Some pictures around Toronto

[m1ket4n]

Hi everyone,

I am pretty new to the forum, and am glad to have discovered it. Introductions aside, here are some of my newbie pictures I took with little attention to camera settings when I took them, but which still turned out pretty nicely (i think). I've done some basic edits with Aperture and CS3, and would like your C&C on how the pictures could be improved. Here they are:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2438693113_69f35fb348_o.jpg
Balmy Beach


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2426318221_cb1e7e04b7_o.jpg
St Lawrence Market

[photoguy6405]

#1. Needs to be straightened out, and your shadows are in the picture. Hard to do with the sun behind you, but still should be avoided.

#2. Feel like it was abruptly cut off at the bottom, but otherwise I like it.

[m1ket4n]

#1. Actually, I got the inspiration from another picture where the shadows of the couple could be seen kissing. Did not kiss my companion (or act like I did) though. Do the shadows help to communicate a certain sense of depth? And oh yeah, I did not really notice that the horizon is not level.

#2. Thanks! Though I thought it would be too busy with all the traffic in the picture.

[RAPhotography]

I didn't think the shadows added anything either. I almost think they're too long to be anything but akward. Also, there's nothing to really hold my interest in the photo. I think it would be stronger if you could zero in on something so that the viewer could understand the reason you took the photo (and maybe that was supposed to be the shadows). It definately looks like you're trying to shoot at the right time of the day though. nice, warm light.

I also thought the exact same thing about the second one. feels cut off at the bottom. Maybe portrait orientation would have worked better here? And I wouldn't wory about the traffic looking too "busy". You're taking a photo of a very busy street. the traffic shows context and you might use it to your advantage to tell a story with your photo.

Hope this helps.

ryan



ryan

[m1ket4n]

Hi!

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming! I appreciate it.

Ok, so I went back and dug around for another couple of shots that were taken at the same times as each of the photos were. Here they are:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2408/2441098062_2e9e4c8c21_o.jpg
Balmy Beach Jetty. I cropped it to 16x9 so that it would fit a widescreen wallpaper. The white stuff is actually ice, and this is a view of Lake Ontario, for those who have not been here before :wink:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/2441076394_04c5bce691_o.jpg
A portrait orientation. Initially, I had wanted this shot as CN Tower was also identifiably in the background, but chose the landscape shot as I thought it would be less distracting. Do any of you think that the contrast/ saturation could be increased without it looking unnatural?

How do these look now? :)

Speaking of which, I've noticed that my G7 pictures need some PP work to get it sharpened up and ready for the screen. I'm considering getting a dSLR sometime in the future; would pictures out from a dSLR generally need less PP to achieve presentation quality?

[tonydee]

Hi Michael,

I can only agree with the existing comments on the first two pictures. As well as stopping a tsunami, straightening the horizon would have made space for the tops of the trees on the left. If you didn't want to kiss your companion, they didn't want to kiss you, or one or other of you was just too shy - even holding hand or stretching your arms out sideways or something could have given the shadow stronger character. There isn't much else in the shot to focus attention on, so it's a pity. Could also "highlight" (figuratively) the shadows by upping contrast (literally) - perhaps selectively.

With the second one, it's a dangerous thing to chop off half of anything in the foreground... be it trees you're shooting over to capture mountains, people etc.. It really doesn't work here, but I'm delighted you posted the portrait shot as it's really vastly better in every way. It already has a fairly strong sense of vertical line and high contrast - I wouldn't increase the contrast further if I were you. Skies often look better blue, and often clouds add interest (but the picture's busy enough without) - but can't do much about that.

The second beach shot is also vastly better than the first. The horizon's a higher than the standard 1/3rd of the way through the shot - higher even than the golden ratio positioning - but it feels balanced anyway due to the interest factors in both the lower part of the picture and the sky. You've captured some very interesting lines with the shore, wharf and what might be a delapidated fence? Looks great whatever it is. Ice is a bit too bright for comfort, but that's a nitpick - welcome to "Critique Corner" ;-).

Cheers, Tony

[LeuceDeuce]

Speaking of which, I've noticed that my G7 pictures need some PP work to get it sharpened up and ready for the screen. I'm considering getting a dSLR sometime in the future; would pictures out from a dSLR generally need less PP to achieve presentation quality?

That would depend on what PP you are doing now. If all you are doing is sharpening your images then the answer is no. You will (almost) always need to sharpen any images that come straight out of your camera no matter what model you choose.

[photoguy6405]

I agree that both second shots are much better, composition-wise, than the first two. I like them both.

