Amateur Photography Thread

[UnephenStephen]

"Okay, since I don't know what that one looked liked before the post prrocessing you can ignore my comments on the direction to alter the exposure for the settings you posted with that image."

the first of those 3 was taken with the same settings. that's what i meant by 'same series'. but it's too dark anyway.

"Since the image with the filename "lyman4_002_1900.jpg" is closest and you mentioned an exposure of 1/80 & F10 at ISO 200, I can say that this is so far the closest raw exposure to correct. Maybe at f9 you have gotten it. But, my eyes are not good enough to tell, in this image, if the fountain and background trees are both in focus. If not, you would need to stay at f10 or even f11, and slow down the shutter to 1/60, or use a tripod at 1/30."

i do have exposures with those settings but not with a tripod (wasn't high enough to reach over the fence surrounding the pond) so i'm not as concerned with the sharpness. sharpening is one of the things i do in post-processing if necessary.

Lyman4_ 020_1900.jpg

1/60, F14
200
WB daylight

still looks too dark. aperture was probably too small (opening that is)

this one is a little better..

Lyman4_ 083_1900.jpg

1/30, F16
200
WB Auto
+0.7 EV (w/polarizer)

"One problem you have is that the algae and plant growth on the pond surface is making the image look muddy. If the pond were not covered with that layer of brown-green flotsam the entire image would start to pop."

agreed but unfortunately can't do much about it. in fact, you might remember this pic taken about a year ago with my PnS..

Lyman_007_1200.jpg

no algae last year which makes me wonder why there is this year. i was also able to zoom in more with the PnS than i can with my 18-55mm. unless the position of the fountain changed which i don't think it did.

[kid_runningfox]

Hey Josef, I can't access that goat picture!!

Btw, I have a whole new set of pictures up on my Flickr page if anyone's interested - both in colour and black and white. Don't mind admitting that some of them I'm genuinely proud of:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97746179@N08/

[WHORG]

Ahhh - my wife must have added security to that gallery, that's why it's not showing up like that - lemme fix that tomorrow.

[WHORG]

[WHORG]

Those are very nice shots Mark - especially the B & W (which I've always loved).

Wish that I could have my own B & W darkroom once again - even with my meager equipment = quality prints would result.

JK

[kid_runningfox]

Those are very nice shots Mark - especially the B & W (which I've always loved).

Wish that I could have my own B & W darkroom once again - even with my meager equipment = quality prints would result.

JK

Thank you sir! I amazed at the quality of the most recent shots I've taken, and I put it largely down to changing processors from Boot's to my local independent camera store, Harrison's Cameras, here in Sheffield. Same price for processing as Boot's - but a world away in terms of print quality. The B&W shots were taken on a slower film than the last set; 100 ASA as opposed to 400 ASA. And whilst the latter undoubtedly has its uses, I much prefer the slower film. Lost of use of filters there, too, especially my orange and red filters, to further heighten the tonal contrasts. Hopefully, they show that film still has a lot to offer in this digital age, as does approaching the taking of pictures in a simple, very un-technical fashion.

Great shot of the goats, btw!

[UnephenStephen]

hate to think that the only way for me get decent pictures is if the weather cooperates but that seems to be the case..

Pool_ 036_1900.jpg

[kid_runningfox]

hate to think that the only way for me get decent pictures is if the weather cooperates but that seems to be the case..

Pool_ 036_1900.jpg

That a nice shot, but the background looks a little under-exposed to me. Did you spot-meter it? Seriously man, I would consider turning off all the electronic gizmos on your camera, set it to aperture priority or even manual and then just use your eyes from there - most of the rest of that stuff's baggage you don't need when you're learning the basics.

[WHORG]

Shots like that - where there's a huge difference between the shadow detail (building balconies, etc) and the pool itself will be difficult to both *nail* and properly balance: one or the other will suffer. Shots in bright/direct sunlight are like that - you must position yourself to take advantage of the narrow latitude they provide. You are getting beautiful saturation on the colors though - - - I really like that myself.

I hate bright, direct, overhead, beating sunshine - only at the beach when there's oily female bodies around - - - otherwise give me a nice overcast day for few shadows and better detail capture. Be careful with a polarizer too - it can heighten contrast differentials too - - -

Bresson is a great photographer to study for this - - - his limited technology (for the time) forced him to be both creative and accurate in exposure, framing and composition. Heck - the guy shot film on an ancient (fully manual) Leica with a simple 50mm normal lens - but his photographs reflect passion much higher than this.

