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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
Thread started 27 May 2014 (Tuesday) 16:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

I'd Like A Few Pointers...

 
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 53
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
May 30, 2014 11:18 |  #16

santora57 wrote in post #16934190 (external link)
Is there anything I’m doing, that I should or shouldn’t do?

The first thing I would suggest is to watch your settings. Your statue shot that doesn't show all the details is partly down to using a slow shutter speed (assuming it was shot hand held and not on a tripod) and partly to diffraction issues caused by too small an aperture. 1/25th shutter speed is pretty slow and camera shake is likely at that speed, if you had bumped it to 1/125th or faster you would have been much better off. Your aperture of f/29 is way too small for a crop camera unless you are desperate for maximum depth of field. Once you get past about f/11 the image will start to get gradually softer as diffraction kicks in, by f/29 that softness will be quite noticeable. Had you selected 1/125th shutter speed that would have given you about f/11 aperture and solved both problems.

On the duck shot, it is slightly soft because you went the other way. The camera was in action mode so set the fastest shutter speed it could, which was 1/2000th, but that involved the aperture being wide open at f/5.6. That lens has a reputation for being a bit soft, especially at the extremes of its focal range and wide open. Allowing it to stop down to f/8 would have helped, and given a bit more depth of field to allow for the ducks size and movement. Shutter speed does need to be quite fast for birds in flight, but 1/1000th would be plenty and allow f/8.

santora57 wrote in post #16934190 (external link)
Unless I’m out to do some kind of dark room-like effect (dodging or burning in, for example) I avoid photoshopping. I try to let the camera do the work. If I can’t get it right, with the camera, I’m doing something wrong. The only downside to that, is sometimes I can’t figure out what I’m doing wrong. Which is why I’m here.

That isn't really the case, photography has always been a two stage process, even back in the film days. Shoot the best image you can in the camera, then use that as the starting point for the darkroom work or, with digital, the post processing.

There are countless ways of improving even a "perfect" image from the camera. However well you take the shot, it can be significantly improved upon 98% of the time with editing. Cameras are very limited in what you get, if the scene has quite a low dynamic range you can't "get that right in camera" and there will likely be a stop or so left untouched at each end of the histogram, resulting in an image with no real brights or darks and looking a little flat. A simple tweak of levels will add significant punch to that image and bring it to life. Nothing was done wrong at the taking stage, it had to be done in editing, just as we did decades ago in the darkroom by choosing the grade of paper to print on.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
santora57
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined May 2014
     
May 30, 2014 22:22 |  #17

sandpiper wrote in post #16940392 (external link)
The first thing I would suggest is to watch your settings. Your statue shot that doesn't show all the details is partly down to using a slow shutter speed (assuming it was shot hand held and not on a tripod)


I did use a tripod, lol, it only looks like I held it in my hand. Thanks for the input, I'm coming to understand where I've gone wrong. And thanks for the heads up on that lens tending to go soft.

sandpiper wrote in post #16940392 (external link)
photography has always been a two stage process, even back in the film days. Shoot the best image you can in the camera, then use that as the starting point for the darkroom work or, with digital, the post processing.

Last two days I set my camera on raw, and I shot a few pictures, working on depth of field: Then spent some time playing around with the software that came with the camera. It's the only software I have that recognizes RAW files. I'm liking it. I stand corrected on letting the camera do the work. I just have to update my software. Yeah, I'm working with a lot of out dated software, haven't really messed with the camera's software until now.

Thanks again for the advice. :D Appreciate it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,773 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 29513
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
May 30, 2014 22:51 |  #18

Your on the right track santora, raw is the way to go if you have data file space on your computer. jpegs have its place at certain times. As for editing raw files, Adobe Lightroom would be a strong consideration.. Another recommendation would be to go to George Jardins website.. http://mulita.com/blog​/ (external link)

Consider his Library and Develop module DVD tutorials. He will have you editing like a pro in no time.

Happy Shooting !!


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,368 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 813
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
May 30, 2014 23:05 |  #19

I love tricking my camera's light meter in difficult lighting situations.

There's a selection on my camera that says "M", and when I point the knob there it tricks the meter into thinking it's on, when it's really off. I then set my aperture and shutter speed to get the exposure I want and click away.

By the time the meter knows what's going on I've already gotten several great shots in. If I listen closely, I can hear it's faint screams from deep inside my camera, trying desperately to screw up my exposures. But no, the almighty "M" keeps me safe.

Maybe M stands for magic. :)


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
santora57
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined May 2014
     
May 31, 2014 10:00 as a reply to  @ CameraMan's post |  #20

I have a 1 terabyte USB portable hard drive. Fits in the palm of my hand. So space is not a problem. At worse I can always burn them onto a DVD. But yeah I noticed that, the size of those files. I only have a 8GB memory in my camera, when I had it on JGP I had close to 1000 shots. When I switched it to RAW I was down to 269 shots. I might need another memory card.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
santora57
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined May 2014
     
May 31, 2014 10:02 as a reply to  @ santora57's post |  #21

CameraMan wrote in post #16941578 (external link)
I love tricking my camera's light meter in difficult lighting situations.

There's a selection on my camera that says "M", and when I point the knob there it tricks the meter into thinking it's on, when it's really off. I then set my aperture and shutter speed to get the exposure I want and click away.

By the time the meter knows what's going on I've already gotten several great shots in. If I listen closely, I can hear it's faint screams from deep inside my camera, trying desperately to screw up my exposures. But no, the almighty "M" keeps me safe.

Maybe M stands for magic. :)

Manual, that's the one mode I have yet to mess with. LOL, I'll listen up for those faint screams.

That was a funny post :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NCSA197
Goldmember
Avatar
1,447 posts
Gallery: 153 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4099
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Western NY State
     
Jun 01, 2014 13:58 |  #22

You mentioned that you used a tripod. Did you turn off any image stabilization system your lens may have? Turn it back on for hand held.

The first two images are nice. I am assuming if a print were ordered, the watermark would not be on the one for my wall. Surprisingly, it is remarkable just how easy it is to ignore when viewing your picture. Like you, I don't understand why so many need to comment on it.....


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
santora57
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined May 2014
     
Jun 01, 2014 20:15 |  #23

NCSA197 wrote in post #16944550 (external link)
You mentioned that you used a tripod. Did you turn off any image stabilization system your lens may have? Turn it back on for hand held.

Oh my... goodness. You know there is just so much to this camera. And now that you mention it, there was something about that I read in the manual. It just totally slipped my mind.  :o The 18-55mm lens I used for that shot, has a stabilizer switch. Thanks.

NCSA197 wrote in post #16944550 (external link)
The first two images are nice. I am assuming if a print were ordered, the watermark would not be on the one for my wall. Surprisingly, it is remarkable just how easy it is to ignore when viewing your picture. Like you, I don't understand why so many need to comment on it.....

Exactly! This is a copy of the original. If you were to order a print to hang on your wall, or use in your blog it would NOT have the watermark. And I'll be honest with you, the original watermark I had on it, was a bit obnoxious, compared to the watermark now. So the first couple of comments about it, I took as a critique and fixed it.

But, vk2gwk's comment about the new watermark, as far I'm concerned was way out of line and down right insulting. And that's when I put my foot down with him, and anyone else concerning the watermark.

Thanks for the input.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,187 views & 0 likes for this thread, 11 members have posted to it.
I'd Like A Few Pointers...
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Thunderstream
998 guests, 103 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, 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.