I have an old but good Canon Powershot G16 with various modes up to full manual mode. Most of the time is used when out hill-walking or on holiday sightseeing
I use it in P mode but sometimes play with Tv and Av modes and the exposure compensation if it's very bright. I want to learn to how to take better photos in terms of composition and also understanding f2.2, ISO twelvtyhundred etc. etc.
Can anyone recommend any good online resources to use at my own pace? Or YT videos?
thanks
The bit they don't tell you is that the overwhelming reason why my photos look they way they do is because of the editing. My conspiracy theory is that this is because there isnt much money to be made here as adobe's practually got it all sown up with Lightroom and Photoshop. Whereas you can make a bunch of money selling lenses and cameras. So, get good with lightroom and photoshop for a start - YT is a great source for tutorials here.
Settings etc depends alot on what you want to shoot. Baseline settings and approach to tweaking them will vary alot from landscape to wildlife to street
I don't do any editing, I just want to improve the photos I take.
When I started taking wildlife photos I book a day with a wildlife photographer and got him to teach me the rudiments.
Could you do something similar with someone who specialised in landscape photography?
The first thing you need to understand about is composition – there will be a million guides out there, but here's one I found that does a good job at (mostly) simplifying the process. Essentially, when you look through the viewfinder/at the screen, take time to look at what you have framed – is it in the centre? Straight away, that is often (but not always) considered a poor choice – move the camera around, get a different viewpoint, add foreground detail, simplify the shot.
Look at lots of other peoples work, read all the advice, then just go out and do exactly what pleases you and ignore everyone. I quite like casual photos, usually with a family member of mine doing something fun or odd, and invariably they will be facing away from me. They will not be horizontal, prob not in focus, or exposed correctly. Indeed it may even be hard to spot them at all. But as a record of a fun moment, they work for me.
The bit they don't tell you is that the overwhelming reason why my photos look they way they do is because of the editing
This is so true. The joy to me is being out there taking pics and being in the moment, of spotting something and capturing it, or being outside. And the frustration is that to get what others (yes, I know I shouldn't listen or compare with others...) perceive as "good" pictures you then need to spend time in front of screen editing it.
I used to work as a photographer many years ago and there are a couple of things that I think are useful. The first is that most people look just at the centre of the image they are composing, look in the corners. The second thing is something that's completely reversed with camera phones. TURN THE BLOODY THING THE OTHER WAY NOT EVERYTHING IS LANDCAPE - you are using a camera TURN THE BLOODY THING THE OTHER WAY NOT EVERYTHING IS PORTRAIT - phone.
In some ways digital photography has made it easier to learn but because the auto features have come on so much it's very easy to let the camera do everything. Shooting in manual could be useful and don't take too many repeat shots, imagine it's expensive film and when you view the results look at at what settings you used for each shot and how a change to any of those settings might have improved it. A lot easier now with all the detail captured with the image, certainly better than the notebook method I was using 40 plus years ago.
One other thing is does your camera have a viewfinder? Personally I find composition so much easier tan on a rear screen but that might just be because I'm old and learnt when it was the only way
Read/learn some basics, then just pick a subject and get shooting. You'll be more inclined to do it if you're interested in it rather than trying to copy some YT tutorial for how to create a certain portrait style with an apple if you've no interest in portraiture, and the skill will have no transferability to any other subjects.
Shoot the same landscape, corner at a bike race, traffic on a road, building, still life, whatever it is, keep shooting until you've explored every variable (or just the one you've chosen to focus on). e.g. shoot a big stately home, but spend some time considering the exposure and sensitivity to get the sky, shadows, trees etc how you like them. Then go shoot a statue and play with DoF. Then motion blur with your kids on a swing/roundabout/meri-go-round.
In some ways digital photography has made it easier to learn but because the auto features have come on so much it's very easy to let the camera do everything. Shooting in manual could be useful and don't take too many repeat shots, imagine it's expensive film and when you view the results look at at what settings you used for each shot and how a change to any of those settings might have improved it. A lot easier now with all the detail captured with the image, certainly better than the notebook method I was using 40 plus years ago.
