Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

[babybrat4life]

There are some good pics in here.


SOME are just random marco pics....


anyway keep up the good work.

 

[hk feet 27]

kdwallace

I was wondering how come the photo comes out yellow? Would the lighting be too dark/light/etc or is the camera too close to the object? (Camera type: Pointand shoot digital camera)

Thanks.

 

[mytsharp]

Usually it comes out yellow due to the white balance, check and see if your camera has "vivid" settings or something like that, hell, it might evenhave actal white balance settings, but usually it comes out extra yellow because the setting is off, I just leave my XT on auto and sometimes I thow' it on"cloudy" and usually makes the color a little bit cool.

My-T.

 

[hk feet 27]

^Thank you MyTsharp. I'll have to look into that now. It pisses me off when a picture turns yellow. haha

 

[outlaw83]

I'm new to all this...I'm wondering how do you guys add your name to a pic or "tag" a pic? What program do you use? As of now, I'm usingthe editing tool that came with the camera I purchased.

Any other tips would be great. I have a Canon SD750.

 

[airjordans4life]

^^^Most people use Photoshop or Paint.

That dog in the last page looks hella sad.

 

[smoothysmooth]

These are a couple photos I took on my recent trip through Europe. All taken with a Cybershot DSC-H2. Hopefully I can get my hands on a decent dslr soon.Feedback and constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Enjoy.

 

[termanology27]

^really really like your pics.
esp. 2nd to last one.

 

[kdwallace]

I was wondering how come the photo comes out yellow? Would the lighting be too dark/light/etc or is the camera too close to the object? (Camera type: Point and shoot digital camera)


It's not to do with the amount of light but the wavelength of it. The most common lamps in use on a house are tungsten - just regular household filamentlamps - and they have a pretty yellow output. The fluorescent tubes you get in garages and schools and stuff are pretty blue. Your brain automatically adjustsfor the light so you don't see things like that - your brain looks at what is white and then adjusts everything else according to that.

That's what you have to tell your camera to do - setting the white balance. You're saying that although that looks blue (or yellow or green...) to youit's actually white so make that adjustment.

Your camera should have different settings for different types of lighting - commonly daylight, cloudy, shade, tungsten, fluorescent, flash - and auto.

Auto works okay outside but inside I find that it often chooses the wrong setting.

What my technique on the last page does is sort of set the white balance after you've taken the picture - but it's better to do it before.

There was the same problem with film - you get film with different characteristics for different locations or you have to use the appropriate filter to correctthe color before you take the picture.

The difficulty is when you have mixed light sources. Here's a selection of pictures I just took in my office with a variety of white balance settings -everything else exactly the same.

The light is a little mixed - 4 fluorescent tubes on the ceiling but I left the door open so there is daylight getting in too.

You can see that auto hasn't actually done a bad job here.

The best one is this though - I preset the white balance. On most DSLR's you can do that. Basically you take a picture of something white or grey in thesame lighting and the camera then uses that to give an exact level of compensation.

That one just looks a bit better than the auto one. It's a pain if you're moving from different locations though - fine if you are shooting in the sameplace for a while as it only takes a few seconds to set.

You can also get color-temperature meters which give you a value and then you can set that in the camera - or afterwards if you shoot raw - and that gives youan accurate representation too.

 

[ebayologist]

Originally Posted by DUNKiSHH

Critiques please

Well for starters its quite dark. Your middle tones aren't middle tones. It lacks a lot shadow detail. And your whites only stark and few andfar between. Basically the constrast seems both quite harsh and on the dark end. You're never going to get really good B/W with digital it just won'thappen... The contrast range (which B/W photography hinges on) is night and day digital to film. But as far as improvements I would try and get a bettercontrast range and more subtlety between tones and try and get some detail in the dark tones rather than just having them fall back as pure or nearly pureblacks.

If you're using a flash which I take it you are, you need to difuse it that can be done any number of ways but I think thats part of whats causing theharsh tonal range. Compositionally it feels abit tight wit the way both subjects arms are cut off but it's really difficult to discuss composition withsuch poor tonal range. I wouldn't say its a bad photo it just needs some work... more than likely reshot, but I think with a difused flash and well meteredlight and perhaps not so tight on the subject it could definately be a nice photograph.

 

[DVMNXK]

 

[wada7]

 

[hk feet 27]

kdwallace

Thanks for the info man. I'll have to play with the settings on my digital point and shoot camera.

 

[sole lovely]

so i just started using my D100 on it's 'M' (manual settings) rather than it's 'P' (program) i know that i can adjust the speed of theshutter and the aperture. what are the ideal settings? so far i use 25 for the speed and my lens says F 4. i dont know what all this means and i need help.haha i just want to know how i can get my pictures like this....

