I need to get better at taking pictures in brighter conditions, I'm having a hard time making good colour shots at night so I figure I should start in the day. I can't seem to figure out the editing quite as I'd like yet.
It's alot easier to edit a photo that is pretty decent to start off with. That picture is way way off a perfect exposure.
Which picture are you talking about?? The one with the bridge? I should have taken the time to pull out the tripod but I hand-held the camera and went with 1/60 and I believe f5.6 so I could keep walking. I should take the time to do it right next time though.
Yeah, I don't find the photo all that interesting, even if it was properly taken.
I figure this should be asked here. I was talking with a friend from work today who is also into photography (I believe on a somewhat professional level) and he recommended picking up a filter, or a few filters for my camera. Is this a good idea? I did a quick google search on it and saw that UV filters can also be used as a means to protect your lens from scratches and dust and such but do they drastically change the image at all? I like what a polarizer does to daytime shots, should I get one of them as well?
I'm going to consider buying a longer lens sometime in the future. Probably something up to 200mm, I wouldn't want to spend TOO much though, but he was praising the VR tech. Would this be a good lens to go along with my 18-55? Would filters bought for the stock kit lens work on that one as well?
EDIT: Sorry for so many questions, im trying to do research on my own as well. But one last one, how much would I benefit to have a lens that took 72mm screw in filters as opposed to 52mm? Not specifically in regards to the filter, but also in overall quality. Does the larger lens make a difference? Viewing angle is my guess but I could be wrong, I'd assume it would allow more in the sight than a smaller one of the same length.
I figure this should be asked here. I was talking with a friend from work today who is also into photography (I believe on a somewhat professional level) and he recommended picking up a filter, or a few filters for my camera. Is this a good idea? I did a quick google search on it and saw that UV filters can also be used as a means to protect your lens from scratches and dust and such but do they drastically change the image at all? I like what a polarizer does to daytime shots, should I get one of them as well?
I'm going to consider buying a longer lens sometime in the future. Probably something up to 200mm, I wouldn't want to spend TOO much though, but he was praising the VR tech. Would this be a good lens to go along with my 18-55? Would filters bought for the stock kit lens work on that one as well?
EDIT: Sorry for so many questions, im trying to do research on my own as well. But one last one, how much would I benefit to have a lens that took 72mm screw in filters as opposed to 52mm? Not specifically in regards to the filter, but also in overall quality. Does the larger lens make a difference? Viewing angle is my guess but I could be wrong, I'd assume it would allow more in the sight than a smaller one of the same length.
UV filters are generally used simply to protect the front element of a lens. They have a very small effect on haze in a photo but it's usually not noticeable. Lesser quality filters can have an effect on image quality but you'll only notice if you're a pixel peeper. A polarizer is a must imo. I use mine regularly when I'm shooting outdoors in the day time.
The diameter of the filter threads on a lens is meaningless in regard to the quality of a lens. It's simply a consequence of aperture size and focal length. So a lens with a 77mm filter thread could easily be worse quality than one with a 58mm thread. Although in general higher quality lenses do have larger filter threads because they require a larger front element to collect light at fast apertures. There's no need to take this into account when buying a lens unless you already have a specific size of filter you'd rather not have to replace or if the lens has an unusually large filter thread (greater than 77mm) then the filters will become rather pricey.
Awesome! Thank's salti. I'll keep all of that in mind, I plan to stop by a local photo shop on my way home from work tomorrow. I need to grab a camera bag, a filter or two, a new tripod, and maybe a hood. Do you think I would benefit from a hood? Does it make any difference having one attached other than reducing glare?
Awesome! Thank's salti. I'll keep all of that in mind, I plan to stop by a local photo shop on my way home from work tomorrow. I need to grab a camera bag, a filter or two, a new tripod, and maybe a hood. Do you think I would benefit from a hood? Does it make any difference having one attached other than reducing glare?
New to the Artist's Corner, been messing around with a lot of photography lately though so I'll share some of my better pictures. I use a Kodak Z710 for all of these pictures.
