A few colleagues and I set up an informal photo club, with the idea that we'd use it to get feedback on each others work and have a monthly "best photo" award. We'd set a subject for the month, then meet up to review each others submissions (we originally decided on only one each, but also did some feedback out-with the meetings) – as well as have a bite to eat and a couple of drinks. Facebook worked out quite well for organising it. That ran for almost a year but, like a lot of these ideas, ran out of steam when attendance started to drop due to holidays etc.

The idea of a set monthly subject was good as it forces you to get out of your comfort zone. Most of my photos are landscapes, so it made me do other stuff.

Feedback from friends was great and you could talk through their reasoning with them, discuss various aspects of the composition etc.

We fell foul of the "no augmentation" rule a bit though. As IT folk, we were worried that it would come down to "who has the best photo manipulation skills", so initially ruled that the submitted shot had to be straight out of the camera. As with discussions on here, quite what is considered manipulation subject to some debate.

This was my (winning) submission for "Water".

One of the guys has since gone to to become a professional photgrapher.

GrahamS – thanks for that. I'm not sure about 'clear subject' but other than that I guess it's a fair cop 🙂 – and there I was thinking I didn't follow any rules….

Well as in "it's clear what your subject is" rather than "your subject is clearly visible" 🙂

Kit, I'm not sure whether the A100 has gridlines in the viewfinder or not, but since I got my D200 I've really found them useful.

As the above image amply displays, you need to be judged and brought on by people with professional skills.

All I can do is re-iterate that the magazines available in WH Smith etc will give you advice, examples, ideas, competitions and a chance to have your work critiqued by those who make a living from their photography.

I'm not that familiar with the web forums mentioned, but beware of falling into the same trap as D above (no disrespect intended) but having other non-professional peers give you advice and guidence has some very major limitations.

Again, look at the SWPP as you're all going 'round in circles at present with this thread. Now, if you'll excuse me I have another 1500 images which I'm supposed to be finishing before the morning!

it's atmospheric, has a clear subject, clear geometry, the subject is on a third, straight horizon, complementary colours.

a prefect ad hominem argument 🙂 It tells you nothing. I'm sure I could find any number of photos exhibiting exactly these characteristics (or any or all of the others in the list) that no one would look at twice

All I can do is re-iterate that the magazines available in WH Smith etc will give you advice, examples, ideas, competitions and a chance to have your work critiqued by those who make a living from their photography.

you know, I've looked at them, and gone through a whole magazine without seeing a single shot I liked (which was a surprise). I think you have to have confidence in your own vision, or you'll just end up aping others instead

a prefect ad hominem argument

Eh? I hope I didn't ad hom anyone. If I did I apologise.
Or do you mean Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

In which case, ask yourself if that picture would be as good if the thicket was in the centre, rather than the right. Or if the horizon cut across the middle of the shot.

it's atmospheric, has a clear subject, clear geometry, the subject is on a third, straight horizon, complementary colours.
a prefect ad hominem argument It tells you nothing. I'm sure I could find any number of photos exhibiting exactly these characteristics (or any or all of the others in the list) that no one would look at twice

Precisely. The original statement just describes a set of ‘rules' that the photo corresponds to. The fact that the photo is extremely pleasing to the eye, where another fitting the same set of parameters evokes no particular feelings proves that the rules help the technical aspects and composition, but no bookful of rules will help get that magical ‘something' that triggers the emotional response. Knowing the rules helps frame the picture, even unconsiously, and it helps you to know when to break them for a greater effect, or to get a pleasing shot where actually obeying the ‘rules' would have produced something mediocre. Picasso was an incredibly accomplished artist in ‘traditional' drawing and painting, but he had that foundation on which to create amazing pictures that broke all the traditional rules. There was a photo on here recently of redthunder's, which was all ‘wrong' by usual standards of ‘rule of thirds’, but if he'd stuck to that then forground was really dull, so cropping the image to the main point of interest was right at the bottom, with a huge expanse of sky, and made a striking, interesting picture.

ask yourself if that picture would be as good if the thicket was in the centre, rather than the right. Or if the horizon cut across the middle of the shot.

you may ask yourself such questions, but I fly by the seat of my pants 🙂

Things started out negative but soon I was enlarging. As it started to develop, I told her we should stop before we got into a fix, but she said it would all come out in the wash.

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but one way to learn and improve is to use a fully manual film camera every so often.

