|
Change what you look for then. Leave the wide angle at home and go telephoto, look at what the light is doing, find some lines, go shooting when it's overcast, whatever. If you keep doing the same thing you're going to get the same results.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
I did the opposite of above (left the telephoto and took up a wide angle) the other year as I had a hard time get a composition in wide-angle due to how much stuff you'd get so I'd always just zoom in to isolate something interesting. So I took out a wide-angle went out around town at dusk/twilight and pre-dawn and I took some cool stuff and felt really accomplished - just walked around, tried different angles on buildings and landscapes until it looked cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:I agree that this one is my favourite, I also like the smooth tonal gradient on the wall to the left which isn't really present anywhere else in the other two shots. Interesting film though, seems like it's mostly going to be 'useful' either for a particular aesthetic or in very specific lighting conditions. This image feels flat to me. The foreground doesn't seem to add anything or function as an anchor point. It seems like you're trying to use that inlet of water as a point of interest, but nothing about the composition really seems to draw me into it. I'm not sure how to approach that scene...recompose and perhaps isolate a part of it? AF fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Feb 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:I agree that this one is my favourite, I also like the smooth tonal gradient on the wall to the left which isn't really present anywhere else in the other two shots. Interesting film though, seems like it's mostly going to be 'useful' either for a particular aesthetic or in very specific lighting conditions. It's the lighting, bright mid day sun often means flat looking landscapes, get there early morning or as the sun is is going down this photo with a nice evening light would probably be a lot stronger. It also helps to have a strong foreground object as well the grass doesn't work well here for that. That said in brighter more direct light the sea often looks better than the land with white waves contrasting against the blue/green reflected sky of the water, so it can help to make that the subject in the daytime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:I agree that this one is my favourite, I also like the smooth tonal gradient on the wall to the left which isn't really present anywhere else in the other two shots. Interesting film though, seems like it's mostly going to be 'useful' either for a particular aesthetic or in very specific lighting conditions. Seems imbalanced? The wispy plants in the foreground don’t have enough visual weight to offset the inlet in the background so the image feels lopsided front to back. Could you make them bigger somehow (lower/closer)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
My feedback on that shot is similar to the others, perspective feels very forced, the foreground seems so disjointed as to almost make the image look like two flat planes perpendicular to the viewer's eye. I took almost the exact same shot and I have the same issue with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
Thanks for all the feedback on that one, I agree with what's been said re. flatness. I've been trying to learn a bit more about composition recently and how to properly critique an image, and I think what I've learned is that the vast majority of my photos don't really have much in the way of compositional elements going on in them. For some more content, here are two shots of the same location on different days, one morning and one evening. Unfortunately to get that photo I'm on the side of a cliff and there really isn't any room to move around and change the composition much.   I think that both images have a reasonable depth to them, I actually like the grass in the foreground because I think it gives a bit of context of the surroundings but I can see how it could be considered busy or distracting. I think the light and stormy waves of the first image gives a stronger impression of being there compared to the second one and having the rock hit by the sun helps draw your eye in that direction but I don't like how the waves are a bit blurry from the slow shutter and I think the colours in the second shot are nicer. In terms of elements of composition both feel 'balanced' to me in terms of distribution of weight around the frame but they both lack visual flow, there's nothing really directing your eye to move through the picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 08:24
|
|
|
Both these images are much stronger, there's a strong focus point in the sea stack and the grass here is a much stronger foreground element like that as it emerges from the corner and points in the general direction of the focus point. Perceptual horizon seems a little off but for some reason I'm really sensitive to that, I spend ages second guessing rotation in my own images.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
I think the first of the two is stronger because the light on the midground rocks separates them from the distance much better than in the second. It also shows off the neat textures in the sea stack which is important for the focal point of the image. I do like the glow from the sun in the second shot though. Never not take shots when you got light like that. I personally don't think the foreground is doing you any favors, but shooting through plants is pretty popular so perhaps it is I who am the crazy one. At least you bucked the trend of shooting a f1.2 for max bokehs, but given the opportunity I'd try the spot at a different time of year when the grass isn't headless. Or get higher to delete the foreground entirely and try a square crop.. landscape types love to talk about "foreground interest" but I think a lot of them let that rule trap them. Maybe wait for some cool lines in the waves that point at that sea stack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
I like the first of the two as well. One critique is that it's pretty heavily unbalanced. The rocks, the opposite shore, the plants, the clouds.. all on the right of the frame. The left is very empty, by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
I don't like the foreground elements in either. I think they detract from what is already an interesting photo. With the second set the waves are already so animated and lively putting a very static element in front of them does nothing for me, and is wholly unneeded. You could get away with the very bottom right short grass but the long stalks encroaching into the first third and almost all the way to the top, no thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
I really like the color grading you've done to both of them. Reminds me of Kodachrome, which is a safe bet when it comes to (sunny!) sky and sea. I'm not sure this is a good suggestion but the lighting on the rocky island is killer in the first pic and I might have tried working more with a crop around that. Would probably have required waiting around for a good pattern of waves, spray and clouds though (and considering the amount of clouds the lighting would have changed by then as well!). Speaking of good light, well, that's not something we typically have in Scandinavia a snowless December (and January, and February. Life's been tough).  Edit: Another one from the same set. Not sure if what I was going for really worked or would've required a shallowed DOF? 
