Becoming a better photographer and having more fun [Archive]

wmmk

Feb 18, 2007, 12:00 AM

Hello, everyone. I've been shooting seriously for quite a while now and I've been essentially all digital since late October. I've taken a photo class at school. I'm developing an eye for color and composition. I have a nice starter DSLR, two lenses covering the 18-200mm range, and a strobe which I use off camera (the strobe is actually in the mail). I shoot all manual. All this is just fine.
I think I've become a slightly better than average photographer. Granted, I'm not taking frivolous snapshots or anything of that nature, but in the arena of serious hobbyists, I'm really not all that amazing.
Here (http://flickr.com/photos/wmmk/sets/72157594540831965/) are some of my recent photos that I sort of liked. I'm open to any constructive criticism.
Photography has really turned into a way to escape from the pressures of taking all honors classes, being on a very competitive debate team, being Student Council Treasurer, yadda, yadda, yadda. I simply wish I were better at it. I understand that practice makes perfect, but I'd also like make make my photos better now. I've heard from quite a few people whose opinions I really respect that Photoshop is the way to good images. I have nothing against a bit of creative manipulation, but I switched from film because I wanted to spend less time post processing, not more. Other reasons that I'm not sure about Photoshop as an artistic tool is that it's simply less fun than the excitement of pulling off a perfect shot and it just feels too artificial.

Wow, I've written a lot:o

My questions are these:
How can I get better photographs now? What are your recommendations for finding things, places, and people to take pictures of? I really think that I'd at least have more fun if I didn't just take pictures of birds in my back yard and flowers and landscapes at a Botanical Garden near me.

Thanks,
wmmk

Scarlet Fever

Feb 18, 2007, 12:13 AM

i reckon your shots look great! you should get a deviantART account :)

have you had a go at long exposure shots? you can get really nice shots of water with long exposure.

compuwar

Feb 18, 2007, 12:14 AM

Composition will do more for you at this point than anything. Lines leading the eye into the picture, simplifying what you're capturing, use of negative space. Those will give you more compelling images overall.

The door shot is good, though maybe a little off vertical. The clock would be good if it weren't for the highlights from what appears to be a window. The building over the water is also nice but also looks slightly off vertical, and I think it'd look better from a slightly lower angle with the waterline leading the eye into the picture. The stones could probably also use a lower perspective and the edge of the path to lead the eye through the picture and a bit more of a repetitive look. The rest all look a bit busy to me.

Try a lower perspective and less cluttered backgrounds in general.

For places, try to go somewhere that you're interested in, that makes the images all that more interesting to you and you're likely to spend more time there. It'll give the images more meaning for you too, likely making it easier to critique them evenly.

Hope this helps...

FrankieTDouglas

Feb 18, 2007, 12:55 AM

Find a voice. While your photos are technically faithful reproductions of what you see, what is the importance? What drew you to them? Basically, why should I care that door is open, or those leaves are there?

I'd suggest taking a self-portrait. Take a very directorial approach. Have a reason for every object inside the frame, not just your expression or choice of clothing. Have a reason for why it's in the shot, and in theory, it should all relate back to you. This will be a good test in finding a "voice" in photography.

Yakamoto

Feb 18, 2007, 01:43 AM

I'm in the same boat as you, that I'm trying to be more creative in my photography. I've stopped trying to take pictures of everything I see, and focus on things that tell a story instead. I'm not sure if you are in Chicago anymore but, I found this link for you....
http://www.chicagowilderness.org/explore/see/index.cfm
You may have visited these spots already though. But if not it might be a good chance to try something new. Also try walking around maybe Downtown during the day and look for things to shoot, with the mindset that you will be selling those shots. I bet you could find a few interesting people that would'nt mind that you photograph them ie. a Cabbie, a Shoeshine, a clerk. You could also try some creative shots such as long exposure's, still life,
smoke art, water drops, or anythig else that strikes your fancy.
Whenever I lose creativity, I'll usualy visit the POD thread here, even though it's gone kinda downhill lately (I hope it's temporary)
But another good site that has been recommened before is..
http://www.fredmiranda.com/
Find a genre and you will see some amazing photos that will get the juices flowing. As far as the Photoshop question goes, I used it before I got the Dslr, but now I try to avoid it like the plague. If I can't get a good image out the first time, then I' reshoot. But to be honest It is a nice safety net.
Best of luck to you and I hope you get even better, I've always admired the work you've posted so far and can't wait to see you grow into it. :D

beavo451

Feb 18, 2007, 09:53 AM

I would pick a certain subject area and focus on it. This will improve your photograpy skills better than if you try to be a "general" photographer. The pictures you have linked are nice, but most seem to be lacking something. The biggest improvement would be composition. Some of the photos would benefit from using rule of thirds, such as the round ball with the pathways. In that photo, there is too much dead space to the right. My eyes are drawn up the path to the left and want to see more, but runs into the boundary of the photo.

