Digital Photography Composition 101 407
Darren writes "With the 'Rise of the Digital Camera' I suspect we will also see the 'Rise of the Dodgy Digital Photo'. As digital cameras get in the hands of more and more snap happy photographers there will be more and more average images cluttering the PC's of the world. Already there must be millions of self portraits taken at arms length (complete with double chins), countless pictures of Aunt Mildred (cut off at the knees) and just as many out of focus shots of everyday objects in the living rooms of new digital camera owners too lazy to move from the couch. Its time to learn how to take good digital images before its too late! Digital Photography Composition Tips aims to teach the world a few basic guidelines for improving digital photographer's skills everywhere."
Choosing the camera is important (Score:4, Informative)
Props to the GNAA.
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3, Informative)
--Mike--
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:5, Informative)
Glonoinha's #1 Rule of Photography.
Throw away (delete) 9 out of every 10 pictures.
Want one good picture? Take 10 pictures and pick the best one. Professionals take several hundred pictures in several settings just to get half a dozen really great shots worth publishing in a magazine. Most of the time excellent photos aren't about being good, they are about getting lucky.
Let me pick the best picture out of 20 I take on my crappy 1 megapixel Kodak and I will put it up against any camera (even the really awesome expensive ones) if you only take one picture with that camera.
Holding the camera is MOST important (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Holding the camera is MOST important (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Holding the camera is MOST important (Score:5, Informative)
Don't use the flash unless it is so dim, and the action is so fast, that you absolutely have to. Flash light is unnatural, causes skin to look shiny and brings blemishes out of nowhere. Not using a flash in low light means shots could be blurry with a 1/20 shutter or slower...but the colours will look so much more natural.
Fix your goddamn white balance! Don't use the same white balance indoors you use outdoors or people will look all purple. And don't use the same with your flash that you use without!
Another colour thing: most digitals have a really crummy ISO rating, so if you keep your camera on Auto Shutter, it'll adjust itself to use a really long exposure. So either put the camera down, put it on a tripod or if you can't, adjust the shutter to at least 1/20 if you're steady, 1/40 if you've been drinking, and 1/100 if the subject is moving at all. And keep your elbows tight against your sides, just like shooting a rifle.
Something some people don't understand is that modern cameras have two positions for the shutter. Press down a little, and the camera does all of its auto work (focusing, metering, adjustments, etc). Press it again and it takes the picture. If you push the shutter all the way down before these adjustments are done, some cameras will take your word for it...and take a shitty picture! So, press down, give it a second, and press again. Kodak cameras force you to do this with a red light in the viewfinder. Best of all, put it on full tilt manual, do your adjustments before your subjects know you're taking the picture, and you're ready to hammer away whenever you like.
Check out my digital photos [dasmegabyte.org] to see how following these simple, stupid rules on colour and shutter speed can lead from SHITTY photos (like the ones I took in 2001) to PRETTY DAMNED GOOD ONES (like the ones I've taken this year).
Re:Holding the camera is MOST important (Score:3, Insightful)
A simple suggestion I'd have for you regarding the flash is to bounce it. Whenever I'm forced to use a flash, I like to bounce it off the ceiling whenever possible. (Ceilings are usually bright white, whereas walls that look white indoors may sometimes be off-white, giving an unnatural tint to the subject.)
Re:easy fix for white balance (Score:3, Interesting)
The coffee filter idea doesn't work quite so hot, since they aren't really white either. But that 96 (or brighter) paper almost GLOWS, even in low light.
Oh, and today at the arena, I was having trouble getting a good balance because of smoke from pyrotechnics. So I zoomed in on the abd
2 second timer = virtual tripod (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree here, while I agree that you'll only submit/print/etc. on average about 2-3 out of a roll of 24 exposure, skill is the determining factor. not only in composing the picture and getting the lighting right, but in the darkroom as well... especially in B&W photography...
Let me pick the best picture out of 20 I take on my crappy 1 megapixel Kodak and I will put it up against any camera (even the r
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3, Interesting)
Hehe, yea, the only prob with that is the costs you get into of framing a pic that big... Sheesh.
I got a Canon Digital Rebel a few months ago and had this shot [dahphish.org] printed at 20x30 on canvas by photoaccess.com. Seeing that I had never printed a 20x30 shot before, I was rather shocked when I went into the local framing store to discover that a decent frame would cost at least $200, and most of the nicer looking ones at $350+.
