A Few New Photos...

[Sy_Accursed]

Been playing with my camera in the twilightyness of my uni house while I'm home alone for a bit.

And further getting myself used to manual focus; think I'm improving though might be a bit off still.

 

I'm not sure why, or if anyone else will get it but I just saw this shot and was like WOW:

 

These 2 I quite like, but my arm decided to start being all twitchy everytime I went to shoot, so I caught some motion blurs and I think I knocked the second slightly outta focus too.

Oh and yes I know I used a zoom lens from miles away but half way up our steep staricase I got the angle for these shots and I just culdn't get the same angle close up.

 

[Sam]

The biggest problem here is underexposure. Invest in a tripod and you'll be able to do longer exposures (thus letting more light in, exposing your shots properly). Carry on practicing with manual focus, it's a skill that takes a lot of work to master. Work on focusing well before resorting to buying a prime lens and such.

[Ouchy]

The biggest problem here is underexposure. Invest in a tripod and you'll be able to do longer exposures (thus letting more light in, exposing your shots properly). Carry on practicing with manual focus, it's a skill that takes a lot of work to master. Work on focusing well before resorting to buying a prime lens and such.

 

And if you plan on picking up a tripod at all, then consider getting a remote shutter. You don't even need to buy one, depending on your camera, you can easily make them.

 

What is your camera?

[Sy_Accursed]

I did do them with longer exposure, but it lost the lighting effect I was going for. (Which only truely worked in the first pic tbh)

But I was upstairs in the dark, rails are round top of staircase. Downstairs light was oin and gave the wonderful eerie glow around them.

When I exposed any further u jsut ended up with a plain photo of what the area wuld be like with a light on.

 

I find manual focus harder than most (I think) because I need glasses for distance, but not enough to have contacts. Then I use the camera with bare eye and even with the eye piece fully adjusted for my eye its not perfect so what looks crystal sharp to me is just off correct focus.

 

But I have actually got a tripod on the way atm and I'm not entirely sure what is classed as a "remote shutter" I suspect it means a remote to set the camera off while not holding the camera itself; if so then I have one of them soon too. I also have a macro lense on the way which should greatly increase my photographic options within the general home area until I can get out for some good big shots.

[Shiny]

I assume you are changing the diopter to match your glasses? For me, none of those photos are compositionally interesting - No real focal point, focus issues, and everything centrally placed creates an image generally lacking in dynacism. Consider, when composing your photo to divide your photo into three sections horizontally, and three sections vertically, with it forming a grid like this:

 

It is those points in which it is good to place your focal, they are aesthetically pleasing and create a balanced composition. That above photo works so well because the bees head is on the point, creating a visually striking image.

 

Consider, when taking photos all of this: space (the space which is filled by the subect and the space which is empty), the lighting, subject matter and meaning, composition, depth of field, focus, balance, line and contrast. I call these artistic concepts (there are a few more as well) and they apply to all art. They aren't guidelines or rules, merely points to consider. How does this subject occupy the space, how does the out of focus space balance it, etc etc. It may seem overwhelming but if you stick to photography it all becomes second nature to you. Here are a few good photos highlighting a few of those concepts:

 

The subject jumps right from the space behind. The artist will have looked at the dark background, and used it to help the subject matter jump out. It creates a lovely balance, with the light focal point balancing the dark backgroud.

 

The lighting has been used in this photo to give the photo a soft quality and an almost abstract look to it. The shadows provide interest and look good. The lighting is soft and low, and so the aperture is wide open to compensate blurring the background and pulling the focus sharply to the balls.

 

The lines in this photo give it a very striking look, and they draw the viewer right in. It creates a strong composition, with the high contrast, black and white image feelin very blanced. It looks right.

 

Those are some examples but there are plenty of ways to use those concepts and apply them. It may seem overwhelming, try concentrating on a few at a time. You'll just get better, and I look forward to seeing more from you!

[Da_Latios]

What is this? I don't even...

 

I'm sorry, but they're terrible. I certainly don't feel "wow"ed when looking at the first image. It may have looked good in real life, but this is just plain boring. It's tilted, it's just... brown, there's nothing to look at. The point of focus isn't interesting at all. These all "feel" yuck.

 

Okay. The second one. Firstly, motion blur. Not a good thing. Secondly, why did you even take the photo? I can almost smell the foot odour from here. It's dark, it's brown, it's boring, there's nothing interesting about this photo. There's nothing to focus on, and it just looks MESSY.

 

Third one, basically the same. This is just depressing. It's two shoes, at an awkward angle, once again dark, blurred and uninteresting.

