This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Don'tbe shy, care to share any nuggets of knowledge?
In reply to The Lemming:
Being at the right place at the right time plus the ability to get everything in focus and achieve a pleasing composition should see you right. That and the sensitivity not to ruin all your hard work in post!
Of course I'm specifically talking about landscape photography where tastes and opinions differ but that's my credo anyway...no need for any cheats
Being at the right place at the right time plus the ability to get everything in focus and achieve a pleasing composition should see you right. That and the sensitivity not to ruin all your hard work in post!
Of course I'm specifically talking about landscape photography where tastes and opinions differ but that's my credo anyway...no need for any cheats
Post edited at 20:39
1
2
In reply to The Lemming:
As Nick says, there's no need for cheats - in fact that's counter to the essence of photography, which is to capture a moment/event in the real world as vividly and truthfully as possible. All I would add to what Nick has said is: generally, concentrate at least as much on the subject matter as the camera/image in the viewfinder. Which means keeping your eye a lot of the time away from the viewfinder. Don't get too obsessed by just one framing. There can be something really interesting happening just outside the frame, or even behind you. You've got to keep your own wits and eye sharp beyond anything else. Before that, 99 per cent of the work, as Nick says, is getting yourself into the right place at the right time.
As Nick says, there's no need for cheats - in fact that's counter to the essence of photography, which is to capture a moment/event in the real world as vividly and truthfully as possible. All I would add to what Nick has said is: generally, concentrate at least as much on the subject matter as the camera/image in the viewfinder. Which means keeping your eye a lot of the time away from the viewfinder. Don't get too obsessed by just one framing. There can be something really interesting happening just outside the frame, or even behind you. You've got to keep your own wits and eye sharp beyond anything else. Before that, 99 per cent of the work, as Nick says, is getting yourself into the right place at the right time.
In reply to The Lemming:
Always actually carry a camera.
Take the pic first ask permission later.
Look behind you.
Carry enough cards, carry enough batteries.
Get to the front.
Don't be shy.
Stay till the end.
Always actually carry a camera.
Take the pic first ask permission later.
Look behind you.
Carry enough cards, carry enough batteries.
Get to the front.
Don't be shy.
Stay till the end.
2
In reply to The Lemming: As one punter to another, and recognising that those worthy of far greater attention have spoken (or indeed may yet be to speak), I'll bite.
Full frame sensor? F16. Cropped sensor? F11. Then leave the aperture alone.
Shoot in RAW and set the white balance to daylight. Then leave that alone.
Focus about one-third of the way into the scene. Then leave that alone.
Use a tripod and a remote shutter release whenever possible. And even when you think it's only just possible.
After that, its up to you. And don't get disheartened when the quick snap you took before setting up looks as good as your best effort. Things will get better...
T.
Definitely*not* any sort of photographic authority
Full frame sensor? F16. Cropped sensor? F11. Then leave the aperture alone.
Shoot in RAW and set the white balance to daylight. Then leave that alone.
Focus about one-third of the way into the scene. Then leave that alone.
Use a tripod and a remote shutter release whenever possible. And even when you think it's only just possible.
After that, its up to you. And don't get disheartened when the quick snap you took before setting up looks as good as your best effort. Things will get better...
T.
Definitely*not* any sort of photographic authority
1
2
1
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
You can't really mean that. That's just for one kind of maximum-depth-of-field shot with quite close subject/s. There's lots of other types of picture. With landscapes done at speed you won't be following that rule of thumb anyway - you'll be using good old-fashioned 'short infinity'.
About the ONE thing you still have to understand about cameras now (though it's still worth learning about shutter speeds for certain special effects) is how apertures work with depth of field ... for each lens. I.e you still have to know what you're doing at a quite basic technical level.
> Focus about one-third of the way into the scene. Then leave that alone.
You can't really mean that. That's just for one kind of maximum-depth-of-field shot with quite close subject/s. There's lots of other types of picture. With landscapes done at speed you won't be following that rule of thumb anyway - you'll be using good old-fashioned 'short infinity'.
About the ONE thing you still have to understand about cameras now (though it's still worth learning about shutter speeds for certain special effects) is how apertures work with depth of field ... for each lens. I.e you still have to know what you're doing at a quite basic technical level.
1
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I did clearly state that I was no sort of authority, speaking as one punter to another and that others who knew more had, and would be, speaking Gordon . . .
T.
T.
2
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Bracket shots when no sure of exposure. You only waste card space.
Buy a proper flash, but put a hankie over it (or buy a diffuser).
Bracket shots when no sure of exposure. You only waste card space.
Buy a proper flash, but put a hankie over it (or buy a diffuser).
In reply to The Lemming
Wynn Bullock, one of the recognised masters of 20th cent photography, stated that 20 per cent of a photograph was produced in the camera and 80 per cent in the darkroom. Ansel Adams often described himself as more of a printer than a photographer - many the greats of that era were 'master printers' first and photographers second. So I woudnt get too hung up about 'cheating', you would be in very good company.
Wynn Bullock, one of the recognised masters of 20th cent photography, stated that 20 per cent of a photograph was produced in the camera and 80 per cent in the darkroom. Ansel Adams often described himself as more of a printer than a photographer - many the greats of that era were 'master printers' first and photographers second. So I woudnt get too hung up about 'cheating', you would be in very good company.
In reply to The Lemming:
Learn from other peoples work-Look at other peoples photographs in the genre that your interested in (landscapes, portaiture action-climbing etc) and decide what makes a good or bad photograph. Consider composition and technical aspects, what do you find interesting or visually pleasing. be critical and accept other peoples opinions. For landscape main elements are to reduce vibration with sturdy tripod and timed shutter release, low iso, maybe filter the sky with grafuated filter, small aperture. Look through viewfinder or screen. Intersting images tend to have elements that lead the eye and are balanced (i.e rule of thirds). Have intersting elements in the foreground. Dont go overboared with bokeh (large aperture) unless your doing portraits and you want to focus attention on a face. Shoot raw. Dont be disapointed if your raw files look muted they can often need work on a computer. Go shoot photographs when the light is nice -around sunrise and sunset. Embrace bad weather, cloudy days can add atmosphere to photographs. Dont feel like you always need to buy expensive gear, instead learn to make do with camera gear you have. Always have a camera with you or nearby (in car) - you always see a good photograph when you dont have a camera.
Learn from other peoples work-Look at other peoples photographs in the genre that your interested in (landscapes, portaiture action-climbing etc) and decide what makes a good or bad photograph. Consider composition and technical aspects, what do you find interesting or visually pleasing. be critical and accept other peoples opinions. For landscape main elements are to reduce vibration with sturdy tripod and timed shutter release, low iso, maybe filter the sky with grafuated filter, small aperture. Look through viewfinder or screen. Intersting images tend to have elements that lead the eye and are balanced (i.e rule of thirds). Have intersting elements in the foreground. Dont go overboared with bokeh (large aperture) unless your doing portraits and you want to focus attention on a face. Shoot raw. Dont be disapointed if your raw files look muted they can often need work on a computer. Go shoot photographs when the light is nice -around sunrise and sunset. Embrace bad weather, cloudy days can add atmosphere to photographs. Dont feel like you always need to buy expensive gear, instead learn to make do with camera gear you have. Always have a camera with you or nearby (in car) - you always see a good photograph when you dont have a camera.
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Shoot RAW and 'expose to the right' if using digital
Always check your settings, I've lost some good shots because I'd changed something the previous time I used the camera and forgot to change it back - shots taken with the wrong white balance are unrecoverable for example.
Shoot RAW and 'expose to the right' if using digital
Always check your settings, I've lost some good shots because I'd changed something the previous time I used the camera and forgot to change it back - shots taken with the wrong white balance are unrecoverable for example.
In reply to Toerag:
Very true, done that. Keep doing it!
- shots taken with the wrong white balance are unrecoverable for example.
No problem if you shoot RAW though?
> Shoot RAW and 'expose to the right' if using digital
> Always check your settings, I've lost some good shots because I'd changed something the previous time I used the camera and forgot to change it back
Very true, done that. Keep doing it!
- shots taken with the wrong white balance are unrecoverable for example.
No problem if you shoot RAW though?
In reply to Toerag:
That shouldn't be the case if shooting RAW.
> shots taken with the wrong white balance are unrecoverable for example.
That shouldn't be the case if shooting RAW.
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Erm... maybe, if you're only shooting landscapes, and don't want any variance in your shots? Otherwise why would you never change aperture (and thus depth of field)?
My random tips:
- Foreground interest carries more weight than you'd think
- If it looks dull in real life, it will look dull in a photo
- Clear blue skies rarely make good photographs
- Clouds are nature's macro/portrait diffusers
- Always double-check your ISO and WB
- There's nothing wrong with the spray-and-pray approach using digital cameras
- For night shots, use your highest ISO and open your aperture to take test shots and check your composition before dialling down and taking long-exposure photos. Saves you a lot of time!
