photography examples and learning

Originally Posted by lynw

Looking at the pics Ive posted on my travels, Im stunned how many have come out pretty well imho considering I think my camera is really crap!

A lot of those have also been luck along with having an eye for what would make a good pic - the one of the 3 lions laying on the ground certainly falls into that because within about 2 seconds they moved and went running off.

The pics of the waterfalls again came out better than I thought they would. Again a bit of luck when the sun came out and the contrast was a lot better and my camera seemed to pick that up. Also the volume was probably sufficient that it picked up the detail of the flow.

But the one thing I seem to still struggle with is sunsets. The pics of Domboshava certainly highlight the multitude of colours that were going on but not the strength or clarity of them. For example in the pics below, you can see the darker purple of the sun behind the cloud, the tinge of red, the blue of sky not yet touched by the sunset and the rays of light, but the reality was the colours were more vivid against each other than is in these pics. Not sure what settings I can use on my camera to improve that - its a Fuji Finepix btw. How can you get the beautiful colours without having to use photoshop balancing?

Lynn, do you know if your camera has an Exposure Compensation thingy? Something like a dedicated button or menu with a "EV" or "+/-" thingy written on it. If it does, then try using negative compensation (usually something like -0.7 to -1.0 EV will do). Everything will be darker, which means you'll lose detail on the foreground, but colours will come out a lot more saturated.

If it doesn't have said function, and assuming it will lock exposure and focus by half-pressing the shutter (post the model number and I'll try and find out), then you can make it "meter" off a lighter part of the sky: instead of composing the shot and then pressing the shutter, first point the camera at a lighter part of the sky (not the sun, otherwise it will darken everything too much), half press the shutter and hold, compose, and then press the shutter fully. It works, but needs a bit more practice then just dialing in some negative exposure compensation.

Warning to the DSRL crowd: not al DSLRs will lock exposure on half-press without setting a custom function somewhere. That's what the "AE-L" button is for.

The Costa Rica pics were taken with a Canon - my exes. Am thinking of something similar for my next camera. Anyone any recommendations?

What kind of camera / budget do you have in mind? Compact camera and budget or DSLR camera and not so compact budget?

The Costa Rica pics were taken with a Canon - my exes. Am thinking of something similar for my next camera. Anyone any recommendations?

Some options to look at...

SLR
Nikon D3000/D5000
Canon EOS 500D/1000D
an older Canon 40D if you want performance at a better price?

'Four thirds' system
Panasonic GH1
Olympus EP-1

'Bridge' cameras
Fuli s2000 EXR
Nikon P90

Compacts
Panasonic lumix TZ7
Fuji EXR stuff?
Canon G9/G11 (more expensive..)


SLR's will offer control, image quality, lens and accessory options. At a price.

Compacts have smaller sensors, so suffer from noise and image quality problems. You also have less control etc, but you pay less, have something that is much smaller and lighter. Many modern compacts offer 10-12MP which is plenty, with good image quality (despite having a smaller sensor). Plenty for those who use images for Facebook and DPF's.

Glass quality is really important on any camera you buy, bear this in mind. It may be worth buying something like a D5000 without the kit lens. You could then buy a separate lens with better glass. This will definitely be more expensive, but the contrast/sharpness of a better lens will be like adding megapixels to the sensor!

The kit lens you get as standard will not be glass, it may as well be cling-film. Not worth alot when you start to get interested in the quality of you images.

Bridge cameras are a good compromise.

4/3 are probably an even better compromise for size/quality, but still have the price tag (relative).



There is plenty out there. I suggest you head over to DP review for a closer look at some of the SLR's etc.

Ben.

sooo much to learn...(thanks Filipe M for your tips ... gonna read them properly later). here one of my attempts with my new DSLR

Originally Posted by BournemouthBen

Glass quality is really important on any camera you buy, bear this in mind. It may be worth buying something like a D5000 without the kit lens. You could then buy a separate lens with better glass. This will definitely be more expensive, but the contrast/sharpness of a better lens will be like adding megapixels to the sensor!

The kit lens you get as standard will not be glass, it may as well be cling-film. Not worth alot when you start to get interested in the quality of you images.

