Forum menu
I couldn't justify the cost of a full frame DSLR, but I picked up a top notch film camera and lens for less than £100, It means I can get nice wide angle shots, and I don't have to worry too much about damaging a grands worth of kit. It focuses your mind on setting up the shots properlly, and you learn a lot more about the process too.. Just an alternative approach.
Just uploaded a couple - let the ripping begin..
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
I like em 🙂
but I'd have straightened the verticals in the first and cropped out the top featureless bit in the last
, and I don't have to worry too much about damaging a grands worth of kit.
insurance 🙂
It focuses your mind on setting up the shots properlly, and you learn a lot more about the process too
it seems to me I've learned much more from taking a shitload more photos than I ever could have with film!
thanks simon - i hate straightening things as it blurs it slightly..
agreed about the last although at full size there is a nice redness to the sky
First pic: Framing includes too much extraneous detail. Would be better if you framed it up just so you had the two air ducts, with the feller sitting beneath. Less is more. Would be stronger in black and white too, I think.
Second one: Conversely might have worked better in colour, I imagine the light reflected from the walls would have lent it a lovely hue. Might have been stronger by framing things centrally and using the symmetry of the two windows. Maybe a wider angle lens to accentuate/distort the perspective.
Third one: Turn the camera to the left just a bit, so the church is just a little more off to one side, and the bit of left hand building formed a 'v' with the top edge of the arch bit. Lightings a bit flat, polarising filter may have darkened the blue sky just a tad, and lent a little more contrast to the scene.
Fourth one: Too much boring sky. It's too dark to really see any detail. The focus of interest is the little square the cars are driving round. Maybe zooming right in on just the crossroads on the left would have created an abstract image with the blur.
That's just my subjective opinion. But I'll tell you one thing; a new camera would not have improved any of those shots. Only you can.
One bit of kit that can really help to learn how to frame images better is simply two L-shaped bits of card, that you can move about to find the best crop.
Cost: free.
couple more
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Nice pics, Justa. I wouldn't argue with most of the comments by SfB and elfinsafety. The mono shot I love, and in colour might work a bit better, but I really like it as is. The shot of Bath Abbey would benefit from a polariser, but could be tweaked in Photoshop a bit using curves and selective colour to increase contrast a tad and darken the sky, but I wouldn't fret about it. Judicious cropping would benefit them more, though Henri Cartier Bresson would have a calf at the thought. He always framed in camera exactly as he wanted the picture, and would never allow a picture to be cropped. Nice idea to aspire to, but not always practical, although I try to frame my pics in camera, to avoid phaffing around with PS.
Both nice. Top one maybe underexpose to make the 'Jesus' stand out more. Bottom one the lighting's a bit flat again, and again maybe a polariser would add a bit more contrast and saturate the colours more. Focus seems just a little soft.
Elfinsafety - MemberNight class all the way. Buying a new camera won't help you take better pictures, but sharing ideas and techniques with others will help you expand your own ideas further and learn new ways of seeing.
What he said, the [b][i]seeing[/i][/b] bit being the most important by far
Judicious cropping would benefit them more, though Henri Cartier Bresson would have a calf at the thought. He always framed in camera exactly as he wanted the picture, and would never allow a picture to be cropped. Nice idea to aspire to, but not always practical, although I try to frame my pics in camera, to avoid phaffing around with PS
Learning how to crop in camera is the way to go, but the two L-shapes I told you about can help to look at your existing pics in a new way. Don't worry about achieving instant perfection, but look to make small improvements all the time.
i hate straightening things as it blurs it slightly..
really ? Your eyes must be better than mine. I nearly always have to straighten as I'm incapable of holding the camera level, perhaps due to astigmatism...
Nice idea to aspire to, but not always practical,
[b]IF[/b] you always want your pictures to be the same shape...
Look at the work of other photographers. Check out your local library, and of course the internet is the perfect resource. [url= http://artblart.wordpress.com/2009/09/ ]Websites like this one[/url] are good for looking at a wide range of styles.
First things first if you feel you need lessons then go ahead but
also buy a couple of photography books with hints and tips and
go and use your camera and see if you need a new camera then good.