> Full frame sensor? F16. Cropped sensor? F11. Then leave the aperture alone.
> Focus about one-third of the way into the scene. Then leave that alone.
> Use a tripod and a remote shutter release whenever possible.
> Focus about one-third of the way into the scene. Then leave that alone.
> Use a tripod and a remote shutter release whenever possible.
Erm... maybe, if you're only shooting landscapes, and don't want any variance in your shots? Otherwise why would you never change aperture (and thus depth of field)?
My random tips:
- Foreground interest carries more weight than you'd think
- If it looks dull in real life, it will look dull in a photo
- Clear blue skies rarely make good photographs
- Clouds are nature's macro/portrait diffusers
- Always double-check your ISO and WB
- There's nothing wrong with the spray-and-pray approach using digital cameras
- For night shots, use your highest ISO and open your aperture to take test shots and check your composition before dialling down and taking long-exposure photos. Saves you a lot of time!
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Quite a few, if not everybody so far is stating that RAW is the way to go.
As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end.
However I'm not trying to start a RAW vs JPEG flame war.
Quite a few, if not everybody so far is stating that RAW is the way to go.
As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end.
However I'm not trying to start a RAW vs JPEG flame war.
2
In reply to The Lemming:
> As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end.
I know what you mean, but using RAW in a selective way is worth doing I think, rather than not using at all.
> As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end.
I know what you mean, but using RAW in a selective way is worth doing I think, rather than not using at all.
In reply to The Lemming:
With most cameras now you can shoot both RAW and JPG at the same time with very little inconvenience in terms of card speed or capacity. That way you can simply ignore all of the RAW files until that moment when you're really glad you have one!
Like
With most cameras now you can shoot both RAW and JPG at the same time with very little inconvenience in terms of card speed or capacity. That way you can simply ignore all of the RAW files until that moment when you're really glad you have one!
Like
1
In reply to mac fae stirling:
I found it somewhat disillusioning when I was told how heavily manipulated Ansel's Adam's photos were. I suppose the fact that it wasn't obvious to me is a tribute to his skill.
My own advice (as a complete punter) is, like others have said, to make the effort to be in the right place at the right time (rather than on your laptop afterwards) and to take loads of photos and bin the majority. I concede that it is very difficult to resist the temptation to go just a bit too far with the post processing.......... try hard to resist!
> In reply to The Lemming
> Ansel Adams often described himself as more of a printer than a photographer. So I woudn't get too hung up about 'cheating', you would be in very good company.
I found it somewhat disillusioning when I was told how heavily manipulated Ansel's Adam's photos were. I suppose the fact that it wasn't obvious to me is a tribute to his skill.
My own advice (as a complete punter) is, like others have said, to make the effort to be in the right place at the right time (rather than on your laptop afterwards) and to take loads of photos and bin the majority. I concede that it is very difficult to resist the temptation to go just a bit too far with the post processing.......... try hard to resist!
In reply to Toerag:
A great thread, some good tips for someone like myself just starting to get into photography.
Can you explain this a bit further? Do you mean generally overexpose? I think I remember hearing somewhere that it's much easier to correct exposure in one direction than the other. Is this what you're referring to?
Thanks.
A great thread, some good tips for someone like myself just starting to get into photography.
> Shoot RAW and 'expose to the right' if using digital
Can you explain this a bit further? Do you mean generally overexpose? I think I remember hearing somewhere that it's much easier to correct exposure in one direction than the other. Is this what you're referring to?
Thanks.
In reply to MikeR:
Exposing as much as possible without clipping the highlights will result in the largest dynamic range possible being captured with the least noise. This can then be fixed in post with something like the exposure tool in Lightroom - the end result being that you end up with a natural-looking photo with less noise.
This only makes sense if shooting in RAW though, as each time you edit a JPEG you reduce the quality.
Exposing as much as possible without clipping the highlights will result in the largest dynamic range possible being captured with the least noise. This can then be fixed in post with something like the exposure tool in Lightroom - the end result being that you end up with a natural-looking photo with less noise.
This only makes sense if shooting in RAW though, as each time you edit a JPEG you reduce the quality.
In reply to MikeR:
nice explanation of ETTR here; http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/
nice explanation of ETTR here; http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/
1
In reply to The Lemming:
make a point of recharging discharged batteries as soon as you get home, otherwise you'll inevitably end up putting a flat battery into your camera with no fully charged one(s) available.
My batteries are numbered so that I use them in sequence (one for the OCD thread perhaps?).
make a point of recharging discharged batteries as soon as you get home, otherwise you'll inevitably end up putting a flat battery into your camera with no fully charged one(s) available.
My batteries are numbered so that I use them in sequence (one for the OCD thread perhaps?).
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Take the lens cap off before taking photos.
> Don'tbe shy, care to share any nuggets of knowledge?
Take the lens cap off before taking photos.
2
In reply to abseil:
More controversially, put on the lens hood and leave lens caps at home. Lens caps are a pain.
> Take the lens cap off before taking photos.
More controversially, put on the lens hood and leave lens caps at home. Lens caps are a pain.
2
In reply to The Lemming: "> Don'tbe shy, care to share any nuggets of knowledge?<"
I look at photos I like, try to work out why I like them (light, composition, colours, themes, subject isolation blah, blah, blad-de-blah) and try as hard as I can to emulate. Flickr is a really good place as there are just so many (and lots of good ones) of just about every flavour you can think of and it's not an ego trap like 500px (click-bait for HDR, slow-mo waterfalls , cute cats and the like mine & I'll like yours types :-P ). There's lots of BS on photo forums too about must-have prime lenses and fast lenses and Leica lenses, camera types, sensor sizes and other stuff, but mostly the people who evangelise about such stuff never post their 'work' for appraisal. Also, entering a few photo contests keeps you on your toes too and soon crushes your ego
I look at photos I like, try to work out why I like them (light, composition, colours, themes, subject isolation blah, blah, blad-de-blah) and try as hard as I can to emulate. Flickr is a really good place as there are just so many (and lots of good ones) of just about every flavour you can think of and it's not an ego trap like 500px (click-bait for HDR, slow-mo waterfalls , cute cats and the like mine & I'll like yours types :-P ). There's lots of BS on photo forums too about must-have prime lenses and fast lenses and Leica lenses, camera types, sensor sizes and other stuff, but mostly the people who evangelise about such stuff never post their 'work' for appraisal. Also, entering a few photo contests keeps you on your toes too and soon crushes your ego
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Well that's one interpretation, one type of photography but in general photography is far wider than that.
An obvious example is black and white photography. There's nothing truthful about that since the real world is never in black and white. Yet if it conveys a mood or atmosphere better than a colour image why not use it. From there there's a never ending range of techniques employed by photographers to create the image they want - and sometimes it might be complete fantasy.
> in fact that's counter to the essence of photography, which is to capture a moment/event in the real world as vividly and truthfully as possible.
Well that's one interpretation, one type of photography but in general photography is far wider than that.
An obvious example is black and white photography. There's nothing truthful about that since the real world is never in black and white. Yet if it conveys a mood or atmosphere better than a colour image why not use it. From there there's a never ending range of techniques employed by photographers to create the image they want - and sometimes it might be complete fantasy.
8
In reply to Durbs:
Excellent list & love that last one
> My random tips: > - For night shots, use your highest ISO and open your aperture to take test shots and check your composition before dialling down and taking long-exposure photos. Saves you a lot of time!"<
------------------------------------------Excellent list & love that last one
In reply to stp:
>Well that's one interpretation, one type of photography but in general photography is far wider than that.
Look - I worked for many years as an industrial photographer, portrait photographer, wedding photographer & landscape photographer. Go speak to your grandma about sucking eggs.
It can indeed convey a truth. Often b+w conveys rock climbing better. I concentrated on b+w climbing pix for many years before I bought all my medium and large format gear for mountain landscapes.
>From there there's a never ending range of techniques employed by photographers to create the image they want - and sometimes it might be complete fantasy.
I find this a bit baffling. Surely if you want to create a complete fantasy you'd be far better off with a paint brush? Or do you mean just taking a digital pic and then playing about with one of those ghastly 'paint' effects? Embarrassing truth: a lot of photographers aren't really much good at painting or drawing.
>Well that's one interpretation, one type of photography but in general photography is far wider than that.
Look - I worked for many years as an industrial photographer, portrait photographer, wedding photographer & landscape photographer. Go speak to your grandma about sucking eggs.
> An obvious example is black and white photography. There's nothing truthful about that since the real world is never in black and white. Yet if it conveys a mood or atmosphere better than a colour image why not use it.
It can indeed convey a truth. Often b+w conveys rock climbing better. I concentrated on b+w climbing pix for many years before I bought all my medium and large format gear for mountain landscapes.
>From there there's a never ending range of techniques employed by photographers to create the image they want - and sometimes it might be complete fantasy.