 

The only way you could have improved these photos would have been to not have taken them at all. The subjects are uninteresting, and that's one of the most basic things you need to look out for: an interesting subject.

 

 

I did do them with longer exposure, but it lost the lighting effect I was going for. (Which only truely worked in the first pic tbh)

But I was upstairs in the dark, rails are round top of staircase. Downstairs light was oin and gave the wonderful eerie glow around them.

When I exposed any further u jsut ended up with a plain photo of what the area wuld be like with a light on.

It doesn't look like you were going for a "lighting effect" at all. These look like cellphone pictures in dim house lighting. There very well may have been a wonderful eerie glow around whatever you were trying to photograph in real life, but that definitely can't be seen in the photos.

[Shiny]

Da_latios, it never hurts to be slightly more positive in your critique, haha.

[Sam]

The only way you could have improved these photos would have been to not have taken them at all. The subjects are uninteresting, and that's one of the most basic things you need to look out for: an interesting subject.

 

Was there really need for that? While finding a good subject is a skill of the good photographer, isn't it good to experiment a little, to practice with light?

 

-

 

I think the problem here is the exposure - it's just a little bit too dark; exposing a couple of stops lighter would probably give the same effect but make it more visible.

 

Don't be discouraged by our critique, we're only trying to help you improve.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yeah I' am listening and trying to take on advice while still slowly playing around with different lightings and shapes and stuff to get practice with all aspects of doing the photography (like getting the aperture and shutter speed closer to right first try).

I know most of my subject matters probably aren't all that amazing, but its winter in the uk and I don't have a car to get anywhere hugely photogenic that easily so I'm making the best of what I can find around me atm.

I get the feeling the first one is a bit sort of "marmite" compositionally cause on other arty communitys I use people do rather like it, aside from the exposure flaws etc.

 

And yeah I'm just ignoring Da_Latios post given that all his points are simply points that are wrong; which I commented on myself anyway, or based on purely subjective viewpoint of personal taste; afterall not all art interests everyone.

It's one thing to say a subject matter doesn't work for technical reasons and give feedback on how to better compose a shot; but its entirely different thing to say the subject matter is ew i don;t get it i don;t like it.

The first being objective and considering it outside personal taste to give useful feedback; the second being purely subjective and useless (in terms of improving) as all it does is say this person doesn't like the

particular style.

 

Based on the comments I think perhaps this shot is technically better, though I don;t think it has the same feel as the tight shot of just the bars and looks more sort of random objects:

With the grid thingy the focal point of the non-matching banister and the one jsut infront of it fall about right; but also you can see exposing it tht little bit more the colours went completely different.

[Da_Latios]

I'm sorry you feel the need to ignore my comments. If you want to go ahead and think these photos are good, there's nothing stopping you.

I didn't want to comment because I was afraid I'd hurt your feelings. Clearly, I've managed to do just that.

 

I wish I could have been more positive. I really do. But when boring snapshots of random uninteresting objects which look like they were taken with a cellphone or a point-and-shoot on full auto are being passed off as "good", it really irritates me.

[Sy_Accursed]

I never said they were good. I just said I liked them and felt they kind of worked, but also noted they had many issues.

 

And I can hardly do anything but ignore your comments since you supplied absolutely no useful critique.

[Shiny]

Sy, it is to every artists good ability to pick up critique and not shrug it off. Da_Latios told you he'd enjoy more interesting subject matter, take that on and questions and ask yourself whether that subject matter was the best. He tells you he thinks the shots are plain; find a way to make them not so plain. When he comments saying they look like they are off a cellphone or point and shot, try and remedy it.

 

I'm not saying Da_Latios is right in being negative, but he is still holding an opinion worth listening to. Merely liking art never got the artist anywhere.

[Sy_Accursed]

But its not right to completely change the subject matter you like simply because one person dislikes it; I like odd and quirky subject matter which Is why I take it; not saying any of these r awesome subject matters but still I took them because they are available to me and I liked them.

Nor it it helpful critique to just tear stuff apart, what use is saying things look cellphone and auto mode if you don't qualify WHY or give any ideas of HOW to not do tht? Sure perhaps if you a well versed pro such comments u may be able to de construct; but I'm not so I by and large I need critique not just negative comments with no helpful info.

[Soa]

If you have an SLR, put it on manual and leave in on auto focus. Just because manual focus is there does't mean you're an awesome photographer because you use it.

 

To get a good exposure in manual press the shutter button half way don until you hear a noise. Then look at the ev meter and you should see -2, 0, +2 and some lines in between, change the f-stop or iso to get the reading you want. To me the best exposure is -1 because even though 0 is considered ideal, it still looks too bright.