Wow, sweet. Comments already. The motorcycle one was taken on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Western N.C. I was hiking up a mountain and saw them driving below me (gotta love that 10x zoom). I've always been kind of tentative about cropping. I know *how* to do it, but when I should and where I should do it always seems to escape me (hopefully something that comes with time). Should I just try to focus the picture on the biker or cut out the close-up of the foliage at the bottom of the picture?
I was actually kind of surprised at how the candle one turned out (wasn't staged or anything). There was a blackout and my little brother and I lit the only two candles we could find (ones in the picture). Then we listened to some crazy paranormal-ghost-conspiracy radio show on some AM station. It was probably the coolest thing I've done with him in a long time.
Everything has a story!! O_o
*EDIT*: Just want to say I've been going through some of the pages in this thread and Holy William Shatner, Batman, there are some awesome pics in here.
Cropping? I don't think so. The out of focus foliage in the foreground is distracting, but there's no clean way to really crop that out without getting rid of important parts of the shot. Anyhow, that one was the only one out of those that holds any sort of interest. Second one's way too dark by the way, and not very well composed.
Salti - lovin' the new one :^:. Take more.
bread of wonder on
Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?
Wow, sweet. Comments already. The motorcycle one was taken on the Blue Ridge Parkway in Western N.C. I was hiking up a mountain and saw them driving below me (gotta love that 10x zoom). I've always been kind of tentative about cropping. I know *how* to do it, but when I should and where I should do it always seems to escape me (hopefully something that comes with time). Should I just try to focus the picture on the biker or cut out the close-up of the foliage at the bottom of the picture?
I generally use the rule of thirds when I take pictures.
For cropping it's more tricky, since like BoW said you don't want to crop out important elements.
Awesome! Thank's salti. I'll keep all of that in mind, I plan to stop by a local photo shop on my way home from work tomorrow. I need to grab a camera bag, a filter or two, a new tripod, and maybe a hood. Do you think I would benefit from a hood? Does it make any difference having one attached other than reducing glare?
Some people swear by lens hoods for protection from glare and accidental damage. I personally rarely use them because they are too bulky for my taste. If I'm in a situation where there will be extreme flare I might bring along a hood but usually I'll just use my hand as a shade.
Awesome! Thank's salti. I'll keep all of that in mind, I plan to stop by a local photo shop on my way home from work tomorrow. I need to grab a camera bag, a filter or two, a new tripod, and maybe a hood. Do you think I would benefit from a hood? Does it make any difference having one attached other than reducing glare?
Some people swear by lens hoods for protection from glare and accidental damage. I personally rarely use them because they are too bulky for my taste. If I'm in a situation where there will be extreme flare I might bring along a hood but usually I'll just use my hand as a shade.
I rarely use my lens hood as it interferes with adjusting the polarizer. The hand is usually quicker and simpler. I do have to say that in about 5 years of shooting, I've only ever had a few pictures flare on me, and the only ones that really flared heavily had the sun in the frame, making a hood useless. My primary lens though is pretty nice and has all the anti-flare coatings.
@McLovin: The DJ ones have good light, but they're missing hands. As a result, they're kind of missing a bit of life and action to me.
@ImDrawingABlank: My polarizer rarely leaves my camera, only when it gets too dark. They do more than get darker skies, they help reduce (and sometimes if you want, strengthen) reflections on water and glass (reduce, not completely eliminate). Polarizers can be used to get nice dark streets and rocks after a rainstorm, and can enhance color saturation in the right conditions.
Something like this wouldn't be possible without a polarizer:
pirate bob on
If I hide myself wherever I go
Am I ever really there?
Relevant to the discussion: I used a polarizer in every one of these shots. In the first one I used a slight amount of polarization to take away some of the reflection coming off the window so we can see the girl's face. In the second I used a lot of polarization to remove nearly all reflections from the hood of the car so that the dirtiness of it would stand out. On the last one the polarizer darkened the sky and cut through some of the haze (there was a significant amount because of a forest fire nearby the day before).