I just ended up
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, they're not as likely to be throwing away pictures because of amateur mistakes, but the axiom is still true: the best way to take good photos is to take many photos.
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, if you want to work this way just buy a video camera and yank the good frames out as stills.
Yes, lots of pros work this way but for different reasons; most can take a perfectly acceptable, well composed and sharp single picture when the need arises.
The key skill in photography isn't taking a bunch of pictures and throwing away 90% of them -- it's resisting to urge to push the shutter button when you kno
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3)
I've never understood why a web guide featuring pictures taken on a digicam has blurry pictures. Preview the picture. If it is blurry, take it again. There's no excuse not to.
Re:Choosing the camera is important (Score:3)
Sure - there is an element of lucj and timing - and sure - you can raise your odds by playing more hands.
But good pictures are more often than not - less than accidental.
You can for example - go somewhere no-one has gone - or everyone wants to be - and take a picture - almost any picture will be important in that case.
But if joe photobug wakes up and says - I want to take a great picture - he will get closer much sooner if he understands what makes pictures work.
Pictures are a 2D of
Re:How about throwing away 999 out of 1000? (Score:4, Funny)
Look through Joe Random's 64M compactflash card that has 500 pictures on it and I bet you could find 50 pretty good ones. The trick is to take those 50 out of context (ie, delete all the other crappy ones and merely 'good' ones) and all of a sudden it looks like he took 50 really good pix. He did, actually, but you need to learn to only go public with the good ones and not show all the ones that aren't as good as those 50.
Hence the rule.
And the biggest reason I can't take pictures as good as the photographers for Penthouse / Playboy has nothing to do with technical merits or ability and everything to do with that pesky restraining order.
The Camera is NOT that important (Score:3, Informative)
Ken rockwell has a good summary of this philosophy, called You camera [kenrockwell.com]
Oh boy (Score:4, Funny)
that's gruesome (Score:5, Funny)
Good ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
Then read it again.
It's amazing how much better you can make your shots come out just by knowing what you camera can do to help you out of tough spots!
Re:Good ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had horrible problems with low light photography with the digital camera. The flash is fine when you can use it, but often the subjects are greater than 12 feet or so away, and the flash becomes useless... the camera takes a fast picture, though, and it's not blurry, but it's dark because it thinks "hey, he's using the flash". After some practice I can use the manual settings to compensate. Most people by a mid range camera like mine, though, and just leave it on auto when there's so much more they can accomplish.
Hell, I had the camera six months before I figured out how to use the macro setting, and now that I have I've got some beautiful flower pictures.
Re:Good ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
My only complaint is that nikon doesn't do a good job of communicating with the flash, which is why
Re:Good ideas (Score:3, Informative)
The old "hat trick" works with digital, too (Score:3, Informative)
It's a trick that's worked since chemical photography was invented, and it still works with digital today. (I've done it with outdoor night photos.)
One problem with extremel
Re:Good ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good ideas (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, do you know the difference between spot, center weighted, and evaluative metering? Do you know which situations demand one or the other? Maybe you do, but maybe you don't, but if you read the manual chances are you'll have a better idea than if you just put everything on "green" and snap away.
but i'm lazy.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say though... Sometimes I am not out to get the perfect shot with my digital camera. Therefore, my laziness sets in and I will not take the time to get the right settings on the camera, pick the right place for myself and subjects, and throw out the rule of thirds. However, when trying to make awe-inspriing pictures these are all very important tips to take heed of. However, the disclaimer on all of these tips is there are always an exception and a picture might look better if you don't follow that particular rule.
Re:but i'm lazy.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some cool sites:
www.toycamera.com [toycamera.com]
http://www.digitalsucks.com [digitalsucks.com]
http://www.eyecaramba.com [eyecaramba.com]
http://www.metaincognita.com [metaincognita.com] (Disclaimer: this is some of my own stuff)
Beware, though: the Holga is controversial. People don't like it because the photos tend to look similar. I'll agree with that. They're similar -- but sometimes they're pretty interesting.
DigitalSucks.com NSFW (Score:4, Informative)
NudityDirty (Score:3, Interesting)
In my city, we have a reproduction of the Michaelangelo's David at the door of the City Hall, and he is nude there.