Electrophotonic fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Feb 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2020 11:21
|
|
|
Hi thread. I've been exploring and learning on my first 'real' camera for a few weeks now, 50D with its 18-55 kit lens. While researching what telephoto zoom lens I should get for my favorite thing, birds and squirrels (and getting some help in the bird thread), I stumbled on a very unforeseen fascination: ants. I mean they're everywhere right, so how hard can it be? So here's some ant pics for your commentary. The first one's by far the sharpest I got over 1000+ shots over the last 2 or 3 days. Technical: - Turned out the autofocus was getting all hosed up by the grass blades all over the place, so I had to go manual focus. I started by laying in one spot and letting it walk through the focal plane while spraying with burst drive, then scooting back and resetting over and over. Then I started actually adjusting the focus myself, and I'm not sure how that contributed to the success rate. - Obviously the DOF is too shallow with the neck in focus, the head a little less so, and the rear end end out of focus. I was aware of DOF and had gotten away from my initial orgy of maximum aperture flower pics with blurry backgrounds. I knew I had to stop it down to increase the DOF, but not enough. 55mm f/7.1, 1/400, ISO 400 so there was plenty of light to stop it down. I still hadn't worked past a hangup about wanting the lowest possible ISO at all costs. Now I wish I would have paid for an all in-focus ant, with a little bit of grain. - Shoulda turned on the highlight tone priority, then the bread crumb might have gotten some definition rather than being a full-white blotch with a few dots. Artistic: - None of it is hidden behind any grass, which is good, but it's still kind of lost in the busy background. I tried to get it when it was standing on top of something, but none of those were in focus. - I adjusted the levels a little bit to increase the contrast and make the nearly-whites full white. I was gonna do the same thing at the other end with the shadows, but decided to leave that alone instead. Why? I dunno. - I didn't think about the framing, I just cropped it centered and big.  - I did think about the framing on this next one, putting the tree edge 1/3 from the right, and the ant 1/3 from the top, opening up the space below/in front of it and getting the cliffhanger vertigo feel. This is also why I cropped it in portrait. Next time I might put everything slightly less to the right. Or not. - The ant really helped the effect with the perfect pose with the most minimal points of contact with the tree possible, and right in the void below the protrusion. It's almost like it's hanging by just that one leg. - Obviously no busy background to interfere here, I'm pleased with that  - Who knew that ants had translucent abdomens? Entomologists that's who, but not me until today. When I looked this up, there were a bunch of pics showing this fact, but none quite like this. So I feel like I actually did something special. It was an accident of having a gap in the fence, letting in a spot of sunlight on the other side. Now if it (along with the second one) was just in focus like the first... - On the tree instead of grass, I tried AF again and it worked slightly better, but I was still losing it enough times by putting the AF point off the ant by a slight twitch, and then losing precious time as the lens started to go to infinity and then back. So overall I went back to MF. - Also for the tree ones, I had learned the DOF lesson. They're ISO 1600-2000, f/10-13, and 1/100-1/60. I'm sure the shutter speed didn't do the sharpness any favors... so yeah, tradeoffs. These are all aperture priority, by the way. 