 

Also change your apature to around 8.0 to let a good amount of light in.

 

For composition, set up what you're taking a picture of if you can. For the shoes, do something weird like stack them up on top of each other or something. :s

If there's not enough light in the room, turn on some light or get a flash light. I never use the flash on my camera unless it's all I had or what I was taking a picture of was reflective and I knew it would add shadow and a spectral light.

 

Worry about critique later, worry about how to take good pictures and getting the settings down path or what works for you first.

 

:)

[greenslime89]

If you have an SLR, put it on manual and leave in on auto focus. Just because manual focus is there does't mean you're an awesome photographer because you use it.

 

I have to agree, not to mention modern SLRs don't have the split prism focussing screen which makes getting the focus just right more difficult. Live view is apparently useful (I wouldn't know as I have an ancient 20D) but worth just using autofocus. If you're really interested in using MF lenses then you can get a focussing screen but I don't know if they do those for 500Ds.

 

To get a good exposure in manual press the shutter button half way don until you hear a noise. Then look at the ev meter and you should see -2, 0, +2 and some lines in between, change the f-stop or iso to get the reading you want. To me the best exposure is -1 because even though 0 is considered ideal, it still looks too bright.

 

Good advice, I prefer using the "semi-auto" modes myself. If I use aperture priority mode then I can alter shutter speed and aperture happily. I press the shutter release half down to meter the scene, judge if the shutter speed is high enough to get a steady shot (1/focal length as a rule). If it's not, then I'll open the aperture, if that's still not enough then I'll bump up the ISO. Definitely worth playing around with different modes till you find your preferred way of shooting.

 

Also change your apature to around 8.0 to let a good amount of light in.

 

Looks like he's shooting at f/5.6 at 55mm so he's probably got the lens wide open so bumping up the ISO is the only thing to do to lower the shutter speed (short of using flash). You can't possibly get a sharp image at 55mm with a shutter speed of one second (as your EXIF says) so you need to do something about that - either use a tripod or somehow get more light on the scene.

 

For composition, set up what you're taking a picture of if you can. For the shoes, do something weird like stack them up on top of each other or something. :s

If there's not enough light in the room, turn on some light or get a flash light. I never use the flash on my camera unless it's all I had or what I was taking a picture of was reflective and I knew it would add shadow and a spectral light.

 

Again, I agree with this advice. I'd definitely advise picking up a flash unit if you can spare the money. It opens up so many possibilities and you can use it off camera too - so you can be more creative. You can even do long exposures of actions and be creative with curtain sync so the flash will fire at the start, or the end of the exposure which can give great results!

 

Worry about critique later, worry about how to take good pictures and getting the settings down path or what works for you first.

 

Exactly, play about with settings, composition and lighting! You'll quickly improve.

 

:)

 

Posted some thoughts in the quoted text, but another thought not entirely related to the quote, is that you should maybe try to get a 50mm f/1.8 if you like low light, shallow DOF photography. It's the best value lens you'll ever own. Every snapper should have one!

[Sy_Accursed]

Good points. I'm kean to continue with manual focus because it gives you far more creative licence in how the scene looks. Auto focus far to often will focus on something utterly pointless to the photo if your focus isn't central I find anyway.

I don;t really wanna invest in a flash unit atm from what I've read the cheap ones are plain nasty and it's just gonna be an extra piece of kit for me to learn and get bamboozeld by. I'd rather focus on getting the camera itself down to a fine art first.

 

I have a macro lens coming (finally) this week so I have a huge amount of extra scope for getting practice shots and posting more shots tht will hopefully improve further and get me more critique I can use. After all uk winter is just dreary and ugly, no major scenic places near by (and i lack driving atm) so I been restricted to what I can find in the house and quite obviously being able to do macro shots makes a heck of alot of objects or objects part suddenly viable subject matter.

[greenslime89]

Good points. I'm kean to continue with manual focus because it gives you far more creative licence in how the scene looks. Auto focus far to often will focus on something utterly pointless to the photo if your focus isn't central I find anyway.

I don;t really wanna invest in a flash unit atm from what I've read the cheap ones are plain nasty and it's just gonna be an extra piece of kit for me to learn and get bamboozeld by. I'd rather focus on getting the camera itself down to a fine art first.

 

I have a macro lens coming (finally) this week so I have a huge amount of extra scope for getting practice shots and posting more shots tht will hopefully improve further and get me more critique I can use. After all uk winter is just dreary and ugly, no major scenic places near by (and i lack driving atm) so I been restricted to what I can find in the house and quite obviously being able to do macro shots makes a heck of alot of objects or objects part suddenly viable subject matter.