I believe in most places, it would be more troublesome to be caught all day slashdotting than watching some [wannabe] artistic pics, nude or not.
Re:NudityDirty (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the way it is, so don't pick on the guy for just warning people.
Re:but i'm lazy.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, the digital pictures aren't really about the quality, it's about the memories. I like to go through my albums, just to be reminded of the good times I've had with people. It doesn't matter if the subject isn't perfectly centered. Hell, I have a series of pictures that have my foot in them on purpose (I hold my leg up, and it appears at the bottom, like a puppet. It's a series of pictures chronicalling the "Travelling Foot").
Sometimes you shouldn't be serious about taking pictures.
Digital Photography Composition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Digital Photography Composition? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Digital Photography Composition? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I already knew most of these rules, it's good to get the information out to those that might not know these simple tricks. Since most of us here probably own/have owned a digital camera at one time, we can more than likely relate to it. Although, I would rather see something like this posted to like CNN or the NYT for a bigger reader base (read, non-techies) so that more people to take better pictures.
Re:Digital Photography Composition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Digital Photography Composition? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a related topic.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the books I have found assume you are already a film photographer and only cover the difference between film and digital; the books about film photography are not always entirely relevant to digital photography. The books about digital photography seem to assume you can't even take an autofocused picture with flash without help -- that's about as far as they seem to cover.
I'm looking for something that explains what all the complicated settings on my digital camera (regarding white balance, metering, aperature, and so on) mean and do.
Any suggestions?
Re:On a related topic.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:On a related topic.. (Score:3, Informative)
I spent a few minutes recently looking through O'Reilly's Digital Photography Hacks [oreilly.com]... it has sections on white balance, etc.
BTW, if you have a camera that can shoot RAW format, you can do white balance totally in software, without having to worry about it at all while shooting.
Re:On a related topic.. (Score:3, Informative)
I'd love a digital SLR, but that's a lot of scratch.
Here is a really cool site that let's you virtually try out different settings: CamerasInteractive [camerasinteractive.com].
Pretty neat stuff.
85,000+ photos and going (Score:5, Insightful)
I store mine in folders by date, in c:\photos\yyyy\yyyymmdd\DSCNxxxx.jpg, and it works very well for me.
--Mike [warot.com]--
Re:85,000+ photos and going (Score:5, Informative)
I found that after I'd aquired a few thousand images it became pretty hard to find that picture of the leg of my couch with just looking through directories. At least with looking at a list with files like:
it's a bit easier to find. I'd love to use a tool like photoshop album (doesn't support the naming conventions I like), jasc paint shop album (no RAW support) or others (some too simple, some overly complex), but I just haven't found one that fits with everything I'm looking for.
Re:85,000+ photos and going (Score:5, Informative)
Re:85,000+ photos and going (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/photos/
M@
Re:85,000+ photos and going (Score:3, Interesting)
The image number is important if you post the photos anywhere. You can quickly find the one someone mentions even if you've retitled it over the years.
It also means you can dump photos from a few dates, usually of a similar subject, into one directory (/FlowerPics, for instance) without two Flower 02.jpg pictures colliding.
As for the photos themselves, I was thinking of storing keywords in the exif info and writing a perl script to throw a
More hi-tech digital photography (Score:3, Funny)
HAVE YOUR PICTURE TAKEN THRU YOUR COMPUTER MONITOR !
Go to the Free Internet Photo From Your Monitor website [hb4u.com]
*Sit in front of your monitor.
*Look directly into the activated object.
*Click "Take Photo" - below with your cursor/mouse
*Don't forget to smile at the "camera."
Note: not affiliated to the website.
Good techniques (Score:4, Funny)
The big problem with digital cameras ... (Score:4, Insightful)
For fast action I still use my old Olympus OM-2 but most everything else is digital.
IMO digital cameras are almost better than film for most things but not quite yet.