I'd partially agree with that, do teach yourself to be cautious in pressing the shutter, if you're only 90% happy when you press it, then that only goes down looking at the image afterwards. The closer to happy you are when you press the shutter the better it'll look later.
On the other hand, take lots of photos, look at them on a big screen ASAP, get them in lightroom/ACDSee and look at the shadows/highlights to see how the details been preserved (or not) and learn how your camera is interpreting what you see.
I don't do any editing, I just want to improve the photos I take.
The difference between editing and post processing. Post processing is closing the feedback loop on your camera work. It's tweaking the settings, cropping the image, adjusting the histograms, and then you'll learn to be closer to the optimal next time you use the camera.
I just want to improve the photos I take.
this is literally what editing does 😀
And its worth pointing out it has always been this way. The photo is made in the darkroom (or lightrrom)
Try film or even glass plates... Then marvel in not only the lack of talent but the empty bank accound.
I made an edit that didn't save.
Try shooting in black and white. That will learn you about highlights and shade and contrast.
Read about composition, read about exposure.
Go out. Slow down take your time, walk around, think about leading lines, foreground, back ground, edges, what to include, what to exclude.
Then edit it. Shoot in raw so you get more editing potential, I watched a good video on f stoppers about editing landscapes so they're darker in the front lighter at the back.
Then realise that 2 kids and limited time means back garden safari and macro is where you want to go.
I want to learn to how to take better photos in terms of composition
Generally the rule of thirds isn't a bad starting point. And look for leading lines that draw the eye to something interesting
I don't do any editing, I just want to improve the photos I take.
If you take photos as JPGs rather than RAW then your photos are already edited - you are just not the one in control! The #nofilterrequired hashtag on smartphone photos makes me chuckle - anything out of the smartphone (unless you turn the RAW/pro mode on) is filtered to ****!
Some swift thoughts
- Shoot in RAW and edit. I know you don't, but you need to. If you are trying to compare what you are doing and using stuff you have seen others take as a benchmark and you are not playing with them in lightroom of similar you are on a hiding to nothing. It has always been part of the process.
- Shoot loads and discard most when you get home. like 95% of them. Find something you like and think has possibilities and take 20,30,40 photos....and keep one...and then only if you like it. Mess around with settings, tiny changes of composition, wait for some cloud, wait for some sun - you get the picture.
- Do it on your own. I HATE trying to do some photography with other people in tow. You'll feel under pressure to get on with it and they'll think you are ruining a good walk/ride. It's a solo activity imo.
- It might well **** up your day. You wanted to go out in the middle of the day - think again. Golden hour is your friend. The middle of the day with a cloudless sky, like just how you like it for your ride/walk, will make the suckiest photos - basically wasting your time.
- The best shot will never (hardly ever) be from the path you were on at human eyeball height. Be prepared to look like a mentalist walking in anything other than a straight line and bending down or spinning around like a loon. Only you are not a mentalist or a loon - you are not randomly running around- you've learnt to think and anticipate what it might look like from over there...."If I go to the other side of this field that tree will now be in frame but on the right and I'll be able to see the hill top.
- Rule of Thirds. Like all rules it's there to be broken but you could do a lot worse than use it as your default starting point.
- Foreground, middle ground, background. Just keep on saying it. A shot of a mountain taken across a loch will look immeasurably better if you compose it with a stone or two sticking out of the water in the foreground. etc etc.
- Subject separation - your main focal point will (normally) look waaaay better if it's not muddled up with what's behind it. Move around so the background is clear or at least uniform. Or try to arrange everything so there is a significant distance between it and the next object behind. Top tip....sometimes stepping right back away from a thing/person and then zooming back in will reduce your field of view and cut out distraction background objects.