It might also be a good time to start learning Photoshop. It is NOT a crutch for bad shots. It is a tool to develop your digital photos, just like the darkroom was for film. A bad photo will be made worse in PS while a good photo will be made better. Just take a look at some of the spectacular images over on Fred Miranda. Nearly all involved color, contrast, and sharpening adjustments. People shots involve softening, skin smoothing, touch-ups, etc. Burning and dodging are also used on many shots to counter dynamic range issues (which were common techniques in the darkroom as well).

jamesW135

Feb 18, 2007, 09:58 AM

Try composing with shapes. I'm not talking the distorted shoe circle you usually see on myspace. Try the rule of thirds more often.

Nice Shots

dllavaneras

Feb 18, 2007, 10:20 AM

Since my experience is mostly with macros, I have come to appreciate bokeh. I'm still getting the hang of it, but with closeups and macros, always try to get good bokeh. I'm particularly referring to this (http://flickr.com/photos/wmmk/383358668/in/set-72157594540831965/) pic. It would isolate it from the background, which looks cluttered.

All in all, you have some great shots there :)

Doylem

Feb 18, 2007, 11:09 AM

Photograph what interests you. If you don't know what that is, keep looking. Be patient: while you're out taking pix... and patient with your own progress. There's a lot to learn. Don't take short-cuts. Have fun.

Here's some of my landscape/location stuff: www.northpix.co.uk

purelithium

Feb 18, 2007, 05:15 PM

Also, check out this forum, It's a fantastic place to learn and gain skill. There's sections for gear, and individual forums for lots of different subjects.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

mrkgoo

Feb 18, 2007, 08:27 PM

My suggestion is to take a look at other people's photography. In particular, focus on the images you like. Look at them and decide why you like them. Try to figure out how to achieve this aspect. Then go out and try for yourself.

For your own stuff you have to feel the photo. Just like you can tell when someone is smiling on the phone, you can tell when there is passion in someone's photography.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/259/img3741pd2.jpg
efs17-55IS, 54mm, f11.0, 1/2000s, iso100

phuong

Feb 19, 2007, 02:32 AM

your photos aren't so good as you think they are. but dont worry, i dont mean to discourage you. this is a normal feeling that all starters have when they're getting a little farther on their learning curve. later on you'll know what i mean (probably a few years from now)

getting constructive critisism is a good way to learn, but not from some place like MR (sorry if i'm being too frank, but it's true). Joining some photography forums is a good starting point (photosig.com and dgrin.com come to mind).

and if you're thinking you're running out of things to photograph, think again. what about looking back at what you've shot so far, and try to improve them. sometimes a little change in POV, crop, or presentation can make a huge difference.

Hello, everyone. I've been shooting seriously for quite a while now and I've been essentially all digital since late October. I've taken a photo class at school. I'm developing an eye for color and composition. I have a nice starter DSLR, two lenses covering the 18-200mm range, and a strobe which I use off camera (the strobe is actually in the mail). I shoot all manual. All this is just fine.
I think I've become a slightly better than average photographer. Granted, I'm not taking frivolous snapshots or anything of that nature, but in the arena of serious hobbyists, I'm really not all that amazing.
Here (http://flickr.com/photos/wmmk/sets/72157594540831965/) are some of my recent photos that I sort of liked. I'm open to any constructive criticism.
Photography has really turned into a way to escape from the pressures of taking all honors classes, being on a very competitive debate team, being Student Council Treasurer, yadda, yadda, yadda. I simply wish I were better at it. I understand that practice makes perfect, but I'd also like make make my photos better now. I've heard from quite a few people whose opinions I really respect that Photoshop is the way to good images. I have nothing against a bit of creative manipulation, but I switched from film because I wanted to spend less time post processing, not more. Other reasons that I'm not sure about Photoshop as an artistic tool is that it's simply less fun than the excitement of pulling off a perfect shot and it just feels too artificial.

