Shutup and Let Me [PHOTO]

Grifter

In this thread, we post photos!

All photos are welcome, though most people post with the intention of receiving criticism so that they can become better photographers. Please do not spoiler your photos as that defeats the purpose of the thread.

For photography newbies:
What type of camera should I buy?
This can't be answered the same for every person. There's little difference in the photo quality between most major brands (Canon, Nikon, etc) so it comes down to price and personal preference. Make sure your camera lets you control settings like shutter speed, aperture, and ISO and preferably lets you capture images in RAW format. Other than that, get a bit of hands on time and see how the camera feels to you. Also remember that if you're buying an SLR, camera bodies come and go but lenses usually last while. For this reason it might be worth it to buy a cheaper body and spend a bit extra on some lenses.

Speaking of lenses, which ones should I buy?
Most kit lenses are a good starting place, though you'll begin to find them more limited once you're more comfortable with your camera. A good entry level prime lens for Canon cameras is this little guy. Other than that, you'll probably want to pick up a telezoom lens with a macro feature. This should get you set for a long while.

Any good books/sites I should read?
Lots of people recommend Understanding Exposure or the first Ansel Adams book. Don't bother buying any book that tells you how to use your specific camera model. All of that information can be found in your user's manual.

How do I become awesome at arting?
The best advice I can give is: keep taking pictures. That being said, don't just randomly point your camera at something and hit the shutter button. Stop for a moment to think about why you're taking this picture. What are you trying to show people? Is the current lighting/angle/etc going to help you show that? If so, proceed. If not, adjust your settings or body to capture it another way.

Resources/Tools:
Lightroom - Awesome software for managing your photo collection and editing RAW files.
LR Mogrify - Unfortunately Lightroom doesn't have a border option so use this tool. It also does watermarks and the like.
Canon Firmware Update - Unofficial firmware update that allows more options one some Canon cameras.
Strobist - Fantastic source on getting into off camera lighting. Don't be put off by initial complexities. It'll come.
Flickr - A free photo hosting site. Also has a pro option if you like. There's also a PA flickr group.
Phorumr - If you're using flickr and Firefox, this script auto generates the code you need to paste into the forum.
Photoshop Pyramid - Helps regulate your daily dose of Photoshop.
A DIY plexiglass frame - Nifty.
DIY Bokeh - A neat DIY to getting bokeh shapes.

There's also a great write up from Pope:

Spoiler:

Some Photography Stuff

Types of Lenses:

Prime Lens - A lens with no “zoom.” While this might limit composition choices, it also usually means the lens is “faster” (meaning can achieve larger apertures, usually 2.8 and larger (2.0, 1.8, 1.4, 1.0, etc). The wider the aperture, the more light gets in and therefore the faster the shutter can be which is why primes are considered faster.

Zoom Lens - Any lens that can span a range of focal lengths. For example: 18mm-55mm. There are zooms in every category (normal, telephoto, wide, and macro).

Telephoto Lens - A lens that makes objects in the photo appear larger than they were to the naked eye. This is akin to being “zoomed in.” These lenses are comparable to physically moving closer to the subject. Some distortion can occur in the form of “compressing” the distance between objects.

Normal Lens - A lens where objects in the photo appear to be the same size as when seen by the naked eye. This lenses do not change your perceived distance from the subject.

Wide Angle Lens - A lens that shows a wider field of view than the naked eye. This is comparable to being further from the subject. Some distortion can occur (with a fisheye being an extreme example). Foreground objects appear disproportionately larger than background objects.

Macro Lens - A specialty lens that allows focusing on objects MUCH closer than with other lenses. Favored for all closeups (insects, flowers, etc).


Other Terms:

DOF - DOF stands for Depth-of-Field or Depth-of-focus. This describes how much of the shot is in focus (a plain perpendicular to the lens).

Focal Length - The size of a lens. Controls how “zoomed in” or “zoomed out” the picture is. On a 35mm camera a 50mm lens is pretty ‘normal’ and an 85mm lens is a short ‘telephoto’ and a 20mm lens is ‘wide.’ On a lower-end SLR a 50mm is a little bit telephoto.