You can get ones with really clear markings for aperture and shutter speed (something cheap like a Praktica SuperTL1000 even has a rudimentry meter in it), so your eyesight shouldn't be a problem. You will quickly learn about the technicalities of photography, which definitely do translate over to digital. Makes you think a lot more too before taking a photograph.

is to use a fully manual film camera every so often.

isn't that a bit like learning how to ride by jumping into an old pram and rolling down a hillside ?

isn't that a bit like learning how to ride by jumping into an old pram and rolling down a hillside ?

Not really. There's no easier way to learn the correlation between film speed,aperture and shutter speed (the fundemental basics) than on a fully manual film camera with a few big physical knobs you need to turn for adjsutments. Going through menus on a dslr just isn't the same experience when learning.

Going through menus on a dslr just isn't the same experience when learning.

get a proper DSLR – mine has knobs for those functions and handles quite similarly to a film camera, only 5 times faster at shooting and a day quicker at seeing the results. I mainly use the menus for switching daylight saving.

I agree with Goat Karma. The obvious other point about trying film once in a while it to reminds you that each press of the shutter costs you. Thinking like that, you're more likely to take time composing the shots, ergo you have more chance of getting decent shots by design, rather than scattergun-D300-9fps-chance!

Hmmmmm, both basic DSLRs I have owned (Nikon D70s and D80) have fully manual modes, clear indication of speed and aperture with dials to adjust them.

Plus with a DSLR you have the added advantages that you can try a particular aperture/speed and immediately assess the result on screen (with detailed histogram information about the light if you wish) AND that all your settings are recorded with the file, so if you review them later at home you know exactly how you had the camera set without needing to scribble everything down in a little notebook.

I would agree that the financial commitment and limited nature of film probably does make you think a bit more before pressing the button though.

Thinking like that, you're more likely to take time composing the shots, ergo you have more chance of getting decent shots by design, rather than scattergun-D300-9fps-chance!

I think it just acts as a brake on experimentation. I prefer to do my thinking at the computer afterwards, not in the heat of the moment 🙂

I prefer to do my thinking at the computer afterwards, not in the heat of the moment

I guess that explains a few things 😉

Maybe it is just me, but surely exposure, aperture and film speed are very simple and obvious in how they relate to what comes out the other end.

Obviously you have to understand what they do and what effect that might have on the final picture, but that is pretty straightforward and has to be like 1% of the skill of taking the picture. The skill is in pointing it at the right things in the right way at the right time, which is an art, whereas the settings are just something technical that you can pick up?

Joe
(who knows all about aperture and all that gubbins but still only takes okay pictures)

The skill is in pointing it at the right things in the right way at the right time, which is an art, whereas the settings are just something technical that you can pick up?

My geek brain has no problem comprehending the functions of the myriad of settings available in all the obscure custom menu options, but I still take fairly crap photos.

I know folk that take lovely shots, but don't have a clue how many ISOs they used or what the f thingy was.

Clearly the way to become a fantastic photographer is just to copy everything Ti29er does.

I guess that explains a few things

exactly – when I'm taking photos I'm so involved with the subject I forget about the camera settings entirely, despite them being written round the edge of the viewfinder, I have never knowingly seen them while using the camera!

but surely exposure, aperture and film speed are very simple and obvious in how they relate to what comes out the other end.

very, however the tradeoffs involved require careful thought, as most exposures represent a compromise between conflicting factors, but I'd agree that in the end, exposure is trivial compared to the actual subject matter selection 🙂

the tradeoffs involved require careful thought… I forget about the camera settings entirely..

I think I'm seeing a flaw in your technique here simon 😀

I think I'm seeing a flaw in your technique here simon

deffo :o) But that's why I rely on the P setting as, on those few occasions I select manual instead I go on to take 50 more shots at the same settings before I remember it might be a good idea to check it…

The skill is in pointing it at the right things in the right way at the right time

Surely that's where the technical knowledge comes in? If the camera is not set up correctly (ie in the right way) and you point it at the right thing and the right time, you're likely to end up with a duff photo!

I have a very basic understanding of ISO and shutter speed, but aperture and how the three all relate I would struggle to explain. I just know smaller the F number, larger the ISO, slower the shutter speed = better photos in poor light. Beyond that I just line up the arrow in the middle of the meter, usually by fiddling with the exposure.

how the three all relate I would struggle to explain

Which is a nice case in point Kit, because the photos you've posted here have all been great.

I like the bucket analogy to explain how they relate to each other:

imagine the exposure you require as a bucket that needs to be filled with water from a tap.