I find this a bit baffling. Surely if you want to create a complete fantasy you'd be far better off with a paint brush? Or do you mean just taking a digital pic and then playing about with one of those ghastly 'paint' effects? Embarrassing truth: a lot of photographers aren't really much good at painting or drawing.
1
13
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
We're back to this again. Why is there a subset of people who think that the only valid use of photography is to capture a lifelike and truthful image? We're not all photojournalists, just like not all people who wield pencils draw images of suspects for the police, and just like not all cinematographers photograph documentaries.
It's just as valid for the photographer to be making a statement or presenting their view of something via image, as it is documenting what's in front of the lens. Still imagine or moving image. Just in the same way that the Director of a motion picture is making a statement or presenting their view on a topic of some form, its perfectly valid for a still photographer to do the same.
You must surely understand this with your experience both in photography and film? Or at least if you don't understand or agree, present a better argument than 'I'm more experienced than you, you're wrong'. It's a subjective topic, and your opinion is not definitive!
We're back to this again. Why is there a subset of people who think that the only valid use of photography is to capture a lifelike and truthful image? We're not all photojournalists, just like not all people who wield pencils draw images of suspects for the police, and just like not all cinematographers photograph documentaries.
It's just as valid for the photographer to be making a statement or presenting their view of something via image, as it is documenting what's in front of the lens. Still imagine or moving image. Just in the same way that the Director of a motion picture is making a statement or presenting their view on a topic of some form, its perfectly valid for a still photographer to do the same.
You must surely understand this with your experience both in photography and film? Or at least if you don't understand or agree, present a better argument than 'I'm more experienced than you, you're wrong'. It's a subjective topic, and your opinion is not definitive!
13
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Gordon perhaps, despite what you know, this is a time to look on and smile in the way that a parent would as they overhear the stories that children tell each other.
Because you know more about this subject than many of us put together (hell, you'll have forgotten more about it than many of us put together will ever know or aspire to know), whenever there's a thread about photography there should also be for you a note that flashes up saying 'where ignorance is bliss', perhaps with another saying 'guide gently, and try not to get annoyed'. This might flash with especial eagerness when it's a thread started by The Lemming because nice guy though he is, he does have a habit of starting threads with vague titles which can then take on a life of their own.
I, and those others of us that know of your work, stand in awe of it. Just as I could never aspire to lead E11, I can never really aspire to take photographs the equal of yours. So just as an E11 climber might hear about the struggles of climbers on a classic V Diff and move on without contributing to their discussion, perhaps you ought to adopt a similar state of mind when a thread like this, looking for shortcuts and nuggets to help others achieve a step or two up the ladder, comes up. I'm not saying don't contribute - we can all learn from your expertise - but perhaps recognise the nature of the discussion, and make your contributions with a lighter touch.
You have seemed a bit grumpy on this thread. Try not to be; we were all young and foolish once and, in photography terms, for many of us it will be ever thus.
t.
Because you know more about this subject than many of us put together (hell, you'll have forgotten more about it than many of us put together will ever know or aspire to know), whenever there's a thread about photography there should also be for you a note that flashes up saying 'where ignorance is bliss', perhaps with another saying 'guide gently, and try not to get annoyed'. This might flash with especial eagerness when it's a thread started by The Lemming because nice guy though he is, he does have a habit of starting threads with vague titles which can then take on a life of their own.
I, and those others of us that know of your work, stand in awe of it. Just as I could never aspire to lead E11, I can never really aspire to take photographs the equal of yours. So just as an E11 climber might hear about the struggles of climbers on a classic V Diff and move on without contributing to their discussion, perhaps you ought to adopt a similar state of mind when a thread like this, looking for shortcuts and nuggets to help others achieve a step or two up the ladder, comes up. I'm not saying don't contribute - we can all learn from your expertise - but perhaps recognise the nature of the discussion, and make your contributions with a lighter touch.
You have seemed a bit grumpy on this thread. Try not to be; we were all young and foolish once and, in photography terms, for many of us it will be ever thus.
t.
5
4
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
So are you suggesting that those people who treat photography as a sort of electronic colouring-in are failed wannabe artists who perhaps aren't even very good at the colouring-in? Or that proper photography is a second rate pursuit for people without artistic talent? Or something else?
> Embarrassing truth: a lot of photographers aren't really much good at painting or drawing.
So are you suggesting that those people who treat photography as a sort of electronic colouring-in are failed wannabe artists who perhaps aren't even very good at the colouring-in? Or that proper photography is a second rate pursuit for people without artistic talent? Or something else?
Post edited at 00:06
4
1
1
2
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Err no.
This site is quite possibly unique when compared to other forums in its variety of contributors with their various jobs and occupations. This site is quite literally, a font of all knowledge.
When I pose a question on this site, I do indeed try to make it vague. If the enquiry was specific then I would get only one viewpoint or a single reply. This would write literally make for a boring topic.
Yes my questions are vague, but, and I could not care less what others think, the subjects do take on a life of their own. As a result I learn new stuff or more importantly, I begin to challenge my own views and beliefs.
Now, if I pose a question and a professional or highly respected individual in their field of study takes time out to offer me advice then I will gratefully and humbly listen to.
This site is great at shining a spotlight on bullshitters and calling them out on stupid, ignorant or dangerous advice. This can only work if respected members in their field want to help out. But if they are shot down in flames then, I can understand if they stay silent at a future date. We are then left with the bullshitters who go unchalleged.
And, no, I am not hinting or suggesting that any bullshitters have entered into this thread.
I was making a generalised observation about contributions in other forums.
> whenever there's a thread about photography there should also be for you a note that flashes up saying 'where ignorance is bliss', perhaps with another saying 'guide gently, and try not to get annoyed'. This might flash with especial eagerness when it's a thread started by The Lemming because nice guy though he is, he does have a habit of starting threads with vague titles which can then take on a life of their own.
Err no.
This site is quite possibly unique when compared to other forums in its variety of contributors with their various jobs and occupations. This site is quite literally, a font of all knowledge.
When I pose a question on this site, I do indeed try to make it vague. If the enquiry was specific then I would get only one viewpoint or a single reply. This would write literally make for a boring topic.
Yes my questions are vague, but, and I could not care less what others think, the subjects do take on a life of their own. As a result I learn new stuff or more importantly, I begin to challenge my own views and beliefs.
Now, if I pose a question and a professional or highly respected individual in their field of study takes time out to offer me advice then I will gratefully and humbly listen to.
This site is great at shining a spotlight on bullshitters and calling them out on stupid, ignorant or dangerous advice. This can only work if respected members in their field want to help out. But if they are shot down in flames then, I can understand if they stay silent at a future date. We are then left with the bullshitters who go unchalleged.
And, no, I am not hinting or suggesting that any bullshitters have entered into this thread.
I was making a generalised observation about contributions in other forums.
Post edited at 08:34
1
In reply to tehmarks:
Gordon's got a point though.
Once you start radically changing elements of a photo, is it actually still a photo?
Gordon's got a point though.
Once you start radically changing elements of a photo, is it actually still a photo?
2
In reply to FactorXXX:
It is what it is and that's fine whatever you call it. However, I think the danger is that we forget what photography can do which art (or, if you like, other art forms) cannot, which is to produce, well, "photographic" pictures, and once this core and unique type of picture gets lost, perhaps, beyond recognition, amongst all the other stuff, I think something may have been lost; you just don't know any more what you are looking at any more.
> Once you start radically changing elements of a photo, is it actually still a photo?
It is what it is and that's fine whatever you call it. However, I think the danger is that we forget what photography can do which art (or, if you like, other art forms) cannot, which is to produce, well, "photographic" pictures, and once this core and unique type of picture gets lost, perhaps, beyond recognition, amongst all the other stuff, I think something may have been lost; you just don't know any more what you are looking at any more.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Hi Gordon,
I don't write very often in the forum but just wanted to add my 2p..
I work as a photographer too and I actually dedicated my life to constructing images that don't capture a moment or maybe better, to craft the moments that I want to create in my images. I mostly do studio work but on location is the same, I visualise an image and then progress to create it by lighting, directing and staging a scene. Just like in climbing you can argue about the purest ascent one could argue that my photography is an untruthful artifact and I'd be ok with that. It isn't and doesn't want to picture a truthful moment. I arrived to this kind of photography also because I don't have better means to make my ideas come to life (I'm really crap with a brush or a pencil!) and I consider myself a maker rather than a taker of images but I don't think one is better than the other, it's just what I chose to make... (marcovittur.com)
My personal tip would be to concentrate on learning about light and seeing the light in a scene you intend to take a picture of more than the camera/iso/f stop. The camera is just a tool that you need to know how to operate. End of the day the meaning of photography is "writing with light"..
Hi Gordon,
I don't write very often in the forum but just wanted to add my 2p..