Re:The big problem with digital cameras ... (Score:3, Informative)
My guess is that higher-end digital cameras under $1k offer more capable burst modes (5/10/15) not to mention movie-clip recording functionality. So the problem you mention is not an inherent feature of digital cameras. It's just a question of having the right firmware (cheaper) in place - the lens/focus hardware (expensive) isn't limited in that aspect, it's just a
Re:The big problem with digital cameras ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that if you have an SLR, digital or otherwise, you can manually focus, then click when ready. With most digital cameras, you click, it takes a second to autofocus, then it takes the pictures. Sports shots just suck. Also, with my camera, you can't use the flash (for obvious reasons) when you use the 2 shot setting.
The camera can do movies, but they generally turn out quite dark, although I can use my video editing software to brighten th
It is an I/O bottleneck, not a firmware problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some differing rules for working digitally; not many of them take place at the camera though (and most there are with regards of which of your camera's features *not* to use).
It's a known fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a known fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, digital photography in itself in terms of how you treat your lighting, framing, exposure speeds isn't inherently different from film. The only reason to have it in the title is to make it more marketable.
Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Your friends and family care. You made us look through your photo album, and we had to suffer through scores--nay, hundreds--of badly cropped, underexposed, flash-washed-out, out-of-focus snapshots.
Twenty years from now, you'll be thrilled to have a few good pictures of your kids. You don't have to take perfect pictures, but you just spent a lot of money on a camera--wouldn't you like to get good-quality images?
It doesn't take much effort to check the focus, make sure the horizon is level, check the exposure, and remember to include the top of Aunt Millie's head--but you'd be surprised at how many people fail to think of these things. A little reminder doesn't seem out of place. Photography is a lot like cooking. You can make it as complicated and artistic as you want, but producing acceptable, aesthetically pleasing meals or photos that you needn't be embarrassed to present to company is within reach of anyone.
Fair comment, sort of (Score:2)
And that's not a bad thing. Most of the people who take the pics want to see the people in the images, and doesn't give a damn about the composition or other aesthetic quality. As long as there's a person they love in the scene, all else is meaningless.
Fair if you're interested in the creative side of photography of course.
Infinite monkey hypothesis... (Score:4, Informative)
1. The cost of developing for viewing is nil (immediate feedback).
2. You can immediately delete any bad pictures.
3. As a result you take more pictures because RAM is free.
Thus, by sheer accident of the technology, neophyte shutterbugs are finding out the secret of the pros: take as many pictures as possible - one of the bunch is bound to be a beauty!
Re:That secret.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, but I don't think he was saying taking hundreds of pictures indiscriminately is the way to get a few good shots. I think it was implicit (though, admittedly, not necessarily obvious) that one should be choosing one's shots rather than firing off the camera at every turn. The real wisdom is to choose your shots and not just take one picture.
Weird friend (Score:3, Interesting)
A conspicuous social artifact of digital cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
..is the now-infamous "me taking my own picture by standing in the bathroom facing the mirror with my new digital camera".
I've never seen one taken with an analog camera. Perhaps they love the new toy so much they have to record one of their first good times together?
Re:A conspicuous social artifact of digital camera (Score:3)
Nobody has to worry about the development house laughing at them.
This same effect also opens the world up to all kinds of quality home porn.
Top tip (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this was my technique with film as well. Digital has saved me a fortune.
-1 Flamebait! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Good start.... (Score:4, Interesting)
My problem is that I can't afford an SLR. I'm generally happy with my Fuji FinePix 3800, but it's very bad in low light (my camcorder is absolutely fantastic, however, but the resolution of the still frames pales in comparison). I've bought some filters and conversion lenses, and I'm really having a great time learing with it.
Sadly, it doesn't take a digital camera to make most people lazy. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to encourage my brother-in-law to take better pictures by using sarcasm ("nice use of backlighting, there!") to no avail. Quick tip to backlighters: use a flash! It brings out your subjects in the foreground!
My wife is the queen of "shaky-cam", no matter how many times I tell her to use the flash indoors. She'll come back from an event at my childs school, hand me the camera, and I end up throwing about 80% of the pictures away. I tried to teach her how to use manual settings to compensate, but she doesn't even want to try to learn.
Still, even "snapshotters" can make prints like a champ with simple editing software (I have to admit I often use Microsoft's Picture It Express 7.0 that came free with a Kodak picture CD - red eye removal, cropping to standard image sizes, basic color/brightness/contrast editing... and free). For example, the first thing in the article is composition - very often you can fix this with creative cropping. Doesn't always make up for poor photography to begin with, but you can fix an awful lot.
