 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / October 2007Top tips
Hi, I seen a recent posting with a link to a list of top ten tips ""most pros would agree are top of the list to make sure your photos are as good as they can be, the "Info Dude's" list was well and truly slated. I've been think about this and my top tips for better photos would be; 1. Use a tripod where possible 2. Take plenty of photos 3. Edit hard What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... Cheers Kev > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kev 1. Ignore top ten tips sites 2. Er.... that's it. :O)  SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > :O) 1. buy a camera 2. take shots of everything and anything I think these replies are great... especially buying a camera... that is an IMPORTANT ONE!!! as a newbie to dig pix... 1) taking lots of pix and looking at them critically with the camera details and histogram is very useful... and 2) experimenting with all the different software and editing features you can.. and figure out how you made such wonderful "mistake" pix's kk >>> 1. Use a tripod where possible >>> 2. Take plenty of photos [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1. buy a camera > 2. take shots of everything and anything From: "Kev" <kev1n.w00dc0ck@b1gf00t.c0m(replacenumbersforletters)> | Hi, | [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | | Kev Use a Circular polarizer when shooting near glass and water. Use a UV filter outdoors on bright, sunny, days. SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > Use a Circular polarizer when shooting near glass and water. > > Use a UV filter outdoors on bright, sunny, days. These tips are lame. Eliminating reflections doesn't make a photo better. In fact it might take away from the photo. UV filters are usually useless From: "Mike" <mike@example.com> >> Use a Circular polarizer when shooting near glass and water. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | In fact it might take away from the photo. UV filters are usually | useless On the contrary. I have taken some surfing photos and the quality of the shot is superb with a circ. polarizer. You see into the water and not the refection on the water. When I use a UV filter I seem to have better colour contrast. Recently a poster in alt.binaries.photos.original showed an excellent comparison. photos of a Koi pond with and w/o a circular polarizer. The difference was Night and Day. The ability to see the fish in the pond vs. the reflections on the water. Call them "lame" tips but I stick by them ! SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > | These tips are lame. Eliminating reflections doesn't make a photo better. > | In fact it might take away from the photo. UV filters are usually > | useless > > On the contrary. No. Sorry. You can say that knowing when to use a polariser and how much to deploy it WILL help. But simply "use a polariser" is wrong. It isn't a great tip. Under what circumstances, if I take all my photos with flash, will a polariser help? Except acting as an ND filter? Signatureinvalid = com >No. Sorry. You can say that knowing when to use a polariser and how >much to deploy it WILL help. But simply "use a polariser" is wrong. It >isn't a great tip. Under what circumstances, if I take all my photos >with flash, will a polariser help? Except acting as an ND filter? He's giving a "tip" not a "tutorial". Tips are usually short and sweet. The fact that most people don't use polarizers (or own one) makes his tip a good one - it'll force some people to buy and see what kind of effects it creates. SignatureAlex atheist #2007 From: "Alex" <a@b.c> | He's giving a "tip" not a "tutorial". Tips are usually short and | sweet. The fact that most people don't use polarizers (or own one) | makes his tip a good one - it'll force some people to buy and see what | kind of effects it creates. Thank You ! SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > He's giving a "tip" not a "tutorial". Tips are usually short and > sweet. The fact that most people don't use polarizers (or own one) > makes his tip a good one - it'll force some people to buy and see what > kind of effects it creates. No that's fine. The tip could be 'know when to use a polariser', not just 'use a polariser'. My argument stands. Absolutely right, and I'd add know which type of polariser, linier or circular to use. Duncan >> He's giving a "tip" not a "tutorial". Tips are usually short and >> sweet. The fact that most people don't use polarizers (or own one) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No that's fine. The tip could be 'know when to use a polariser', not just > 'use a polariser'. My argument stands. > On the contrary. > > I have taken some surfing photos and the quality of the shot is superb with a circ. > polarizer. You see into the water and not the refection on the water. > > When I use a UV filter I seem to have better colour contrast. Polarizers are something I need to get into. One of the transition points from being an adequate photographer to being a good one, seems to be mastery of getting what you see, or think you see, onto the film. Stuff involving hostile light conditions are a good test of that learning curve. Water shots are invariably hideous because the lens just sees the flare and the film loses all the image. Ditto shooting into the light, to get contre-jour photos that have that silhouette snap rather than just a ragged burnout. Some personal tips: - deny yourself easy options so you don't get into lazy habits. Shoot film instead of letting a digital camera make pictures the sensor likes. Shoot black and white so you don't admire pictures just because "the colour came out nicely". Try medium format so you pay attention to pictures with less grain, and learn to make well-balanced compositions out of square formats. Realise that a good photo invariably involves cropping: that's what an enlarger is for, really. While in monochrome mode, do your own darkroom work so you are in direct touch with your successes and failures. I can't take seriously any photographer who takes loads of mono pics and then just hands it over to a pro lab because they know all the tricks. What sort of real image-making is that? - don't copy pictures that win awards in magazines. There are ingrown styles in competitions and they should be studied and avoided, just as booklovers should read Joanna Trollope or Jeffrey Archer once in a while to see what genuinely popular but really BAD writing actually looks like. (Look at the BP, formerly Kobal, Portrait exhibition at the NPG every year for an example of a competition totally up its own jaxie because only a certain look, bastardised from Sunday supplement fashion shoots and the shabbier porn mags, ever makes it onto the walls. You want to enter, find skinny ginger girls with freckles and buy a flashgun, then you'll be in with a chance). However, do read Roger Hicks in Amateur Photographer, as he's such a well-informed but pompous egotist that he'll provoke you into going out with a camera just to contradict him. You might even succeed. (Don't like many of his pictures either but he and his missus are good at putting themselves around, so study their method too). - buy a different filmstock or paper rather than another bit of equipment. Keeps you on your toes. Too many gadget freaks out there trying to justify buying toys. If you know what a good picture is like, you can do it on an Olympus Trip. If the picture works in a frame at an exhibition, very few people are going to turn the frame round to see what camera you use. Don't write up what aperture and shutter speed you used. Everyone lies, and rightly so. Keep technique to yourself and just do pictures instead of words. Learn the Zone system because it's technically right, then ignore the bits you don't remember because the Zone system isn't the answer to taking good pictures, just a robust method for not losing them through poor metering technique. Which brings us back to shooting swimming pools... Tony Clarke, just bought a bulk loader with some sort of film still in it for 50p in a charity shop... oh, and a polariser ditto... >Look >at the BP, formerly Kobal, Portrait exhibition at the NPG every year for an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >ginger girls with freckles and buy a flashgun, then you'll be in with a >chance November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Sadly, I agree. Not only about the former Kobal award; the very appellation 'award winning photo' has conditioned me to expect wince-worthy work. I think it's advisable to take a look at the judges before committing to a competition. Competent judges make all the difference. A few years ago there was a major world-wide contest they called M.I.L.K (moments of intimacy, love and kindness or some such acronym). It was judged by Elliott Erwitt, a very well known photographer. Also, the entry fee was perfectly reasonable, and they specified that copyright would be retained by entrants and winners. However, this contest seems to have gone nowhere (it was supposed to be the Family of Man of the twenty-first century). regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > > On the contrary. > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Tony Clarke, just bought a bulk loader with some sort of film still in > it for 50p in a charity shop... oh, and a polariser ditto... Tony, You should have named your tips, "Tips for rich photographers with nothing else to do in life except take pictures". Last time I looked, they weren't giving away medium format cameras or darkroom equipment. I guess this might be good advice for someone who wants to be just like you, but in these days of digital photography, going back to film is ridiculous. Having spent many years shooting film, both color and b&w, I don't believe there's anything you can learn through doing all this that you can't learn by doing digital and experimenting. Would you know "more" about photography if you shot film? Certainly, you'd know something about film photography. But if you're not interested in film, what's the point? Just because you learned it that way doesn't mean it's the best way to learn. Just one of many ways to learn photography, and probably not the best way today unless someone's particularly interested in film. > UV filters are usually > useless (inexpensive) UV filters may be useless but protect your (expensive) lens - they serve more than purpose. hc > UV filters are usually > useless With Ektachrome at high altitude on hazy days with old lenses they do help - as UV filters, that is. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... 1) Concentrate on seeing. LOOK, LOOK, and LOOK again. This means looking at the things you plan to photograph, and at other people's photographs, paintings, and any other work that involves using subject and light to make a composition. 2) Move around your subject to find the best viewpoint, don't just shoot it from the first point at which you thought of taking it. Don't shoot everything from eye level. 3) Review your results critically and make sure you really learn from them. Peter > What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... 1. Put your effort into developing your 'eye'. 2. Get a simple camera and really learn to use it. 3. Don't just replicate other people's shots. Signatureinvalid = com >> What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... > >1. Put your effort into developing your 'eye'. >2. Get a simple camera and really learn to use it. I liked this one. with old, manual cameras, I have taken reasonably good pictures. I usually get happy to look at the slides out of the lab. Recently for a job I borrowed a Nikon D2x, and many picturesd dissapointed me. i thought I canno blame it on the camera. that is the top of the line, most modern Nikon. So, it should be me. On the other hand I know that I am not that bad......... I don't know how this computer works........ Mojtaba >3. Don't just replicate other people's shots. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kev 1. Shoot in Raw mode. 2. Don't listen to the people who will tell you that you don't need to use RAW. 3. Take photos in good light whenever you can. Ok number three should be first but most people will try to do that anyway. Scott >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Ok number three should be first but most people will try to do that > anyway. Always remember: 1] YOU are the PHOTOGRAPHER; the camera is NOT 2] A camera is like a carpenter's hammer, after all: it just drives or pulls nails, doesn't design houses or build them, just helps you put the constituents of a (house) photograph together. 3] A better hammer may make building easier, but doesn't NECESSARILY make the houses better; that's up to the hammer-swinger. 4] Your photographer's eye will transfer from camera to camera; the camera's capabilities are stuck in place. Which one should you concentrate on? Right. 5] The learning of photography skills may be verbal, but photographers who develop an eye with finesse will at some point stop verbalizing and just let the ingrained knowledge and wisdom control their work. 6] It is not NECESSARY to verbalize photographers' attitudes, skills or interests, but like the Better Hammer, an ability to do so helps internalize them and their relationships. 7] Like most other useful occupations, photography involves learning what it is that deserves paying attention to, and eliminating unnecessary distractions during the performance. 8] It's all about light; putting it where it does most good, eliminating it from where it doesn't belong, making the best of it when it is out of control. 9] By someone's standards, for someone's use, there is no bad photograph; what doesn't-or even does-destroy an image makes the photographer stronger. 10] Tenth verse: same as the first. -- Frank ess "In this universe there are things that just don't yield to thinking -plain or fancy-Dude". -J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson 1. Remember it is not the knobs on the camera that screw your pictuers up 2. It is the knob behind the camera that screws the pictures up 3. Good light, good composition, good images > >> Hi, > >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > -plain or fancy-Dude". > -J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson > 3. Take photos in good light whenever you can. > > Ok number three should be first but most people will try to do that > anyway. Well yes, but: 1. The light is always better on a Monday. I used to think I was imagining this, but my colleagues are fed up with me whining on Monday mornings "Would you look at that light", though today was actually much nicer here than yesterday (I had to scrape my car wndows tonight!). On QI they established that the weather *is* worse on Saturdays!) 2a Move to a country which doesn't have 'tupperware skies' for 95% of the time you're not at work: the other 5% is inevitably when you have family commitments you can't get out of. 2b That old Kitkat advert with the Pandas got it right! 3. Photoshop can get you out of an incredible number of 'holes' you got yourself into, but it saves time to get it right in camera where possible! Slainte Liz Signaturehttp://www.v-liz.com - Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos Photo Gallery: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111 I don't like your (2) and (3). 1) Use a tripod 2) Think about each shot, no point-and-shoot mentality 3) Equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kev > I don't like your (2) and (3). > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 3) Equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. I find it funny all the people who say the equipment does not matter, but then have definite requirements for their own equipment. As I recall you shoot LF, if the equipment does not matter why go to all the work of shooting LF? Scott > > I don't like your (2) and (3). > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recall you shoot LF, if the equipment does not matter why go to all the > work of shooting LF? Saying equipment doesn't make you a better photographer isn't the same as saying it doesn't matter. Of course equipment matters, but it doesn't make a person a better photographer. Indeed, more basic equipment may be more likely to force a person to become a better photographer, and only a photographer who has developed their eye and their skill will really know what they need from their equipment, and be able to use it to its fullest potential. Peter >> I don't like your (2) and (3). >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott Anecdote time. Sid was brilliant photographer, now sadly passed on. He would take a few rolls at an event, and come back with scores of magnificent portraits of happy people. *Everyone* OOOhed and Ahhhed at his shots. He took no cliched or lame poses. He exuded an aura which made people *want* to be in his shots. His composition, focus, exposure and (most importantly) timing, were always spot on. Sid *worked* at all this. It wasn't a "gift" - it was the product of intelligence and clever application. After one such event I made an off-hand comment to the "artist" next to me about how great Sid's shots were. Her reply? "Ah yes, but have you seen the camera he uses?" (an old 35mm Nikon) To my eternal credit, I *didn't* strangle her on the spot. Nor did I try to explain. No point. -- Jeff R. > To my eternal credit, I *didn't* strangle her on the spot. > Nor did I try to explain. No point. > > -- > Jeff R. Go back, strange her. :O)) SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:4546EC82.27D2AF86 @blueyonder.co.uk: > Go back, strangle her. > > :O)) Want a hand? > Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:4546EC82.27D2AF86 > @blueyonder.co.uk: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Want a hand? or two? SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ > > I don't like your (2) and (3). > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott um, he said equipment doesn't make you a better photographer, which I guess means just because you have the right kit doesn't mean you'll be the world's best photographer, rather than the kit not mattering at all.... I think :O) SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ >> 3) Equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. > > I find it funny all the people who say the equipment does not matter, > but then have definite requirements for their own equipment. As I > recall you shoot LF, if the equipment does not matter why go to all the > work of shooting LF? I stand by what I said. Equipment can make for better prints-- especially when making large prints. But it rarely makes a better "photographer". > >> 3) Equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I stand by what I said. Equipment can make for better prints-- especially > when making large prints. But it rarely makes a better "photographer". Can we agree then that part of becoming a good photographer is learning what gear to shoot with? For type of photography that the person is interested in. Scott >> > I find it funny all the people who say the equipment does not matter, >> > but then have definite requirements for their own equipment. As I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > learning what gear to shoot with? For type of photography that the > person is interested in. Well the beauty of 35mm (or dSLRs) is that the system can cover all aspects of photography. It may not make the best prints, but you can do everything from portraits to wildlife. Heck, a 28-105mm lens will go a long ways in taking care of most people's interests. Sure, learning what gear to shoot with is important for other types of photography not covered by your normal 28-105mm lens...wildlife, macro, sports, etc. Mike skrev: > I don't like your (2) and (3). > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 3) Equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. 1) is only valid for some types of photography. I agree with 2, but it does not exclude the original 2). I have taken my best photos in the periods when I spent the most time on photography and took the most photos - I guess I was sort of "fitter". At the other hand, I had a winder for a period. I doubled my film consumption, but the number of good shots were about the same. OK, my 3: 1) spend time on photography. 2) try to see the picture before you reach for the camera 3) edit hard. /Martin >Mike skrev: >> I don't like your (2) and (3). >> >> 1) Use a tripod Depends on photography..... try using a tripod at a kids party. >> 2) Think about each shot, no point-and-shoot mentality Having done a lot of point and shoot with firearms in the military There are many pictures I have got through reacting quickly and "snapped" a quick shot. Pausing would have meant no picture at all. >> 3) Equipment doesn't make you a better photographer. True but it can help you get pictures you can not get with poor equipment. It all depends what sort of photographs you want to take. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ can you explain what "edit hard" means?? I do not know this term... tnx.. kk > Mike skrev: >> I don't like your (2) and (3). [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > /Martin > can you explain what "edit hard" means?? I do not know this term... tnx.. > kk To me, it means doing whatever you need to do to get the "best" effect. I use Photoshop to edit my stuff, and I am not a wimp about it....If I think one of my pictures looks better with a 35% increase in contrast, well, that's exactly what I put in....35%....No more, no less....... > > can you explain what "edit hard" means?? I do not know this term... > > tnx.. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one of my pictures looks better with a 35% increase in contrast, well, > that's exactly what I put in....35%....No more, no less....... That's not editing, that's 'tweaking', 'adjusting', 'post-production', or whatever. Edit hard means be ruthless about what you keep: only show your best work, and don't show a picture that isn't good enough just because _you_ know how hard it was to get it: the viewer doesn't care about that, only about whether it is a good picture in its own right or not. Peter >> > can you explain what "edit hard" means?? I do not know this term... >> > tnx.. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Peter Yeah.....That too........ Bandicoot skrev: > That's not editing, that's 'tweaking', 'adjusting', 'post-production', or > whatever. Edit hard means be ruthless about what you keep: only show your > best work, and don't show a picture that isn't good enough just because > _you_ know how hard it was to get it: the viewer doesn't care about that, > only about whether it is a good picture in its own right or not. That is what I ment with "edit hard". When I did a lot of film shooting, I used to bother with enlarging about 10% of my shots (no winder/motor drive). I know a lot of people are more trigger-happy in digital, but start off with only considering the best 10% could be a starting point. In fact, just forcing oneself to select the best 10 (or whatever)% could be a good exercise. /Martin ok, thanks... so just giver the juice to get what you want... don't be timid in using tools... tnx kk >> can you explain what "edit hard" means?? I do not know this term... tnx.. >> kk [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one of my pictures looks better with a 35% increase in contrast, well, > that's exactly what I put in....35%....No more, no less....... > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... 1. Be original 2. Don't be frightened of your subject 3. Carry a camera everywhere MC 1. Explore the same subject over a series of shots. 2. Expect to wait for the perfect shot. 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home (in the case of digital) - just to get an understanding of your flow and to avoid deleting something that's special in a way that you didn't intend. SignatureAlex atheist #2007 From: "Alex" <a@b.c> | 1. Explore the same subject over a series of shots. | 2. Expect to wait for the perfect shot. | 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home | (in the case of digital) - just to get an understanding of your flow | and to avoid deleting something that's special in a way that you | didn't intend. I like #3. Never looked at it that way ! SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > x. Edit hard > y. Don't delete any so-so shots x + y > keep everything, only show 0.1% SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Nicholas O. Lindan <see@sig.com> observed >> x. Edit hard >> y. Don't delete any so-so shots > >x + y > keep everything, only show 0.1% Yes! Absolutely. The only difference between a good and bad photographer is that a bad photographer doesn't show his/her mistakes. Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< >keep everything, only show 0.1% > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Mike November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, I'm quite a packrat, and I've got nearly every negative I've ever exposed. I don't advocate this as a personality trait, but it has given me the opportunity to observe the effects of a large (bloated?) file on the photographer... One changes as one ages. Looking over old work is always done with new eyes. Old material that seemed of no interest in the past can be seen as important work in the future, depending on how the photog grows (ages? matures? how about ... develops). A particular area to examine in this regard is personal photos made of one's own family. I made a few conscious efforts to photograph my parents over the years; unfortunately too few, but then I was just young so what did I know. Also, I've got a few off-the-cuff snaps of them. For many decades these pictures seemed empty to me. Going over them in more recent years, I've seen them quite differently. Prints from a couple of them made a viewer I respect comment that they were some of my best work. I think it's quite common for people to be bored by their own families. It's very good for a photographer to get beyond this. A large file of pictures we've made life-long is a very valuable resource. The wise old photog said, 'take care of your files and your files will take care of you.' The older I get, the more valid this seems. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home > (in the case of digital) - just to get an understanding of your flow > and to avoid deleting something that's special in a way that you > didn't intend. Reminds me of the story of a friend of a friend. Recently he bought a new digital SLR (Nikon D60, I believe, for those who need to know). He spent many months happly snapping away, improving his portraiture skills while his ever helpful wife deleted any photo taken that wasn't sharp front to back. AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Aahahh, nice history! My tips (but not the "top tips", these are only tips that comes to my mind right now): 1. Try not to cut the objects on the scene; 2. Look for color composition (for example: when you have a narrow depth of field you can still match the subject's color with the background's color); 3. Use B/W film, at least once during your life; 4. Buy a new lens. I usually feel excited with a new lens; 5. Do not fallow my rules (it is one thing my teacher teaches me) ;) []'s > > 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home > > (in the case of digital) - just to get an understanding of your flow [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! > 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home > (in the case of digital) - just to get an understanding of your flow > and to avoid deleting something that's special in a way that you > didn't intend. It is one of the problems with the current digital trend. There are hundreds of new photographers believing that they can learn by taking photo after photo and just throw away all the bad ones. While you can improve your skills to some extent this way, it does preclude learning the ability to respect the subject and the photo. Thousands of ephemeral temporary exposures to not make a picture and do not train the eye. One has to learn to stop and think about what one is doing, learn to respect the subject, the light and the frame as well as the limitations of the recording medium. The disposability of digital reduces the cost factor and whilst, in itself isn't such a bad thing the cost imperative has been removed. Cost was the main driving force for me to learn from my mistakes when I first started photography to reduce the 'loss' and see where I went wrong. I also had a wealth of unexpected shots from faulty cameras and strange results that being on film I still have. They have become an enduring legacy of some of my best shots. If there is one thing to learn in the digital age is to slow down and think. Don't delete until you get home and really see what you have, aka like using a light box with trannies. Memory cards are so cheap now you aren't going to run out of space even as raw files! I would suggest using several smaller cards than one big one just in case it corrupts. Duncan >> 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home >> (in the case of digital) - just to get an understanding of your flow [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > respect the subject, the light and the frame as well as the limitations of > the recording medium. On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:24:09 +0000, Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: >> 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home >> (in the case of digital) - just to get an understanding of your flow [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >respect the subject, the light and the frame as well as the limitations of >the recording medium. November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, At a certain point in photo history the 'snapshot esthetic' picture came into existence, because it had become ubiquitous. People began using it consciously after observing it the masses. I think the above characteristics -- no thought, many ephemeral exposures, no respect, insensitivity to light and lighting (a byproduct of low-end viewfinders), eccentric framing (another crappy-viewfinder phenomenon), indifference to the medium -- comprise the next esthetic. I'm not so sure it's significantly different from the snapshot era, maybe just that ol' electronic speedup McLuhan loved so much. How can more not be better??? The best side-effect of the increased number of images made (and deleted!) in our culture is that larger numbers of people are interested in and becoming interested in pictures (OK, visual art ...). Of course, this process has been going on for a long time, and George Eastman certainly helped it along in the 1890s, so really nothing has changed, except the speedup, just because it's digital, or electronic, or whatever nomenclature seems cool. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home > (in the case of digital) Don't throw away any negatives. Doesn't have anything to do with being a better photographer but mining 50 year old negatives is fun. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > > 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home > > (in the case of digital) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com My mum found some slides a little while back which had been hidden away. Included on them were relatives who had passed away as well as scenery which has changed dramatically. A real pleasure to look through SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ Indeed, do you think in fifty years time future generations will look through old computer folders to find their past? I doubt it will be the same, much more tempting to flick throw old prints and slides than a computer hard drive. >> > 3. Don't delete any so-so shots until you get to your computer at home >> > (in the case of digital) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > scenery which has changed dramatically. A real pleasure to look > through > Indeed, do you think in fifty years time future generations will look > through old computer folders to find their past? I doubt it will be the > same, much more tempting to flick throw old prints and slides than a > computer hard drive. Yeah, even when I know what I am looking for it can be boring going through discs. Then again as I don't get out as much sometimes I come across something which stirs memories, even though it's not long ago. There have also been some big changes in the city, including fire ravaging an old grade II listed warehouse so only the shell remains, so there's always something. SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ > Indeed, do you think in fifty years time future generations will look > through old computer folders to find their past? I doubt it will be the > same, much more tempting to flick throw old prints and slides than a > computer hard drive. I don't believe this is really true. I have both gone though photo albums and through hard drives and for me the hard drives are a lot more fun. We visited my parents this year and as I always do I grabbed a copy of all their digital photos. This is not a huge number, about 8500 photos taking up about 4 GB of disk space. The photos go back to 2000 when they bought their first digital camera. It was just a drag and drop from their hard drive to my little extern to grab all of these. The photos are all organized by year and put in sub directories that tell what the event was when they were taken. Their first camera was a Nikon E800, which produces images that show more detail then most 4 x 6 prints. We live about 5,000 miles away from my parents so it is kind of fun to look through their photos and see what they have been up to. They also have been collecting photos from others over the years and so I get to see those as well, including some of my own. And viewing them on a 19 inch monitor gives me a better view of the photos then looking at a 4 x 6 inch print would and a lot less eye strain. Scott Fair enough, just now when the technology is fairly new, how about 50 years time? Who knows what the technology will have moved on to. I just hope Granny's old fashioned computer still works and the photos aren't lost forever. >> Indeed, do you think in fifty years time future generations will look >> through old computer folders to find their past? I doubt it will be the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Scott > Fair enough, just now when the technology is fairly new, how about 50 years > time? Who knows what the technology will have moved on to. I just hope > Granny's old fashioned computer still works and the photos aren't lost > forever. It takes a different mind set, not waiting until someone is dead to get their photos. It is kind of sad that someone has to die before we want to look at their photo collection, which often seems to be the case. One thing to think about is what do you do with your own photos if you want to be sure people hold on to them. The key I believe is to keep the size of the collection down to a level that you use up so little of someone's hard drive that it simply is not an issue leaving your photos there. To get an image that would be a good replacement for a 4 x 6 print take about 300K to 500K bytes, call it an average of 400K / photo. You could put together a collection of 10,000 photos and fit it all within 4 GB. This would not be the resolution you might want for yourself but as a replacement for looking at small prints it would work very well. Now just how many is 10,000 photos, well if they were 4 x 6 prints they would weight about 3.5 grams each or 35 Kg total, call it about 80 Lbs. of photos, not including the weight of the albums. To me this seems like a pretty good trade off, 10,000 photo taking up 4 GB, the photos have more then enough detail to be fun to look and there are more then enough to look at and they don't take up much disk space at all. Of course I don't fully trust any of this and so we do make a fair number of prints as well, but far short of 10,000. After all 10,000 print would cost about $1,500 and the disk space to hold the same number of photos is closer to $2. Scott >One thing to think about is what do you do with your own photos if you >want to be sure people hold on to them. November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, That's a good question. There must be several workable solutions. The best one I've been able to come up with for myself is to make the best quality prints I can. I use film and photosensitive paper. But -- to be sure -- they should be framed. So the bulk grows and grows. Hardly suitable for entire collections. Man Ray said he wouldn't rest until he saw his paintings in a 'big fat art book'. I wonder if in the future that will change to big fat pdf file?? regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- >Of course I don't fully trust any of this and so we do make a fair >number of prints as well, but far short of 10,000. After all 10,000 >print would cost about $1,500 and the disk space to hold the same >number of photos is closer to $2. November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, It seems perfectly reasonable to print the ones you like best, and keep the big digital file too. It's cheap, and a resource for the future family. The best of both worlds for very little money. For future generations, the more pictures the better. Who knows what they will find of interest? Probably just the cars in all the backgrounds ... regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- >Indeed, do you think in fifty years time future generations will look >through old computer folders to find their past? I doubt it will be the >same, much more tempting to flick throw old prints and slides than a >computer hard drive. It's fun when you're using something like IMatch (a photo organizer). Especially, when you're up to date with your keywords - extremely fun, in that case. Otherwise it's still fun to go through your old folders and see what you were up to in August 2001. SignatureAlex atheist #2007 >Otherwise it's still fun to go through your old folders >and see what you were up to in August 2001 November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Is it ever! I haven't come close to scanning all my negatives from the 70s and 80s, but it is wonderful to go through them onscreen, where it's much easier to see what's going on than in contact prints. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:35:04 -0000, "Kev" <kev1n.w00dc0ck@b1gf00t.c0m(replacenumbersforletters)> wrote: >much more tempting to flick throw old prints and slides than a >computer hard drive. November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Depends what you grow up with. I've scanned a load of my old family photos, and I find it a wonderful pleasure to look at them from my hard drive. And I was almost forty when I got my first computer. Future formats might be even more involving than paper prints. Three dimensional recordings might get pretty psychoconnected... regards, --le >mining 50 year old negatives >is fun. November 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, My oldest ones are not quite 40, but still fun ... now I just wish I had made a hundred times as many. regards, --le > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kev 1. Follow your own instincts and don't be overly concerned about wether others will "like" your photographs. Develop your own style and stick to it. 2, See above >Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Kev most imortantly... Know your equipement - your camera and your lenses. If you can.. know your subject and how to interact with it. try to... know and understand your vision vaguely ken Sorry, I need more than three: 1. Get in close - if it doesn't add to the image's subject, it almost certainly subtracts. 2. Come back later - afternoon light, morning light, dusk? Quality of light makes for the most spectacular images. 3. Look for emotional content - does the picture give you awe, love, surprise, admiration, fear?..... anything? If not, toss it! 4. Use your rear view mirror... In other words widen your view and make sure you don't miss stuff that is happening around you or behind you. (lame anecdote - driving along a road, fairly boring scenery, but checked rv mirror and saw a huge storm front following me, got a great image) 5. Challenge yourself when you get jaded (but don't make it too difficult) - eg a good one is to go to your nearest marina (or whatever) when the sun is low in the sky, and take images of minutiae. 6. As far as equipment - make sure that your stuff is just a little better than you need right now. Tomorrow it will be just right! I'm not sure I agree with the plenty of photos thing. I think if the image doesn't leap out at you, refrain, ask yourself why, and look for ways to get one that does... Post processing can do wonders, but I'm not a great manipulator and don't really want to be. Each to his/her own though. But I do agree with the tripod. 1. Get a camera you can take with you EVERYWHERE and take it with you EVERYWHERE. 2. Look for an entirely different perspective. 3. A big flash off of (not attached to) a small camera is better than a small flash on a big camera. I agree with the tripod. I don't practise it, but I agree with it. So, is there a really light, slim, stable, cheap tripod, or is it still the case that you can only have two of these? > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kev At least a monopod if not a tripod. Duncan >I agree with the tripod. I don't practise it, but I agree with it. So, is > there a really light, slim, stable, cheap tripod, or is it still the case [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Kev > I agree with the tripod. I don't practise it, but I agree with it. So, > is there a really light, slim, stable, cheap tripod, or is it still > the case that you can only have two of these? Well slim <> stable cheap <> stable I think that you can have light and stable with modern materials such as large diameter thinwall aluminium or carbon tubes, but weight really adds stability, especially when the wind is blowing. Just consider the tripod as important a piece of kit as a lens. You get what you pay for and everything is a compromise. I think the ideal tripod for stability outdoors is probably the surveyor's tripod, but you wouldn't want to carry one all day. In the studio you'd use a camera stand instead but they're not portable and very expensive. > I agree with the tripod. I don't practise it, but I agree with it. So, is > there a really light, slim, stable, cheap tripod, or is it still the case > that you can only have two of these? I am not sure you can even get two from your list at the same time. My tripod cost a fair bit and is heavy and fairly big, but fairly stable. A tripod is a tool that can greatly extend the conditions of when you can take photographs. But if you have enough light and you can keep your shutter speed fast enough a tripod and also just get in your way, keeping you from taking shots at the angles you might want to take or missing shots all together. Scott > I am not sure you can even get two from your list at the same time. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > keeping you from taking shots at the angles you might want to take or > missing shots all together. I think you're taking too much of a purist's perspective. Yes, a big, heavy tripod will be much more stable than a cheap, light one. But I can't ignore the many (hundreds or more) of messages where owners of cameras having IS practically swoon over how much the IS reduces blur due to camera movement. Several have said that IS is a "must have" feature and they'll never get a camera that lacks IS. Used properly, even the cheapest tripod should reduce camera movement to a greater degree than IS can, and also won't slow the shutter speed by several stops, increasing blur due to subject movement. As you note, tripods aren't perfect and have some minor drawbacks. Overcoming some of them might be possible if the photographer can install and use quick release plates, use a lightweight monopod, or learn to spot and use at-hand objects that can provide stable support. For the last, a bit of heavy cloth, foam, a soft hat or a small beanbag is easily carried and can protect the camera (and the object) as well as help prevent it from sliding on a slick or hard supporting object, such as a tree branch, bench, pole, fence, car fender, etc. ASAAR <caught@22.com> observed > I think you're taking too much of a purist's perspective. Yes, a >big, heavy tripod will be much more stable than a cheap, light one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >sliding on a slick or hard supporting object, such as a tree branch, >bench, pole, fence, car fender, etc. I'd like to say I agree entirely. For some 30 years I've carried a monopod. (Light-ish tripod in car, but not on say treks!) That has been a great help. Recently, I bought one of those IS cameras with an excellent system. Now of course, I am trying lots of 10x zoom at 1/30 sec exposure - Of course they're all blurry!! ;-) But it's still an excellent IS and has given me some shots I could otherwise have got. Yesterday in Chester Cathedral, I was getting interesting shots with the monopod held horizontally resting on a pew end. (I also have a nice beanbag, but it's about the same weight as the monopod!!) Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< My tripod is a fairly light, cheap (Centon) tripod and having recently looked through a pile of old photos it was apparent that this was better than no tripod at all for my landscape pics anyway! I am however considering upgrading to the Velbon Sherpa CF630 Pro together with a Kirk Ballhead BH-3, does anyone have any thoughts on this combination? Kevin >I agree with the tripod. I don't practise it, but I agree with it. So, is > there a really light, slim, stable, cheap tripod, or is it still the case [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Kev > My tripod is a fairly light, cheap (Centon) tripod and having recently > looked through a pile of old photos it was apparent that this was better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kevin If you are into shooting landscapes then I would highly recommend a good solid tripod with a panoramic head. If you are looking for sharp images then it is hard to beat taking a number of photos using a panoramic head and then stitching them together with software. What is neat about this is it is easy to scale to whatever resolution you want, you can stitch 3 photos together and turn get great looking 16MP images from an 8 MP camera. Or you can stitch a few more photos together and get well over 100MP image without much work at all. The way I figure it if I am going to the work of putting the camera on a tripod I might as well make full use of it and get a number of photos to stitch. Scott > My tripod is a fairly light, cheap (Centon) tripod and having recently > looked through a pile of old photos it was apparent that this was better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > together with a Kirk Ballhead BH-3, does anyone have any thoughts > on this combination? I'm not familiar with that tripod, so will leave others to comment on that. I do use one of the Kirk ball-heads though, and can recommend it. I use the Kirk on a lightweight Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod as my 'travelling light' option. For this it works very well indeed, and has stood up well to some fairly rough conditions over the last four or five years. The Kirk is not quite as smooth as my Arca Monoball, and obviously won't hold as much weight or damp vibration quite as fast. It also lacks the Arca's progressive damping which is a help when shooting with the head away from vertical. All of these seem a fair trade-off for the Kirk's very much lesser size and weight, and for use with 35mm and lenses not bigger than, say, a 300mm f4, I think it is a very good buy. My only real complaint with the head is that the adjustable friction control is annoyingly prone to loosen in transit. I might be able to fix that by slipping a spring onto the shaft of the adjusting knob, if I ever get round to it. I do recommend a quick release system (I use the Arca-Swiss system, with clamps and plates from a variety of manufacturers) and also suggest you look into an L-bracket - the RRS Arca-type one that I use is very good. Peter > I agree with the tripod. I don't practise it, but I agree with it. So, is > there a really light, slim, stable, cheap tripod, or is it still the case > that you can only have two of these? Monopods won't be as stable as decent tripods, but they're usually much lighter, slimmer and cheaper. I recently got an inexpensive Velbon RUP-43 4 section monopod. At less than 21" collapsed and just under 1 lb. it's quite portable. I tested it indoors in dim light, and the difference between using the monopod and handholding the camera was substantial. Sharp with, and quite blurred without, very noticeable even using the camera's low res. LCD display. Someone else has suggested handholding the camera with a light tripod or monopod attached, and that should also help, just as a lightweight camera is harder to hold as steady as a heavier one. >Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >1. Use a tripod where possible 99.9% of the time I don't use a tripod. There is a time and a place for a tripod. It depends on the photography you do. 1 Always shoot in RAW mode. (You can't always go back ) 2 A UV filter is always a lot cheaper than a lens. 3 one memory card or camera battery is never enough 3a Always fully charge batteries before going out 3b always clean out memory cards before going out. 4 Be aware of the environment...... wild life photographers have been shot a for taking pictures of the lesser spotted tit with the strategically important aircraft/bunker/bridge/tank/telephone exchange etc in the background. I took a picture of a very nice building in Brussels last week. The person next to me took the same shot 5 mins later and was held at gun point by three policemen whilst they erased his memory card... Don't take pictures of the policemen outside the mint when there is a delivery about to take place :-) Special duty police and military often don't like to be photographed. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > I've been think about this and my top tips for better photos would be; > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... 1. Get the focus right. Just about anything can be fixed in post, but not a mis-focused motive. 2. Make sure you get sufficient FOV for the motive. Just about anything can be fixed in post, but not blurry bits that were supposed to be sharp. 3. Avoid camera shake; keep shutter times within the limits imposed by your technique and equipment. Just about anything can be fixed in post, but not a blurry picture. > What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... > > Cheers > > Kev Photography at its best is intensely masochistic. Photography is about holding your mouth right. Photography is the acceptance of perpetual failure. Ron >> What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Photography at its best is intensely masochistic. > Photography is about holding your mouth right. Finally! Someone unafraid to speak the truth! > Photography is the acceptance of perpetual failure. > > Ron SignatureFrank ess "I can't sing, but I know how to, which is quite different." -- Noel Coward > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... 1/ Learn the basics: exposure, depth of field, camera shake, lighting ... and so on. 2/ Buy a decent camera and read and REREAD the manual. 3/ Take lots and lots of shots. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 1. Use a tripod where possible And get stupid posed sh.t. > 2. Take plenty of photos Because you have no idea what the f.ck you are doing > 3. Edit hard Because 99.9999% of your stuff will be sh.t > What would your top 3 tips be? Go on join in the debate... > > Cheers > > Kev > > Hi, > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Because 99.9999% of your stuff will be sh.t Right, go back to bed and don't come down until you've stopped being grumpy! :O)) SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ >> Because 99.9999% of your stuff will be sh.t > >Right, go back to bed and don't come down until you've stopped being >grumpy! He'd starve to death. SignatureAlex atheist #2007 > >> Because 99.9999% of your stuff will be sh.t > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Alex > atheist #2007 ah hah hah! :O) SignaturePaul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Because 99.9999% of your stuff will be sh.t National Geographic photogs shoot literally hundreds of rolls of film for an end result of 15-25 pictures in an article. Kinds puts your comments to shame, doesn't it? SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > National Geographic photogs shoot literally hundreds of rolls of film > for an end result of 15-25 pictures in an article. > Kinds puts your comments to shame, doesn't it? > -- > Bill Funk > replace "g" with "a" Hundreds of roles? Imagine the dust, ant stings, mosquito bites, rope burns, sunburn, frostbite etc. involved i |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message