I work as a photographer too and I actually dedicated my life to constructing images that don't capture a moment or maybe better, to craft the moments that I want to create in my images. I mostly do studio work but on location is the same, I visualise an image and then progress to create it by lighting, directing and staging a scene. Just like in climbing you can argue about the purest ascent one could argue that my photography is an untruthful artifact and I'd be ok with that. It isn't and doesn't want to picture a truthful moment. I arrived to this kind of photography also because I don't have better means to make my ideas come to life (I'm really crap with a brush or a pencil!) and I consider myself a maker rather than a taker of images but I don't think one is better than the other, it's just what I chose to make... (marcovittur.com)
My personal tip would be to concentrate on learning about light and seeing the light in a scene you intend to take a picture of more than the camera/iso/f stop. The camera is just a tool that you need to know how to operate. End of the day the meaning of photography is "writing with light"..
5
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Discuss with relation to Ansel Adams.
Why's that embarrassing? A lot of poets aren't much good at playing the piano.
Edit: And obviously the fact that extensive post-processing can, in the hands of a master, be a tool for creating amazing, evocative, meaningful images doesn't mean that in the hands of a punter it can't be a tool for completely ballsing things up.
> >From there there's a never ending range of techniques employed by photographers to create the image they want - and sometimes it might be complete fantasy.
> I find this a bit baffling. Surely if you want to create a complete fantasy you'd be far better off with a paint brush? Or do you mean just taking a digital pic and then playing about with one of those ghastly 'paint' effects?
Discuss with relation to Ansel Adams.
> Embarrassing truth: a lot of photographers aren't really much good at painting or drawing.
Why's that embarrassing? A lot of poets aren't much good at playing the piano.
Edit: And obviously the fact that extensive post-processing can, in the hands of a master, be a tool for creating amazing, evocative, meaningful images doesn't mean that in the hands of a punter it can't be a tool for completely ballsing things up.
Post edited at 09:31
2
In reply to Marco_pepperoni:
Quite an impressive body of work on your site.
You mention that you paint in light. Would it be possible to explain or describe a simple project that achieves this?
Quite an impressive body of work on your site.
You mention that you paint in light. Would it be possible to explain or describe a simple project that achieves this?
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Some interesting quotes from Ansel Adams; probably the average UKCer's favourite photographer? It would be interesting to know how many UKC folk have one of his prints/calenders on their walls.. I have a couple. Make of them what you will;
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.” – Ansel Adams
“To photograph truthfully and effectively is to see beneath the surfaces.”
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.”
“Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.”
“Photography, as a powerful medium…offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution.”
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.”
“The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.”
“…one sees differently with color photography than black-and-white… in short, visualization must be modified by the specific nature of the equipment and materials being used.”
“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.”
“I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.”
> Discuss with relation to Ansel Adams.
Some interesting quotes from Ansel Adams; probably the average UKCer's favourite photographer? It would be interesting to know how many UKC folk have one of his prints/calenders on their walls.. I have a couple. Make of them what you will;
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.” – Ansel Adams
“To photograph truthfully and effectively is to see beneath the surfaces.”
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.”
“Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.”
“Photography, as a powerful medium…offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution.”
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.”
“The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.”
“…one sees differently with color photography than black-and-white… in short, visualization must be modified by the specific nature of the equipment and materials being used.”
“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.”
“I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.”
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I'm not (necessarily) talking about Photoshopping a photo beyond all recognition, but using all of the tools that the photographer has available to him. Selective composition, lighting, focus and depth of field, filtration...
To create something that doesn't truthfully document the scene doesn't require a copy of Lightroom!
I'm not (necessarily) talking about Photoshopping a photo beyond all recognition, but using all of the tools that the photographer has available to him. Selective composition, lighting, focus and depth of field, filtration...
To create something that doesn't truthfully document the scene doesn't require a copy of Lightroom!
Post edited at 10:09
2
In reply to Marco_pepperoni:
This is great advice, and probably the most important of all.
> My personal tip would be to concentrate on learning about light and seeing the light in a scene you intend to take a picture of more than the camera/iso/f stop. The camera is just a tool that you need to know how to operate. End of the day the meaning of photography is "writing with light"..
This is great advice, and probably the most important of all.
1
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Thanks Lemming,
Painting with light is a technique of lighting, at night or in a blacked out studio you use a light source to light your subject pretty much like brushing the light on it while the camera shutter is open. As the ambient light is nil the only light that the camera will record is the one you are painting on.
What I was referring to with "writing with light" is the origin of the word photography, from the greek photos (light) and graphos (writing).. Registering an image using light.
Thanks Lemming,
Painting with light is a technique of lighting, at night or in a blacked out studio you use a light source to light your subject pretty much like brushing the light on it while the camera shutter is open. As the ambient light is nil the only light that the camera will record is the one you are painting on.
What I was referring to with "writing with light" is the origin of the word photography, from the greek photos (light) and graphos (writing).. Registering an image using light.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Sorry, can't now. V busy with writing work/ research. But will say that the zone system I used for shooting transparencies was an adaption of Ansel Adams' - i.e 10 zones reduced to just 5 1/2 stops/zones. (apart from B + W)
> Discuss with relation to Ansel Adams.
Sorry, can't now. V busy with writing work/ research. But will say that the zone system I used for shooting transparencies was an adaption of Ansel Adams' - i.e 10 zones reduced to just 5 1/2 stops/zones. (apart from B + W)
In reply to The Lemming:
Rather than wanting a spoon-fed lesson, why not think about a photo you like (that you could get to take), try to work out why you like it, try to work out how it was done, and design your own simple project. And if you can't work out for yourself why something looks good, and how it was achieved, you could go look up some ideas on the internet.
I don't think anyone can make an image close to those that Marco does without (not just) a great eye for composition, but superb processing skills for compositing and the like, lots and lots of experience in off camera synched flash lighting, and probably a photographic studio too.
> You mention that you paint in light. Would it be possible to explain or describe a simple project that achieves this?
Rather than wanting a spoon-fed lesson, why not think about a photo you like (that you could get to take), try to work out why you like it, try to work out how it was done, and design your own simple project. And if you can't work out for yourself why something looks good, and how it was achieved, you could go look up some ideas on the internet.
I don't think anyone can make an image close to those that Marco does without (not just) a great eye for composition, but superb processing skills for compositing and the like, lots and lots of experience in off camera synched flash lighting, and probably a photographic studio too.
1
In reply to The Lemming: >"Yes my questions are vague, but, and I could not care less what others think ...
...Quite a few, if not everybody so far is stating that RAW is the way to go. As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end. "<
--------------------------------------------
You don't want to use RAW, yet you looked at Marco's work, enjoyed it, and wanted their advice too. Yes your questions are vague, and that's perhaps because you don't understand what you're looking at. There's a time and a place for not caring what other people think, and it's not when you're seeking to learn
...Quite a few, if not everybody so far is stating that RAW is the way to go. As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end. "<
--------------------------------------------
You don't want to use RAW, yet you looked at Marco's work, enjoyed it, and wanted their advice too. Yes your questions are vague, and that's perhaps because you don't understand what you're looking at. There's a time and a place for not caring what other people think, and it's not when you're seeking to learn
1
In reply to moffatross:
Feel free to continue to 'cut and paste' my comments from two entirely different replies into whatever random sentence you require to make a point.
Feel free to continue to 'cut and paste' my comments from two entirely different replies into whatever random sentence you require to make a point.
Post edited at 13:56
1
In reply to moffatross:
Asking for advice doesn't mean you have to do as you are advised..
Regarding the raw you don't have necessarily to spend much time on it to get a better jpeg than you would shooting directly to jpeg.(often just closing the levels a push on contrast and saturation) A raw file gives you a flatter result to start with but more data. Think of it as a cake, the jpeg let's you have a half of the cake, the raw gives you a full cake so you can choose the half with the cherry when you make it a jpeg...
Asking for advice doesn't mean you have to do as you are advised..
Regarding the raw you don't have necessarily to spend much time on it to get a better jpeg than you would shooting directly to jpeg.(often just closing the levels a push on contrast and saturation) A raw file gives you a flatter result to start with but more data. Think of it as a cake, the jpeg let's you have a half of the cake, the raw gives you a full cake so you can choose the half with the cherry when you make it a jpeg...
2
In reply to The Lemming:
--------------
Yes, sorry that was bad form, I should have made it clearer What I was seeking to point out was that if you have aspirations to do Y, but one of your starting premises is that you won't do X, but you don't know what you're looking at, you're on a hiding to nothing. Marco couldn't produce what he does without starting from RAW (probably lightroom) and finishing the JPEG in an image editor (probably photoshop).
> Feel free to continue to 'cut and paste' my comments from two entirely different replies into whatever random sentence you require to make a point.
>
--------------
Yes, sorry that was bad form, I should have made it clearer What I was seeking to point out was that if you have aspirations to do Y, but one of your starting premises is that you won't do X, but you don't know what you're looking at, you're on a hiding to nothing. Marco couldn't produce what he does without starting from RAW (probably lightroom) and finishing the JPEG in an image editor (probably photoshop).