Well I went to the store with my friend from work and grabbed a couple things. The store sucked and bags/tripods were extremely overpriced (cheapest was $80!) but I got a Polarizer filter and a rubber collapsable hood at his recommendation. I bought a UV filter as well but noticed when I got home that the package was empty so I'm going back tomorrow morning to urinate on the stupid clerk's face :P He really shouldn't have been working there, barely spoke english and didnt know what a lens hood was, or any details of the lenses there. I'm going to try taking some pictures and learn to use this new filter tonight hopefully. Thanks for being helpful guys! and Salti, still lovin your shots 8-)
ImDrawingABlank on
0
Options
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
I found out today that I get to shoot the cast (and family) production that I shot last year, except this time I actually get permission and I get to go to the dress rehearsals and even to a performance and I think it's pretty cool
And ImDrawingABlank, It's best to buy camera gear online from somewhere like B&H or from a pro camera store if there's one near you. Going to Ritz or Wolf or some place like that will just lead to you being ripped off and buying shitty gear you don't need.
saltiness on
XBL: heavenkils
0
Options
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
They're uh
They're pretty much all candids
I mean, they're on stage and all, but I'm pretty sure it'll be mostly mid-performance stuff
Maybe one posed shot, but that'll be mostly for their benefit.
If any remembers the shots I did last year, they'll be like those.
So is it a rule that you gotta have a boarder around your pictures here?
because i'm going to break it.
Sold a copy of this to someone who requested it over the internet after seeing it on facebook. Funny to think I've had so many teachers and other photographers try and school me on the subject of HDR and how you HAVE to shoot in .raw and HAVE to have multiple exposures. When I took this I forgot to set it to .raw. Its a single exposure that I made multiple different composites of and then tone mapped.
Brick, in your first shot, the sky on the far right side seems to suddenly get brighter after you get past the pillar, dark on the left brighter on the right side of it. Might be able to touch that up a teensy bit.
The couch shots I really like, though the second seems a little blurred (motion). I think my favourite is the last of them.
So is it a rule that you gotta have a boarder around your pictures here?
Frames almost always make your photos look better (especially if the photo has a lot of empty space, or lines that can lead the viewer's eyes out of the photo) and gives them a more professional feel.
Sold a copy of this to someone who requested it over the internet after seeing it on facebook. Funny to think I've had so many teachers and other photographers try and school me on the subject of HDR and how you HAVE to shoot in .raw and HAVE to have multiple exposures. When I took this I forgot to set it to .raw. Its a single exposure that I made multiple different composites of and then tone mapped.
There is no such rule as "you have to shoot in RAW" or "you have to have multiple exposures".
RAW simply gives you a tremendous amount of versatility when doing post-processing.
And when you catch that one really nice shot and don't want to screw it up because you won't get the opportunity again, multiple exposures is a very good idea. But then, shooting in RAW mostly eliminates the need for that, since you can edit the exposure setting in PP.
Anyway I dig the last couch shot as well. But I have a feeling it would look better if the TV was aligned with the tower thing in the background. Personal opinion of course, as I'm a sucker for symmetry.
I took a couple of pictures tonight to try the new stuff.
The flower I was originally going to keep in colour but it seemed too dark as being the idiot that I am, I forgot to fold the hood back to let a bit more light in. I'm working on seeing if I can salvage the picture in colour. The green one is un-edited, just the results of the new filter. Shot was taken with hood removed, I was more focused on getting the colour than I was on the artistic value.
I usually work 7 days a week doing post production and stuff but I had a random day off today and just grabbed the camera and went for a bike ride. Camera's been neglected lately as I've been using my Panasonic HVX-200 more than the DLSR.
I don't want to use a tripod all that much so I try my best to keep my arms steady for those 3 exposures!
Borders just help contain an image. I like them because they give more closure to the eye. You can choose to use them or not use them, but I think they add to an image in a positive way.
Also, I second the last shot being the best. There's almost some sort of symmetry going on, offset a tiny bit by the pillar (smoke stack?).
bread of wonder on
Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?
So is it a rule that you gotta have a boarder around your pictures here?
Frames almost always make your photos look better (especially if the photo has a lot of empty space, or lines that can lead the viewer's eyes out of the photo) and gives them a more professional feel.