When shooting B&W - i almost always kept a yellow filter on the lens to heighten contrast and increase "punch" - then up to an orange or perhaps red when I wanted more. Some of my favorite film ever was Infrared - which provided the ethereal shots that only such an emulsion could produce: examples below (not my shots)







It was a fortune to both purchase and develop (I think only one lab in the country could process this stuff) - - - but it was beautiful. I should dig out my negatives . . .

I use a special plug-in called "Alienskin Exposure" that lives inside of Photoshop - - - and it provides me with literally hundreds of different emulsion color/contrast curves - - - including infrared:



A meager first attempt granted - - - but potential does exist and there's plenty of choices to choose from - - -

Peace . . . . ~JK

[UnephenStephen]

That a nice shot, but the background looks a little under-exposed to me. Did you spot-meter it? Seriously man, I would consider turning off all the electronic gizmos on your camera, set it to aperture priority or even manual and then just use your eyes from there - most of the rest of that stuff's baggage you don't need when you're learning the basics.

the only effects i used were WB and D-Lighting both set to Auto. i think the problem was i left the polarizer on and forgot about it and didn't adjust the EV value. but post-processing took care of that..

with +0.4 EV..

Pool_ 036_1900_01.jpg

could have went higher but didn't want to blow out the sky.
oh, and i used matrix metering. seems to be suggested for landscapes.

[kid_runningfox]

When shooting B&W - i almost always kept a yellow filter on the lens to heighten contrast and increase "punch" - then up to an orange or perhaps red when I wanted more. Some of my favorite film ever was Infrared - which provided the ethereal shots that only such an emulsion could produce: examples below (not my shots)

Yes, I do this too - the latest batch of B & W photos on my Flickr page were almost all taken with either yellow, orange, or red filters. I also prefer slower (100 ASA) film for general usage, though the more pronounced grain of 400 ASA black and white film can sometimes be very effective, too. I've also just ordered some graduated filters on ebay for colour photography, so we'll see what they allow me to do when they arrive!

i used matrix metering. seems to be suggested for landscapes.

I thought about picking up a Nikon FA recently, which was one of the first cameras to have matrix metering. In the end I decided just not to bother, as I have more than enough cameras right now! Have you thought about trying differing metering modes on the same shot, and seeing which one works best?

[Duncan Glenday]

Hey Josef, I can't access that goat picture!!

Btw, I have a whole new set of pictures up on my Flickr page if anyone's interested - both in colour and black and white. Don't mind admitting that some of them I'm genuinely proud of:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97746179@N08/

The B&Ws with the clouds in the background look dramatic.

[kid_runningfox]

The B&Ws with the clouds in the background look dramatic.

That'll be either orange or red filters giving that effect...

[Duncan Glenday]

Do graduated orange / red filters exist? I.e. is there a way to make the sky dramatic but avoid under-exposing the foreground?

('Course that would also mean more equipment to buy, carry, and fuss with...)

[WHORG]

Graduated B&W filters most certainly are available: Tiffen makes them I believe - - -

[kid_runningfox]

Do graduated orange / red filters exist? I.e. is there a way to make the sky dramatic but avoid under-exposing the foreground?

('Course that would also mean more equipment to buy, carry, and fuss with...)

Yes in both cases - I have some on order via ebay...

[Greg]

Do graduated orange / red filters exist?

The graduated filter set I bought is a Cokin system. High optic quality plastic that comes in two basic sizes, the pro size being fairly large (best for 72mm diameter lenses and up). It has a holder that fits on the end of the lens, and you can add a series of filters or other Cokin attachments like a hood, if you like.

Cokin may have the widest selection of filters, including pretty much any colour you can think of. The grads I have are orange, sepia, blue and ND. There are special effect filters, but I have never had an interest in them. They also make large diameter circular polarisers that fit the carriers, that can be combined with other filters. The polarisers are glass, fixed-ring (the entire filter rotates in the carrier).

The carriers use step-down rings to attach to the lens, so if you have more than one lens diameter, all you need is a few different step-down rings, which lightens the load a tiny bit. The carrier just snaps onto the ring.

Yes, it does add weight and bulk to the kit, and I rarely carry the colour filters any longer. I do keep the ND grad and polariser with me, though, just in case.

I haven't seen much, if any, difference in the quality between the Cokin kits and Tiffen glass filters, and the glass does add extra weight. But, the plastic does suffer scratches more easily, so if you're clumsy, the Tiffens might be a better choice.

