Frustrated with my skills..

mikebeecham

mikebeecham

Messages
212
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys, maybe this is just a rant, or maybe you can help pinpoint some areas of improvement...

I took myself off and spent the afternoon in a lovely location and, whilst the light wasn't THAT great, thought I could take some decent shots with my 50mm prime.

I set my iso to 100, on Av and used different apertures between 4 and 8. I set my exposure to around 2 stops down.

When I got back I found that most of my shots were all washed out, lacking colour richness, looking a little misty (there was no most around). I can mess with some of that in Lightroom anyway but I'm frustrated that the photos didn't seem to have any really depth or contrast to them.

Is it just a case of practice, practice, practice or do these results ring any alarms bells with you?

Cheers guys!
 
Were you shooting RAW? Could you post an example of one you are unhappy with?
 
Nick_1981 said:
Were you shooting RAW? Could you post an example of one you are unhappy with?
Click to expand...

Hi Nick,

I am shooting raw and understand that this will dull and drop out the image slightly, and I'll get a photo uploaded soon. Thanks
 
It's not so much it will dull the image, just that the image wont have the in camera processing applied that a JPEG would which can make it look flat (in comparison to JPEG) pre processing.

Will be interesting to have a look at the unedited file.
 
Hi Nick, this is one of the unedited shots, which I took straight from iPhoto. Obviously, this means it will be jpeg but I think this only points out the problems I'm having with (I think) my lack of knowledge:


IMG_3865 by teambeecham, on Flickr
 
A flat image is normal with a raw file. You will be able to Improve that shot fairly easily in Lightroom by just sliding a few sliders.

Unfortunately, the fact that your subject is a bit dull in itself probably doesn't help.

Water under a grey sky and colourless trees really did you no favours here.
You are also missing some foreground interest which makes the Mage as a whole rather boring.
 
Last edited:
Mike, ive given it a tweak in LR4... i see you have 'no edits' ticked - do you want me to post the result?

Looking at the EXIF you did not have any exposure comp dialled in?
 
Last edited:
To me it looks like the camera did the perfect job of exposing the image, given the situation. They sky isn't blown, and neither is the water, but this does mean that the trees are somewhat dark.

The image is washed out due the amount of mist around, and will need to played around with in PP to get the best out of it.

Welcome to RAW, but that said given the conditions I don't think you'd have got much better from JPEG. However RAW does give you more latitude to fine tune the image with the right software.

You say these are JPEG conversions from iPhoto. My advice would be to get on the apple App Store and pony up the 60 quid or so for Aperture, it's iPhoto on steroids and then some.
 
Hi Mike
To be honest I don't think the light has done you any favours. Contrast can be increased and obviously other tweaks. The image looks over-exposed too, and certainly needs some sort of foreground interest. I'm no expert by any means but just what I've observed.
JohnyT
 
Typically dull day - I'm fed up with it in some respects but one thing I do love is that gradual drop-off of colour and tonal range as you work further and further into the distance; look at the lines of trees getting weaker and weaker as they are further away. Gives a great graphic effect and adds depth to an image.

To be fair, limiting yourself to just one lens isn't always the most ideal way to work, especially if things are against you. There's nothing wrong with using the entire focal range you have, especially if it can help give a new angle to something. People bemoan this kind of light and it can be tricky, but it can be useable also....
 
Steve Smith said:
That's probably what it actually looked like. What were you expecting to see?


Steve.
Click to expand...

Agree.
Did it actually look any different in reality and if not it wouldn't have been worth taking a photo of.
Take a shot of something lacking in any interest or colour and you will get a photo lacking interest or colour.
 
We all have bad days..............................:LOL:
 
Looks like really poor light Mike (plus what others have said) - what time of day did you got out? I leave for work just as dawn usually breaks and the quality of the light is frequently amazing, but then quickly deteriates. Try going at at dawn/dusk.
 
This...
ernesto said:
Agree.
Did it actually look any different in reality and if not it wouldn't have been worth taking a photo of.
Take a shot of something lacking in any interest or colour and you will get a photo lacking interest or colour.
Click to expand...
But this...
specialman said:
Typically dull day - I'm fed up with it in some respects but one thing I do love is that gradual drop-off of colour and tonal range as you work further and further into the distance; look at the lines of trees getting weaker and weaker as they are further away. Gives a great graphic effect and adds depth to an image.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as the wrong conditions or light for photography, but you have to find the attractive subject in the conditions that you have.
 
Thanks for the replies chaps...really helpful. I guess, in answer to my original question, it's just about practice but insomuch as knowing what will make a good photo regardless of the conditions...how to make the best of whatever's around you.

Just frustrated at my lack of knowledge, I guess.
 
specialman said:
Typically dull day - I'm fed up with it in some respects but one thing I do love is that gradual drop-off of colour and tonal range as you work further and further into the distance; look at the lines of trees getting weaker and weaker as they are further away. Gives a great graphic effect and adds depth to an image.
Click to expand...