Wow, I've written a lot:o

My questions are these:
How can I get better photographs now? What are your recommendations for finding things, places, and people to take pictures of? I really think that I'd at least have more fun if I didn't just take pictures of birds in my back yard and flowers and landscapes at a Botanical Garden near me.

Thanks,
wmmk

Mechcozmo

Feb 19, 2007, 02:45 AM

My questions are these:
How can I get better photographs now? What are your recommendations for finding things, places, and people to take pictures of? I really think that I'd at least have more fun if I didn't just take pictures of birds in my back yard and flowers and landscapes at a Botanical Garden near me.

1. Take more pictures
2. Take more pictures
3. Take mor-- eh, walk around a bit. There are photos all around you.

In 18 months I've taken nearly 10,000 photos and I can tell that as I've taken more I've gotten better at framing, composition, etc. Once you have the basics down, (and you do, I hope) just keep taking pictures. Take 20 photos a day. Look at them, see what you wish you'd done differently, and then take 20 the next day that are better in those ways.

wmmk

Feb 19, 2007, 12:43 PM

wow, thanks for all of the replies! I shot about 150 frames or so, and tried to keep everyone's advice in mind. I tried some long exposures, tried a lower perspective, attempted to have a voice and shoot things I care about, and really tired to feel my photos. Anyway, I had a few questions for some of you...
DLavaneras, how can I get better bokeh? Is there any way to do this without getting new lenses? Anyhow, I'm going to the Art Institute and Chinatown today. What an awesome way to spend a day off school!

phuong

Feb 19, 2007, 01:31 PM

how nice the bokeh is depends on the characteristics of the aperture blades in the lens so yeah, if you want better bokeh that's the only way.

wmmk

Feb 19, 2007, 02:55 PM

how nice the bokeh is depends on the characteristics of the aperture blades in the lens so yeah, if you want better bokeh that's the only way.

dang! I hate spending money:p
I guess I'll just have to save up...

dllavaneras

Feb 19, 2007, 03:06 PM

DLavaneras, how can I get better bokeh? Is there any way to do this without getting new lenses?

There are ways to get nice bokeh without shelling out an arm and a leg, but it requires some particular situations.

Get close to your subject
Select the widest aperture you can
have a lot of empty space between your subject and the background.

I've gotten pretty good shots like this with my P&S :)

Oh, I just read you have a lens covering the 200mm range. The longer the zoom, the more bokeh you'll get since your DOF is narrower (I could be mistaken here). A large aperture (f2.8 for example) at 200mm will isolate your subject from the background and make it pop.

smueboy

Feb 19, 2007, 03:30 PM

.....

I've been meaning to say,i really like a lot of your macro shots from you gallery. Well framed and very professional.

dllavaneras

Feb 19, 2007, 03:51 PM

I've been meaning to say,i really like a lot of your macro shots from you gallery. Well framed and very professional.

:o thanks! Not bad for a 3 MP P&S :) I can't wait to get a DSLR!

wmmk

Feb 19, 2007, 03:57 PM

smueboy

Feb 19, 2007, 04:00 PM

:o thanks! Not bad for a 3 MP P&S :) I can't wait to get a DSLR!

Not bad at all - i have a Canon S60, but i have trouble getting macros to look that good.

dllavaneras

Feb 19, 2007, 04:11 PM

cool! the maximum aperture of my telephoto zoom at 200mm is f/5.6. Is that good enough?

That's a bit small, it'll have a reasonably large DOF so getting something isolated is going to be tricky, but if you have plenty of room between your subject and the background you should do fine. So a search on PBase (http://www.pbase.com) on your lens and check it out :) I found this (http://www.pbase.com/image/21494847) pic taken almost at full zoom and f5.6 to give you a sense of what you can achieve.

and smueboy, I have a macro lens add-on for my canon (Raynox DCR-250). I bought it from Lensmateonline (http://www.lensmateonline.com/), but they unfortunately don't make the adaptor for the S60 you need to use it :( I'd love to see your macro shots though :) Do you have a website?

smueboy

Feb 19, 2007, 04:25 PM

and smueboy, I have a macro lens add-on for my canon (Raynox DCR-250). I bought it from Lensmateonline (http://www.lensmateonline.com/), but they unfortunately don't make the adaptor for the S60 you need to use it :( I'd love to see your macro shots though :) Do you have a website?