Ive gone through all formats even down to my medium format, so unless
your blowing past the A3 picture most good cameras will give a good
acceptable A4 print.
I recently bought a Canon G11 and is a blinding pro compact and so
easy to use, anyone can pick it up and take a pic.
this is down to the simple to use top plate, and has good features
I bought this for £ 347.00p off of the e-bay shop Digi-Good site all brand new and boxed.
I have the G11 in my camel back when riding and gone over the bars a few
times and stll all ok.
There are a couple on here with the Panasonic GF1 with its new Two Thirds
sensor. The Canon G11 matches the image quality upto ISO 200 then the GF1
beats it being the sensor is bigger than the G11
But you do get a good A3 pic from the G11 upto ISO 200.
Only draw back you may find is the cost of buying lenses for the GF1 and you dont have a movable screen and the optional view finder costs around £ 200 notes, other than that the GF1 is a good camera.
Do note that the G11 view finder is small and you do see the top of the
lens barrel, but has not caused me any problems.
.
Learning how to crop in camera is the way to go
is that a joke ? I suppose right enough you don't want to include more width or height than necessary, but I rarely find the shape of the sensor matches the subject matter.
simonfbarnes - Member
Learning how to crop in camera is the way to go
is that a joke ? I suppose right enough you don't want to include more width or height than necessary, but I rarely find the shape of the sensor matches the subject matter.
What he said.
Lovely shots justa. I disagree that a better camera wouldn't improve at least one of them though. I love the mono shot in the first batch, apart from the light through the arches looks extremely burned out - adjusting manual settings on a DSLR can improve or eliminate that.
Nice shots though.
adjusting manual
settings on a DSLR can improve or eliminate that
Good compacts, like the G11, have full manual settings as well - so he doesn't need a DSLR for that.
However a DSLR would usually offer a better sensor with a larger dynamic range, meaning it can cope slightly better with highlights like that especially when shooting RAW.
Learning how to crop in camera is the way to gois that a joke ?
Hmm, no I don't think it is. It's very hard to actually do, granted, but it don't half save a LOT of time on the computer, and if nothing else it worth it for that!
Personally, I'm trying to get to a point where I'm as close as I can be to the ideal shot straight off the camera, for a couple of reasons - One, it's a challenge, and I think I'm improving as a result of it.
And two, I've just been asked to be 'official' photographer at an event for the second time, and if you've not done it, getting 500+ images renumbered and uploaded so people can find themselves in the set easily takes a lot of time! And even sending out the 40-50 pics I sold last time takes even more time when you don't have a website to do it automatically for you. So the closer I get to no editing off the camera, the better it is. 🙂
but it don't half save a LOT of time on the computer
only if you're in the Cartier-Bresson "all the same shape" school. I don't. Cropping is easy and quick on a computer
A couple of years ago I was snapping away at La Vuelta and got chatting to a pro photographer. He said that he had met Graham Watson a couple of times, he said that Waston was a nice enough guy, but you shouldn't, under any circumstances, criticise his work. Apparently he goes ballistic.
Funny people, photographers.
So the closer I get to no editing off the camera, the better it is
but you're talking about dragging photography down to a commodity, not raising the bar...
No fair point a picture doesn't have to conform to any specific dimensions, but the point was that people like HCB used the entire frame available to them. He didn't then go and cut bits out to strengthen a weak picture.
You can frame a picture however you like. It's just that the standard portrait and landscape formats have become accepted as the convention in art. Medium format cameras like Hasselblads shoot square images, but photographers still often crop the images to a rectangular format. Nothing wrong with going against convention though, no-ones stopping you. But as PeterPoddy says, it's much harder to get things right in camera, than sort them out after. There's also nothing wrong in using Photoshop etc to do things to a picture, but I think if you need to do that to improve weak pictures, then your photographic skills maybe aren't up to much.