[m1ket4n]

The second beach shot is also vastly better than the first. The horizon's a higher than the standard 1/3rd of the way through the shot - higher even than the golden ratio positioning - but it feels balanced anyway due to the interest factors in both the lower part of the picture and the sky. You've captured some very interesting lines with the shore, wharf and what might be a delapidated fence? Looks great whatever it is. Ice is a bit too bright for comfort, but that's a nitpick - welcome to "Critique Corner" ;-).
Cheers, Tony

Thanks Tony!

That would depend on what PP you are doing now. If all you are doing is sharpening your images then the answer is no. You will (almost) always need to sharpen any images that come straight out of your camera no matter what model you choose.

Ok, so do you mean to say that even with something like your setup (which looks like what I want, actually, especially the 40D) and L lenses, sharpening is still a concern during export? I mean; is there something with the JPEG compression that softens the image? In any case, I find myself adjusting the levels, contrast and saturation quite a bit in PP, and I find myself encountering high dynamic range scenes and always coming up short with my G7. Guess one way out is to avoid scenes like that...

I agree that both second shots are much better, composition-wise, than the first two. I like them both.

Thank you!

[tonydee]

FWIW / my impressions - having ditched my 6MP Sony Cybershot for a 400D 8 months ago and now having a 5D - is that the main benefits are in better dynamic range, tonal detail (especially shooting RAW), and order-of-magnitude lower noise (most noticable in low light situations). FWIW, I bought a G9 and it's pretty cool, but haven't used it much, and haven't really PPed (or uploaded) pictures I've taken with it to get a feel for it's exact quality.

There are lots of other camera-model comparison sites with sample images, but anyway if you look at my picasa gallery (linked), you'll get an idea of what the 400D and 5D can do sharpness wise. All pics should have EXIF data. Maybe 70% of pictures aren't sharpened (just because I can't see the issues without going in for a 100% crop - despite my 4MP 2560x1600 30" monitor - and I'm lazy). They're generally saved to 95 quality-factor JPEG and can be downloaded at full resolution for comparison.

Tony

[LeuceDeuce]

Ok, so do you mean to say that even with something like your setup (which looks like what I want, actually, especially the 40D) and L lenses, sharpening is still a concern during export? I mean; is there something with the JPEG compression that softens the image? In any case, I find myself adjusting the levels, contrast and saturation quite a bit in PP, and I find myself encountering high dynamic range scenes and always coming up short with my G7. Guess one way out is to avoid scenes like that...

I don't think I could have picked a better setup to begin my journey into photography. Now I'm looking at a telephoto lens as my next addition.

Yes I have to sharpen every image I shoot. The softness you see in digital images is the anti-aliasing filter that the camera applies to combat other nasty effects such as moire patterning. The anti-aliasing is the lesser of two evils so that's what we get.

If you shoot jpg then depending on your Picture Style you will get a certain level of in-camera sharpening. I find that this sharpening is overdone in anything but the Neutral or Faithful Picture Style. Every time you do something in post processing to a previously sharpened file you are accentuating that sharpening halo, and causing damage. So if I do end up shooting in jpg I use the Faithful Picture Style. I would shoot using the other styles (Standard, Portrait, Landscape) only if I planned on printing a batch of 4x6 photos of a family trip, and didn't want to spend hours tweaking snapshots of "I've been here" type photographs.

As far as dynamic range goes, you will see a marked increase when going to the 40D. Still there are a lot of times you'll need to bracket your shots and blend them in one form of HDR or another to get the full range of the scene.

[m1ket4n]

FWIW / my impressions - having ditched my 6MP Sony Cybershot for a 400D 8 months ago and now having a 5D - is that the main benefits are in better dynamic range, tonal detail (especially shooting RAW), and order-of-magnitude lower noise (most noticable in low light situations). FWIW, I bought a G9 and it's pretty cool, but haven't used it much, and haven't really PPed (or uploaded) pictures I've taken with it to get a feel for it's exact quality.

There are lots of other camera-model comparison sites with sample images, but anyway if you look at my picasa gallery (linked), you'll get an idea of what the 400D and 5D can do sharpness wise. All pics should have EXIF data. Maybe 70% of pictures aren't sharpened (just because I can't see the issues without going in for a 100% crop - despite my 4MP 2560x1600 30" monitor - and I'm lazy). They're generally saved to 95 quality-factor JPEG and can be downloaded at full resolution for comparison.