Neek's photography

how do i get it that sharp and vivid???? also how can i get it that fine at night?

 

[ebayologist]

sole lovely Shutter speeds refer to 1 over whatever the number is i.e. 25 is 1/25 of a second. The aperture or f-stops refer to the diameterof the aperture opening, the larger f-stop the smaller the opening. Aperture controlls depth of the focus. i.e. the larger f-stops or smaller opening givesgreater depth of focus and the inverse is truth aswell. There is no end all be all greatest f-stop or shutter speed its they play off each other inversely forproper exposure and its a balancing act of what kind of depth of focus you want to what kind of shutter speed you need or visa versa. Neeks photographsactually don't strike me as all that great there is nothing particularly wrong with them but nothing remarkable either nonetheless the for majority of themthey seem based on the light or lack there of as sort of but not really long exposures with a decent amount of depth of feild and sort of run of the mill fordigital exposure (where you lose some shadow detail and the contrast could be better but overall nice).. I think the best part of them is the level ofconsistency from shot to shot (they're all relatively similar in light temp and just the volume of light to lesser degree so I mean that shouldnt have beensuper hard but I think thats the best part about them).

Also I don't know what kind of lens or camera Neek has but looks to be a semi wide angle, maybe a prime (non-zoom) lens which would give far greatsharpness than a zoom lens especially if its a more high end well constructed prime.

Shutter speeds longer or with a number smaller than about 1/60 or 1/125 need a tripod. To get the average persons motion captured still you need about 1/125. Along exposure is usualy considered 2/1 or 2 seconds or more. As far as aperture, usually f1.4 thru about 5.6 are considered shallow depth of feild and f11 orf16 and above is usually considered a wide depth of feild and obivously the f-stops inbetween are sort of a middle ground...

This idea is kind of day 1 photography lesson, and I'm really actually shocked that you didn't know it but it's stuff like this why people learn onsuper simple fully manual b/w film cameras just striped down to the bare essentials of learning how a camera works but I suppose learning it is better latethan never...

 

[sole lovely]

Originally Posted by ebayologist

sole lovely Shutter speeds refer to 1 over whatever the number is i.e. 25 is 1/25 of a second. The aperture or f-stops refer to the diameter of the aperture opening, the larger f-stop the smaller the opening. Aperture controlls depth of the focus. i.e. the larger f-stops or smaller opening gives greater depth of focus and the inverse is truth aswell. There is no end all be all greatest f-stop or shutter speed its they play off each other inversely for proper exposure and its a balancing act of what kind of depth of focus you want to what kind of shutter speed you need or visa versa. Neeks photographs actually don't strike me as all that great there is nothing particularly wrong with them but nothing remarkable either nonetheless the for majority of them they seem based on the light or lack there of as sort of but not really long exposures with a decent amount of depth of feild and sort of run of the mill for digital exposure (where you lose some shadow detail and the contrast could be better but overall nice).. I think the best part of them is the level of consistency from shot to shot (they're all relatively similar in light temp and just the volume of light to lesser degree so I mean that shouldnt have been super hard but I think thats the best part about them).

Shutter speeds longer or with a number smaller than about 1/60 or 1/125 need a tripod. To get the average persons motion captured still you need about 1/125. A long exposure is usualy considered 2/1 or 2 seconds or more. As far as aperture, usually f1.4 thru about 5.6 are considered shallow depth of feild and f11 or f16 and above is usually considered a wide depth of feild and obivously the f-stops inbetween are sort of a middle ground...

This idea is kind of day 1 photography lesson, and I'm really actually shocked that you didn't know it but it's stuff like this why people learn on super simple fully manual b/w film cameras just striped down to the bare essentials of learning how a camera works but I suppose learning it is better late than never...

thanks a lot bro.. see i dont know anything about photography... i just like pointing and shooting just for fun. but ever since i stumbled upon my dads D100i've wanted to learn how to use it. i got tired of using the Program preset because it wouldnt get the shots as i wanted them... so im trying to gomanual.

also, which lens is better for like an everyday use type thing? i dont know what the pros and cons of each of these lenses are.

 

[ebayologist]

^No prob.

But yeah,
its alot more helpful to just tell me the name of the lens than show me a picture of it... I can figure out what it is based on the picture but still. AlsoI'm on aim alot (sn is ceasley1219) if you need more expand or have a particular question.

