Couple more still lifes

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

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

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

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.

LettieVonDread wrote in post #11544844
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) and search things like ISO/Aperture/Shutter Speed etc etc and peruse their website. Its full of information.

LettieVonDread wrote in post #11544844
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.

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

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

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.

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.

BrandonSi wrote in post #11547068
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.

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

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.

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.

jtschell wrote in post #11548479
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.

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.