Tony


Hi Tony,

Yeah, that's what i keep reading (and seeing) all over the forums and on flickr (dSLR advantages), but I've stayed away largely because I never thought I'd see the point of lugging around a sackful of glass and electronics when on vacation or just shooting around town. I guess I'm somewhat getting more convinced to put down money for the gear, once I push the G7 to its limits; I suppose a lot of my poor picture quality so far has got to do with the wetware, not the (soft/hard)ware. :D

I've seen many of those pictures, and I know that my G7 sucks big time in low light situations; the ISO dial is cute, but I still think 800/1600 is optimistic, to put it mildly. Still, I think what matters for me is how the images correspond to reality, and that is not easy to compare online.

[m1ket4n]

I edited the street shot to remove the cable, and increased the midtone levels. How does this look?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2114/2441574260_65379ee6bf_o.jpg

[m1ket4n]

Yes I have to sharpen every image I shoot. The softness you see in digital images is the anti-aliasing filter that the camera applies to combat other nasty effects such as moire patterning. The anti-aliasing is the lesser of two evils so that's what we get.

If you shoot jpg then depending on your Picture Style you will get a certain level of in-camera sharpening. I find that this sharpening is overdone in anything but the Neutral or Faithful Picture Style. Every time you do something in post processing to a previously sharpened file you are accentuating that sharpening halo, and causing damage. So if I do end up shooting in jpg I use the Faithful Picture Style. I would shoot using the other styles (Standard, Portrait, Landscape) only if I planned on printing a batch of 4x6 photos of a family trip, and didn't want to spend hours tweaking snapshots of "I've been here" type photographs.



Hmm, ok, for a moment I was thinking that the out-of-camera pictures was soft because perhaps the lens had been jostled around too much in my pockets, and went out of alignment somehow.

I have no choice but to shoot JPEG (G7 has no RAW out, unless i use CHKDSK, and even then, RAWs take ~10s to write (!). For a short while I thought to use custom picture mode, boosting sharpness contrast and saturation. Now I think I'll leave them in camera default or neutral, and do PP instead.

Thanks for the tips!

[tonydee]

I guess I'm somewhat getting more convinced to put down money for the gear, once I push the G7 to its limits; I suppose a lot of my poor picture quality so far has got to do with the wetware, not the (soft/hard)ware. :D

A sensible attitude. I think we all have to decide for ourselves how much we're out there to learn the concepts; how much we're hoping for, can expect, and would value that potential miracle shot to look back on in 20/30/40 years time; and what the chance is that we'd miss or compromise that shot significantly if we didn't have better gear.

Still, I think what matters for me is how the images correspond to reality, and that is not easy to compare online.

IQs a complex issue any way you slice it. dSLRs - despite the single-minded focus we users tend to give them - are just a highly touted band in the middle of photographic equipment - a compromise between convenience, portability and quality without going to any extremes. The genuinely high-resolution cameras do take photos that pop out at you with this incredible quality: even when printed on one or two magazine pages the difference from a 1Ds/5D or similar is staggering. For me, the next question is whether to buy a Tachihara 4x5, which might only cost a 10th of what I've spent on dSLR equipment but will have at least 10 times the image detail, and should be an easy way into higher-quality film photography.

Then there's the eternal question of balancing the need to "waste or is it spend / spend or is it waste" time waiting for the perfect weather or going back to apply your latest insights to a thousandth shot of that one special place vs shooting all manner of things quickly, hoping for in-the-moment creativity, and evolving some abilities thorugh serendipitous learning / instinct / what-have-you....

I've seen many of those pictures, and I know that my G7 sucks big time in low light situations; the ISO dial is cute, but I still think 800/1600 is optimistic, to put it mildly.

If the G7 isn't better than the G9, then 800/1600 would be sorry indeed. I won't take the G9 above 100, and I leave it on 80 (not auto) by default. I'll tread dangerously close to the limits of IS vs long shutter speeds before I'll up the ISO. Still, the variations in real-world lighting are often more significant than the differences in compact/dSLR dynamic range and noise abilities....

Cheers, Tony

[m1ket4n]

A sensible attitude. I think we all have to decide for ourselves how much we're out there to learn the concepts; how much we're hoping for, can expect, and would value that potential miracle shot to look back on in 20/30/40 years time; and what the chance is that we'd miss or compromise that shot significantly if we didn't have better gear.

Hmm. yeah. I'm getting quite itchy to get my hands on a dSLR soon. Now if I can convince my finance minister to let out some funds :D


Then there's the eternal question of balancing the need to "waste or is it spend / spend or is it waste" time waiting for the perfect weather or going back to apply your latest insights to a thousandth shot of that one special place vs shooting all manner of things quickly, hoping for in-the-moment creativity, and evolving some abilities thorugh serendipitous learning / instinct / what-have-you....