Developments in software have made panoramic images much more attainable. Such images were only previously possible using very expensive specialist cameras. Cropping standard images meant that they had to be blown up much larger than they would normally, and therefore not have the same degree of quality. Stitching software allows us to shoot several pictures to form one large narrow panorama. So, that format is becoming more popular and 'accepted'.
but the point was that people like HCB used the entire frame available to them. He didn't then go and cut bits out to strengthen a weak picture.
you have that backwards. Any sensor/film mask is a compromise and of course unrelated to the subject matter. Even having it as a rectangle and not some other shape is purely a convention based on expediency.
Well whatever Simonfbarnes.
I don't really see what your point is, other than to challenge the conventions that photography and art in general has established throughout Human history. There's nothing wrong with challenging conventions. If you want to produce star-shaped pictures or whatever, go ahead. No-one's stopping you. HCB used the medium he had available to him to great effect. His philosophy of a picture 'happening' in a fraction of a second is evident in his work, and he is recognised as the master of capturing the 'moment'. I merely used HCB as an example to try to help the OP. You seem to be more intent on arguing the toss over something that isn't even really all that relevant.
I see a lot of current photography either being ruined by overuse of nasty effects such as HDR, or weak pictures being enhanced with judicious cropping and loads of Photoshop etc. I'm more a fan of the simple image as it's initially captured. I've nothing against new techniques at all, but I think there are very few people using them to any great effect. There's an awful lot of buffed shit out there.
You seem to be more intent on arguing the toss over something that isn't even really all that relevant
no, I'm saying things aren't always best portrayed in whatever shaped rectangle the camera produces, and that trying to force them to fit isn't necessarily useful.
or weak pictures being enhanced with judicious cropping
it's a ridiculous idea to suggest that a picture or scene is "weak" because it doesn't fit some shape
Elfinsafety - for someone who apparently knows so much about photography, I don't think I've ever seen you post any pics? 😛
if you are just taking travel pics and posting them on flickr then stick with your current camera and spend the money on travel.
unless you need the fast AF and short shutter delay for action you don't need a dslr.
i would ignore the aesthetic advice on here and take images that float your boat.
no, I'm saying things aren't always best portrayed in whatever shaped rectangle the camera produces
HCBs pictures were. I think that's generally accepted amongst those who appreciate photography. Maybe other people's work doesn't.
no, I'm saying things aren't always best portrayed in whatever shaped rectangle the camera produces
You misunderstand. I suggested that in my opinion, two of the OP's pictures could be improved by better framing. That's just constructive criticism, not saying he/she had to make their pictures 'fit a shape'.
Go and have a cup of tea and calm down.
Elfinsafety - for someone who apparently knows so much about photography, I don't think I've ever seen you post any pics?
I'm just trying to give advice based on my own experience and what I've learned from others. I don't claim to be any sort of authority on the matter.
To post pics I'd need a photo sharing account thingy, and tbh I can't be arsed with all the hassle.
I think that's generally accepted amongst those who appreciate photography
except different cameras produce different shapes, 1:1, 3:2, 4:3 etc etc. Which one is "right" ??
in the begining, when people attempted representational art, they used a the surface of a cave wall or a natural object like bone, stick or stone, yet their works often have great power and are not weakened by the absence of a frame. Later on when paper, canvas or boards were used, it was a purely practical matter to use a rectanglar shape, not related to artistic merit. The eye performs a real-time arbitrarily shaped cropping depending on attention...
slightly on topic. how are you getting on with photoshop SFB?
have you embraced it's failings and lack of usability or written your own program due to your frustration with it's lack of rational UI?
(Giggles)
how are you getting on with photoshop SFB?
I'm using it all the time now, with my misgivings on hold, though still present. For such an expensive program so many things don't work well. For instance, I created a button bar (panel in Adobe-speak), and every 3rd time I invoke the program it forgets how wide I set it and gets 3 times wider. It never seems to give up any memory it allocates, so after using it for a few hours it'll have 3GB even with no images loaded 🙁 I still don't understand how copy&paste works as it often has no visible effect at all unless you use "copy merged" or "paste special..."
I believe I could write some UI stuff as it supports ActionScript but I got bored with the copious documentation. The underlying tools are good. If it cost under £100 I would have few complaints.