Crop Factor - The ratio of size of the field of view between various cameras and compared against a 35mm film camera as the baseline. A typical digital SLR has a crop factor of 1.6 (meaning the field of view of the digital chip is smaller than a 35mm film frame). This affects the field of view offered by lenses. For example, a 50mm lens on a typical Digital SLR (DSLR) would be the equivalent of an 80mm lens on a 35mm film camera. A 200mm lens on a typical DSLR would be the same as a 320mm lens on a typical 35mm film camera.

Aperture - The aperture is the size of the opening of the shutter when it fires. It is measured as a fraction (so that 4.0 really means 1/4.0 and 16 means 1/16 and 1.8 means 1/1.8). The smaller the number, the wider the aperture. The wider the aperture, the smaller the DOF and the more light that gets in so the faster the shutter needs to be set.

Shutter Speed - How fast the shutter fires. Conventional wisdom dictates that a camera can be handheld at a shutter speed equal to 1/x where x is the focal length of the lens. For example, if shooting with a 100mm lens, you can handhold the camera up to 1/100 sec. Anything slower (1/50 sec, etc) would need to be balanced on a tripod or monopod or other stabilizer.

ISO - How sensitive the chip is to light. The higher the ISO, the faster the shutter can be set at. ISOs over 200 can start to introduce digital noise (comparable to film grain) with more noise coming from higher ISOs.


Exposure:

There are 3 major factors that affect proper exposure: ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture. Adjusting any of these factors affects exposure unless compensated for by either of the other settings.

For example, take the “sunny 16 rule.” The sunny 16 rule is a generalized rule of thumb for achieving proper exposure in sunny conditions. It states that you set the shutter speed to 1/ISO (ie - if using ISO 200 then set the shutter to 1/200 sec), then set the aperture to 1/16 (f-16 or f/16). So a proper exposure would be ISO 200, 1/200 sec, F/16.

Now if you wanted to change the shutter speed because you are using a 300mm lens and don’t have a tripod you could set the shutter to 1/400 sec. This would unbalance the above equation, so you could then compensate by raising the ISO to 400. Now you have ISO 400, 1/400 sec, F/16. Both this setting and the one above give the same exposure.


Depth of Field:

Depth of field is affected by two details: aperture and distance between the camera and the subject. Of these, aperture is the factor that gets manipulated most often when trying to change depth of field. The wider the aperture, the smaller the depth of field. When a lens is “wide open” (using the widest possible aperture, the smallest number) is has the smallest DOF. This is useful for blurring backgrounds and drawing focus where you want it. On the other hand, the smallest possible aperture (anywhere from F/16 on most lenses to F/22 or even F/45 on some lenses) gives the longest DOF. This is most useful in landscape photography where the ideal is to have ALL of the scene in focus.

Distance between camera and subject becomes an issue when shooting Macro photography specifically. When the lens is w/in mere inches from the subject then even a “normal” aperture like F/5.6 can yield a small DOF (a scant couple millimeters). To get all of a macro subject in focus it is usually necessary to shoot a F/8 or F/11 or smaller. This results in slow shutter speeds (see above) unless additional light is brought in (ie - from a flash). Slow shutter speeds increases the chance for motion blur (especially on a breezy day or when the subject is animate, ie a butterfly).

Uncle Long

That's a pretty handy OP.

Grifter

Not mine, it's taken from the last photo thread. Figured it would be good to keep it around.

Jives

or




which is better

Sheepman

jives: definitly the first, no question

and

rohan: from last thread: I would go into photoshop with your pictures and play around with "curves". I think youll find your pictures will look way awesomer with a bit less brightness and a bit more contrast.

Sheepman

dono if ive posted this already

damn it feels good to be a... person living in the bay area.

altmann

Where the fuck is Sheri?

Jake!

I was hoping that someone would call this 'cat [PHOTO THREAD]'

Pilcrow: what is that?

