Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 30 Dec 2010 (Thursday) 18:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Couple more still lifes

 
Lonestarlady61
Senior Member
Avatar
696 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Montana for over 13 years but I'm originally from Houston, Texas.
     
Dec 30, 2010 18:49 |  #1

Here's a couple more with different settings in each one. Would appreciate input please. :confused:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 60D since Dec. 2011, Canon 28-135mm lens, Canon 70-300mm USM lens and Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 lens. Just got in a new lens: Tamron 18-270mm ; )

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
LettieVonDread
Senior Member
331 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Shelby, NC
     
Dec 30, 2010 21:54 |  #2

Google "still life photography." These just look like things on a table with no real point of even documenting their existence. Without dramatic lighting, shadows, or vivid colors, there's nothing interesting about them.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
glowangel
Member
58 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Dec 30, 2010 22:29 |  #3

LettieVonDread wrote in post #11544844 (external link)
Google "still life photography." These just look like things on a table with no real point of even documenting their existence. Without dramatic lighting, shadows, or vivid colors, there's nothing interesting about them.

I have to agree with Lettie here, but I think Lone's purpose here is not the actual photo(s) but learning to use the camera and the settings on the camera. I've done many many test shots with different settings and trying to figure out the outcome for that setting.

The thing to know here is that there isn't any "magic" settings. Different places/lighting/subjec​ts will require different settings on your camera. My suggestion is to check out Digital Photography School (http://www.digital-photography-school.com (external link)) and search things like ISO/Aperture/Shutter Speed etc etc and peruse their website. Its full of information.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lonestarlady61
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
696 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Montana for over 13 years but I'm originally from Houston, Texas.
     
Dec 30, 2010 23:17 |  #4

LettieVonDread wrote in post #11544844 (external link)
Google "still life photography." These just look like things on a table with no real point of even documenting their existence. Without dramatic lighting, shadows, or vivid colors, there's nothing interesting about them.

I appreciate your input Lettie but I think that you are missing the point. I need input on how to make it better. I am very new to using manual settings and this is my first attempt at doing a still life as the photography book calls it. I have others in the same series that you might like better.


Canon 60D since Dec. 2011, Canon 28-135mm lens, Canon 70-300mm USM lens and Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 lens. Just got in a new lens: Tamron 18-270mm ; )

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lonestarlady61
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
696 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Montana for over 13 years but I'm originally from Houston, Texas.
     
Dec 30, 2010 23:41 |  #5

Here's 1 more shots in the series. This are darker so more dramatic but more grainy too.:oops:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 60D since Dec. 2011, Canon 28-135mm lens, Canon 70-300mm USM lens and Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 lens. Just got in a new lens: Tamron 18-270mm ; )

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BrandonSi
Nevermind.. I'm silly.
Avatar
5,306 posts
Gallery: 62 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 143
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
     
Dec 31, 2010 10:17 |  #6

Just my $0.02..! :)

#1 - Way too hard of a light, looks like almost a direct flash, and the lighting falls off unevenly. If you've got a swivel on your flash, try and bounce it off the ceiling, or use a reflector card on flash.

#2 - Nicer lighting, but you've obviously blown out the candle. It's a blob of white, can't really see the flame. Could use some more contrast, and WB is off, has some red hue to it..

#3 - I really like the concept here, very moody, but WB is waaay off. Looks like too large of an aperture, as the "GARD" is in focus, but by the time we get to the potpourri it's blurry.

Are you shooting RAW? If so I would load these back up and and look at adjusting white balance first to get an understanding of tint/temperature. Of all of these, I think #2 is the clear winner, try pumping up the contrast and see what happens. You may also want to experiment with a black/white conversion, which is what I do when I completely screw up the white balance beyond saving.. :)

If you're not shooting RAW, start.


[ www (external link)ยท flickr (external link)]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Schell
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
     
Dec 31, 2010 10:25 |  #7

What settings were you using and what were you trying to work on?

There are literally hundreds of settings on your camera (throw in a flash and that number doubles). If you give us an idea of what specifically you were working on (experimenting with shutter speed, aperture, white balance, iso, etc. etc) it might be easier for us to help you.

Important to remember that darker does not necessarily mean more dramatic.


Website (external link) || Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lonestarlady61
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
696 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Montana for over 13 years but I'm originally from Houston, Texas.
     
Dec 31, 2010 12:24 |  #8

BrandonSi wrote in post #11547068 (external link)
Just my $0.02..! :)

#1 - Way too hard of a light, looks like almost a direct flash, and the lighting falls off unevenly. If you've got a swivel on your flash, try and bounce it off the ceiling, or use a reflector card on flash.


