Re: Getting better photos -how?

Arild P. wrote:

Very interesting information! So the more you take photos the more you
"see" and "know" what time is right to get a good shot?

Hopefully.

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.).

Yes.

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.

Again, closeups are more difficult. Perhaps someone with
experience can give a more comprehensive answer than me.

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?

Correct. If the bird were flying from sun into shadow, I would
stay in Av mode and use my experience to change the exposure
compensation. At least with digital you can monitor the images
and make adjustments so only losing a few shots.

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!

Yes, that is an excellent example of the need for manual.


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?

Yes.

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....

Yes, but a polarizer will not help a sunset image looking into
the sun. Polarizers work when look 90 degrees from the sun.

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,

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?

Yes, sort of. But photoshop CS (I use CS2) blends the images
automatically. Doing it by hand would be very difficult.

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.

Yes, you need a very sturdy tripod.


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.

It is called merge to HDR or something like that. I'm not sure
if it does an alignment, but there are other tools that can do that.


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.

Yes, that you be better than overexposing the cat. But knowing the
cat is white, and metering on the white, you can then open up
1 to 2 stops to get the right exposure.


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.

Yes, and you'll find that doing it right in the field save more time
than trying to "fix it" in photoshop. While it is possible
to do lots in photoshop, it can be very very time consuming.
Personally, I'd rather be out photographing that fixing photos in
photoshop.

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!

Since you seem to like outdoors photography, check out all the books
by John Shaw. I personally like his style, but regardless, he
gives great advice on basic composition.

It sure is. I can honestly say that I'm hooked! In one month I've taken
over 1100 shots!

That's great for learning, but in the end a few quality images are
worth millions of snapshots.

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 :-)

Yes, and the great thing is that you can learn your whole life, as
there is really that much to learn. One thing: be patient. A year from
now you may look back on photos taken now as not very good. Five
years you may think the photos from the year before are lousy.
Same 20 years from now. That shows growth.

Roger
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting better photos -how?
    ... Has it been manipulated in Photoshop, or did you shoot it that way? ... For example, a meter on a white bird, set the exposure ... interested in taking panorama shots, and have read that you really need ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • 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: Exposure confusion...
    ... So that I could take better pictures of objects, I recently purchased both a light box and a six foot wide white backdrop. ... I am baffled that using the 85 watt lights and backdrop, the Canon S3 underexposes all shots and requires use of additional lighting to get proper exposure. ... If I have the camera bracket exposure, the longer exposure is light enough which shows there is enough light for the camera to get a good shot, but it just isn't calculating things correctly. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Reciprocity failure in digital camers?
    ... Glad to hear about the shots of Montreal. ... You do not have to worry about reciprocity in digital, ... accounted for in the camera. ... allowed me to fine-tune the exposure and be sure I got a decent shot. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Should a newbie start shooting RAW?
    ... exposure, WB or the colour space settings on the camera between shots? ...
    (rec.photo.digital)