Another GREAT site - DeviantArt (Score:3, Informative)
Just...get...closer (Score:5, Informative)
9 times out of 10, when you're shooting someone or something, you need to prioritize what the focus of the photo is supposed to be, and fill the frame with it. The rest of the composition usually falls into place.
It's the simplest way to get better composition without a lot of extra thinking. Either use your feet, or use your zoom and get closer to your subject.
My tips (Score:5, Insightful)
It is absolutely true - most professional photographers take hundreds of photographs a day, only one or two of which are likely to be actually seen. This used to be one big advantage professionals had over amateurs - amateurs couldn't afford all that film and developing. With digital cameras, now you can take as many photos as you like.
Personally I just follow three simple rules:
1) Is the light nice? This is fundamental - if you've got nice evening or morning sunlight, your change of a good photo increases enormously. If it's a cloudy grey day, put the camera away.
2) Get closer. Just a step closer would improve so many amateur photos.
3) Take lots of photos. Even if you are taking the same subject again and again, one will of them be better than the others - especially if you are photographing people. Even more so if they are children.
To summarise:
1) Good light?
2) Get closer!
3) Take more!
Re:My tips (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely not! Cloud cover turns a hard, directional light (the sun during the middle of the day) into a soft, diffuse light. Clouds are a giant softbox...I love 'em. However, you just don't want to get the sky in the frame.
Re:My tips (Score:3, Insightful)
some personal tips (Score:5, Interesting)
#1. Its digital. Take a ton of shots. Take shots you don't think will turn out; take lots of the obvious shots. Shoot your camera with reckless abandon. It costs you ~nothing~. This technique was validated by a professional photographer friend later on...he claimed that at professional shoots you sometimes have a ratio of 10:1 or 100:1 of good vs bad shots, even with an optimum setup and years of experience on his side.
#2. Know the limitations of your camera. If you don't have an big zoom lense, don't expect long distance shots to turn out. Digital zoom is pretty useless. Most digital cameras have a good short-to-middle distance focal length. Anything beyond that and you're pushing beyond your camera's limits.
#3. Next best investment you can make to getting a good camera = tripod. Extend the exposures to get more clear pictures in low-light conditions, or dark coloured subject matter. Lots of shots I took at the time looked good in the LCD screen, but later turned out to be slightly blurred.
#4. Avoid use of the flash. Its a 'brute force' attempt to get good lighting. Work with your ISO setting and exposure levels first. (remember your tripod!). If you don't know about ISOs or exposure, who cares, just take the same pic 3-4 times with different levels...you learn.
5. Be brutal about your pics. Take 200, delete 190. Don't be the guy with the unending home movies... only keep and show the best of your best pics. You'll also get a good rep for taking good photos this way.
6. Learn the basic filters in Photoshop and touch up your digital pics if necessary. I prefer Photoshop sepia and B&W to the filters that come with the camera.
For hard core photographers this may all seem obvious, but for us beginners I found these 5 or 6 tips are what really made the difference for my pics. And they're easy to execute.
Use a proper flash (Score:4, Informative)
(1) Get a good bounce flash, e.g. like the Canon 420 EX for Canon EOS cameras.
(2) Get a diffusor ($0.01 worth of milky plastic, usually $5-$10 retail). For most shots either bounce the flash off the ceiling or use the diffusor. Never use a direct-pointing flash unless you have no choice (e.g. shots from a distance).
(3) Learn how to properly use Tv, Av, and Manual modes with the flash to properly fill the image. I generally either use Av with the flash sync fixed at 1/200, or Manual mode to control how much of the shot is from natural light and how much is from the flash (on the Canon the flash exposure is automatic when operating in manual mode though for obvious reasons you have to be more careful about its exposure range capabilities).
(4) The proper use of a flash for fill is even more important in bright sunlight due to the huge contrast between shadow and sunlight (especially on faces). I almost universally use the flash with the diffusor for daylight shots.
And that's pretty much it. Most people don't use flashes properly, but it doesn't take much exposure :-) to at least double and maybe even triple the number of good shots you take in a day. As usual, I just happen to have some great examples:
The BalloonHat guy at NextFest [backplane.com]
low light photography - personal tip (Score:4, Interesting)
Results will vary, of course, but I've taken some awesome low-light shots this way. For example, this one [pomakis.com]. This technique isn't limited to digital photography either (with the exception of the setting-the-ISO part).