Sold a copy of this to someone who requested it over the internet after seeing it on facebook. Funny to think I've had so many teachers and other photographers try and school me on the subject of HDR and how you HAVE to shoot in .raw and HAVE to have multiple exposures. When I took this I forgot to set it to .raw. Its a single exposure that I made multiple different composites of and then tone mapped.
There is no such rule as "you have to shoot in RAW" or "you have to have multiple exposures".
RAW simply gives you a tremendous amount of versatility when doing post-processing.
And when you catch that one really nice shot and don't want to screw it up because you won't get the opportunity again, multiple exposures is a very good idea. But then, shooting in RAW mostly eliminates the need for that, since you can edit the exposure setting in PP.
Anyway I dig the last couch shot as well. But I have a feeling it would look better if the TV was aligned with the tower thing in the background. Personal opinion of course, as I'm a sucker for symmetry.
I dig the last shot too but I enjoy asymmetry much more than symmetry
I work in the CG / post production industry so I hear the preaches of raw often. I often hear my comrades scoffing at shots that were obviously tone mapped and processed from a single .raw. Confuses the hell out of me sometimes when you get down to the "art" of it all.
I was looking through my shots and had completely forgot to post this one. It makes me chuckle when I look at it :P
I'm going to go and try to do some research on this tone mapping thing you guys are talking about. Is it basically what you do when you take multiple exposures of the same scene and combine them for the best of each? Such as, an exposure to exentuate the sky, and one for a certain object, and one for the background/foreground etc? Sorry if I'm confusing!
Posts
Yeah, I don't find the photo all that interesting, even if it was properly taken.
And the new toy
+ a leftover
The Blog of Shame -- Misadventures in Ruby
flickr
I'm going to consider buying a longer lens sometime in the future. Probably something up to 200mm, I wouldn't want to spend TOO much though, but he was praising the VR tech. Would this be a good lens to go along with my 18-55? Would filters bought for the stock kit lens work on that one as well?
EDIT: Sorry for so many questions, im trying to do research on my own as well. But one last one, how much would I benefit to have a lens that took 72mm screw in filters as opposed to 52mm? Not specifically in regards to the filter, but also in overall quality. Does the larger lens make a difference? Viewing angle is my guess but I could be wrong, I'd assume it would allow more in the sight than a smaller one of the same length.
UV filters are generally used simply to protect the front element of a lens. They have a very small effect on haze in a photo but it's usually not noticeable. Lesser quality filters can have an effect on image quality but you'll only notice if you're a pixel peeper. A polarizer is a must imo. I use mine regularly when I'm shooting outdoors in the day time.
The diameter of the filter threads on a lens is meaningless in regard to the quality of a lens. It's simply a consequence of aperture size and focal length. So a lens with a 77mm filter thread could easily be worse quality than one with a 58mm thread. Although in general higher quality lenses do have larger filter threads because they require a larger front element to collect light at fast apertures. There's no need to take this into account when buying a lens unless you already have a specific size of filter you'd rather not have to replace or if the lens has an unusually large filter thread (greater than 77mm) then the filters will become rather pricey.
It also offers minor protection for the lens.
---
---
---
The candle picture might be more interesting with one candle instead of two.
I was actually kind of surprised at how the candle one turned out (wasn't staged or anything). There was a blackout and my little brother and I lit the only two candles we could find (ones in the picture). Then we listened to some crazy paranormal-ghost-conspiracy radio show on some AM station. It was probably the coolest thing I've done with him in a long time.
Everything has a story!! O_o
*EDIT*: Just want to say I've been going through some of the pages in this thread and Holy William Shatner, Batman, there are some awesome pics in here.
Salti - lovin' the new one :^:. Take more.
I generally use the rule of thirds when I take pictures.
For cropping it's more tricky, since like BoW said you don't want to crop out important elements.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Some people swear by lens hoods for protection from glare and accidental damage. I personally rarely use them because they are too bulky for my taste. If I'm in a situation where there will be extreme flare I might bring along a hood but usually I'll just use my hand as a shade.
I rarely use my lens hood as it interferes with adjusting the polarizer. The hand is usually quicker and simpler. I do have to say that in about 5 years of shooting, I've only ever had a few pictures flare on me, and the only ones that really flared heavily had the sun in the frame, making a hood useless. My primary lens though is pretty nice and has all the anti-flare coatings.
