EOS-350D (as the user-manual is pretty lousy),
"Understanding exposure" might really be the only book I need on
photography to learn the basics!
After having started to read the book and asking related questions here
I believe I've learnt quite a lot of the basic stuff. So to anyone else
starting out I would definitely recommend this book!


Most of the shots would be better with a little cropping to
take out distracting elements and to not have the main
subject centered.

Good point!


Try doing that in the viewfinder when
you take the picture. Buy some books on photo composition,
looking at books in a bookstore and choose a photographer
whose style you like. Good luck. It is not something
that most people learn overnight, but it is fun
doing it (at least I think it is).

It sure is. I can honestly say that I'm hooked! In one month I've taken
over 1100 shots!
It's fun learning as you go along and seeing that your results get
better and you're indeed getting closer to those "I wish I had a camera
and lens that could take pictures like that" type of shots :-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting better photos -how?
    ... technical aspects (knowing how to operate the camera settings etc.). ... For example, a meter on a white bird, set the exposure ... and make adjustments so only losing a few shots. ... then use Photoshop to put the ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: 20 Years and Still Going
    ... digital cameras, they shoot away indiscriminantly. ... shots, repetitive shots, throwaway shots, who cares. ... to care about the cost of film anymore. ... You can sort of gauge exposure, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: just shot a bunch of raw snow
    ... trust the exposure meter you'll get washed out shots every time. ... I never knew that cameras were absolulte morons until ... The procedure is simple, before you start shooting, take a few test shots. ... Take a photo, then check the histogram. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Technology in cameras
    ... That is why many folks like a camera which allows manual ... manually (aperture preferred exposure). ... I do fiddle with the exposure on probably half my shots, that was almost my only trick on the P&S. ... At least for the wide to normal focal length lens. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Upgrading my equiptment, Canon Camera Quality
    ... While it is ideal to shoot it right the first time, making adjustments to RAW files has a negligible impact on image quality. ... Some shoots I don't bother adjusting, sometimes I'll go through every shot & tweak contrast, etc in the RAW conversion for the purpose of improving the exposure and that just simply makes a better image. ... Neutral density filters can be useful, and a polarizer and that's about it for digital. ...
    (alt.photography)