No - i've been too lazy to organise my pics. :o

But as an example, here is one i took recently. I had trouble getting any closer than this:

dllavaneras

Feb 19, 2007, 04:38 PM

Great shot of a Bufo granulosus :)

In short, the general advice in this thread is practice a lot! And don't get stuck on shooting only one subject. Try many different things using many different settings and see what your equipment is capable of. And maybe take a risk (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/117046338_ad980e499a_b.jpg) or two (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/95819622_dd90685435_b.jpg) ;)

About the pics:
1st one is a Tityus tenvicauda, which has a really long tail. I was maybe 10-12 cm from it, without glass or anything in between. Big adrenaline rush.
2nd one is an Atropoides nummifer, if my memory is correct. I was maybe 50 cm from it when it lunged out and tried to bite my friend, standing next to me. BIG adrenaline rush, but the pictures in those sets were well worth it :)

ATD

Feb 19, 2007, 04:39 PM

Once you have mastered the technical side of photography spend a good deal of time looking at the work of others (like mrkgoo suggested). Don't limit yourself to photographers, look at painters, designers or anything visual. When you see things that appeal to you start asking yourself why. Is it the subject matter, mood, color, composition, the play of light and dark, rhythm, motion, contrasts... ? Break it down as an artist would then use your technical skills to make it happen.

Maybe start taking classes in art and design to gain a different way to look at things.

compuwar

Feb 19, 2007, 07:02 PM

There are ways to get nice bokeh without shelling out an arm and a leg, but it requires some particular situations.

Get close to your subject
Select the widest aperture you can
have a lot of empty space between your subject and the background.

I've gotten pretty good shots like this with my P&S :)

Oh, I just read you have a lens covering the 200mm range. The longer the zoom, the more bokeh you'll get since your DOF is narrower (I could be mistaken here). A large aperture (f2.8 for example) at 200mm will isolate your subject from the background and make it pop.

While that's a good way to get subject to background separation, my understanding of the word Bokeh is that it expresses the look of the out of focus areas, not just the fact that they're out of focus. Hence the tie to the number of aperture blades and their edges- it's a lens design issue, plain and simple, as phuong pointed out.

Please see:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

dllavaneras

Feb 19, 2007, 07:51 PM

While that's a good way to get subject to background separation, my understanding of the word Bokeh is that it expresses the look of the out of focus areas, not just the fact that they're out of focus. Hence the tie to the number of aperture blades and their edges- it's a lens design issue, plain and simple, as phuong pointed out.

I know, Bokeh is the quality of the OOF parts of the pic. Which is why I gave the explanation on my image taken with a 6 blade lens. More blades = more pleasing to see :) Still, I've gotten some great bokeh with my 6-blade lens at 5.6 using what I mentioned before. It's all about knowing what your equipment can do and how to do it (heck, 25,000 pics later and I'm still learning!)

Padaung

Feb 19, 2007, 08:01 PM

Hi, along with a few others here, my main advice is practice, practice, practice. And enjoy yourself along the way...
I've been a professional photographer all my working life (10yrs now) and was a very keen photographer for most of my teenage years - I can happily say I am still learning new things. Keeps the job interesting as they say!
Photography has a lot of technical elements (exposure, timing, photoshop/darkroom printing, lighting, composition, colour): become proficient in these and getting the results you want will be a lot easier.
Know what you wish to convey with your photographs. Other posts have mentioned trying to get a message into your photos - a feeling of intimacy and tenderness between a mother and her new baby for example. The sublime beauty of a landscape. A sense of drama in an action photo etc. This is where knowing your technical stuff really helps as this can help convey your message in choice of lens, exposure, lighting and so forth. But the message then adds the extra bit of 'zing' that will help make the photo stand out from the crowd.
Photoshop is a wonderful tool and is one which I feel is there to be embraced. One word of caution; although a lot of things can be fixed with it, it is often quicker and easier to get things right as much possible in the camera first!
Someone else mentioned studying all forms of art, and I agree with this. What works compositionally is the same be it an oil painting, pencil sketch or a photo. Play with lines of sight (not necessarily actual lines - it can be a look between two people) to keep the eye moving around the photo and the viewer interested, but then using the composition to keep the eye within the frame. There are some rules on composition and they do generally work well, but there is never any harm in pushing the boundaries...
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG6301
Notice how lines at the corners bring the eye back into the frame - the line of the field, the dog looking up at the owner, the clouds and tree bringing us back in at the top. Then the eye, once back in the middle is drawn back to the blue of the ladies' dress and back to our main subjects again.
A couple of points on portraiture: we instinctively look at the eyes of the subject first and then we pay attention to the subject's expression. Pay heed to these two points and you can often get away with murder 'technically'!