- Humans are stupid. Give the viewer of your image a handrail - lining shit up. or a natural line leading the eye to the focal point can really help. A stone wall that leads the eye to the tree that's the star just makes the tree look better - couldn't tell you why.
- Consider the direction of the light source. You don't have to always have the light behind you but it's a really important part of the composition. It creates shadows (good and bad) and highlights (good and bad). In a studio you can move the light sources - in the wild you have to do the moving.
- Consider when the light source will where you need it. I live next to an amazing river in a deep gorge. to have sunset golden hour sunlight streaming down it only happens a couple of weeks year. That's extreme - but thinking about when the light might look best on that favourite tree on your ride and going back at the right time is when the magic happens.
- Consider a tripod. Or monopod. Yes, you can use it to take photos at much slower shutter speeds which is great in low light or dicking about with moving water. But it also slows you the **** down and makes you think. And that's good.
- No one in the history of photography has said "I just wish this composition was a bit more cluttered!". Consider a bit of discrete 'gardening' - moving the odd stone or fallen stick or traffic cone so your main subject is not fighting noise is not 'really' cheating.
- Consider sometimes giving yourself a challenge when you go out instead of just wombling about with a camera in your hand and hoping for inspiration. Below is something I just got Copilot to write as an example but I think I'm going to go out tomorrow and give it a go! It genuinely will make you more observational and that's a good long way to better at photography.
The prompt - "set me a photography challenge to take 3 photographs as I walk the country lane I live on."
1. The Invitation (Wide Shot)
Goal: Capture a photo that draws the viewer into the lane.
- Look for leading lines (the road, hedgerows, fences)
- Shoot from a slightly lower or higher perspective than eye level
- Include depth: foreground + midground + background
- Bonus: wait for a moment—light breaking through clouds, a figure in the distance, wind in trees
👉 Think: “Would this image make someone want to walk this lane?”
2. The Detail (Close-Up)
Goal: Show something most people would walk past.
- Zoom in on texture or small subjects: cracked tarmac, moss on a wall, wildflowers, rust
- Use a wide aperture (if possible) to blur the background
- Focus on light and shadow, not just the object itself
👉 Think: “What’s the hidden character of this place?”
3. The Story (Human Touch or Change)
Goal: Capture evidence of life or change.
- This could be:
- A gate left ajar
- Tyre tracks, footprints, or tools
- A house partially obscured by trees
- Someone, or even just something recently used
- Frame it so it raises questions rather than answers them
👉 Think: “What just happened here—or what’s about to?”
🎯 Optional Twist
Try to make all three images feel connected:
- Same colour palette
- Same direction of light
- Or a subtle narrative progression (wide → detail → story)
My two penne'orth:
Hey! That's a nice little camera, the G16. As I recall I took one of it's predecessors (the G10 I think) away with me when I did some rough and ready work in some highly inhospitable places - the camera survived and took some cracking shots, I hope you enjoy yours as much as I enjoyed mine!
A thought relevant to your post, you asked "I want to learn to how to take better photos in terms of composition and also understanding f2.2, ISO twelvtyhundred etc." - this is three different, but related items.
If you break the task down into the component parts (Understand composition, Understand f-stop, Understand ISO settings) you are likely to ease your journey to gaining the knowledge you seek. I would also suggest that you should add to wanting to learn about f-stop, wanting to learn about depth of field.
A useful place to start reading could be Adobe's introduction to photography here
Some really good entry level stuff on Mike Browne's Youtube channel - his older videos, in particular, from around 13 years ago - are best. Simple, unpretentious stuff, gets right into the basics, without fluff. These really helped get me started. He's a naturally good teacher.
My tuppence worth: Subject, lighting, composition - in that order - that's basically all photography boils down to.
Some examples from Mike's channel below:
What convert said.
Shoot in RAW, then practice manipulating the images yourself instead of relying on default settings. Learn about apertures, f-stops, and depth of field. Set your camera to manual mode and try different combinations of settings - bracket each photo with different aperture and shutter speed settings. Ideally, the RAW image will be very close to the final image that you intended to take.
