54 replies to this topic

[Nashy]

One thing I'm noticing is a love for RAW. Don't get me wrong, I love RAW and shoot both RAW and JPEG Fine for all of my shots. I highly recommend this option, purely because for people new to photography, they want to show off what they've managed to do. If you have both a RAW and JPEG of that image, you can hook your camera up to any computer and pull the JPEG, where the RAW will need special software.

Just a thought for any newbies reading.

And to elaborate on a couple of the points other's have made, because I know I had no idea what things were.

ISO - Really play with this. The higher it is, the more boise you will get in the photo. I very rarely very away from 100 - 400.
Aperture - This is how much light the camera will allow into the sensor. The higher the number, the less light. So. Lower = Higher. Higher = Lower.
Shutter Speed - You will generally see numbers like 1/XXXX, 20" or Bulb. 1/XXXX = 1/1000th of a second. 20" = 20 Seconds. Bulb = Open until you tell it to close. The longer you have it open, the more heat the sensor produces, the more noise on the photo.

[threetonesun]

Post processing is the absolute last thing you should worry about when taking a picture. Good lighting, depth of field, exposure, composition. Get those down first, then worry about post processing, or whether you're shooting in JPEG or RAW, or what lens you're using.

[+chconline]

Mark, on 15 January 2012 - 22:08, said:

Personally, if you want to achieve a sort of "lifestyle" look to your images, I'd avoid using flash and try to use natural light. As in, from a (ideally large) window. (unless you have access to a lot of studio lighting)

If you use an external flash, it's extremely useful indoors. I always use it, and when used correctly, it can work absolute wonders. For example, let me just show you some work I've done in the past in just pure product photography:







(More @ http://www.linkinbox.com/portfolio )

And I've used a flash for ALL these pictures.

Back at OP: I didn't read your post in your last reply, but yeah, I'm using L-series lens. Yes, I'm not using super expensive equipment -- my other lens besides the 24-105 f/4L is the 70-200 f/2.8L -- but they are definitely much more costly than what the average person has on here. (And no, the Rebel is not my main camera, I'd just like to make that clear )

Also +1 to all those people who says post-processing is the last thing. I always take my photos as if Photoshop doesn't exist. I only use it for slight optimizations, but other than that, they're usually good out of the box. As I've said in my last post, the only thing I've adjusted in the pic you've quoted is a very slight adjustment on the white reference.

[Kreuger]

It's okay if you suck. Just take random shots of nothing in particular and then add some effects like a vignette, turn some to b&w or sepia, make it look like it's an old poloroid and people will think you're amazing.

[Argote]

Kreuger, on 16 January 2012 - 06:05, said:

It's okay if you suck. Just take random shots of nothing in particular and then add some effects like a vignette, turn some to b&w or sepia, make it look like it's an old poloroid and people will think you're amazing.

hahahahahaha, this is sadly true

[Slammers]

hahah yep. **** INSTAGRAM!!!

[DigitalManifestations]

Wow. I didn't expect such responses. Thanks a bunch. I've read lots of valuable thoughts on the matter and feel a lot more confident. I didn't even know about the rule of thirds really and didn't give much thought to composition. Honestly, and I'd hate to admit this, but I've been using my SLR mostly as a point and click. I purchased it to capture both video and photo of our daughter after she was born because a point and shoot wouldn't satisfy. I didn't think about all the knowledge and technical know how that can go into a good shot.

I definitely didn't take offense to anyone saying the issue was the way the shot was set up or anything at all. The basis of this thread was for me to gain valuable insight from you guys and it's allowing me to do just that ..

I agree by the way regarding instagram and vignette effects. I set out to take great pictures without having to rely on editing. I thought I'd be able to catch vibrant colours and vivid detail and not rely on heavy editing and most people I've met at local shops tell me about how everything is edited now anyways so I shouldn't care. The way I see it, I want a picture as accurate to the reality of the event or occasion it's capturing as possible, not to be some manufactured image covering up my crap shooting lol.

Here's an outdoor shot I took of a friend of mine and her son:


And one of my niece:


What could I have done, without the use of post processing to really make the colours pop? Would a polarizing filter have made much of a difference in regards to that?

I'll be sure to read the links posted as well. Thanks for those! When I get some downtime on the holiday tomorrow I'll check them out!

Love the feedback and greatly appreciate it!

[Marius F]

I'm new to photography also and these are my first two attempts :

gear used:

• Nikkon D5100
  

• 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR

  
  

• Photomatix

  
  

• Aperture

[Nashy]

HDR?

I really don't like HDR that much. Want to learn to at least see for myself what's done though.

[Ntrstd]

DigitalManifestations, on 15 January 2012 - 07:54, said:

Hmm...Well thank you. And if you really think so, maybe it's just Picasa that's making everything look dull. I just see pictures like this one, and wonder what they did to make it look so good.



I guess the issue isn't so much what I'm doing with the camera, but rather what I'm not doing in post processing.

This picture shows the use of focus. I'm guessing it was taken with a glass lens. Many cheaper digital cameras don't have lens optics. The subject is in focus, everything else is out of focus. This emphasises the subject. It also gives the image a 3D effect.

A good resolution camera appears to have been used. This makes the whiskers nice and clear. Also light can be seen reflecting off the faucet and cat's eyes. Natural light is suggested by the range of colour. Also the image is brighter on the top. Perhaps near a kitchen window.

A medium speed shot is suggested by the clearly defined stream of water. But no water drops can be clearly seen at the bottom.

The clarity of the image suggests it hasn't been heavily compressed. jpg compression can badly reduce the clarity of the image. So I avoid using jpg.

Pet photos are always popular. Perhaps they didn't do any post processing, composition is the big thing here.

[Northgrove]

I also dislike HDR like that as they lose touch with reality for me.

As for the photos with the kids and the woman above, to make the colors pop more, try using a curves tool to pull up the highlights a bit, and perhaps even the midtones. Then increase saturation if necessary.

Edit: Something similar to this can also be done by tightening the histogram a bit in the levels tool, and then adjusting the saturation if necessary.

[Marius F]

I don't know why but I love HDR photos

here's one of my normal pictures

[Shaun]

I've had my Canon 550D for a few months and I've just been messing about since I got it, I mainly sit at "CA" setting. While keeping the ISO at as low as possible usually between 100-400.

Quote

Canon has added their relatively new exposure mode called Creative Auto (or "CA"). The CA mode is a cross between the green zone and program mode. When set to CA mode, the EOS 550D allows the user to adjust picture style, motor drive, and exposure compensation, as well as to use the program shift function and select between RAW or JPEG file formats, but the rest of the more complex features remain under automatic control.

Here are a few shots.

[Nashy]

My housemate has a 550D. Takes some nice photos.Some better glass in it wouldn't hurt him though.

[SirEvan]

Nother photographer chiming in. RAW, btw , is not really a "trick" It's a format that saves the "RAW" data off the sensor, instead of applying the cameras jpg processing to the image before it's recorded. What Owen did in his before/after shot was to just tweak the data that the camera saved by boosting the exposure, among other things. raw allows you to do this because it saves all the data that was seen. The downside to raw is that it takes up more space, but if you're ever going to get serious, thats the first thing you should be doing.