1
In reply to Marco_pepperoni:
Of course not. But dismissing something on principle because 'life is too short' will stifle your potential.
> Asking for advice doesn't mean you have to do as you are advised..<
Of course not. But dismissing something on principle because 'life is too short' will stifle your potential.
1
1
In reply to tehmarks:
That's what I thought, but I had a whole day's worth of shots taken outdoors when I'd left white balance set to indoors ruined. It's as if the exposure was all screwed up when exposing to the right and everything came out super over-exposed and unrecoverable. I have blinkies set on my camera to warn of overexposure and they never showed. Maybe I have a fault with the camera, I've not tried replicating it.
Oh, another tip - write your contact details on something and take a pic of it which you leave on your memory card permanently, that way you may get your camera back if you lose it!
> That shouldn't be the case if shooting RAW.
That's what I thought, but I had a whole day's worth of shots taken outdoors when I'd left white balance set to indoors ruined. It's as if the exposure was all screwed up when exposing to the right and everything came out super over-exposed and unrecoverable. I have blinkies set on my camera to warn of overexposure and they never showed. Maybe I have a fault with the camera, I've not tried replicating it.
Oh, another tip - write your contact details on something and take a pic of it which you leave on your memory card permanently, that way you may get your camera back if you lose it!
1
In reply to Toerag:
I don't really get that.... The in-camera settings are (almost entirely) irrelevant to the RAW file. When you subsequently edit the RAW file, as you have too, you can change the WB to whatever setting/look you want. So it shouldn't have mattered what you set the WB at, that would only affect the JPEG.
Unless I am missing something.... Which is possible, it's late, beers etc...
> That's what I thought, but I had a whole day's worth of shots taken outdoors when I'd left white balance set to indoors ruined.
I don't really get that.... The in-camera settings are (almost entirely) irrelevant to the RAW file. When you subsequently edit the RAW file, as you have too, you can change the WB to whatever setting/look you want. So it shouldn't have mattered what you set the WB at, that would only affect the JPEG.
Unless I am missing something.... Which is possible, it's late, beers etc...
Post edited at 00:55
1
In reply to mac fae stirling:
You're not missing anything. White balance is irrelevant if you're shooting in RAW. Mine stays on auto all the time...
You're not missing anything. White balance is irrelevant if you're shooting in RAW. Mine stays on auto all the time...
1
In reply to The Lemming:
It sounds like you're not thinking about these formats in the right way. JPEGs and RAW aren't alternatives to one another. They compliment each other. Adobe uses the term 'digital negative' for their RAW file format which is a useful way to think about RAW images. RAW is like the old negative and the jpeg is like final image printed out on photo paper.
The data coming in through the lens is captured but then has to be turned into an an image. With a straight jpeg all the decisions are made automatically by the camera or the camera settings. With RAW this is done by the photographer after the image is taken. For instance with the white balance you can choose the camera settings: auto, daylight, shade etc. But all these are pretty generalised and in the real world the white balance is more varied and likely to be in between. You could use a grey card and set the balance before shooting but often you may not have time or a grey card to do that, and sometimes the light is constantly changing anyway. With RAW you can adjust this later and get it precisely how you want it to be. You may want the image to be more yellow to imply a sunset for instance. But the beauty is you can try out lots of different settings before settling on something and converting the image into a jpeg.
Another example is exposure. You can adjust the exposure really precisely in RAW, in increments of 1/20 of a stop. You can even change the exposure of different parts of the image. Often a sky is overexposed if the subject/foreground is correctly exposed. With RAW you can get both elements exposed correctly - something not possible with a straight jpeg.
It would interesting to know what kind of photos you are taking: climbing, landscape, portraits or ?? For the tricks and tips I think shooting RAW is one of the best and easiest ways to improve one's photography. By going through the decision making process it makes you think about the different ways an image can be rendered too so helps train your eye as a photographer.
> As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end.
> However I'm not trying to start a RAW vs JPEG flame war.
It sounds like you're not thinking about these formats in the right way. JPEGs and RAW aren't alternatives to one another. They compliment each other. Adobe uses the term 'digital negative' for their RAW file format which is a useful way to think about RAW images. RAW is like the old negative and the jpeg is like final image printed out on photo paper.
The data coming in through the lens is captured but then has to be turned into an an image. With a straight jpeg all the decisions are made automatically by the camera or the camera settings. With RAW this is done by the photographer after the image is taken. For instance with the white balance you can choose the camera settings: auto, daylight, shade etc. But all these are pretty generalised and in the real world the white balance is more varied and likely to be in between. You could use a grey card and set the balance before shooting but often you may not have time or a grey card to do that, and sometimes the light is constantly changing anyway. With RAW you can adjust this later and get it precisely how you want it to be. You may want the image to be more yellow to imply a sunset for instance. But the beauty is you can try out lots of different settings before settling on something and converting the image into a jpeg.
Another example is exposure. You can adjust the exposure really precisely in RAW, in increments of 1/20 of a stop. You can even change the exposure of different parts of the image. Often a sky is overexposed if the subject/foreground is correctly exposed. With RAW you can get both elements exposed correctly - something not possible with a straight jpeg.
It would interesting to know what kind of photos you are taking: climbing, landscape, portraits or ?? For the tricks and tips I think shooting RAW is one of the best and easiest ways to improve one's photography. By going through the decision making process it makes you think about the different ways an image can be rendered too so helps train your eye as a photographer.
In reply to Toerag:
A possible explanation for this is that that the in-camera histogram may be being calculated from the .jpg that is displayed on the camera screen, and the blinkies may only be based on one channel of that, so the white balance could well affect whether the blinkies flag up overexposure to you or not.
For example, if the blinkies turn on above a certain theshold in the green channel, but your jpg is coming out very blue because you have a tungsten white balance set, you could be blowing the blue by a mile in a shot with a clear blue sky, and the blinkies wouldn't tell you.
How the blinkies are triggered and what the camera calculates the histogram from will vary hugely from camera to camera, so this may or may not be the explanation for you.
Regardless, I find it is always useful to have the preview image reasonably close to what I want the finished image to look like, otherwise I could stop shooting thinking that I've got what I want, only to be disappointed when I look at my pictures on the computer at home. Most digital cameras will do a reasonable job on auto white balance, so I tend to use that as a starting point.
For general tips, as others have suggested, it can be useful to have a default setup that you reset your camera to after every time you finish using it - mine goes back to "P", ISO 200, continuous high frame rate, single shot AF on the centre point and auto WB. I've missed shots that could have been great when I've seen something interesting, grabbed my camera and then realized I've left the shutter on self timer, turned the AF off or left the ISO, aperture, shutter, EC or whaterver on something crazy from that last time I used it.
As far as RAW vs jpg debate goes - a big advantage of shooting both is that you can give people jpgs straight away and tinker with the RAW later. When you go away with your mates and shoot 500 images, they can get a bit frustrated if you want to go away and tinker with the 20 best ones to make them marginally better and put them on flickr a year or more later. I've been guilty of this many times and still have lots of unedited RAW images on my computer that I never saved jpgs of because I couldn't see why I would want them.
> That's what I thought, but I had a whole day's worth of shots taken outdoors when I'd left white balance set to indoors ruined. It's as if the exposure was all screwed up when exposing to the right and everything came out super over-exposed and unrecoverable. I have blinkies set on my camera to warn of overexposure and they never showed. Maybe I have a fault with the camera, I've not tried replicating it.
A possible explanation for this is that that the in-camera histogram may be being calculated from the .jpg that is displayed on the camera screen, and the blinkies may only be based on one channel of that, so the white balance could well affect whether the blinkies flag up overexposure to you or not.
For example, if the blinkies turn on above a certain theshold in the green channel, but your jpg is coming out very blue because you have a tungsten white balance set, you could be blowing the blue by a mile in a shot with a clear blue sky, and the blinkies wouldn't tell you.
How the blinkies are triggered and what the camera calculates the histogram from will vary hugely from camera to camera, so this may or may not be the explanation for you.
Regardless, I find it is always useful to have the preview image reasonably close to what I want the finished image to look like, otherwise I could stop shooting thinking that I've got what I want, only to be disappointed when I look at my pictures on the computer at home. Most digital cameras will do a reasonable job on auto white balance, so I tend to use that as a starting point.
For general tips, as others have suggested, it can be useful to have a default setup that you reset your camera to after every time you finish using it - mine goes back to "P", ISO 200, continuous high frame rate, single shot AF on the centre point and auto WB. I've missed shots that could have been great when I've seen something interesting, grabbed my camera and then realized I've left the shutter on self timer, turned the AF off or left the ISO, aperture, shutter, EC or whaterver on something crazy from that last time I used it.