vessbot fucked around with this message at 00:57 on May 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
The first one is ok in that it's bright, at least part of the ant is in focus, and you've caught it doing something other than just walking around. The last two are missed focus. Macro shooting is pretty tough and your keeper rate is going to be really low, especially if you're just using a kit lens and no flash. There's a macro thread where people go into quite a bit of detail on the setups they have for getting decent bug shots. Basically though, off-camea flash is pretty much the game changer for macro. You can use smaller apertures for a bigger depth of field, and you will get much better separation of your subject thanks to all the light that just got dumped on it. You might find that using back button focus helps here too. Basically, you set the AF-On button to AF-Stop. Half press on the shutter to focus as usual, then hold the AF-On button to lock in that focus. Now you can move the camera and it won't refocus as long as you have the AF-On button on the back pressed.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Thanks for the input. Yeah I was almost too embarrassed to post the last 2, but I wanted to show off the other elements. Locking the focus ran through my mind, but the position of the camera compared to subject was wild all over the place, (with me in varying uncomfortable half-crouch positions up and down the tree trunk and swaying forward and back) so there was never any state long enough to lock it into before the ant runs away. So it was all small MF adjustments while burst shooting, and I never got as lucky as I did for the first one. (Well I did a few times, but against the tree bark and not like these. It took a helluva lot of dancing around to stay tangent to the trunk!) The wildlife lens I'm searching for is gonna a big enough investment for this hobby for now, so I'm not gonna get into macro any deeper than the gear I have. It's a side interest only. Even despite this hamstringing, it's still rewarding working through the challenges that I'm still able to work through, to get into a tiny little world that's not a part of my normal one.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Thanks for the input. Yeah I was almost too embarrassed to post the last 2, but I wanted to show off the other elements. Locking the focus ran through my mind, but the position of the camera compared to subject was wild all over the place, (with me in varying uncomfortable half-crouch positions up and down the tree trunk and swaying forward and back) so there was never any state long enough to lock it into before the ant runs away. So it was all small MF adjustments while burst shooting, and I never got as lucky as I did for the first one. (Well I did a few times, but against the tree bark and not like these. It took a helluva lot of dancing around to stay tangent to the trunk!) I am one of the macro nerds, flash isn't just about wider depth of field because of narrower aperture. Your focus probably isn't that bad, what you have is camera shake, when a lens is close to the subject the camera shake is amplified greatly. For macro of smaller insects like ants/flies etc you micro shake a lot holding the camera. The problem is because it's not a focus thing you can't really get better at it, the camera shake is not about having a solid grip either its just micro shake. A flash providing all of the light at 1/250 sync f/11 iso 100 is firing at a shutter equivalent speed of like 1/5000 + this freezes out the motion. So with a flash you solve 3 problems with macro in one go, enough light for ISO 100 no noise and more detail, 1/5000 + exposure speed no more camera shake and freezes subject motion, enough light for f/11 wider depth of field. Larger insects (large butterflies etc) you can get away with no flash if you have good light but for the creepy crawlies you need a flash. Not sure of the etiquette of posting examples here but here's my flickr if you want to see some examples of macro with flash https://www.flickr.com/photos/aveslux/ A cheap Godox/Yongnuo flash is not hugely expensive but it's a game changer for close up photography.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 10:52
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:I am one of the macro nerds, When I woke up and checked my email, you don't know how starstruck I felt that someone with photos like yours would add one of mine, the noob, as a favorite.  I was gonna write you a gushy Flickr email saying that and asking how you found my stuff, but I should have guessed.e: One of you said it was missed focus, while the other said it was motion blur from a slow shutter and micro vibrations. Other than the circumstantial background, are there telltale signs of one type of blur vs. the other just by looking at the photo? (Other than an obvious streak direction) vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:30 on May 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 14:13
|
|
|