 

Read your manual, you can use off center AF points. I don't know how many the 500D has but it will have some. Even if you don't have these points, you can AF on center and recompose. AF is infinitely more accurate than you with a dodgy dioptre adjustment and a focussing screen poorly equipped for MF work.

 

Cheap flashguns aren't in anyway worse than the more expensive ones in terms of quality of light. The difference is the automatic metering that the expensive ones have (which is pretty useless if you're using it off camera anyway) and the recycle time (which can be a problem if you're doing high speed shooting for sports (even then my £40 flashgun will recycle quickly if I use 1/16 power which is plenty!)

 

Congrats on the macro lens - they're great fun and you probably will be doing some MF work with that, but to do so accurately you need some kind of camera support (a tripod I'm afraid). The depth of field when you're working close to 1:1 is tiny so you need to stop the lens down to get a decent DOF. Sadly that means less light hits your sensor so you need a longer exposure (tripod) or a flash! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news!

 

When the macro arrives you need to try water droplet photography! It's great fun and you can get really good results. Don't forget the obligatory shot of a coin as your first shot with your macro lens! :mrgreen:

[Sy_Accursed]

If you read the thread I said I got a tripod on the way.

 

And no offence but I realllly don;t trust the advice to use autofocus cause basically anything I've ever heard or read or seen about doing proper photography rather than point and shoot basically says do not use auto focus and in my own experience autofocus is far harder to get the nice shot with than mf; including words straight from the mouth of my colleges photography teachers and various friends who studied photography at college and now at university.

Anyway the entire point of an SLR is the viewfinder gives a live view of precise what the lens is seeing so I fail to see how using it is dodgy, beyond the fact I need to learn to compensate for my eyesight as the dioptre settings don;t fall 100% perfect to match my glasses.

[greenslime89]

If you read the thread I said I got a tripod on the way.

 

And no offence but I realllly don;t trust the advice to use autofocus cause basically anything I've ever heard or read or seen about doing proper photography rather than point and shoot basically says do not use auto focus and in my own experience autofocus is far harder to get the nice shot with than mf; including words straight from the mouth of my colleges photography teachers and various friends who studied photography at college and now at university.

Anyway the entire point of an SLR is the viewfinder gives a live view of precise what the lens is seeing so I fail to see how using it is dodgy, beyond the fact I need to learn to compensate for my eyesight as the dioptre settings don;t fall 100% perfect to match my glasses.

 

Didn't notice that, but good that you'll have support - might be worth picking up a cheap shutter release off ebay. Using this in tandem with mirror lock-up shooting will reduce any vibrations affecting the shot. This is the one I bought and it works really well for what I need: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330506569777&rvr_id=208179438284&mfe=sidebar#ht_967wt_698

 

My advice still stands that AF is better than MF for most situations. If MF was so much better, all the pros wouldn't have moaned about the faulty AF on the 1D Mk III. Nor would anyone sink money into lenses with great AF performance when they could buy a cheaper MF lens with the same IQ. I'm gonna have to say that your friends are doing it wrong :???: but of course, feel free to shoot me down due to my lack of education in photography.

 

The point is that the focussing screen isn't designed for MF! Older SLRs which used only MF lenses had a special focussing screen which I mentioned earlier this made manual focussing easier! Since your camera doesn't have it (and I'm sure you don't fancy replacing the screen in it) manual focussing isn't going to be accurate.

 

Also, I'd advise you to keep your specs on while shooting rather than faffing about with the dioptre adjustment. Your specs will correct any astigmatism, while the dioptre adjustment will only correct your spherical error, so you'll still have residual astigmatism affecting your vision (and hence your focussing). With astigmatism, your eye will focus the circle of least confusion on your retina (assuming the focal line corrected by your dioptre adjustment is at the front) and as such your eyes won't be perfectly focussed so just something to consider. This might explain the poor focussing in some of your shots.

 

If you must use manual focus you should use the DOF preview button (just below the lens release button) to stop the lens down to the shooting aperture so you can see what DOF you're going to get.

[Sy_Accursed]

I dont have astigmatism nor do I wear my glasses regularly and It's virtually impossible to use glasses with a view finder effectively.

 

Also wasn't all the professionals complaining bout busted AF sports photographers paparazzi etc? eg people who shoot on continuous mode in rapid action situations where they don't have the luxury of taking time to MF a shot?

Most artists who use cameras I've read about all use MF, because it gives you ultimate control.

 

As far as I am aware there is very much the two schools of photography: Business and Art. I can see business using AF all the time for speed, but not heard of much in the way of art being AFed after all art is about the artists control not what some microchip in their hand did for them.