Prospicience

Jake!: everytime I see you post the first thing I think of is Oy yelling "ake!" in the dark tower... anyways:
After the series shot I liked on page 50 of the last thread (the bright tiles one) and then seeing these I think I found out what's bugging me about them. The lighting is just really hot in a lot of them (I mainly think it's the ones with white backgrounds that bug me). Some of your older ones have very bright highlights but the darker background helps contrast with it a bit. I seem to like the ones where the subject really pops from the background.

Anywho that's just my 2 cents, if I had a better understanding of lighting I could probably be more descriptive but I'm just learning really.

Edit: also... YELLOW TAPE!

Uncle Long

Jives, the first one, definitely. The extra space puts it in context. And the context says something about how inexplicably unattached the context is from the subject. Very compelling.

Also, Om nom nom

Loomdun

Prospicience wrote: »

Jake!: everytime I see you post the first thing I think of is Oy yelling "ake!" in the dark tower... anyways:
After the series shot I liked on page 50 of the last thread (the bright tiles one) and then seeing these I think I found out what's bugging me about them. The lighting is just really hot in a lot of them (I mainly think it's the ones with white backgrounds that bug me). Some of your older ones have very bright highlights but the darker background helps contrast with it a bit. I seem to like the ones where the subject really pops from the background.

Anywho that's just my 2 cents, if I had a better understanding of lighting I could probably be more descriptive but I'm just learning really.

Edit: also... YELLOW TAPE!

What hes trying to say is you made it to bright in those pictures, While, the brightness would be fitting if you where able to keep the people in a bit more shade, but the light reflecting off the white of the room is causing the people itself to look more blended in with the background and not really being a main part of the picture then as much as it can be, because of this the image itself is slightly annoying and dosn't seem to be as capturing, also what hes trying to say is in the last ones, There where strong lines that you could see in between things such as Light-iish orange/red bricks under a dark cloudy day.

So in other words the real issue with those two photos was because you took it in a very white room which caused the images themselves to "dur"

Clear sky works fine when its white like that if you control the light but in closed spaces the reflection of the light = pain, although thats just my own experience i'm not even a photographer but its things you learn while drawing stuff

spacerobot

Jives- I love the first one. It reminds me of a picture I would see in some old magazine. I like it a whole lot.
Jake- Sorry, but those don't do much for me. I agree with the others that they are too bright, but they don't really hold my attention like your others have. It doesn't seem as interesting as your other work.

Pilcrow

What is what? The spout of the pitcher? It's the spout of a pitcher.

MEADONE

Jives- I think there's just a bit too much unordered information going on in those shots. They get cluttered and the graphic impact is attenuated, erm uh, lessened (I'm studying for the GRE).

Also:
I'm going to hell for flower shots.



Compression is stealing my saturation.

anable

I found an aquarium.

yalborap

So, I'm fiddling around with a photo idea, and I need to dip my camera lens underwater. Would rubberbanding a sandwich baggy around it be good enough, especially if I don't want any covering to be noticeable, or do I need something else for more protection?

Jake!

Prospicience wrote: »

Jake!...just learning really.

Totally agree with everything you said.

Gafoto

Wall Decorations

Fraz

An-D

I love new photothreads.




'Shroom!!


'Shroom!!


Waterfall!


Friend!!


Kickoff!! (new 70-300mm lense! Yay!)


Pretty dancer!!


Paws the Catamount!!


Football!! (we lost :cry: )

Gafoto

Two more from today:

Williamsburg Capitol


Armament

anable

An-D: I would have liked that second shot a lot more if the mushroom was in focus.

An-D

anable wrote: »

An-D: I would have liked that second shot a lot more if the mushroom was in focus.

You're telling me. It looked in focus after I took it. I took like three and that was the best one. I should've just zoomed in...but we were hiking and kind of on a timeline. Gah, so frustrating. Perhaps, when I go again it'll still be there. My friends do not have the patience for my photography.

Uncle Long

An-D : Does that football have KKK written on the lower stripe?

An-D

Uncle Long wrote: »

An-D : Does that football have KKK written on the lower stripe?

Yeah I noticed that too, and I'm trying to think of an explanation. I really can't. We were WCU vs Liberty City. Theres no K in any of those.

I mean...we're in the right part of the country. D:

bombardier

That first one looks almost like a painting, Gafoto :^:

Shazkar Shadowstorm

Pilcrow

What's the occasion pictured there, Shazkar?