vessbot posted:When I woke up and checked my email, you don't know how starstruck I felt that someone with photos like yours would add one of mine, the noob, as a favorite. So you can have both missed focus and motion blur, the general thing is that for motion blur you can pretty much guarantee it's there to some degree especially with non flash closeups (1x and up) I can usually tell by tracing the depth of field line/focus plane through the photo whether the focus was correct (on the eyes)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
vessbot posted:
I'm not really a macro nerd, and I'm certainly not even close to as good as Jarlywarly and the others, but you can get pretty good macro shots with a fairly minimal outlay in gear. This one was taken with my old Canon 70D and a 50mm f/4 Macro Takumar - which is an old M42 manual focus lens I was using with an adapter. No flash. You can find that lens on eBay for $150 or so, and the adapter is a $5 piece of metal.  IMG_8548.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr This one was taken with my 5Div and 24-70 f/4L (which has a macro setting). For this one I did use flash, but it was literally me holding the camera in one hand and a Yongnuo 560iii speedlight in the other hand off to one side.  IMG_4181.jpg by Iain Compton, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
I could not loving believe it, it just sat there for a few minutes! A housefly doing this with me fiddling around less than a foot away, fits into my conception of the world as well as if I saw the Millenium Falcon come out of hyperspace right in front of my house. It's like one of you guys entered a cheat through the Matrix to give me some encouraging shots. At dusk with the onboard flash  
vessbot fucked around with this message at 03:00 on May 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
vessbot posted:I could not loving believe it, it just sat there for a few minutes! A housefly doing this with me fiddling around less than a foot away, fits into my conception of the world as well as if I saw the Millenium Falcon come out of hyperspace right in front of my house. It's like one of you guys entered a cheat through the Matrix to give me some encouraging shots. From my own amateurish perspective, they are both great shots, but I prefer the second picture because the green background provides some contrast to the fly, and the fly itself is positioned at a more interesting angle, facing the viewer. The background in the first picture clashes with colour of the fly itself a bit, and facing the camera side-on makes it look like a specimen in a science class textbook (just a bit). But getting a fly in shot like that is impressive enough to me. After a long hiatus from digital photography, I went out with my Nikon D90 to take some low-light exposures of a nearby bridge:  Tamar4 Tamar3
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Bone Fig posted:From my own amateurish perspective, they are both great shots, but I prefer the second picture because the green background provides some contrast to the fly, and the fly itself is positioned at a more interesting angle, facing the viewer. The background in the first picture clashes with colour of the fly itself a bit, and facing the camera side-on makes it look like a specimen in a science class textbook (just a bit). But getting a fly in shot like that is impressive enough to me. Nice shots of the Tamar bridge, something about a good suspension bridge that is pleasing to the eye. Looks like they were a bit unsteady though were you using a tripod for your long exposure? I guess its pretty windy out on those bridges. It's time to put up or shut up with my macro, doling out the tips is no good if your shots are not.  Buff Tailed Bumblebee on Hebe by Aves Lux, on Flickr I set myself a goal of a live active bee shot with full body and the eye structure visible at 1:1 resolution, but with no black background I think I got it here with my fave shot of this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
Wow! What a day to have decided to post some bees... I feel like maybe I oughta let it die down a little first! Anyway, I didn't want to take any chances with the shutter speed so I maxed it out at 1/8000, thus the ISO 2000 in direct sunlight :/ Most of the time I locked the focus while it was sitting on the flower prior to taking off. But the tiniest fore/aft motion after takeoff would get it out of the focal plane more than how much I expected. (And the shutter speed and ISO prevented me from stopping it down from wide open or nearly so.) However, their brief hovering in one place would sometimes let me AF directly on them, which worked sometimes. I don't remember which is which. My new 100-400 is out for exchange so I didn't think I'd get anything like this with the 18-55 kit lens, but the minimum focusing distance just about exactly compensated for the reduction in reach, and got them in the frame about the same size... after getting over the fear of getting stung in the face. And I was much more maneuverable and situationally aware, to boot. Anyway here's one against blue sky which feels kind of special, but if it were only facing me instead... (and exposed brighter)  And here's the dreamiest composition I ever got, but it's into the sun and out of focus  This one's my proud achievement. Maybe washed out against the white background, but I don't think it gets totally lost in it. And maybe I should have exposed a click or 2 to the left? 