As far as RAW vs jpg debate goes - a big advantage of shooting both is that you can give people jpgs straight away and tinker with the RAW later. When you go away with your mates and shoot 500 images, they can get a bit frustrated if you want to go away and tinker with the 20 best ones to make them marginally better and put them on flickr a year or more later. I've been guilty of this many times and still have lots of unedited RAW images on my computer that I never saved jpgs of because I couldn't see why I would want them.
In reply to nic mullin:
Yep, if using an electronic display or EVF to compose the shot, it can throw you right off. Most cameras have options in their 'live view' settings and be sure that they're set for a WYSIWYG view of what the RAW will capture. By default, electronic displays often show the 'friendliest' view (contrast & brightness) for your eyes rather than a simile of the image that will be taken. FWIW, every shot I take is in manual mode, so I manually adjust the focus, manually adjust the aperture, manually adjust the shutter speed and manually adjust the ISO (if required). It really isn't a bawbreaker and the camera's WYSIWYG view and info display in the electronic viewfinder makes it a piece of pish to know when it's right. And there is so much latitude in RAW that even if you're a wee bit out, it's no problem. Shooting with a mirrorless ILC camera is about as pure an experience in the age of digital photography that you can get. Perversely enough, it lets you get far, far closer to the feel of shooting with a film SLR than a dSLR camera does.
> "A possible explanation for this is that that the in-camera histogram may be being calculated from the .jpg that is displayed on the camera screen." <
Yep, if using an electronic display or EVF to compose the shot, it can throw you right off. Most cameras have options in their 'live view' settings and be sure that they're set for a WYSIWYG view of what the RAW will capture. By default, electronic displays often show the 'friendliest' view (contrast & brightness) for your eyes rather than a simile of the image that will be taken. FWIW, every shot I take is in manual mode, so I manually adjust the focus, manually adjust the aperture, manually adjust the shutter speed and manually adjust the ISO (if required). It really isn't a bawbreaker and the camera's WYSIWYG view and info display in the electronic viewfinder makes it a piece of pish to know when it's right. And there is so much latitude in RAW that even if you're a wee bit out, it's no problem. Shooting with a mirrorless ILC camera is about as pure an experience in the age of digital photography that you can get. Perversely enough, it lets you get far, far closer to the feel of shooting with a film SLR than a dSLR camera does.
Post edited at 16:02
1
In reply to James Rushforth:
Hi, just thought of adding a couple of things about white balance. Just like the other variables in exposing a frame (with ISO, speed and aperture) the white balance does actually affect your exposure, having it on auto helps as it will be fairly close to what you will fine tune it to in post. It is true that raw format allows you to change the point of white but if you expose the raw with a white balance completely off and your histogram exposed to the right it may end up being clipped quite badly once you dial in your white balance in post. Say going from tungsten to daylight your blue channel will go off to the right, probably much further than 255..
As metter of fact despite the flexibility of the raw format you get a wrongly exposed frame so you will lose information. It is quite forgiving on small variations (couple of hundred kelvin) not so on more important ones as the shift in colour will end up clipping one or two of your channels, possibly quite badly. That's why most of the times the first step in deciding an exposure is a shot with a grey card. Hope this helps...
Marco
Hi, just thought of adding a couple of things about white balance. Just like the other variables in exposing a frame (with ISO, speed and aperture) the white balance does actually affect your exposure, having it on auto helps as it will be fairly close to what you will fine tune it to in post. It is true that raw format allows you to change the point of white but if you expose the raw with a white balance completely off and your histogram exposed to the right it may end up being clipped quite badly once you dial in your white balance in post. Say going from tungsten to daylight your blue channel will go off to the right, probably much further than 255..
As metter of fact despite the flexibility of the raw format you get a wrongly exposed frame so you will lose information. It is quite forgiving on small variations (couple of hundred kelvin) not so on more important ones as the shift in colour will end up clipping one or two of your channels, possibly quite badly. That's why most of the times the first step in deciding an exposure is a shot with a grey card. Hope this helps...
Marco
Post edited at 18:46
1
In reply to mac fae stirling:
I take mainly scenic pictures using RAW files and have adopted a strategy of underexposure by 0.7 stops to avoid burnt highlights. This was on the basis that it was also easier to recover detail in shadows when pre-processing the RAW image. If I don't use a Grad filter I often use a Brightness/Contrast mask to correct sky/land differences. Looking at many of the the histograms I find gaps on the right so should I be working differently to apply the ETTR method and fit the highlights to their extreme?
RattyinStirling
I take mainly scenic pictures using RAW files and have adopted a strategy of underexposure by 0.7 stops to avoid burnt highlights. This was on the basis that it was also easier to recover detail in shadows when pre-processing the RAW image. If I don't use a Grad filter I often use a Brightness/Contrast mask to correct sky/land differences. Looking at many of the the histograms I find gaps on the right so should I be working differently to apply the ETTR method and fit the highlights to their extreme?
RattyinStirling
In reply to James Rushforth:
I also set WB to auto and take RAW images but I find that I am nearly always warming up images in the Adobe plug-in to get what I saw. Am I missing something here?
I also set WB to auto and take RAW images but I find that I am nearly always warming up images in the Adobe plug-in to get what I saw. Am I missing something here?
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
It's interesting to hear about other folks' approach and to add to the debate here's what I do.
I always shoot in RAW and in the filed usually use a couple of Lee soft grads (0.6 and 0.9 respectively). With this set up on the 7D I exposed until I was just about getting 'blinkies' on my highlight indicator which, more often than not occurred in the sky.
Now I'm using a 6D I can push the highlights a lot further such is the increased dynamic range. This has been a revelation as using this approach I have yet to encounter 'blocked out' shadow areas and achieve incredibly clean, noise free images...I always shoot at the lowest possible ISO!
As for white balance I usually set my camera to cloudy or shade which gives me a lovely warm colour temperature. In post, if I do adjust the WB it is usually to cool down the image with a combination of kelvins and tint.
Another thing I do is to run through the colour profiles in Lightroom to get a good starting point for achieving on screen what I see on my camera display.
Of course, most of this stuff (especially the noise thing) is important to me as I print at A2 and bigger. For web use it's less important.
It's interesting to hear about other folks' approach and to add to the debate here's what I do.
I always shoot in RAW and in the filed usually use a couple of Lee soft grads (0.6 and 0.9 respectively). With this set up on the 7D I exposed until I was just about getting 'blinkies' on my highlight indicator which, more often than not occurred in the sky.
Now I'm using a 6D I can push the highlights a lot further such is the increased dynamic range. This has been a revelation as using this approach I have yet to encounter 'blocked out' shadow areas and achieve incredibly clean, noise free images...I always shoot at the lowest possible ISO!
As for white balance I usually set my camera to cloudy or shade which gives me a lovely warm colour temperature. In post, if I do adjust the WB it is usually to cool down the image with a combination of kelvins and tint.
Another thing I do is to run through the colour profiles in Lightroom to get a good starting point for achieving on screen what I see on my camera display.
Of course, most of this stuff (especially the noise thing) is important to me as I print at A2 and bigger. For web use it's less important.
Post edited at 23:24
In reply to The Lemming:
I am very much an amateur, but (when using my digital camera) I've just started shooting in raw+JPEG due to the extraordinary flexibility it gives you. Highlight recovery is reason enough to do this, but you also have total control over sharpening, noise reduction, and many other factors.
I also think that every photographer should shoot film occasionally, preferably B&W with a mechanical camera. It really sharpens up your skills and helps you to 'see' in a different way. My photography improved by about 1000% since I started shooting film again.
I am very much an amateur, but (when using my digital camera) I've just started shooting in raw+JPEG due to the extraordinary flexibility it gives you. Highlight recovery is reason enough to do this, but you also have total control over sharpening, noise reduction, and many other factors.
I also think that every photographer should shoot film occasionally, preferably B&W with a mechanical camera. It really sharpens up your skills and helps you to 'see' in a different way. My photography improved by about 1000% since I started shooting film again.
In reply to Marco_pepperoni:
Yes but a camera's metering doesn't measure red, green, and blue channels, it just measures the overall light intensity of the scene.
But I do take your point that it may cause you to expose incorrectly.
Anyway this is way off topic for general tips and goes against my biggest piece of advice which would be keep it simple.
Don't worry about fast primes, exposing to the right, the sharpest aperture for a particular lens when you're starting out. Get out and play, don't restrict yourself in any way. The real skill is knowing when the light will be good at said location. Taking the photo is the easy bit...
Yes but a camera's metering doesn't measure red, green, and blue channels, it just measures the overall light intensity of the scene.
But I do take your point that it may cause you to expose incorrectly.
Anyway this is way off topic for general tips and goes against my biggest piece of advice which would be keep it simple.
Don't worry about fast primes, exposing to the right, the sharpest aperture for a particular lens when you're starting out. Get out and play, don't restrict yourself in any way. The real skill is knowing when the light will be good at said location. Taking the photo is the easy bit...