– opening up the aperture is the same as turning the tap on a bit more. It will now take less time to fill the bucket. If you use a smaller aperture you'll need to spend more time filling it.

– shutter speed is just how long you fill the bucket for. If you have plenty of time to fill it then you can afford to only turn the tap on a little bit. If you're in a hurry then you need the tap open as far as it will go.

– ISO is just the size of the bucket. Higher ISO means a smaller bucket so you can either fill it faster or you can afford to leave the tap a bit more closed.

You can extend this metaphor a bit further (though it gets a little stretched):

– available light is the mains water pressure.

– turning the tap on full (open aperture) means you'll make a mess (lots of out of focus bits), keeping it at a dribble means you won't spill any (everything in focus)

😀

It's probably worth spending a little time reading about how lenses, shutters etc work, even if you subsequently set the knowledge aside. The f number refers to the size of the hole in the mechanical aperture of the lens – this is made of several curved edged metal leaves, so it can be adjusted in size while staying roughly circular. The f number at any particular aperture size is the focal length of the lens divided diameter of the hole, at f/2 the hole diameter is half the focal length. The f number is used because any (say) f/2 lens will pass the same amount of light in the same conditions (ignoring that absorbed or scattered) This relates directly to depth a field, as a wider aperture (smaller number) gives a blunter cone of light for each image point, so a smaller displacement from the nominal focus distance will result in a bigger image blob at the film/sensor. Imagine a cone of light coming to a point – move away from the focus point and you have a circle of light instead. A narrower aperture gives a spikier cone and a smaller off focus blob 🙂

Have a read of "A Tedious Explanation of the f/stop", which may be where I got the bucket analogy from.

IMO the bucket analogy is about as useful as the chocolate fireguard analogy 🙂

😛 I think it's an almost perfect metaphor as it is pretty much maps exactly to what really is happening (albeit with photons instead of water and CCD capacitors or film emulsion instead of a bucket )

I've just read both explanations simon/graham and can't get my head round either at the moment (but that's probably a lack of sleep/long working week thing messing my head).

And of course when you talk about a larger aperture, you mean a smaller F number? The inverse thing is not computing very well right now! I also thought the larger the F number the smaller the DOF, but I've just found out that this is wrong! Right?!

Ahbuggerit, thanks for the compliments! Bought a photo mag today which as "10 golden rules" in it. Might get a chance to read it over the weekend.

I also thought the larger the F number the smaller the DOF, but I've just found out that this is wrong! Right?!

No, the larger the F number, the smaller the aperture and the larger the DoF. So yes, you're right that you were wrong 😀

And of course when you talk about a larger aperture, you mean a smaller F number?

Yep, it's actually a fraction so F-numbers should be correctly written as f/2.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8 etc which makes it a bit easier to see, as a half is obviously bigger than a quarter.

I also thought the larger the F number the smaller the DOF

Larger the aperture the smaller the DOF. A big hole lets light through at all kinds of random angles, so only some of it is in focus. A small hole only lets a narrow angle of light through, so more of the scene can be focussed. (Think of threading a bunch of spokes through a wedding ring, compared to threading them through a napkin ring).

Bought a photo mag today which as "10 golden rules" i

think of them as lead or perhaps depleted uranium…

Larger the aperture the smaller the DOF.

welcome to the world of reciprocals! Both the aperture and the shutter speed are expressed as fractions, of focal length and a second respectively, and in both cases a bigger number means less exposure.

A recent sfb shot completely ignoring those "depleted uranium" rules, yet somehow managing to have an obvious subject, strong lead-in lines, thirds, foreground interest, triangular geometry and framing. 🙂

(Edit: nice shot by the way simon)

william cheung landscapes

Graham suggests the camera is like a bucket.

However if you think about it, a milk bottle is almost exactly like a lens. It is wide at the base but tapers to small diameter opening at the top which is sealed with a foil cap to prevent spillage. But that is not what makes it like a lens. No, because the bottle contains milk which is exactly like the light, the milk (or photons) may be poured from the bottle (or lens) and the bottle can be returned to the milkman to be refilled with different milk (or images). But what about garden birds? Yes there is the danger that as your milk sits on the doorstep the foil cap might have holes pecked in it allowing the ingress of contaminant making the milk unpalatable. Sadly things are liable to go sour due to an unwelcome little t1t. Don't you agree Simon?

apologies to Humphrey Lyttelton

*Bbbzzzzzztt*… Repetition of milk.

Oh sorry, wrong game 😀