vessbot fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Wow! What a day to have decided to post some bees... I feel like maybe I oughta let it die down a little first! Insects in flight sure is fun and the images are great, I just find the comprises make the photos more fun than artistic like I like looking at them but I'm never happy with them on my portfolio. Have you thought about using a flash to expose, you can then go back down to a lower ISO, of course you can get black background issues but you avoid this to a certain extent (a bright sky will still get light through in the exposure as will a close by backdrop) By the way I love your test shot of the pinecone in mid air. jarlywarly fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Insects in flight sure is fun and the images are great, I just find the comprises make the photos more fun than artistic like I like looking at them but I'm never happy with them on my portfolio. Have you thought about using a flash to expose, you can then go back down to a lower ISO, of course you can get black background issues but you avoid this to a certain extent (a bright sky will still get light through in the exposure as will a close by backdrop) Thanks! But there was nothing "test" about it, it's specifically what I wanted to photograph, and it took me a few hundred tries, both with dropping from above and tossing from below. The tossing was much easier to get in frame, but impossible to toss straight into the focus plane. Dropping was harder to get the timing, but easier to keep in focus. Then after I got what I thought was the perfect one, oops! Half of it's under a shadow from my hand. Now it's time to learn how to drop it and immediately swing my hand out of the way, but not while it can still affect the pine cone's trajectory. This leads me to one of the things I find neat about this hobby, that the problems take me down the roads of all these details that I would have never thought about. The increased awareness is rewarding. Like with the birds, now I'm finding myself getting attuned to things like their songs and habits, that I had zero interest in previously. As far as flash, I have used for some similar things, but it slows down the burst rate severely. Maybe once I get practiced enough that I can start picking more of my shots rather than spraying and praying, I can expand the cases for which I use it. It's only the built-in flash anyway, would it have any noticeable effect in direct sunlight like this? That aside, I actually have considered getting a flash because of this thread's recommendations. But not right away. Because after that, I would also want to get a macro lens, and and and... but I'm just catching my breath after the long lens purchase, so I want to pause the "ands" for the time being. Anyway, being a rank beginner I'm at no shortage of areas to develop myself in, before the gear becomes a limiting factor. Like composition, etc. I've more or less made my peace with noise, and being that I'm not gonna try to have my pictures in magazines or what have you, I can live with it without detracting from my enjoyment of the other elements and the "moments" I've been fortunate enough to catch already. My favorite being the cardinal flinging the worm I posted in the bird thread, with the water droplets shining in the shaft of light. Despite the horrendous noise and less than perfect sharpness, any time I've thought about what I might have printed to put up in my apartment, that one always comes to mind first. For anyone else, here's the pine cone in question.  The pine cone made me think of this, another one like that that took hundreds of tries, and the only other one that I used manual exposure and manual focus on.  And the cardinal I was talking about. Hope this isn't considered spamming. The same conditions that make the lighting bad on the main subject, make the droplets work. 
vessbot fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jun 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
I think you already broke the rules of the thread slightly by not critiquing my bee shot, no issue with me. I love enthusiasm for photography and willingness to experiment and mess with camera settings so keep on keeping on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:I'm really struggling right now with motivation for photography, I like taking photos of landscapes/outdoor settings but I'm also really disappointed with pretty much all of my photos right now as I don't think I'm really finding anything unique in my compositions they're all just 'picture of a thing'. Anyway here's one that I like from a recent day out, would love to hear some tips/feedback. To be extremely reductive all photos are just images of things but the more you take photos the more you'll find your direction with how those things relate to one another in the frame and the specific things that you are drawn to. It takes a long time for these things to come together, there is a certain ebb and flow to it. It's not constructive to get down on yourself when you have no motivation for a while. But it is important to still be thinking about photography or absorbing some type of art in that time, IMO. When i was in art school I found Why People Photograph by Robert Adams really instructive. His prose is beautiful and light but he also gets really, really deep into (as the title says) why we photograph. I still think about lines in this book occasionally, especially when I'm looking at something that provokes a strong reaction in me, this book has helped put it to words. https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Adams-Photograph-Selected-Reviews/dp/0893816035