2
In reply to James Rushforth:
Very true, i was just referring at exposing using the histogram, the meter will always point at 18%grey.
I agree with the keeping it simple as much as possible!
Very true, i was just referring at exposing using the histogram, the meter will always point at 18%grey.
I agree with the keeping it simple as much as possible!
In reply to Marco_pepperoni:
Can you explain what that means please?
> the meter will always point at 18%grey.
Can you explain what that means please?
In reply to Fraser:
From my limited knowledge I will attempt an explanation.
All exposure meters are calibrated to ensure that the camera delivers results about a mid point that equates to a mid grey (The meter ignores colour). Because the brightness is on a logarithmic scale the mid point represents that of something called an 18% grey card. It is 18% of the way between White & Black. Before sophisticated methods of exposure photographers used such a card as an accessory to set the mid point.
To illustrate this do a test. Set your camera to Auto exposure with no compensation and photograph a pure white scene (White sheet in bright sun) then photograph a pure black scene (Dark shadow in failing light - the pure black of a darkroom would probably not be recordable). You should get almost the same result - Mid Grey. The light meter feeds data to the camera that says that in the absence of any tonal range the result must be mid grey.
That is why we have to manually adjust for snow scenes or night shots to fool the camera into over-riding its instinctive calibration.
From my limited knowledge I will attempt an explanation.
All exposure meters are calibrated to ensure that the camera delivers results about a mid point that equates to a mid grey (The meter ignores colour). Because the brightness is on a logarithmic scale the mid point represents that of something called an 18% grey card. It is 18% of the way between White & Black. Before sophisticated methods of exposure photographers used such a card as an accessory to set the mid point.
To illustrate this do a test. Set your camera to Auto exposure with no compensation and photograph a pure white scene (White sheet in bright sun) then photograph a pure black scene (Dark shadow in failing light - the pure black of a darkroom would probably not be recordable). You should get almost the same result - Mid Grey. The light meter feeds data to the camera that says that in the absence of any tonal range the result must be mid grey.
That is why we have to manually adjust for snow scenes or night shots to fool the camera into over-riding its instinctive calibration.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
I always used a spotmeter for transparencies (but that meant understanding a 5 1/2 tone system). For movies, we always used an incident light meter (the good old standard Sekonic), which was by far the best compromise when taking different shots, from different angles, within one scene in a movie or documentary - and the centre point/the stop you used, was always then 18 per cent grey. But movie photography and, say, still landscapes shot on colour reversal, are just two completely different types of photography. Each still is a one-off, and not part of a scene of multiple shots. I found the spotmeter fantastically useful for really learning how 'light works' within a landscape scene, and for getting to grips with the huge range of light you typically have to compress into five stops on reversal film.
I always used a spotmeter for transparencies (but that meant understanding a 5 1/2 tone system). For movies, we always used an incident light meter (the good old standard Sekonic), which was by far the best compromise when taking different shots, from different angles, within one scene in a movie or documentary - and the centre point/the stop you used, was always then 18 per cent grey. But movie photography and, say, still landscapes shot on colour reversal, are just two completely different types of photography. Each still is a one-off, and not part of a scene of multiple shots. I found the spotmeter fantastically useful for really learning how 'light works' within a landscape scene, and for getting to grips with the huge range of light you typically have to compress into five stops on reversal film.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I think that an exercise based on using only the spot metering on a camera can be a great step to understanding how exposure works. I recall that it was the Olympus OM4 that offered two key innovations - one was 'Off the film metering' ie what the camera sees and also multi spot metering, where you could point the central metering spot at several places to meter different parts of a scene and it would integrate an overall exposure. It was well regarded as being the bees knees at the time.
I think that an exercise based on using only the spot metering on a camera can be a great step to understanding how exposure works. I recall that it was the Olympus OM4 that offered two key innovations - one was 'Off the film metering' ie what the camera sees and also multi spot metering, where you could point the central metering spot at several places to meter different parts of a scene and it would integrate an overall exposure. It was well regarded as being the bees knees at the time.
Post edited at 21:50
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I agree – spot metering is a revelation. I still take a lot of pictures with a camera that only has centre-weighted average metering, and whenever I go back to my digital camera (which can use pattern metering, spot, or centre-weighted average) I'm struck by the luxury of these choices!
Using a spot meter really can teach you a lot about light.
I agree – spot metering is a revelation. I still take a lot of pictures with a camera that only has centre-weighted average metering, and whenever I go back to my digital camera (which can use pattern metering, spot, or centre-weighted average) I'm struck by the luxury of these choices!
Using a spot meter really can teach you a lot about light.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
And if in any doubt, with a modern camera you can easily 'bracket ' the exposure. I purposely have a button on my camera delegated for precisely this option.
And if in any doubt, with a modern camera you can easily 'bracket ' the exposure. I purposely have a button on my camera delegated for precisely this option.
Post edited at 22:01
In reply to Sean Kelly:
In 'the old days' of film, particularly medium and large format, you really couldn't indulge in much bracketing. With reversal you'd always, in practise, aim for 1/3 stop underexposed. On a large format 5x4 you'd always shoot both sheets (both sides of the dark slide) and keep the second exposure as a standby/safety. Then, if the shot was really good, but a bit underexposed you'd have the second frame processed, pushed from anything between 1/2 and 1 stop. On the Blad (12 frames to a roll) I would simply take a series of frames (typically 12) of a scene over the space of a few minutes (e.g 5- 15 mins if the light was really interesting and continually changing, and deliberately play around a bit with the exposure as I went. I couldn't possibly indulge in the very expensive business of bracketing.
In 'the old days' of film, particularly medium and large format, you really couldn't indulge in much bracketing. With reversal you'd always, in practise, aim for 1/3 stop underexposed. On a large format 5x4 you'd always shoot both sheets (both sides of the dark slide) and keep the second exposure as a standby/safety. Then, if the shot was really good, but a bit underexposed you'd have the second frame processed, pushed from anything between 1/2 and 1 stop. On the Blad (12 frames to a roll) I would simply take a series of frames (typically 12) of a scene over the space of a few minutes (e.g 5- 15 mins if the light was really interesting and continually changing, and deliberately play around a bit with the exposure as I went. I couldn't possibly indulge in the very expensive business of bracketing.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
. Looking at many of the the histograms I find gaps on the right so should I be working differently to apply the ETTR method and fit the highlights to their extreme?
Yes, I think so. Have a go, see what results you get.
. Looking at many of the the histograms I find gaps on the right so should I be working differently to apply the ETTR method and fit the highlights to their extreme?
Yes, I think so. Have a go, see what results you get.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
>I recall that it was the Olympus OM4 that offered two key innovations - one was 'Off the film metering' ie what the camera sees and also multi spot metering, where you could point the central metering spot at several places to meter different parts of a scene and it would integrate an overall exposure. It was well regarded as being the bees knees at the time.
Yip, recently acquired an OM4, and the spot metering is a really neat feature. I hope I am using it correctly. Need to learn again to be patient and wait for the films to come back. When I take a photo with it, I cant stop immediately looking at the back of the camera..
>I recall that it was the Olympus OM4 that offered two key innovations - one was 'Off the film metering' ie what the camera sees and also multi spot metering, where you could point the central metering spot at several places to meter different parts of a scene and it would integrate an overall exposure. It was well regarded as being the bees knees at the time.
Yip, recently acquired an OM4, and the spot metering is a really neat feature. I hope I am using it correctly. Need to learn again to be patient and wait for the films to come back. When I take a photo with it, I cant stop immediately looking at the back of the camera..
Post edited at 22:43
In reply to Sean Kelly:
I hope you don't mind my getting a bit anecdotal now, but carry on from my last post ... Of course, in the old days photographers and film cameramen were fantastically expert at getting the right exposure (mostly because mistakes were just so expensive). As most experienced photographers know, getting the exposure right in everyday light situations is not really very difficult - just the old 'f16 rule' - you know, cloudy bright, cloudy dull etc, plus reciprocal (for shutter speed) of ASA rating. But where it gets very difficult is in poor light, when the human eye adjusts for it, but is then a hopeless judge of just how dark it really is.
I was very fortunate at film school in doing a commercial job as camera assistant for a few days to Walter Lassally (Oscar-winning cameraman of Zorba the Greek). He gave me quite a hard time - he was a total perfectionist - but I learnt a lot from him. He was so good with light that he hardly ever used a meter (even though he had the good old standard Sekonic in his pocket). He would just stretch out his arm in front of him with his palm face down, i.e reflecting the light from the sky on the back of his hand, wobbling it around as a kind of light meter. Then he'd turn to me and say simply, e.g., 'eight and a half'. (Of course with a film camera we were always stuck with a 1/50th of a second because of the way the shutter worked with 24 fps.)