The 1500s just called... (Score:5, Funny)
My Advice for the Average photo moron (Score:5, Insightful)
The People Who Need it Won't Read It (Score:3, Insightful)
RP
history repeating itself (Score:4, Insightful)
We joked, when Desktop Publishing took off, that all it did was enable folks to make bad designs quicker.
Likewise Digital Cameras and production systems allow one to make bad photographs faster than one could make them before.
The truth of the matter is that the medium isn't to blame. The ease of production equates to more crap. But it doesn't stop good stuff being produced; indeed the sheer volume of production should (one hopes) increase the number of good photographs over time. If one can be bothered to filter through all the crap to find them!
A deeper truth, to some, might be that the quality of most design has diminished because now "untrained" people are producing stuff the good and better design & images might simply not be produced now. As in - there won't be any Ansel Adams quality in our future.
I'm inclined to think that's bullshit, though. Mass markets and accessible consumer products don't mean that the few fine art types won't produce wonders any more. Indeed the accessibility of the consumer products might even encourage a few more to take up fine art photography. Just as we've found that Desktop Publishing has raised the game overall ie there has always been crap out there, but the general level of the crap represents a HUGE improvement over what low-end jobbing printers produced before.
And the business plan was... (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Change "Leica" to "Digital"
3) ?????
4) Profit!
P. S. For best results, use Digital Kodak Verichrome Film and process in Digital-76 developer.
Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera. (Score:5, Interesting)
It takes longer than pure digital, it's more complicated, it requires detailed technical knowledge, there is exotic machinery that must be mastered, every tip in this article still works, and you end up with amazing digital images with the warmth and tone of film, much to the amazement and envy of professional photographers everywhere. What's not to like?
Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera. (Score:3, Informative)
Not only does digital naturally have 1 to 2 zones of added exposure range over 35mm, but scanning any negative with even the best scanner reduces films already inferior exposure range by up to one additional zone! Not to mention reducing films potentially superior line resolution in the process to that of the current crop of d
Megapixels invalidate many of the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
My 3 megapixel camera takes pictures that look great printed at 8X10". Ramp up to a 5 MP camera, and you can afford to crop, rotate, and reposition the subject of the picture in an image editor. In my opinion, more megapixels mean that you can take pictures for maximum flexibility rather than focusing on taking the perfect picture.
But I always thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really arguing against learning to take better pictures - selfimprovement through learning is always GOOD (and geekish, mind you). It just doesn't seem as necessary as it once was.
What a strange lead-in (Score:3, Funny)
Oh my, is that negative or what? And a bit misguided too, in that (a) digital cameras are hardly new, and (b) this is a topic from the rise of the point-and-shoot camera era many decades ago. I did get a chuckle of out "I suspect," though. It sounds like something Peggy Hill would say
fix compositing errors with the GIMP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at the whole scene (Score:5, Insightful)
90% of people are only looking at the main subject of their photo. This is why most people put the main subject in the middle of the scene - why almost always results in bad composition.
This is where having either a SLR camera where you see the whole scene in the view-finder, or a preview screen on a digital camera is essential.
Another essential feature is exposure and focus-lock that allows you to focus and take exposure readings off non-centered objects.
As an amateur photographer (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what I do... I take my time, and I visualise what I want to get on the final image BEFORE even looking through the viewfinder or lcd screen.
Then I try to make everything fit in the frame.
I don't really follow the "rules" of aesthetics as defined by pros and critics, since the photos I take are for my own personal enjoyment and for decorating some walls, most of the time.
Then there's also the issue of too many people deleting perfectly good photos because they personally dont like "how they look" on the photos, due to being way too self-conscious. This will lead to a biased of what the past really looked like, in the future, when looking at those carefully selected pictures.
take Photography 101 at your community college! (Score:5, Insightful)
lord knows my digital shots got a lot better after i took black once you've been formally schooled in composition, even just for a semester, it all just sort of subconsciously falls together in the viewfinder (or on the LCD as the case may be) and you get a lot more passable pictures.
Works both ways (Score:3, Interesting)
- I shoot ten times more so the chance of great pics is ten times higher. I actually produce a lot more good shots now.