To post pics I'd need a photo sharing account thingy, and tbh I can't be arsed with all the hassle
wrong: www.tinypic.com
so after using it for a few hours it'll have 3GB even with no images loaded
you need to 'purge'
you need to 'purge'
for £600+ I'd like that to be automatic...
Oh, and I wonder how long it will take me to find out how to "purge" in the eccentric "help" system ?
it's in the edit menu about 2/3 way down.
there is probably a shortcut but as i have never had to use it (lots of ram and dedicated scratch disk) i don't know it.
obviously be aware of not purging history as well as caches if you need to maintain your history states. no idea if it will delete a snapshot? it shouldn't do. this would be a good way of clearing your history but maintaining access to important history states.
but you're talking about dragging photography down to a commodity, not raising the bar...
No, I'm talking about taking the best picture that I can and not fixing it later. There's a difference in my mind. And my hit rate is getting better, I'm not deleting anywhere near as many as I used to. And my camera is now set to 'single shot' as I've found that trying to take 4,5,6 shots of action in the hope of getting the right one is too vague. But that's just me.
I'm even starting to think about where the light is coming from when I choose my shot, FFS..... 😉
I'm using it all the time now, with my misgivings on hold, though still present. For such an expensive program so many things don't work well. For instance, I created a button bar (panel in Adobe-speak), and every 3rd time I invoke the program it forgets how wide I set it and gets 3 times wider. It never seems to give up any memory it allocates, so after using it for a few hours it'll have 3GB even with no images loaded I still don't understand how copy&paste works as it often has no visible effect at all unless you use "copy merged" or "paste special..."I believe I could write some UI stuff as it supports ActionScript but I got bored with the copious documentation. The underlying tools are good. If it cost under £100 I would have few complaints.
Aww, now if only you could do away with the need for Photoshop.......Hmmm......How could one do that I wonder...? Let's see now....
😉 🙂
obviously be aware of not purging history as well as caches if you need to maintain your history states
surely if I close a file that's a reasonable indication I've finished with it for now ?
you need to 'purge'
[img] 
[/img]
. But as PeterPoddy says, it's much harder to get things right in camera, than sort them out after. There's also nothing wrong in using Photoshop etc to do things to a picture, but I think if you need to do that to improve weak pictures, then your photographic skills maybe aren't up to much.
Completely agree with the first point and always try to get things right in the camera.
Also agree with the second point, I have photoshop and try not to (don't know how to) use it!!
But taking into account how the photo was taken, does the client/person viewing the photo really care if it was taken fully manualy/with photoshop/full frame/cropped etc?
My random views about improving as a photographer are:
Look at other photographers work- go to exhibitions & get some books out of the library etc. Allow your work to be influenced and experiment. I love William Eggleston's work and spent half my post uni european travels taking photos (with a super sexy Contax T3) of ceilings and under beds etc...
A course is a good idea, personally I'd go for a film course. Buy an SLR and learn how to develop and print photos. This will improve you as a photographer.
I want to say buying a new camera won't improve you as a photographer- but I kind of think swapping between a few cameras and learning to get the best out of them does improve your photography.
A course is a good idea, personally I'd go for a film course. Buy an SLR and learn how to develop and print photos. This will improve you as a photographer.
Christ I was trying to avoid this, for fear of incurring the wrath of the Digitally Correct Brigade, but it's true...
Being forced to work within a rigid set of constraints can encourage you to get the best out of yourself and your equipment. I was taught using just a simple Praktika SLR with a 50mm lens, Ilford HP5 and a basic darkroom. I am always grateful I wasn't spoiled by technology.
(Sits back and awaits SFB's rebuttal...)
Completely agree with the first point and always try to get things right in the camera.
Also agree with the second point, I have photoshop and try not to (don't know how to) use it!!
a matter of personal preference, but if you spend too much time thinking about the mechanics of 'perfect' exposure and composition the moment may be lost or the subject downgraded...
(Sits back and awaits SFB's rebuttal...)
at the root, what pleases you is all that matters. I prefer to take 5 bracketted exposures and merge or select and to crop heavily down to what I was looking at, as after all, those looking at a picture don't give a fig about how it was made 🙂