I hope you don't mind my getting a bit anecdotal now, but carry on from my last post ... Of course, in the old days photographers and film cameramen were fantastically expert at getting the right exposure (mostly because mistakes were just so expensive). As most experienced photographers know, getting the exposure right in everyday light situations is not really very difficult - just the old 'f16 rule' - you know, cloudy bright, cloudy dull etc, plus reciprocal (for shutter speed) of ASA rating. But where it gets very difficult is in poor light, when the human eye adjusts for it, but is then a hopeless judge of just how dark it really is.
I was very fortunate at film school in doing a commercial job as camera assistant for a few days to Walter Lassally (Oscar-winning cameraman of Zorba the Greek). He gave me quite a hard time - he was a total perfectionist - but I learnt a lot from him. He was so good with light that he hardly ever used a meter (even though he had the good old standard Sekonic in his pocket). He would just stretch out his arm in front of him with his palm face down, i.e reflecting the light from the sky on the back of his hand, wobbling it around as a kind of light meter. Then he'd turn to me and say simply, e.g., 'eight and a half'. (Of course with a film camera we were always stuck with a 1/50th of a second because of the way the shutter worked with 24 fps.)
In reply to Fraser:
The way I understand how a digital camera works is that it always tries to expose the scene to 18% grey, no matter what is presented before it.
I once read a book, this one had pictures to help me, and it presented an experiment to illustrate to point. The experiment was to get three large pieces of cardboard, one white, one grey (18%) and one black. The bigger the card the better, and A2 in size if possible.
The experiment was to photograph each piece of card by filling the viewfinder with nothing but the card. You would then take three individual shots of the pieces of card. If done correctly, then the camera's light meter would try to expose each of the images so that they would produce the exact same results. Basically you would end up with three photographs, all with the same result, an exposed image of roughly 18% grey.
This all meant that if you were in a bright setting, like in snow or at the beach then you would over expose to compensate for the camera trying its best to produce a dull grey image and make it brighter. And if you were shooting a dark subject such as something at night, then you would under expose forcing the camera to produce a dark image when all it wanted to do was create a dull grey image.
Give the experiment a go. And did I learn anything from actually performing this experiment?
Not really, but I did produce three images and they were all grey.
Putting the 18% grey issue aside, which is primarily to get the white balance correct, I have learnt a lot from this discussion.
Thank you everybody for your helpful tips and advice.
> the meter will always point at 18%grey.
> Can you explain what that means please?
The way I understand how a digital camera works is that it always tries to expose the scene to 18% grey, no matter what is presented before it.
I once read a book, this one had pictures to help me, and it presented an experiment to illustrate to point. The experiment was to get three large pieces of cardboard, one white, one grey (18%) and one black. The bigger the card the better, and A2 in size if possible.
The experiment was to photograph each piece of card by filling the viewfinder with nothing but the card. You would then take three individual shots of the pieces of card. If done correctly, then the camera's light meter would try to expose each of the images so that they would produce the exact same results. Basically you would end up with three photographs, all with the same result, an exposed image of roughly 18% grey.
This all meant that if you were in a bright setting, like in snow or at the beach then you would over expose to compensate for the camera trying its best to produce a dull grey image and make it brighter. And if you were shooting a dark subject such as something at night, then you would under expose forcing the camera to produce a dark image when all it wanted to do was create a dull grey image.
Give the experiment a go. And did I learn anything from actually performing this experiment?
Not really, but I did produce three images and they were all grey.
Putting the 18% grey issue aside, which is primarily to get the white balance correct, I have learnt a lot from this discussion.
Thank you everybody for your helpful tips and advice.
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Use a tripod only when necessary. So many photographers are slaves to their tripods usually because of habit and because they see many others using a tripod at all times. The reason stated is image quality.
I've seen so-called pro landscape photographers unable to shoot hand-held even in the middle of the day.
Whilst tripods have their place below 1/125s, at that speed and above (and sometimes a lower) act like a street photographer when working a landscape scene.
> Use a tripod and a remote shutter release whenever possible. And even when you think it's only just possible.
Use a tripod only when necessary. So many photographers are slaves to their tripods usually because of habit and because they see many others using a tripod at all times. The reason stated is image quality.
I've seen so-called pro landscape photographers unable to shoot hand-held even in the middle of the day.
Whilst tripods have their place below 1/125s, at that speed and above (and sometimes a lower) act like a street photographer when working a landscape scene.
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Hmm. Quite telling. 20 seconds in Lightroom on an image will be a revelation.
Time isn't an issue with RAW at all.
> As for me, I am a JPEG fan. Life is too short to faff around with RAW, when I am going to convert to JPEG in the end.
Hmm. Quite telling. 20 seconds in Lightroom on an image will be a revelation.
Time isn't an issue with RAW at all.
In reply to The Lemming:
Get a pair of wellies. I never really understood they were for, until I started wanting to photograph anywhere near fresh or sea water.
Get a pair of wellies. I never really understood they were for, until I started wanting to photograph anywhere near fresh or sea water.
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Ah! The old Sekonic. I used one of these and an old Weston Mk4. But although I love working in Digital media, and as you say Gordon, the cost for one. But there were certain skills required to cope with Reciprocity Failure, pushing a film in the 'soup', Sepia toning or Chromium reduction , lighting a subject with soft light, etc. etc. before you considered yourself a photographer. I feel that today everybody picks up a digital camera and instantly thinks that they are a photographer, it's all just too easy! And as for some of the Wedding photographers that are out there, I wouldn't trust them to boil an egg. True, we learn from others. I can recall working with the artist Graham Everndon who had done a photography course and knew quite a lot about lighting the model. In some ways that was my start of really learning about photography. Or being thrown in at the deep end by another photographer, and asked to photograph hundreds of children (on a Twin Lens Rollei) at a dancing competition that lasted a full week. And I wonder how many that think of themselves as photographers have actually taken the time and trouble to study Composition, instead of relying on the Rule of Thirds, which is only a very, very small component of composition. But I suppose each and everyone to their own time. When I was teaching I would have the camera on a tripod and just get the students to actually look directly at what they were photographing, rather than being fixated by the viewfinder. In other words to open their eyes.
Sorry for going on a bit, but there was a chap on the TV last night judging the Countryfile photo competition and he was only there because he was a 'Celebrity'! Cel la Vie
> I was very fortunate at film school in doing a commercial job as camera assistant for a few days to Walter Lassally (Oscar-winning cameraman of Zorba the Greek). He gave me quite a hard time - he was a total perfectionist - but I learnt a lot from him. He was so good with light that he hardly ever used a meter (even though he had the good old standard Sekonic in his pocket). He would just stretch out his arm in front of him with his palm face down, i.e reflecting the light from the sky on the back of his hand, wobbling it around as a kind of light meter. Then he'd turn to me and say simply, e.g., 'eight and a half'. (Of course with a film camera we were always stuck with a 1/50th of a second because of the way the shutter worked with 24 fps.)
Ah! The old Sekonic. I used one of these and an old Weston Mk4. But although I love working in Digital media, and as you say Gordon, the cost for one. But there were certain skills required to cope with Reciprocity Failure, pushing a film in the 'soup', Sepia toning or Chromium reduction , lighting a subject with soft light, etc. etc. before you considered yourself a photographer. I feel that today everybody picks up a digital camera and instantly thinks that they are a photographer, it's all just too easy! And as for some of the Wedding photographers that are out there, I wouldn't trust them to boil an egg. True, we learn from others. I can recall working with the artist Graham Everndon who had done a photography course and knew quite a lot about lighting the model. In some ways that was my start of really learning about photography. Or being thrown in at the deep end by another photographer, and asked to photograph hundreds of children (on a Twin Lens Rollei) at a dancing competition that lasted a full week. And I wonder how many that think of themselves as photographers have actually taken the time and trouble to study Composition, instead of relying on the Rule of Thirds, which is only a very, very small component of composition. But I suppose each and everyone to their own time. When I was teaching I would have the camera on a tripod and just get the students to actually look directly at what they were photographing, rather than being fixated by the viewfinder. In other words to open their eyes.
Sorry for going on a bit, but there was a chap on the TV last night judging the Countryfile photo competition and he was only there because he was a 'Celebrity'! Cel la Vie
1
In reply to Sean Kelly:
I agree entirely with what you say about taking your eye away from the camera and looking at the actual subject. That's more of less essential when taking portraits. I always used to use a cable release and talk directly to the subject, without scarcely ever taking my eye off them, even when pressing the cable release.
As for the rule of thirds, as you say it's just one of many proportions the photographer should be aware of, and nothing like as useful as the Golden Section anyway.
I agree entirely with what you say about taking your eye away from the camera and looking at the actual subject. That's more of less essential when taking portraits. I always used to use a cable release and talk directly to the subject, without scarcely ever taking my eye off them, even when pressing the cable release.
As for the rule of thirds, as you say it's just one of many proportions the photographer should be aware of, and nothing like as useful as the Golden Section anyway.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...