- Four letters: PS CS. Photoshop CS allows you to take raw images that are terribly underexposed, and push them to get excellent exposures. Also, skin blemishes, things that you just did not notice in th epicture, etc: all vanish with Photoshop.
Andyes, the printing press alloed bad writers to write, and the same will happen here - but the net effect will be a hack of a lot more great photos worldwide.
Tips and Tricks (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the day I shot lots of black and white with my Canon F1. The B&W file was cheap (bulk loaded) and I could develop it myself. The great thing about B&W is that it teaches you composition. No pretty flowers to distract the eye...you look for shadows and highlights, an emotion, some action.
I always always figured that 10% of my pics were good enough to print, the rest was junk.
My brother in law just got a fancy Canon Digital SLR (his mom came into some $$ and bought it for him). He's a nice guy, but doesn't know a THING about photography. I'm always explaining f-stops, and shutter speed, and lighting conditions, depth of field, etc. He needs to learn the basics...and at least in the digital realm, he can do it cheaply.
Practice. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 with a rotatable screen, I ditch all of my average shots and keep the ones I like. I have been told I have an eye for composition and what makes a good shot, and I set pretty high standards for myself. It is figuring out flash, shutter speed, length of exposure, aperture, zoom, focus, white balance, that comprises most "average" shots.
The last set of film photos I took, I developed a total of 98, and thought that about 15 were keepers. I have a much higher rate of keepers with my digicam, because, for the most part, what you see is what you get. This is even more the case with an SLR.
If you are truly a student of the game, take a class at a community college, read all the magazines you can afford to read, hit the library for books. There are tons of resources out there for those serious about learning photography.
Photography, like any other form of art, is purely subjective. What may look good to one person, may look horrible to another. Maybe to some people the picture of their Aunt is very special to them, while some may ridicule it, there was a reason the picture was shot. To capture a moment in time. And that is all photography is, an attempt to stop time in it's tracks.
Get a fast camera. (Score:3, Insightful)
I was so happy when they came up with fast-forward-winding film cameras. The more pictures you can shoot, the more chances of a serendipitous shot you'dve never have been able to set up in a million years.
Digital imaging greatly reduces the cost of this method - I was getting two or three awesome pics per roll of file, so I couldn't afford to do very many - but unfortunately many of the digital cameras have a slow cycle time, and you'll find yourself between clicks when the pie hits the President.
Check out camera speed before you buy!
Digital Photo and the GIMP - High School Course (Score:3, Interesting)
Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR (Score:4, Informative)
I have been doing photography for almost 10 years and there is no way I will trade my film Nikons for anything digital short of digital SRL because everything else is simply crap. From what I've experienced, digital cameras are divided into crappy and very crappy. Here is my opinion on this matter.
When you get a digital camera for several hundred bucks you are getting robbed by the manufactures because most of cheap consumer point-and-shoot cameras (film and digital) come with a non-replaceable lens. To make the matters worse, these lenses are tend to be on a shitty side. They have less-than-average capabilities, no special effects and if you scratch it, you are shit out of luck. The camera will need to be repaired which may cost you a good chunk of money. Will you ever buy a car that has an engine that you cannot replace? What if this engine happens to be not so good? And there you have it, my problem #1 with digital point-and-shoot cameras: crappy, irreplaceable lenses that make you handicapped when it comes to special effects. In fact, the lens should be the most expensive part of your camera becase it is that important. If you ask professional photographers what to get, most of them will suggest to spend more money on the actual lens because lens is what matters! You can have an all manual old Nikon with a superb lens that will outperform any digital camera that is full of features but lacks what is absolutely necessary: a good lens.
Then there is an issue of color. If I want to manipulate colors, I use different film, filters and ask for different processing. With a digital camera, the hardware can do everthing for you. The problem is that hardware is not perfect. In fact, there is a fair amount of guess work involved when a chip inside your digital camera tries to calculate the color. As a result you get too many digital cameras that are thrown off by reds. Do not believe me? Take a picture of something red on grey background. Then compare it to the real setup. Most of the times reds come out over saturated. If you think that this is not a big deal, take pictures of people with rosy cheeks. Chances are, your subjects will never ask you for a re-print. That is problem #2.