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
I got that book on my nightstand, it owns. Everyone buy it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
OK so, newbie here. Pixel 4 camera seems pretty decent. I read the OP and if anything I'll critique myself. I should be getting a Canon T7i next week? and barring situations I'll be practicing on that instead. Never taken a photography class, and in retrospect I kind of wish I had. This was at 8x zoom, mostly because I usually avoid zooming period on anything because it always tends to come out lovely, and since this bird was so skittish I figured I would try out the zoom function. I'm a bit conflicted, I both like it because it's legible, and my family enjoys it because it came out nice, but I dislike it because it's clear it has some AI algorithms to make it legible, and it comes off with an overly smoothed, blurry feel, and the color is fine, but because the barn wasn't painted, the bird doesn't really "pop". Still, for something done with a phone camera, I am kind of impressed and it probably would be ok if I printed it out on an 8x10 and you probably wouldn't be able to tell. I also feel like I should have shifted the camera higher so it fit more easily in the bottom left corner.  I really liked the colors in this shot and I enjoy the portrait mode because it forces DoF, though you can't really change how strong the DoF is since it's all auto. I tried having the terracotta pot (it's a heart shaped pot....whole thing a gift from the GF) be the horizon line. The strength of the DoF is probably my biggest complaint, I'd want it to be a shade or two not as strong. I also guess I wish I knew how to change what kind of bokeh it processed. Maybe do a normal shot and then manually force some bokeh in lightroom? Can I do that?  This one I really liked, and I think it has some good auto-HDR post-processing done on it, though I think maybe I should have gone farther back with the shot and lower, because I'm noticing now that it doesn't feel like it has the right horizon line in the lower third quadrant. Of course, I suck and want to get better so please let me know what feedback you have and I'll try to do what I can to improve. I've read the OP like three times at this point and don't think I've missed anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:OK so, newbie here. Pixel 4 camera seems pretty decent. I read the OP and if anything I'll critique myself. I should be getting a Canon T7i next week? and barring situations I'll be practicing on that instead. Never taken a photography class, and in retrospect I kind of wish I had. This biggest lessons you can learn with a camera phone are wide angle composition and how quality of light affects your photos. Your bird wont pop because a camera is fully digital zooming because it can't increase focal length so it just crops the image, there is no difference between taking the photo unzoomed and cropping later. And because it's wide angle your depth of field is very big meaning there's not going to be any subject separation by blurred background, which is generally how we separate subjects from backgrounds, and why people like wide open lenses for portraits. The fake narrow depth of field background blur that camera phones apply only works with strong well defined subjects, It's literally trying to mask your subject and applying a blur effect to the rest. Because it has to guess what the subject is it gets it wrong when there are complicated structures in the image. You can do the same thing in Lightroom/Photoshop by painting in blur, but be aware this is very noticeable to photographers if you paint in some blur that doesn't make sense optically. Once you get a real camera one of your 1st things to do is to play with aperture/zoom/subject distance to see how that effects your depth of field. Auto HDR is actually pretty decent on phones but the best thing about phones is portability I tend to use mine for wider landscape shots mostly because that's not my main subject so the phone fills in nicely, if the light is special I'll sometimes get a nice shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2020 10:56
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:OK so, newbie here. Pixel 4 camera seems pretty decent. I read the OP and if anything I'll critique myself. I should be getting a Canon T7i next week? and barring situations I'll be practicing on that instead. Never taken a photography class, and in retrospect I kind of wish I had. Number 2 I also like the colours. I wonder what is outside the frame. I would be interested to see a horizontal composition of the same subject, because the succulents and the pot are layered in depth (front/dirt/plants/back). Number 3 is my favourite of these. You've chosen a nice complicated foreground, with a perspective that draws the eye through the image. I think a bit more luck with the contents of the sky,and perhaps waiting for even more interesting lighting conditions and you'd have an extraordinary image. I am a sucker for this kind of into-the-light compositions, where the frame is full of objects yielding combinations of dark sides, midlights and bright solar highlights, and it could be even more exaggerated than this. You could also experiment with the framing and alignment between the basket and the island. Taking lots of images and going through them afterwards for the most striking is the easiest way to work towards optimising this aspect of your pictures.   
