Username: Password:

Author Topic: People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here  (Read 19170 times)

Henk

  • Lightweight
  • ***
  • Posts: 834
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2007, 12:14:31 PM »
I would say, just learn the basics, inventing the wheel again IS rather a waste of time IMO.

Youll soon enough notice if you need more detailed info or not.
Mules in '76 Gibson custom with maple neck.

noodleplugerine

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 3869
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2007, 10:12:11 PM »
Just bought a 400D!!!!

Been playing with it a bit and have to say, been super impressed!

I'm the most amateur of amateur photographers but so far really like it =)

Here's a few shots - Resized obviously:









My last FM.
ESP Horizon NTII.
ESP Viper Camo.
ENGL Screamer.

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2007, 12:32:31 AM »
Those look great :) Nice and clear, seems to do better macro shots better than what I'm using but then again that may be down to user error again :lol:

Whilst on the guitar theme, I took this one earlier which I quite like :)



Someone on flickr also commented on the photos being a bit under-saturated so its clear I need to sort that out. When I lower the iso to 800 or 400 it improves the saturation but makes the image much less sharp than a quicker speed. Dont suppose that'd be a problem if I was always shooting with a tripod, but I'm not :P

noodleplugerine

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 3869
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2007, 01:01:32 AM »
Very nice shot!
My last FM.
ESP Horizon NTII.
ESP Viper Camo.
ENGL Screamer.

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2007, 11:50:51 AM »
Thanks :) May have found out why I was getting the underexposed shots, just needed to adjust the aperture a bit. You can see the difference below (though I allready cant remember if it was on 10 on the 2nd one or a higher number :?) I think I changed the iso from 1600 down to 100 as well.



edit - I decided to use my flickr page instead of deviantart as its a dedicated photo website and you get better feedback than on deviantart :) So if anyone wants to see my flickr profile/add me etc its here - http://www.flickr.com/people/22023945@N06/

Johnny Mac

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 5841
    • Ultimate Guitar Profile
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2007, 03:18:22 PM »
See you're picking it up already Tom!

A lower iso setting will give you a better quality picture than something around 1600. The transparency film i used to use was iso 50, on a light box it looked like you could literally walk into it.

It's all about finding a happy medium. If your using a long lens then you will need a shutter speed that is quite fast to eliminate camera shake, so that has to take a priority. On Canons there is a shutter or aperture priority setting (Tv and Av) BUT the camera meter is still just reading light from the center of the view finder. That could be anything and on evaluated metering it just uses an average based on the brightest and darkest areas, so the whole thing just looks wrong. So say your using a 70/200 MM Zoom, put the camera on manual select a shutter speed around 250/1- 320/1 Sec, try and stop down the aperture at least a bit so your not wide open, then adjust the iso to suit based on a spot meter reading from a mid tone, grass is best.

Again you should have a read on how light meters work, it will really help. There are two types Reflective, which is the type that are built into cameras and Incedent (Not sure of the spelling) which measure light falling on to the subject, like the ones you see studio photographers holding in front of peoples faces when they test the flash. They usually have a opaque white dome on them. The advantage these have over the meters in cameras is they can't be fooled into giving incorrect readings by colour or very bright tones like snow. All light meters see everything in 18% grey so you have to help them by taking readings that are mid tones like grass or skin.
Warpig, MQ,
Miracle Man-Trilogy Suite, Cold Sweats, Black Guards, Rebel Yells & Irish Tours!

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2007, 04:01:52 PM »
Will definitely have a read so I understand it better. I dont know how to get the spot meter up on this camera will have to have a look through the manual to find it. Does the mid tone on that just have to be set once, or each time you take a photo, so that you're getting the mid tone set to work with the lighting you're in? Guess its similar to setting gray point etc for the curves adjustment in photoshop.

Johnny Mac

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 5841
    • Ultimate Guitar Profile
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #37 on: December 24, 2007, 02:11:01 PM »
Quote from: _tom_
Will definitely have a read so I understand it better. I dont know how to get the spot meter up on this camera will have to have a look through the manual to find it. Does the mid tone on that just have to be set once, or each time you take a photo, so that you're getting the mid tone set to work with the lighting you're in? Guess its similar to setting gray point etc for the curves adjustment in photoshop.