This was taken without a flash. I used Digital Photo Professional to change the white balance. Sounds like I used the wrong setting!


#2 - Nicer lighting, but you've obviously blown out the candle. It's a blob of white, can't really see the flame.

Could use some more contrast, and WB is off, has some red hue to it..

Can you give me suggestions on what settings to use so the flame shows up better.


#3 - I really like the concept here, very moody, but WB is waaay off. Looks like too large of an aperture, as the "GARD" is in focus, but by the time we get to the potpourri it's blurry.

Are you shooting RAW? If so I would load these back up and and look at adjusting white balance first to get an understanding of tint/temperature. Of all of these, I think #2 is the clear winner, try pumping up the contrast and see what happens. You may also want to experiment with a black/white conversion, which is what I do when I completely screw up the white balance beyond saving.. :)

If you're not shooting RAW, start.

I don't have an external flash yet. Figure I need to get the basics down to determine if I'm good enough to spend the extra money on a flash and a macro lens. Yes, these images are from RAW data.
I've been shooting in RAW and JPG. This really fills up my 4 GB card quickly. I was trying different aperture settings to see how it effects the images. Not sure what GARD is? Can you explain please. I should upload a couple of RAW images that have been converted to JPG before any manipulation in Digital Photo Professional. There was a link given in another post about a program that shows all the data from the image. Do you know anything about that? Thank you so much for your input. I just bought my first photography book and I'm trying out some of the lessons.


Canon 60D since Dec. 2011, Canon 28-135mm lens, Canon 70-300mm USM lens and Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 lens. Just got in a new lens: Tamron 18-270mm ; )

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Schell
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
     
Dec 31, 2010 13:33 |  #9

GARD are the first letters in Garden :D - the GARD being the only part of the word that is in focus.


Website (external link) || Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lonestarlady61
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
696 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Montana for over 13 years but I'm originally from Houston, Texas.
     
Dec 31, 2010 13:37 |  #10

The first image here is before any changes were made except for conversion to JPG format and it's been cropped. The second image has been modified using Digital Photo Professional. In raw I increased the brightness by .33. I changed the wb to color temp. @ 4400 k. & the picture style to neutral. Also increased the contrast level by 2, highlight by 1 and decreased the shadow by 2 and increased the color saturation by 2. In RGB values I increased the brightness by 6 and the contrast by 10 and the saturation to 128. Can anyone show me what my photo would look like with the correct settings. I appreciate all your input so far.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 60D since Dec. 2011, Canon 28-135mm lens, Canon 70-300mm USM lens and Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 lens. Just got in a new lens: Tamron 18-270mm ; )

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Schell
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
     
Dec 31, 2010 14:51 |  #11

I think before you go and worry about how to post-process, you have to tweak the settings in-camera.

What are you metering off of? What type of metering are you using?

Why is your shutter speed 1/13 of a second? Why is your ISO 400?

When you answer these questions, you're on your way.

Also, how many different types of light are hitting the subject? Already I count two - the candle and the overhead light. Both are different temperatures and will color the photo differently.


Website (external link) || Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lonestarlady61
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
696 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Montana for over 13 years but I'm originally from Houston, Texas.
     
Dec 31, 2010 16:10 |  #12

jtschell wrote in post #11548479 (external link)
I think before you go and worry about how to post-process, you have to tweak the settings in-camera.

What are you metering off of? What type of metering are you using?

Not sure what you mean by metering. I tried to look up that term w/o success. Can you explain?

Why is your shutter speed 1/13 of a second? Why is your ISO 400?


I was trying to capture the flame in the candle. (Didn't work) ISO was at 400 due to low light.

When you answer these questions, you're on your way.

Also, how many different types of light are hitting the subject? Already I count two - the candle and the overhead light. Both are different temperatures and will color the photo differently.

The only light in the room was natural light and the light from the candle.


Canon 60D since Dec. 2011, Canon 28-135mm lens, Canon 70-300mm USM lens and Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8 lens. Just got in a new lens: Tamron 18-270mm ; )

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dino211
Member
Avatar
174 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
     
Jan 01, 2011 01:18 |  #13

Don't have the corner of the wall in your background.
The table needs to be further away from the wall with a more indirect lighting setup to eliminate the harsh shadow. Practice is the only way to learn. Keep on shooting.


Dean
...............
Canon 7Dii, 5Dii, 100-400L, 70-200L f4is, 100 macro, 300L f4is, 24-105L f4i

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

704 views & 0 likes for this thread
Couple more still lifes
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Paramveer
2120 guests, 330 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.