Some excellent advice so far I’ll add a few thoughts.
A huge variable is when you take the picture. The best landscapes have the right light and clouds. Usually the light is better at the ends of the day when the sun is lower in the sky.
I read that a good target for a landscape photographer is one good photo a month. It’s really really that hard.
I was by lucky to be mentored, via a forum, by a guy called John, he’s a lakes fell runner. It really helps when some one else tells you what they see in one of your photographs. It also helps to critique other peoples work. It would be worth starting a thread where you post some photos and ask people what they see.
A really great bit advice from John was that photography is like everything else, hard work really makes a difference. Get out at the right time. Get feed back, read books, look at great photos. Take care with editing. He said so often. “Yes the editing takes time. Edit one photo really well , not lots badly.” Learning editing comes in too stages. Stage one learning the tools. Stage two learning what you want the picture to look like
An example of this was a holiday i took in Northumberland. One evening the light was incredible, the tide was just right with big waves. The next day i talked to a couple covered in cameras. They’d missed the whole thing as they were in turn pub
With the G16 there isn’t much to learn on the technical side. Those small sensors have huge depth of field at any aperture. Shoot RAW. Focus about 1/3 of the way into the image. Use exposure compensation to just preserve the highlights. Boost the iso if the shutter speed is too low to prevent blurring. With landscapes you can slowly plod through this checking as you go.
i think this video covers lots of good advice
A huge variable is when you take the picture. The best landscapes have the right light and clouds. Usually the light is better at the ends of the day when the sun is lower in the sky.
If you have the patience, then I totally agree – the identical photograph taken at different times of day, year, weather etc will look completely different. Ansel Adams famously would wait for hours, days, years to get exactly the shot he wanted to capture. Just don't get as obsessive as him with his mathematical formulae for getting the correct exposure based on the lighting at the time.
Ansel Adams famously would wait for hours, days, years to get exactly the shot he wanted to capture.
Yeah but his complex exposure calcs werent about getting the "perfectly exposed out of the camera shot" it was about maximising the exposure and the developing process to get the most detail allowing him to make the epic landscapes pop in the final article.
Not sure its quite so critical to follow the zone system with a digital sensor.
Yeah but his complex exposure calcs werent about getting the "perfectly exposed out of the camera shot" it was about maximising the exposure and the developing process to get the most detail allowing him to make the epic landscapes pop in the final article.
Yes I know – I have tried, successfully to a degree, to use the technique (I did my final project at Art College on him). I just couldn't be bothered to go into such a level of detail in my post 🙂
Most of my Art College photography was inspired by him, alongside Edward and Brett Weston.
Yeah but his complex exposure calcs werent about getting the "perfectly exposed out of the camera shot" it was about maximising the exposure and the developing process to get the most detail allowing him to make the epic landscapes pop in the final article.
Yes I know – I have tried, successfully to a degree, to use the technique (I did my final project at Art College on him). I just couldn't be bothered to go into such a level of detail in my post 🙂
Most of my Art College photography was inspired by him, alongside Edward and Brett Weston.
Yeah i assumed you knew. I was just trying to differentiate for others he wasn't sitting there waiting for the perfect exposure he was sitting there waiting for the perfect image and then calculating the perfect exposure to recreate that perfect image.
In terms of composition I try and think of the photo as a story - what am I trying to show with this photo? And then make sure that is the main subject.
E.g If you're taking a picture of a bike - fill the image with predominantly the bike, shoot the bike with perspective to draw in the eye, crouch down so the bike is from a more interesting angle, find an uncluttered background, shoot with an F-number that blurs the background etc.
he was sitting there waiting for the perfect image and then calculating the perfect exposure to recreate that perfect image.
Then under/over-developing in the darkroom to maximise the detail depending on the measurements taken at the time the shot was taken.
Years ago I went out with Colin Prior for a weekend (it was a birthday present)
I found that good for consolidating my knowledge. I had a few light bulb moments as I joined the dots.