One I can tell (cause its says its right there) is a 28-200mm zoom lens, that lens just strikes me as horrid, just in idea alone, these zoom lens that coverhuge spans give you alot of options as far as framing etc all while standing still but they trade off sharpness. A prime lens (even the cheaper ones) are goingto be sharper than a zoom lens 9 times out of 10 it's just a simple fact of how a lens is constructed with fixed (prime) or moving (zoom) focal point. Theother lens I have only a vague clue of what it is in that it's signficantly shorter than the other lens and is probably slightly wide angle based on thelens hood attached to it but beyond that...

 

[sole lovely]

^^ i dont know the names of the lenses. i know that they're both 28-200mm.

the shorter one has a more of a convex lens




here are a couple of pics. my iso was off.. it came out grainy.

edit: damn i put it on imageshack and WOWWW they look horrid. hahah oh well. just wanted to show you guys my sister

 

[ebayologist]

grainy isnt necessarily bad. grain looks better with film but still, I don't think low iso are the end all be all even if some commercial photographersmight like you to think based on their work...

But I don't particularly like zoom lenses for a number of reasons but nonetheless I could tell the one was atleast slightly wide angle based on the lenseshood but I would play around with either and see what you like. I don't think you can particularly say one is better than the other especially ifthey're both 28-200mm which would make them quite similar.... You should also work on focusing, those two strike me as slightly out of focus it might bethe hosting as most of the general hosting sites tend to do horrid things from color casts to focus degradation but anyhow.

Btw, you're little sister looks like quite the character

 

[kdwallace]

Ebay

What would you recommend for a starter medium format camera. It's just taken my fancy recently (like today mostly) and there are a bunch on ebay but Idon't really know where to start.

What do you need? Camera obviously, then film - anything else necessary? I see people selling them with tons of stuff but I want to do it pretty cheap atfirst.

Did find a digital one but it was $9000!

 

[ebayologist]

Yeah, digital medium format ain't cheap. I plan to get a digital back for my hassy at somepoint, probably when the price goes down abit and when there aremore used good ones around. But for you'll need obiviously the camera, film and unless it has a light meter built in (which few do) you'll need a lightmeter.

It really depends on how much you want to spend. Just off hand I could get you a holga for like $20 from school (my school sells them) but those are horrid.you could get like nice a TLR (the first medium format camera I had) and pretty good light meter for about $200-300 or so all together. TLR's have theissue of what you see isnt exactly shoot, i forget the term off hand, because you look through one lense and the film is shot through another. But goodTLR's manufacturers I would say mostly Yashica and Rollei. And stay away from like Seagulls and Kodak TLR's. There are also rangefinders that are quitepopular and not too bad price wise and alittle better as far as quality like a mamiya 7 and pentax makes a few good medium format range finders and few thatare slr's that don't have interchangable backs that are good. Teriny Geran (who is a big name photographer with Charles Saatchi over on your side ofthe pond is somewhat well known for using a medium format Pentax SLR). The cheapest good medium format system i.e. detachable lens and back is probably aMamiya 645 but alot of people don't like the 6x4.5cm its kinda small for medium format.

As for a light meter, the only medium format I can think of off hand with a built in light meter is a Yashica 124G but there are a few others. A light meter isa nice tool that would definately prove useful with your other even digital cameras. I have a Minolta IV-F that I think was just under $200 that can do corded,uncorded, and ambient metering. It really just depends on how you plan to use it simpler meters will cost less and more complex will cost more. As far asmanufacturers Minolta and Sekonic are far and away the best...

 

[ebayologist]

opps. double post by accident.

 

[irpstakid]

Originally Posted by ebayologist

This idea is kind of day 1 photography lesson, and I'm really actually shocked that you didn't know it but it's stuff like this why people learn on super simple fully manual b/w film cameras just striped down to the bare essentials of learning how a camera works but I suppose learning it is better late than never...

So when you say that you should learn on a fully manual b/w film camera, what cheap camera would you say for experimenting.

 

[realxfresh]

this is what 2 mp does.

 

[ebayologist]

Well I only say b/w because color film is alittle more complicated and expensive not everywhere can process it (process it well i.e. not drug store filmdeveloping) but yeah just a fully manual film camera. There are any number of options, most of which are pretty cheap, because used 35mm slr cameras that areperfectly good condition can found for practically nothing. Pretty much any striped down camera from the manufacturers that make most of the DSLR's youguys like, Nikon, Canon, etc... all make/made film cameras that are cheap, like if you spend much more than $100 you're spending too much...

Like just for example any Nikon FM, F1 and quite few others and other manufacturers as well. I don't know what exactly the going price for those are butit's gotta be pratically nothing with just the 50mm kit prime lens.