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2020 11:54
|
|
|
#1 - I feel like this would work better as a wider crop (like #2). There is too much blank space on both the top and bottom parts of the frame. #2 - This works really well, it's got this ethereal, dreamy feeling. If I were to nitpick the horizon in the background seems horizontal, but the foreground seems a little bit slanted. #3 - I feel this could use a wider crop as well, the washed-out sky doesn't draw interest, but the foreground subject is also just kind of... there.    (these are not my pets)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
never mind
Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Oct 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
I like this one better as you can see more detail in the rocks and clouds. Imo the foreground isn't helping this photo at all. Personally, I think it would be a strong photo if you crop a square centered around the rock on the left. I could post an example with your permission. Subyng fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Context: Biden's victory day.   The shots are underexposed. As said in another thread I really like low key aesthetic. How do I achieve a great exposure with natural light, in the wild, while maintaining this kind of low key aesthetic? Think Alex Webb.   The aesthetic of shafts of natural light illuminating the subject and casting a high contrast look is a look I'm highly attracted to. How can I achieve this without feeling like I need to underexpose? On Alex Webb shots he is similarly overly represented by an uneven histogram.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
From those examples, it looks like the overall composition helps carry the picture as far as adding shape and form. The windows/symmetry in the first and the arch and balance in the second. I think your first scene would have had the best potential with the doorway behind the guy. I’m also more attracted to the first because you can see his face. It’s totally understandable why you can’t in the second 2 because of the rona. The best bet there may be waiting for interaction between the two kids or finding a way to bring in more of the third person from the right. Sleepytime fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Nov 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Sleepytime posted:From those examples, it looks like the overall composition helps carry the picture as far as adding shape and form. The windows/symmetry in the first and the arch and balance in the second. I think your first scene would have had the best potential with the doorway behind the guy. Wow. I never thought about the shapes in the Webb compositions. Thank you for that. Here's one shot of him in front of the door. The other shot I got low. Made a rookie mistake and didn't pay attention to background.  The problem with this one though, is that his hand with the spoon isn't as visible. Which is why I didn't post it. And I've now exceeded my three images a day. Sorry. Sleepytime posted:I’m also more attracted to the first because you can see his face. It’s totally understandable why you can’t in the second 2 because of the rona. The best bet there may be waiting for interaction between the two kids or finding a way to bring in more of the third person from the right. I milked the scene and have a lot of shots of this scenario including the man on the right (he's got his mask down). Blackhawk posted:Thanks for all the feedback on that one, I agree with what's been said re. flatness. I've been trying to learn a bit more about composition recently and how to properly critique an image, and I think what I've learned is that the vast majority of my photos don't really have much in the way of compositional elements going on in them. I prefer the second. The gradation of the blue in the background and less clouds gives for a more minimalist feel. The first is exceedingly busy. I do question why you shot vertical and I'm exposing my biases here but I don't think the cliff, with its length, helps the verticality of this composition. In effect, it feels constrained when I want more of the scene. If possible, shoot from another angle or use depth of field to blur the foreground. They are distracting from the overall mood of the rocks, clouds, and sea. The color temperature of the second image is utterly beautiful and while the first gives more definition and detail to the rocks, I don't find them as interesting of the beautiful tapestry of the sky's blue, pink, and white which gives a hint of sunset. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:The shots are underexposed. As said in another thread I really like low key aesthetic. How do I achieve a great exposure with natural light, in the wild, while maintaining this kind of low key aesthetic? Think Alex Webb. The general advice for the best exposure is ETTR - "expose to the right" of the histogram. Expose the shot as brightly as possible without blowing out important highlights. That gets you as much detail as possible in the shadows. Then in post you bring the shadows up to a good level, then bring down the exposure of the image overall if needed, or just the highlights depending. I would try taking your photos into lightroom / dark table and mess around with them there for a bit. Don't really focus on trying to make them perfect or anything like that, or really even worry about making something you like, but more just focus on seeing what you can do with the light and shadow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I like this one better as you can see more detail in the rocks and clouds. Imo the foreground isn't helping this photo at all. Personally, I think it would be a strong photo if you crop a square centered around the rock on the left. I could post an example with your permission. Sorry haven't checked this thread in a while but I'd be happy for you to post an example of what you think is a stronger crop. Jupiter Jazz posted:Context: Biden's victory day. I don't have a lot of exposure to street-style photography so I'm not sure how much I can contribute, but the one thing that struck me as a significant difference between your images and those of Alex Webb is the role played by light. The images you posted of his are high contrast sure but they have significant areas of the frame very brightly illuminated to highlight his subjects, your images don't have any real areas of bright light to contrast with the deep shadows, which makes them feel darker overall. One thing I've found can be helpful sometimes is to look at the photo as a thumbnail or while squinting to intentionally blur it out. Getting rid of your ability to see any detail can help you focus more on just the illumination and form aspects of the photo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
In the Alex Webb photos there are clear subjects (people in the sun, wall the silhouette is cast on) and the photos are well exposed for those subjects. The advice is always the same, choose a subject and make sure it is well lit. It just so happens that the scenes you like are high contrast with non-subject areas deep in the dark. Try shooting in RAW and playing around with lightroom or darktable or whatever. You can push the shot to be more contrasty and try to preserve detail in your subjects to save shots where the natural light didn’t do all the work for you, since those will be harder to find. edit: if you crop the alex webb photos down to just the subjects you’ll see that the histogram of the cropped image is likely to be mainly in the 3rd and 4th quartiles where they should. Do the same with the subject’s faces in your shots and they’ll be darker. Dren fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 19:16
|
|