@McLovin: The DJ ones have good light, but they're missing hands. As a result, they're kind of missing a bit of life and action to me.
@ImDrawingABlank: My polarizer rarely leaves my camera, only when it gets too dark. They do more than get darker skies, they help reduce (and sometimes if you want, strengthen) reflections on water and glass (reduce, not completely eliminate). Polarizers can be used to get nice dark streets and rocks after a rainstorm, and can enhance color saturation in the right conditions.
Something like this wouldn't be possible without a polarizer:
If I hide myself wherever I go
Am I ever really there?
Seattle my Beautiful City!
nice pics of.... stuff lol
HALOPEN FILMS
www.halopen.com
Relevant to the discussion: I used a polarizer in every one of these shots. In the first one I used a slight amount of polarization to take away some of the reflection coming off the window so we can see the girl's face. In the second I used a lot of polarization to remove nearly all reflections from the hood of the car so that the dirtiness of it would stand out. On the last one the polarizer darkened the sky and cut through some of the haze (there was a significant amount because of a forest fire nearby the day before).
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
And ImDrawingABlank, It's best to buy camera gear online from somewhere like B&H or from a pro camera store if there's one near you. Going to Ritz or Wolf or some place like that will just lead to you being ripped off and buying shitty gear you don't need.
They're pretty much all candids
I mean, they're on stage and all, but I'm pretty sure it'll be mostly mid-performance stuff
Maybe one posed shot, but that'll be mostly for their benefit.
If any remembers the shots I did last year, they'll be like those.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
No.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
because i'm going to break it.
Sold a copy of this to someone who requested it over the internet after seeing it on facebook. Funny to think I've had so many teachers and other photographers try and school me on the subject of HDR and how you HAVE to shoot in .raw and HAVE to have multiple exposures. When I took this I forgot to set it to .raw. Its a single exposure that I made multiple different composites of and then tone mapped.
The couch shots I really like, though the second seems a little blurred (motion). I think my favourite is the last of them.
Frames almost always make your photos look better (especially if the photo has a lot of empty space, or lines that can lead the viewer's eyes out of the photo) and gives them a more professional feel.
There is no such rule as "you have to shoot in RAW" or "you have to have multiple exposures".
RAW simply gives you a tremendous amount of versatility when doing post-processing.
And when you catch that one really nice shot and don't want to screw it up because you won't get the opportunity again, multiple exposures is a very good idea. But then, shooting in RAW mostly eliminates the need for that, since you can edit the exposure setting in PP.
Anyway I dig the last couch shot as well. But I have a feeling it would look better if the TV was aligned with the tower thing in the background. Personal opinion of course, as I'm a sucker for symmetry.
The flower I was originally going to keep in colour but it seemed too dark as being the idiot that I am, I forgot to fold the hood back to let a bit more light in. I'm working on seeing if I can salvage the picture in colour. The green one is un-edited, just the results of the new filter. Shot was taken with hood removed, I was more focused on getting the colour than I was on the artistic value.
I usually work 7 days a week doing post production and stuff but I had a random day off today and just grabbed the camera and went for a bike ride. Camera's been neglected lately as I've been using my Panasonic HVX-200 more than the DLSR.
I don't want to use a tripod all that much so I try my best to keep my arms steady for those 3 exposures!
Also, I second the last shot being the best. There's almost some sort of symmetry going on, offset a tiny bit by the pillar (smoke stack?).
I dig the last shot too but I enjoy asymmetry much more than symmetry
I work in the CG / post production industry so I hear the preaches of raw often. I often hear my comrades scoffing at shots that were obviously tone mapped and processed from a single .raw. Confuses the hell out of me sometimes when you get down to the "art" of it all.
I'm going to go and try to do some research on this tone mapping thing you guys are talking about. Is it basically what you do when you take multiple exposures of the same scene and combine them for the best of each? Such as, an exposure to exentuate the sky, and one for a certain object, and one for the background/foreground etc? Sorry if I'm confusing!