Landscapes, don't forget the telephoto end. The overall scene may be uninspiring but elements within may be more dramatic.
he was sitting there waiting for the perfect image and then calculating the perfect exposure to recreate that perfect image.
Then under/over-developing in the darkroom to maximise the detail depending on the measurements taken at the time the shot was taken.
Yeah the theory all makes sense, i look up from the page and think "**** that... Effort"
Yeah the theory all makes sense, i look up from the page and think "**** that... Effort"
Agreed LOL. As I said, I did it at Art College, but never since. I still want to see Yosemite for myself though.
Not sure its quite so critical to follow the zone system with a digital sensor.
It's basically just looing at the histograms isn't it? Making sure that what you capture is as close as possible to filling the whole histogram evenly without spilling out beyond the cameras sensitivity range. Zone 0 would-be everything off the histogram to the left, zone 11 is everything off the chart to the right.
A bit like HDR, but without the crutch of having photoshop do it all for you with composites.
Not sure its quite so critical to follow the zone system with a digital sensor.
It's basically just looing at the histograms isn't it? Making sure that what you capture is as close as possible to filling the whole histogram evenly without spilling out beyond the cameras sensitivity range. Zone 0 would-be everything off the histogram to the left, zone 11 is everything off the chart to the right.
A bit like HDR, but without the crutch of having photoshop do it all for you with composites.
A bit.
But emulsion has a relatively narrow band of range.
It complicated. You have to identify the shaddow detail you want to prioritise. You have to visaulise where you want to place that in the final photo you expose for that shaddow. Then you adjust development either tame the highlights if they are blown in a contrasty scene or boost them by over developing if ots a flat scene (which you have to decide at the time.
Its totally based on each photo though so effectively unless you have a large format or some other single exposure camera you can't really do it.
Wot, you meanz there's no masking and tweaking layers?
This guy's channel is very much focused on the fundamentals of seeing and composition. Hopefully some of it will help.
Wot, you meanz there's no masking and tweaking layers?
There kind of was. He would have projected the negative onto card and then drawn lines where he wanted divide the image into zones. He would have then cut along the lines to create card templates. So different parts of the final print could be exposed separately. I think with multi grade paper different areas could also have different contrast. Or the contrast could be tweaked by with the heat of your hands in the developer
I was trying to be facetious. Ever since I did my module in photography at school and I got to experience the magic of a print appearing in a dark room I've always wanted to gety own set up. Maybe when I retire.
For now, I'll have to stick to the lightroom.
I was trying to be facetious. Ever since I did my module in photography at school and I got to experience the magic of a print appearing in a dark room I've always wanted to gety own set up. Maybe when I retire.
For now, I'll have to stick to the lightroom.
Now is the time..equipment is readily available and bloody cheap.
The only bit that isn't cheap is the film!
I could nip up to the attic and grab out my old eos and use the same lenses. Time is the issue.
Thanks - lots to think about.
I'm really not keen on doing editing. I already spend a stupid amount of time on a computer every week for work and I don't have a personal computer, just a Samsung tablet. I want to improve my photos and try to enjoy it, not turn it into an unsatisfactory hobby that frustrates me.
I'm really not keen on doing editing.
Just for clarity. Editing doesn't mean going full tilt photo shop.
It could just be "take a picture you like" and "tweak it" could be 5 minutes and you only do it with the photos you see something in.
I would give it a try before you dismiss ot. Lightroom app on a phone and just spend 5 minutes on the toilet. Take a raw photo on a phone to use (some settings allow a raw file plus a jpeg) try and make the main thing stand out.
If you really don't want to you can still play with composition and depth of field using manual settings and you can definitely still play with exposure its just kinda reduced in useful ness when the camera edits the photo for you and muddies underexposed photos to try and compensate.
Try black and white ( as in take black and white ohotos not turn a colour photo black and white) look in terms of light and shade try taking a photo of a rainbow in black and white...