Those football photos are ace, An-D.

Nothing wrong with great flower macros, Meadone. Interesting subjects A+

Sheepman

shazkar: top left is a tiny bit blown out, which is a shame, but i really really like the way the life plays on the building, and then the pure volume of people beside it

Shazkar Shadowstorm

Obamcain both came to Columbia to speak for the Service Nation forum on Sept. 11th... but it was organized by some outside organization and the forum was held inside some building, so only a couple hundred students got in. They had a jumbotron outside, so a ton of people were outside to watch.

Sheepman

Shazkar Shadowstorm wrote: »

Obamcain both came to Columbia to speak for the Service Nation forum on Sept. 11th... but it was organized by some outside organization and the forum was held inside some building, so only a couple hundred students got in. They had a jumbotron outside, so a ton of people were outside to watch.

where did you take this photo from

Sheepman

anable wrote: »

love the pink

kevin_

I like this photo a lot. It just is so well put together.

The tents in the background and the building across from them help to create visually stimulating.

altmann

Anable's shots are F-ing rediculous. Way cool and unbelievable color and clarity for aquarium shots.

Gaf, I like all those shots. I'm a sucker for B&W + Contrast.

An-D, I like the cheerleader shot, and not just because she's really cute either.

I think the KKK designation is for kickoff only? Not sure but I'd imagine that. Was that a practice kick?

Gafoto

bombardier wrote: »

That first one looks almost like a painting, Gafoto :^:

altmann wrote: »

Gaf, I like all those shots. I'm a sucker for B&W + Contrast.

Thanks! I am really loving the black and white conversion on CS3, it has some nice settings for creating faux-infared effects and things like that.

Prospicience

Gaf: the one of the swords is excellent, great B&W

So photo shoot with my little bro. didn't go quite as well as I would have liked, but it was still fun and I like some of the shots.

here's uno:

Jonis

Spoiler:

Gafoto wrote: »

Two more from today:

Williamsburg Capitol


Armament

Pretty fucking sweet.

At first I didnt take notice to the first shot, but upon bomb's mention it really does look like it could be graphite.

ilmmad

Is the thread title a reference to Ting-Tings?

Cycophant

Anable: Nicely done, as always. I'm impressed you managed to get it so clean and sharp while shooting through the aquarium glass.

An-D: I really like those shots, though I find the last three a bit...flat? I'm not sure whether it's just the lighting, or a lack of contrast or something, but they seem less vibrant than the others.

Shazkar: I'm not entirely sure why, but I absolutely LOVE the lighting in that shot. That streak of sunlight coming across the top of the building, combined with the sky just looks so good. Sheepman's probably right, it's a bit blown out in the one corner, but I don't think most folks would ever notice, and it's a small price to pay for the excellent lighting range you've got there.

ilmmad wrote: »

Is the thread title a reference to Ting-Tings?

If it isn't, it should be.

All right, I need some suggestions. I had a friend take me out to the local sand pits and get some shots of him on his new dirt bike. I took him up on the offer because it wasn't really something I'd done before. They're all pretty standard photos, but I'm having a tough time deciding which one I like most, and why I like it more than the others:







Anyone want to give me their preferences, and more importantly, why?

Gafoto

I'm digging #3 Cycophant. It has the bike most obviously lifted off the ground. The wide angle and short distance from the subject makes the viewer feel like the bike is about to sail right past them. The horizon is a little off though.

The second one has the subject and the horizon dead in the middle of the frame, it's not an interesting composition. Also the horizon is tilted here too. The first one is a little far away from the subject, has the bike too close to the edge (it needs to be intersecting the frame or have more space) and the background is slightly more cluttered than 3. I'd pick 3 first, then 1, then 2.

anable

Alt, Cyco - I almost didn't post the pictures because I thought they were too blurry. I guess you can't really see it at that size, but larger they get pretty disappointing.

Cyco - Good to see you back. I still plan on getting back up there again...eventually.... As for your pictures, I like the action feel to all of them, but they also have all of the action leaving the frame in them.