 

Edit: Forgot to include like magazine photographers in my list of AF users as obviously they work on tight schedules and need to get like 100+ shots in like 10 minutes or so

[greenslime89]

I dont have astigmatism nor do I wear my glasses regularly and It's virtually impossible to use glasses with a view finder effectively.

 

Also wasn't all the professionals complaining bout busted AF sports photographers paparazzi etc? eg people who shoot on continuous mode in rapid action situations where they don't have the luxury of taking time to MF a shot?

Most artists who use cameras I've read about all use MF, because it gives you ultimate control.

 

As far as I am aware there is very much the two schools of photography: Business and Art. I can see business using AF all the time for speed, but not heard of much in the way of art being AFed after all art is about the artists control not what some microchip in their hand did for them.

 

Edit: Forgot to include like magazine photographers in my list of AF users as obviously they work on tight schedules and need to get like 100+ shots in like 10 minutes or so

 

Good grief, so you think that if you use AF it's not art, it's business? I've got news for you - the way you compose the shot, the creative control of the shot, the use of light makes it art. Not whether you use AF or MF.

 

I use both, but I prefer using AF as it's more reliable. The end result is what you're after, it doesn't really matter how you get it. I just think it's better to get what you want in focus reliably.

 

From your photos, you don't have a basic understanding of how to get a sharp image. If you're hand holding for a shot, you need to steady yourself as much as possible and use a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length. That's not a hard and fast rule - I'm able to reliably shoot sharp shots at 200mm down to about 1/60 - but it's a good rule to follow. You can have the best focus in the world (auto or manual) but it's worth nothing if the image is shaky (which all yours are!).

 

And back to the point of "letting a chip control your shot", would you tell me what type of file you get from your camera? Also, AWB, is letting the chip control the shot.

 

Incidentally, I wear specs and have never had a problem using the viewfinder - it's not as big a problem as you make it out to be.

[Sy_Accursed]

Meh I spose its subjective. But as I said I not heard of any big name art photographers who use AF and I certainly think using MF gives more control and creative input and certainly prefer it. Half the joy in doing photography is setting it all up by your own means not jsut having some box u can point n click at random crud.

I use RAW image files off my camera, but have the his res JPEGs as well so i can see thumbnails of the whats in my RAW files; and I don't use AWB or other such features or automated things. They tend to be utterly useless.

 

And sure you may use a view finder fine with ur specs, but I don't simple as. I spose it depends on glass usage I rarely wear mine so I'm used to working with my eyes directly and got interested in learning photography well before i even had glasses.

[greenslime89]

Meh I spose its subjective. But as I said I not heard of any big name art photographers who use AF and I certainly think using MF gives more control and creative input and certainly prefer it. Half the joy in doing photography is setting it all up by your own means not jsut having some box u can point n click at random crud.

I use RAW image files off my camera for post production, but have the his res JPEGs as well so i can see thumbnails of the whats in my RAW files; and I don't use AWB or other such features or automated things. They tend to be utterly useless.

 

And sure you may use a view finder fine with ur specs, but I don't simple as. I spose it depends on glass usage I rarely wear mine so I'm used to working with my eyes directly and got intersted in learning photography well before i even had glasses.

 

Who cares what the big name "art" photographers are doing? You used AWB on the shot you posted - the exif never lies! :thumbsup:

 

Anyway, you seem to be pretty delusional about what photography is all about and dare I say it, a bit full of it for someone whose photos are grainy, blurry, shaky and otherwise boring. No offence intended, but everyone's been giving you great advice and you're too focussed (pardon the pun) on doing it like a pro!

 

I'm going to give up trying to help now, so best of luck but you need to learn to accept constructive criticism and helpful advice.

[Sy_Accursed]

Doh yeah was forgetting the awb setting on camera, was thinking post production.

 

How am I delusional or too focused, may I ask, when I have taken all the helpful advice gracefully and fully intend to work with it to improve my work all apart from being told to use AF because based on my opinion and various sources I think MF is more interesting to use as it gives you more control AND I think its more artistic to use MF rather than let AF do it for you; its hardly a big issue given once you get MF right you can achieve the same as and better than AF would?

[Shiny]

I wouldn't say at all that you have taken advice thouroughly. You've been stubborn - use AF if it will get you a better shot. It doesn't make you less of a photographer. I wouldn't say you are able to state the MF is superior if the shots we base that off are all blurry from bad focusing (and camera shake). You cannot say MF gives you better shots either, and gives you more creative license, because to me, and potentially a few others, you haven't got very creative shots here at all.

 

These look like cellphone pictures in dim house lighting

 

You have a great camera, learn to use it well and accept critique and critisism with grace.