Problem #3 is shot specifict. In particular, very few digital cameras can produce clear nigh shots without making certain things purple. The best way to find out is to take a picture of street lights and objects close to them. In many cases you will see a rim of purple around the lights. Does it matter? Well, if you spend $300 on a camera, don't you think that you deserve a camera that can take good shots at night? Do not get me wrong, if I were to spend fifty bucks, I would not bitch about it, but if Fuji wants me to get their FinePix, they better fix those fuckedup color schemes that come up in night shots!
Problem #4 is zoom. None of 10x zoom cameras that I've seen so far had lens stabilizers. In plain English: when lenses were zoomed out, you could giggle any extended part of the lens. To my best knowlege, only certain Panasonic cameras were able to stabilize the lens and prevent it from being shaken.
Problem #5: accessories. Most of cheap digital cameras do not offer hot shoes or metal tripod mounts. I use tripods in a good fraction of my shots and I would hate to repair my camera's plastic tripod mount every once in a while. In my opinion, a good tripod mount must be mandatory for every camera. If your camera comes without a hot-shoe, you might as well throw it away, because you will not be able to use a flash. I am sorry to disappoint you, but a little flash that comes with your camera is nothing but a fill-in flash. It is not suitable for distant objects, it is not suitable for a large scene. If you want to be serious about photography, you'll have to spend at least $150 on a good flash.
Problem #6: manual features. I believe that every camera's feature must be available in "manual mode." Users must be able to override everything from focusing to shutter speed
digital photography candids (Score:3, Interesting)
What's valuable about this is that the quantity of pictures has increased - and this includes all the crappy candids that capture the moment, instead of the scene. And it's the moment that matters in candids, not necessarily the anal-retentiveness of making sure that the best shot possible is taken.
This being said, the better a photographer knows the fundamentals of photography and the ins and outs of the camera, the better the pictures will be, but when a person starts fiddling with the camera at the expense of the moment, the spontenaity simply goes away and that moment is lost.
*shrug* some of my most valuable pictures are ones taken on a crappy camera, that aren't totally in focus, and that are plain bad pictures. But to me, and to my friends that identify with the moment that was captured, and to my son who will grow up and learn something about me from the pictures that he would never see if the pictures (crappy though they be) didn't exist....none of that matters.
What I do... (Score:3, Interesting)
I still have the K-1000, but I got rid of my Kodak Color Lab a while back. Chemicals are expensive...if I don't take any photos for a year, I have to buy all new chemicals (certainly a major cost problem). Film (I mean good film) really costs. Photoshop is so much easier/cheaper than having to buy new filters/equipment.
In the digital darkroom there is no real cost for film, and not much trade off for Color vs. B&W, so all of your pictures can be taken in color and changed via Gimp/Photoshop to set the "mood".
I currently own (and use as my primary camera) a Canon Powershot A70. You don't need a SLR to take good photos, if you're just taking photos of a skyline, trees, etc...you can still get good results with a well built snapshot camera.
The things to remember are the following:
Learn the limitations of your camera. Know how to get the best photos using the manual settings. A good start is generally setting the ISO Rating to ISO 50, set a fast shutter speed and a higher aperture. Set the highest resolution and quality setting. Turn off the flash unless it's absolutely necessary (your subjects will look "dead" otherwise) and don't get too carried away with zoom (digital or otherwise)...
Now, why am I using a snapshot camera and not an SLR??? Some people want you to belive that because they spent $1000 on their camera, they somehow take better photos than those of us spending $300 for a camera. Despite what others would have you belive, you can still take bad photos with an SLR and you can certainly take great photos with a snapshot camera.
Don't belive that good photos can be taken with "cheap" cameras...Look at this site [pencam.org]...where all of the photos have been taken with an Aptek PenCam (earlier shots were taken with the $30 PenCam VGA)...
Think FAST (Score:3, Insightful)
Focus
Aperature
Shutter
Think
It's like a checklist that is now a habit. Works well in the darkroom, too. (The darkroom was a magic place where we would develop film and make images appear on paper.)
Re:Training... (Score:2)
TW
Re:And this is news, because ... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Poorly-maintained computers have been around for (comparitive) ages, too.
Nerds, like normal mortals, have interests that range more widely than how to liquid-cool their overclocked cell phones. "What matters" is more about a