Having read over this I apologise for going on for so long - I think I may have got carried away. :eek: Anyway, I hope this has been of some help (I could probably continue for a fair while longer) and that you continue to enjoy your photography for a long while to come.

dllavaneras

Feb 19, 2007, 08:04 PM

Having read over this I apologise for going on for so long - I think I may have got carried away. :eek:

Don't :) Any advice is always well appreciated, more so if it comes from a pro as yourself. Do you have a gallery of some sort?

Grimace

Feb 19, 2007, 08:19 PM

wmmk

Feb 19, 2007, 11:09 PM

the best lens you can buy to learn on (and keep loving forever) is a 50mm f/1.8

You'll get to move your feet to learn framing and since it is a fast lens, you can play around with depth of field and bokeh.

Honestly, it's the best $75 you can spend.

Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't have a 50mm f/1.8. We do have a 50mm f/1.4, which seems to have some of the best bokeh you can buy, but is around $200 on the street. I can't afford that. Any tips for finding good deals on out of production lenses? I know Pentax used to make a 50mm f/1.7, which was really nice. I just can't find one anywhere.

dllavaneras

Feb 20, 2007, 09:47 AM

Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't have a 50mm f/1.8. We do have a 50mm f/1.4, which seems to have some of the best bokeh you can buy, but is around $200 on the street. I can't afford that.

Ouch. Good luck trying to find a good lens in that price range. When you move up to DSLR, be prepared to own lenses that are more expensive than your camera body ;) Most lenses will be in the $400-900 range, with the more specialized lenses often costing 1000-1500 bucks.

I'm talking from my Canon experience, but searching on Amazon for a bit led me to pretty much the same conclusion for Pentax.

wmmk

Feb 20, 2007, 11:09 AM

Ouch. Good luck trying to find a good lens in that price range. When you move up to DSLR, be prepared to own lenses that are more expensive than your camera body ;) Most lenses will be in the $400-900 range, with the more specialized lenses often costing 1000-1500 bucks.

I'm talking from my Canon experience, but searching on Amazon for a bit led me to pretty much the same conclusion for Pentax.
True. I don't mind if it's something specialized like Pentax's 31mm f/1.8 limited, which costs $1500. And I'll be completely willing to pay that when I actually have that money in my pocket. In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

Grimace

Feb 20, 2007, 11:21 AM

True. I don't mind if it's something specialized like Pentax's 31mm f/1.8 limited, which costs $1500. And I'll be completely willing to pay that when I actually have that money in my pocket. In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

It shouldn't, but sometimes it does. Availability and price are definite benefits of the most popular brands.

I was once in the same boat. When I realized that I was serious (that photography wasn't some passing fancy) - I sucked it up, sold my gear for a little bit of a loss and invested in Canon. 'Best move I ever made - it's just more universal, and to me, that was important.

You don't have to jump ship, it's just something to throw out there in case these frustrations keep coming up. Also, it might help you easily borrow a few lenses at your internship. I don't think the Chicago Tribune photogs use Pentax.

dllavaneras

Feb 20, 2007, 11:38 AM

In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

It shouldn't, it true... and only the f1.8 costs less than 100 bucks. The f1.4 will set you back about $300. ;)

I'm ready to sell a kidney when I get a DSLR to afford all the lenses. Any takers?

wmmk

Feb 20, 2007, 11:41 AM

It shouldn't, it true... and only the f1.8 costs less than 100 bucks. The f1.4 will set you back about $300. ;)

I'm ready to sell a kidney when I get a DSLR to afford all the lenses. Any takers?

ah, I see. If only the old f1.7s were easier to find!

compuwar

Feb 20, 2007, 11:46 AM

In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

I'd bet in terms of lens sales it's nowhere near "slightly less popular." High volume sales give you a serious competitive advantage pricing-wise, as your production costs are spread over a larger number of units until you saturate the production capacity. The camera stores I frequent probably sell more Canon and Nikon lenses in a day than they do Pentax lenses in a month. The last time I personally saw someone even browsing Pentax lenses, it was used lenses for a Pentax 67 (my favorite Pentax ever, too bad mine broke) about six months ago.