Well, how shall I put this, it's kind of hard to take pictures with a DSLR without a lens.
The "cling-film" kit (Nikkor 18-55 VR) that comes with the D5000 is perfectly acceptable for a beginner who's only just trying to understand what the DSLR world is all about, without making it even more complicated with lens choices from the start.
Yes it's a "slow"* lens, has some distortion, and it suffers from a bit of chroma aberration, which is easily - and automatically - corrected by the camera if you shoot .jpg, or by Lightroom / Photoshop / Aperture if you shoot raw and therefore know what you're doing. Even not being the sharpest lens around, it'll still kick the cr@p out of compact cameras if you know how to use it properly, so it doesn't make much sense to be telling someone that compact cameras have good image quality but DSLR kit lenses are made of cling-film...

Kit lenses are what they are. If you're new to DLSRs, use them to find out where you want to go in terms of photography. Then, when you outgrow them, flog them on eBay (or keep them as body caps) and get good glass. Just be prepared to spend a lot more on glass than you did on the camera itself.

*slow in this case has nothing to do with speed in the traditional sense, it's just a measure of how much light the lens will let through when at its maximum aperture, therefore allowing you to shoot at faster shutter speeds.

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Lynn, do you know if your camera has an Exposure Compensation thingy? Something like a dedicated button or menu with a "EV" or "+/-" thingy written on it. If it does, then try using negative compensation (usually something like -0.7 to -1.0 EV will do). Everything will be darker, which means you'll lose detail on the foreground, but colours will come out a lot more saturated.

If it doesn't have said function, and assuming it will lock exposure and focus by half-pressing the shutter (post the model number and I'll try and find out), then you can make it "meter" off a lighter part of the sky: instead of composing the shot and then pressing the shutter, first point the camera at a lighter part of the sky (not the sun, otherwise it will darken everything too much), half press the shutter and hold, compose, and then press the shutter fully. It works, but needs a bit more practice then just dialing in some negative exposure compensation.

Warning to the DSRL crowd: not al DSLRs will lock exposure on half-press without setting a custom function somewhere. That's what the "AE-L" button is for.

It's worth noting here, given the coverings of snow we have at the minute, that positive exposure compensation will get that white snow looking more like white snow, as if you go with 'standard' settings, your snow will look all grey and lifeless.

Originally Posted by boot

It's worth noting here, given the coverings of snow we have at the minute, that positive exposure compensation will get that white snow looking more like white snow, as if you go with 'standard' settings, your snow will look all grey and lifeless.

True. I keep forgetting that bit, we don't get snow around these parts very often...

...Just my opinion. People don't have to listen. I think it might be an idea to get a cheaper body without the lens, then (at the same time) buy a better one separately and save yourself the money in the long run?

You don't have to get yourself any brand new 'L' glass from Canon to get better results. eBay is full of bargains, if you pace yourself and look around you can get some good kit.

For example a friend of mine brought 17-85USM Canon Lens (which isn't that fast) for around £180.

I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on!

Originally Posted by BournemouthBen

...Just my opinion. People don't have to listen. I think it might be an idea to get a cheaper body without the lens, then (at the same time) buy a better one separately and save yourself the money in the long run?

You don't have to get yourself any brand new 'L' glass from Canon to get better results. eBay is full of bargains, if you pace yourself and look around you can get some good kit.

For example a friend of mine brought 17-85USM Canon Lens (which isn't that fast) for around £180.

I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on!

Don't get me wrong, it is a valid opinion, just one that didn't seem to make much sense for people who are just dipping their toes in the DSLR world. Kit lenses are supposed to make life simpler for people who want to try DSLRs without the grief of having to choose / buy separate lenses and the compatibility issues that may arise, because, let's face it, not every lens from a given manufacturer will work with every camera from that same manufacturer.

Expensive kit is great if you can afford it, but it won't make you take better pictures.

If a seasoned pro-photographer took a disposable camera out to shoot, and a complete novice with no photographic skill or knowledge took the best kit money could buy out to shoot, who do you think would take the most captivating images?

Learning how to use the kit you have and what makes a good photograph is the most part of the battle. Once you've mastered those, it may be worth spending more. But the more kit you have, the more you'll want to take with you, until you realise that travelling light can often (not always) offer more advantage.

[mr.anderson]

Originally Posted by lynw

The exes camera Im fairly sure was a powershot model but not entirely sure which. I liked it - I think the pics I took were ok - the butterfly ones certainly came out better than I anticipated.

Do you know which shots you used his camera for?

This was taken with a Panasonis DMC-FZ15.



And this was taken with a D70s.