If the G7 isn't better than the G9, then 800/1600 would be sorry indeed. I won't take the G9 above 100, and I leave it on 80 (not auto) by default. I'll tread dangerously close to the limits of IS vs long shutter speeds before I'll up the ISO. Still, the variations in real-world lighting are often more significant than the differences in compact/dSLR dynamic range and noise abilities....

Cheers, Tony

Yeah, I've been realising that most of my shots have been opportunistic - I'll bring the camera out, and if i see something nice, then i'll shoot. I guess I may have to make the transition to imagining a scene in the head, and then going out to make a shot that matches what's in the head. I was reading the EOS forum, and am amazed how quickly people there can rack up the shots - 5000 clicks in 6 months is quite typical; for me on my G7, I've barely crossed 4000 clicks, and it's been almost a year.

On my G7, I also do not take chances with auto ISO, but keep it at 80 as much as I can, only raising it up to 200/400 when the lights go out, and even then I never expect much from the camera at that speeds. I read about exposing to the right, so I'll probably experiment more with this, exposing +1/3 EV when I next need to shoot at ISO400. I keep fantasising that the dSLR I hope to get will do magic at ISO800/1600, turning night into day (not really, I know), so I think I better keep working on convincing the wife...

[tonydee]

A compact camera is great for that ad-hoc style of photography. With the bigger dSLRs and lenses, photography becomes an all-or-nothing event: you either taking the camera and serious about using it, or you're leaving it behind. I'd hazard that the hands-on through-the-viewfinder and higher frames-per-seconds rates of dSLRs account for that difference in shots per month you've observed. A dSLR just feels engaging... it really is shocking to go back to using a screen to line up your shot. The viewfinder on the G9 is the worst thing about it though... seems like a miniscule piece of foggy plastic after the 5D.

Re exposing to the right - it's the right thing to do when you've shutter speed to spare, but in low light situations where you'd have to up the iso to 400 or more to do it, I'm pretty sure you'll get worse pictures. Basically, setting +1/3EV is just asking the camera to expose more: it's not invoking any magic to make it happen. So, whatever the camera's in control of in the mode you've left it it will use to increase the exposure, which ultimately means longer shutter times, higher ISO or wider aperture. In those insufficient-light situations where noise is a potential issue, you've presumably either put the aperture as wide as it will go or as wide as your DOF requirements will allow, and put the shutter speed either as slow as you can hand hold or as slow as you can without your subject movement blurring, so there's nothing else to control except ISO.

Re convincing the wife: Ken Rockwell's site expounds the strategy of "it'll be an investment to record our children's early years".... Applicability and milage may vary.

Cheers, Tony

[m1ket4n]

So I guess if/when I get a dSLR, i should still keep the G7 for those adhoc moments? I've read someone (here on POTN) mention how he's been able to pocket his G7 and take pictures, even selling them on occasions when having a G7 is better than not having a camera at all.

I dug around Ken Rockwell's site, and I agree with a lot of what he has to say, especially that bit about how photography is art, all modern cameras, even 'lousy' P&Ss are perfectly capable of good enough pictures, and that cameras are just tools, that do not do the work for you.

Guess I'll work on that art bit; and perhaps one day if I have too much money I'll get myself a dSLR just to expand the scope of the ease of taking some kinds of pictures.

[photoguy6405]

Some people say "take your camera everywhere", but it's not always practical to lug around my DSLR stuff literally everywhere I go. I prefer to say "take a camera everywhere", and that's why I have a P&S, also.

[midnitejam]

That would depend on what PP you are doing now. If all you are doing is sharpening your images then the answer is no. You will (almost) always need to sharpen any images that come straight out of your camera no matter what model you choose.

I agree with LeuceDeuce. I have a P&S and two dslr's. The P&S is an Olympus 80-80 swz 8mb. The canon rebel is a 6mb with kit lens. The other canon is a 20D 8mb also with kit lenz. I also have one canon L lense. Either of the canons with L glass will out perform the olympus in terms of the quality of the results. But the canons with kit lens lag behind the olympus. The biggest disadvantage of the olympus P&S is that it is inconvenient and awkward. The LCD is mostly useless in bright sun. The eye viewer is electronic and is very distorted. I never know the exact moment the shutter trips when using the P&S. It's harder to get the exact moment you're going for with the P&S's shutter release system. The DSLR's are so much easier to work with. They'll be a lot more fun for you.