Once you have decided what your going to shoot, you look for a mid tone in the view finder and take a reading from it using the spot meter. It depends on the light where you take one from. Overcast, then the light is the same all over so anywhere will do. In sunlight with fast moving clouds it's always changing so from somewhere in shot. Always check your meter before taking a picture. Then just adjust it acording to how it looks on screen, but spoting from a mid tone should put you right on it.
Warpig, MQ,
Miracle Man-Trilogy Suite, Cold Sweats, Black Guards, Rebel Yells & Irish Tours!

shobet

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • Look into my eye...
    • http://www.dusksky.com
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #38 on: December 24, 2007, 04:02:32 PM »
I learned a lot from a book called Understanding Exposure. Sets out stuff in a nice numpty fashion.
Another book worth the money is Basic Photography, this one is a lot more technical.

I tend to look at other peoples photographs and try and understand how they've achieved the picture. Study how they compose the picture and how it's lit.

I've played with a 300D and a 350D but I prefer Nikons as I find the 300 series Canons a bit small for my clumpy hands. I plumped for a D70s last year and it does what I need it to do.

Ignore Auto and stick to manual mode, that's how I'm learning.
One thing I've also picked up is trash the shite pics as you'll soon be running out of space for storing them all.

Oh and if you thought guitars are an expensive hobby...

Plus if you like landscape photography then get used to getting up at stupid o'clock to catch the light! Good luck!
There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary.
Those who do and those who do not.

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #39 on: December 24, 2007, 11:41:17 PM »
Yeah I can see allready that photography is going to be expensive :lol: I think I'll stick to the 350D for now, I know now how to adjust the shutter speed, aperture and iso and that took me long enough, dont fancy learning how to use another for a while :D

I just realised that I labeled the picture above wrong, the underexposed one should be 10 and the one that looks brighter/more colourful should be 5.6 I think!

Cheers for all the info guys, have a good christmas :)

noodleplugerine

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 3869
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #40 on: December 25, 2007, 03:53:14 PM »
Quote from: _tom_


I just realised that I labeled the picture above wrong, the underexposed one should be 10 and the one that looks brighter/more colourful should be 5.6 I think!



Definetly - The F Number is inverse to the aperture - High aperture = lower F number = sharper focus. Low aperture = high F number = huge focal depth.
My last FM.
ESP Horizon NTII.
ESP Viper Camo.
ENGL Screamer.

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2008, 10:14:00 AM »
Well its been almost a month after I ordered and still havent received my camera, starting to think I've been scammed out of my money :\ Ordered it from www.mycameras2006.com luckily just used paypal so they dont have my bank details or anything, so I've opened up a case in paypal. Lets see what happens from here, I just wanna get a camera and start taking photos again!

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2008, 02:10:19 PM »
Well my 350D actually arrived yesterday finally. My advice - never order from mycameras2006.com, ever! The prices are fine but the service is POOR.  Took some new photos today let me know what you think! http://www.flickr.com/photos/22023945@N06/

They still looked a bit underexposed so I had to edit most of them in photoshop - the aperture was wide open and I adjusted shutter speed so that the light meter was in the middle but still turned out a bit underexposed.

Johnny Mac

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 5841
    • Ultimate Guitar Profile
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2008, 03:19:07 PM »
Hi Tom, glad to hear your camera turned up, I'm sure you will get a lot out of it.

Just looking at 'Freddie again' on flickr. If you have used photoshop to correct it it then it's hard to say much about it. The lawn in the middle is bang on exposure wise whilst young freddie is under exposed and cropped too much. If he is your main subject then I would have composed with him in the 'bottom right 3rd' and taken a light reading on the light in the shade where freddie is not on the middle of the lawn. So that would have been camera on manual, shutter around 30/s or 60/s, spot meter in on grass by freddie in the shade. Using the iso and the aperture work on getting the meter in the middle. Then pre focus on his head, re compose, then a little call from you, just as freddie looks towards you press the shutter.
Warpig, MQ,
Miracle Man-Trilogy Suite, Cold Sweats, Black Guards, Rebel Yells & Irish Tours!

_tom_

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 8842
People into photography, your opinions would be welcome here
« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2008, 04:24:06 PM »
Cheers Johnny, I still need to find out how to do the spot meter readings, will have a flick through the manual later. The newer pics definitely look more colourful than the last lot, to me at least :)

The trouble I'm finding now is that if I want a longer shutter speed to increase the exposure then I lose all the clarity due to movement. Guess its time to buy a tripod?

Also, freddie is a little git and wouldnt look at me when I called him :lol: