Hello fellow snappers! I usually turn to the almighty Google when I have a question and need to better myself, but this one I think is more nuanced and requires some technical advise as well as opinions.
I am at a loss as to how to get the perfect exposure in my photos, particularly when it is the least bit bright out. I try to follow the rules of morning or evening outdoor shoots, but I still have trouble with overexposed and blown out images. Part of this is my own fault as I purposely shoot this way (I like high key stuff – anything else seems too “flat” for me). More light means more “pop”, but I also find the blown out portions distracting. Is there a way for me to have my cake and eat it too? Contrasty images perfectly exposed – any tips?
I shot this photo at dusk and it was much better b&w. In fact I like this pic, but am still learning photoshop (Using PS Elements 4.0 right now, but have a more advanced PS that I haven’t been brave enough to d/l yet).
What do I need to do to make it a better photo than it is or feel free to play around with it. Thanks for any tips, Julie.
There are those among us who think if you do anything to your photo after you take the picture then that’s cheating.
If one painter only has a dozen colors to work with and one has 64 colors
to begin with, are they cheating to use the extra colors they have available?
Do I cheat? Yes, I do and I’m proud of it. I will lighten eyes, darken skin, remove pimples, increase contrast, increase color saturation, and occasionally do something creative like this.
I create images to give an emotional response to the viewer. I consider Photoshop and other computer programs like it as tools of the trade. This argument is not something new. I remember when some argued that it was cheating to use filters, or electronic flash. The only thing that I consider cheating in photography, is when the photographer closes his or her mind and stops trying to be as creative as possible.
I have the 70-300 IS lens from Canon, but I would like to get closer to the action on the baseball field. Is it worth the money to step up? What would be the difference in distance I can cover?
Reply by Mel on March 14, 2009 at 5:16am
Personally, I do not think it would be worth addtional $$ for 100-400 when you already have good quality glass with 70-300. If your sole purpose is to get closer to action during baseball games…I would use a 1.4 or 2x Extender/Tc. There are drawbacks including losing an Fstop and problems with AF. Therefore if you are not good with manual focus, this may not be a good otion for you.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
I am sad. All the beautiful photos that make me love photography are fake. The photographer staged them all. Is photography fake?
Reply by Daniel Nahabedian on January 21, 2009 at 7:52pm
Well, I wouldn’t call it “fake”.
I myself have a few photoprojects concerning homeless people and poverty. I would not go shoot true homeless people or pay them to act the way I want them to for my shoot. I’d ask for my friends to help me do the scene.
Can someone tell me what are the advantages of using Raw vs JPG. I hear more people useing Raw and not sure why, I use Lightroom 2 and can adjust a jpg just as good as a raw file. What am I missing.
To be serious about stock photography I need white background photos (food shots, everyday objects and things like that). I have a soft box that came with a couple of tungsten lamps. The softbox is 16″ square, open in the front, white sides, and I velcro the background sheet to the inside. I set this up for the first time last night with the lamps aimed through the fabric on either side, and took some test shots. They’re terrible. The background is not white, but pink and shadowy, it looks like an interrogation room, I think the box may be too small to photograph an object as large as Indian corn (one of the things I shot), in short I need advice. If I need more lights how do I “blow out” the background in the box when the box is so small? Should I just forget the box and set up a background drape by itself and fix lights around it? There’s no need to load the test shots here, they look like I shot them with a polaroid camera on a grimy pillowcase in prison.
The tungsten lamps will need to be ditched – they smoke and smell after mere minutes and one doesn’t want to stay on. Cheap.
I need photos with that happy, clean, generic Steven Spielberg white in the background so all you see is that clean, evenly bright white behind the photo subject.
Shooting with White Background for Stock Photography
Posted by LorettaW on November 6, 2008 at 1:19am in DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY TECHNIQUES
Hey, I’m new to the forum. I had a photo accepted by BigStock right out of the box – a clear, crisp photo of the Manhattan Bridge, NYC (pretty dull photo, but still). Another photo taken near the bridge was first rejected for exposure problems, then when I fixed that with levels (gimp) it was rejected for lack of model release (I disagree the faces were recognizable – they were obscured, but I accept this). Now, two photos, one of Central Park, and one of a horse in its paddock, were rejected for being blurry when viewed at a larger size. They don’t appear blurry to me. I’m a new photographer but I have a decent grasp on basic composition, and my stuff looks like a lot of the other stuff on BigStock (not the popular selling photos, but others that are in the same category) I have a Canon Rebel XSI. I use auto most of the time.
Accepting they are blurry, what am I doing wrong? Snapping the shot prematurely? How can I be sure the photo is in focus before I snap? Again, I’ll have to rely on tips because these photos don’t look blurry to me on my computer. Anyhow, I don’t want to be killing my chances here with things like poor exposure, blurry photos, etc., which mean I’m not operating my camera properly! How can I be sure I’m taking clear photos while using the auto setting, until I get a grasp of the manual settings? Thanks so much.
Need photo quality control tips!
Posted by LorettaW on November 1, 2008 at 4:43am in DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY TECHNIQUES
Has anything replaced or come close to the Fuji f30 in regards to shooting quality at night without flash and without substantial noise?
Im am looking for a compact that will give me the best quality for the following situations:
- photographing at night without flash
- ornate fixtures, lamps, etc that are lit at night without additional lighting
- neon signs
- fireworks (not so frequently)
- at the beach
I know this is a tall order for a compact but would love some favorites and why… what are the best compacts these days for both day and night shooting?
Nikon d40x camera, Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikor, 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G EDII lens. Been reading the manual and taking photos as I go along. Last night decided to take some night photos using manual settinngs. Set the camera to (S) shuttler priority and let the camera take care of the rest. No matter what timeframe I used I always got “Subject is too dark” on the LCD. Tried (A) aperature and (M) manual and got the same things, no matter what settings I used. The only way I could take anything (except of course Auto) was to use (P) programand let the camera make all the decisions. Very frustrating. The strange thing is that when I looked at the specs for the pictures taken it was using settings I had tried manually.
Does anyone have any ideas what’s going on, what I was doing wrong, how, if possible I can disable the “warning” messages so I can take a picture no matter what, etc. Any help would be greatly appreciated. (’bout getting ready to go back to my good ‘ol 35). Thanks.
Newbie – Nighttime photography
Posted by Jeff on July 14, 2008 at 1:39am in DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY TECHNIQUES