If you don’t have a computer, how are you storing and viewing the photos? via the screen on the back of the camera?
If you don’t have a computer, how are you storing and viewing the photos? via the screen on the back of the camera?
Probably the tablet?
I would just focus on the things that interest you.
Sure a bit of editing might improve things, but practice on the basics and improving that aspect will still be a worthwhile exercise.
No point being a whizz at editing photos if you can't get the composition mostly correct in the first place.
I am not as much into photography as I used to be, but I used to spend quite a lot of time with my camera as a hobby. I would go to motorsport days (BSB, BTCC etc.), specific photography days with Wild Arena doing bird or big cat photography and drive my Wife mad lugging my SLR around with me on days out.
I got some pics I was very happy with & even edited a few of them, but never bothered with RAW. You can still get good results with JPEG & then once you have progressed with the physical act of photography you can then maybe think about whether you want to introduce some level of editing.
Composition, lighting, lead-lines, foreground, background etc. can all be done with the camera in your hand and doing without getting bogged down in the editing side of stuff.
I am currently mainly using my camera for getting photos of my daughter's football exploits. The SLR and a half-decent zoom knocks phone pics out of the park.
There is a big learning curve in doing this; where to stand, who to follow with the camera, where the ball might be going next, how to get uncluttered images, how the light is changing, capturing the mood of a game, ensuring good focus, panning, level horizons etc.
And that learning curve will apply across whatever aspect of photography you are interested in.
If you don’t have a computer, how are you storing and viewing the photos? via the screen on the back of the camera?
I have a USB-C SD card reader - connect to my phone or tablet, copy jpg locally, then synch to Google storage. My G16 does have WiFi and can use the Canon app but it is incredibly slow so I just copy directly.
I have a USB-C SD card reader - connect to my phone or tablet, copy jpg locally, then synch to Google storage. My G16 does have WiFi and can use the Canon app but it is incredibly slow so I just copy directly.
And what happens to them after that? Physically printed, put on social media, shared electronically with family or popped in an virtual filing cabinet never to be seen again?
As transferring to your tablet is already part of your 'workflow' it really wouldn't hurt to download yourself a (free) version of the lightroom app it import them in by, organise into albums, delete the dross and then.....a bit of tweaking.
IF you took the photo on a nice ride/walk or at a nice place with a bit of a change of mindset you can think of the tweaking (trying not to use the word editing!) time as time actually looking at the photos of the nice place/thing rather than a chore.
Nice thing about lightroom is it's non destructive - the photo remains intact. So you can tweak it a bit as time allows and if you are not happy or not happy it's no biggie - the original photo is still there. Or you can carry on again when you have time. You can do it in front of the telly, on the train, whilst listening to an audiobook.
Try it - or at least give it a bit of a go.
My take on this is that editing is absolutely essential. Unless you want the camera to try and do it for you in the form of a jpeg, which I’m happy for it to do when taking snaps on a phone.
All the stuff about composition, directional light, balance, subject separation is really important, but so is editing. A camera is just a light recorder: it metres the scene looking at the highlights and shadows and determines an exposure (shutter speed) which averages these tones out. The resulting photograph is disappointing because it doesn’t reflect what you saw e.g. a sky that’s too bright and a foreground that’s too dark.
It also tries to work out white balance and frequently messes this up e.g. a strong green colour cast when photographing a forest.
Once this is baked into a jpeg, there’s not much you can do. With a RAW file however, you can mask off the sky, drop the highlights to bring detail into the clouds. You can mask the foreground and increase shadow to bring back the details. Then you can sort out the messy white balance.
This isn’t image manipulation. It’s essential editing and has been done since the dawn of photography. It doesn’t have to be difficult, sometimes a minute or two. You can usually copy the settings and apply them to the other photos e.g. using Lightroom.
The other thing about editing is you can have presets both user defined or ready made. You don't lose the ability to just "make the photo nice"
Which i now realise north of the border just said.
Thank go for edits 🤣