My personal preference is the ND grad for getting better equality of exposure between sky and landscape in bright conditions. But, you can create some sunset-like effects with the range from yellow to red grads. Sometimes the blue grads can make the sky look a bit "fake", but that's just a reality with all coloured filters and colour photography.

[UnephenStephen]

not bad for an overcast day..

[Greg]

Is that an unaltered image (original exposure settings fro the camera)? Or, did you post-process this one?

If it's the original exposure, it's only a hair dark on the subject. Fill-flash would have helped bring out the life in the subject.

Otherwise, the rest of the image is very evenly exposed, with good saturation and contrast.

Obviously, the sun was out, but a bit behind the clouds when to took the shot. If you had waited around for a crack in the clouds, you might have gotten better highlights on the statue.

Also, if you look at the direction of the shadow, had the sun been fully out, the polariser could have added the punch you're looking for over the entire image as the sun was to your right, even though it wasn't at a true 90° angle it was close enough get some polarisation of the light entering the lens.

[UnephenStephen]

Is that an unaltered image (original exposure settings fro the camera)? Or, did you post-process this one?

If it's the original exposure, it's only a hair dark on the subject. Fill-flash would have helped bring out the life in the subject.

Otherwise, the rest of the image is very evenly exposed, with good saturation and contrast.

Obviously, the sun was out, but a bit behind the clouds when to took the shot. If you had waited around for a crack in the clouds, you might have gotten better highlights on the statue.

Also, if you look at the direction of the shadow, had the sun been fully out, the polariser could have added the punch you're looking for over the entire image as the sun was to your right, even though it wasn't at a true 90° angle it was close enough get some polarisation of the light entering the lens.

adjustments to the sharpness and color but that's about it. no exposure compensation, brightness or contrast changes. 18mm, 200, 1/250, F10, WB Auto
even when the sun was out it wasn't very bright because there were just too many clouds. could only peek through occasionally. plus it was a bit hazy.
and figures i didn't use the polarizer figuring it wouldn't work.
next good day i'll go back around the same time and try both the polarizer and flash.

[UnephenStephen]

i have lots of questions regarding the use of lenses but i'll start with a basic one..
what's the difference between using a 35mm fixed length lens and setting an 18-200mm to 35mm? with the number of focal lengths available with a 200mm lens, why get a whole other lens that only has one focal length available?

[UnephenStephen]

adjustments to the sharpness and color but that's about it. no exposure compensation, brightness or contrast changes. 18mm, 200, 1/250, F10, WB Auto
even when the sun was out it wasn't very bright because there were just too many clouds. could only peek through occasionally. plus it was a bit hazy.
and figures i didn't use the polarizer figuring it wouldn't work.
next good day i'll go back around the same time and try both the polarizer and flash.

i did try this again with the flash but it didn't do anything. probably because i was about 10-12 feet away from the statue. new one at slightly different settings from the one above (24mm, 250, 1/400, F10, WB Auto, -0.7EV (bracketed))..

Statue2_ 008_1900.jpg

[Duncan Glenday]

i have lots of questions regarding the use of lenses but i'll start with a basic one..
what's the difference between using a 35mm fixed length lens and setting an 18-200mm to 35mm? with the number of focal lengths available with a 200mm lens, why get a whole other lens that only has one focal length available?

Price. (Fixed focal length lenses are typically less expensive.)

Quality. (Fixed focal length lenses are often more true, and as they have less glass, the potential for glass flaws is reduced.)

Speed. (Fixed focal length lenses are typically faster than zooms.)

But for that cheaper-better lens, you're losing the obvious convenience and versatility of a zoom.

<generalization follows> Purists use fixed focal length lenses, hobyists use zooms.

[UnephenStephen]

Price. (Fixed focal length lenses are typically less expensive.)

Quality. (Fixed focal length lenses are often more true, and as they have less glass, the potential for glass flaws is reduced.)

Speed. (Fixed focal length lenses are typically faster than zooms.)

But for that cheaper-better lens, you're losing the obvious convenience and versatility of a zoom.

<generalization follows> Purists use fixed focal length lenses, hobyists use zooms.

but then you get into questions like what if you need to use focal lengths less than or greater than 35? buy 2 new lenses? could get expensive eventually and would greatly increase the amount of hardware you have to lug around.

[Duncan Glenday]

Correct - which is why professionals tend to go for fixed-length lenses, while you and I use zooms