So thinking this through, using the only decent lens I have, the Canon 50mm 1.4, is there anything I could have done to pick those elements out better? Should have perhaps gone for different settings or just been happy with the photo I took and edit it loads in Lightroom?

Cheers
 
mikebeecham said:
So thinking this through, using the only decent lens I have, the Canon 50mm 1.4, is there anything I could have done to pick those elements out better? Should have perhaps gone for different settings or just been happy with the photo I took and edit it loads in Lightroom?

Cheers
Click to expand...

Me, I would have looked at using foreshortening by using a long lens to almost build layer upon layer of tonal range, lining up each tree line to create patterns. Add in a foreground subject - bird on the water, something like that - and you have some real depth to the image and taking emphasis away from the sky, which has very little detail unless you seriously underexpose or start combining exposures.

I suppose the closest thing to this that I have to hand is this:


The Grayling Fisher by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Shot on wideangle it would have been a nice shot of the river valley but there would have been plenty of uninteresting sky and the angler would have been miniscule. This was actually shot (and used) on the cover of a flyfishing mag, so there's a deliberate amount of 'flat' space where text could be overlaid. I also played around with contrast levels and the white balance to make it work how I wanted. This was shot at 80mm, so not a particularly long lens, but it's compressed things nicely IMO.
 
Last edited:
@ Mike

Post processing may bring out details and mood that is not visible in the original

Part of the problem is that this photograph doesn't have a real subject.
Try cropping it to a panorama so that most of the boring sky and water is removed.
 
Last edited:
What are ur post editing photos like?

Im like you sometimes and can be annoyed woth myself but its nothing i cant fix afterwards
 
specialman said:
Me, I would have looked at using foreshortening by using a long lens to almost build layer upon layer of tonal range, lining up each tree line to create patterns. Add in a foreground subject - bird on the water, something like that - and you have some real depth to the image and taking emphasis away from the sky, which has very little detail unless you seriously underexpose or start combining exposures.

I suppose the closest thing to this that I have to hand is this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/patmacinnes/4324665179/
The Grayling Fisher by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Shot on wideangle it would have been a nice shot of the river valley but there would have been plenty of uninteresting sky and the angler would have been miniscule. This was actually shot (and used) on the cover of a flyfishing mag, so there's a deliberate amount of 'flat' space where text could be overlaid. I also played around with contrast levels and the white balance to make it work how I wanted. This was shot at 80mm, so not a particularly long lens, but it's compressed things nicely IMO.
Click to expand...

Hi mate..unfortunately, I only have one decent lens, which is the 50mm 1.4 prime. I have the 55-250 kit lens as well, but not really used this that much to be honest. I'd love the extend my range of lenses at some stage, but obviously one has to save their pennies for lenses at their current cost!

Will take your thoughts on board and see if I can improve with them next time. Cheers.
 
DSO said:
What are ur post editing photos like?

Im like you sometimes and can be annoyed woth myself but its nothing i cant fix afterwards
Click to expand...

I don't think my post processing is too bad. I guess you could look at my 500px portfolio and see areas of improvement: 500px.com/mikebeecham.
 
In your shot you have part of a tree creeping in on the RH side. If you had re-composed or moved to include that tree in the foreground it would have given the scene more depth.
You could have increased the contrast in camera or you could use any PP program to increase contrast to get a better shot but before taking it you should be asking yourself "what am I trying to say?".
It can help initially if you have a piece of card with a rectangular hole in the middle the same ratio as your sensor, hold it up in front of you to frame the picture, move it further or nearer to get different "focal lengths". Although this seems the same as framing in the viewfinder most people get a different "feel" for the shot when using the card, after a while you start getting the same "feel" when using the viewfinder.
 
mikebeecham said:
Hi mate..unfortunately, I only have one decent lens, which is the 50mm 1.4 prime. I have the 55-250 kit lens as well, but not really used this that much to be honest. I'd love the extend my range of lenses at some stage, but obviously one has to save their pennies for lenses at their current cost!

Will take your thoughts on board and see if I can improve with them next time. Cheers.
Click to expand...

That 55-250mm will be fine in terms of both IQ and focal length. It might not be top-end glass but it's a lens nonetheless and will get you the shot. I know when I was using more humble kit I was always wishing I had sharper, faster glass but looking back on it now, all that mattered was that I had a lens available to capture what I envisioned. I don't have anything longer than 200mm and to be honest, your lens set to 250mm would be perfect.

It's nice to have a really, really sharp lens but even cheaper lens are good these days and if it helps you develop your imagination, it can only be a good thing :)
 
Last edited:
Quote
"Richard, absolutely...feel free, and hopefully it'll teach me what I can do better with PP
End qoute

Just one way of doing it.


8464232225_6b0970804a_b_mod by dicktay2000, on Flickr

This is just (2 minutes or so) a quick & dirty edit.

Keep in mind that you do not always need need a super dooper DSLR/Lenses for some subjects especailly when you have a bit of time and light that suits the subject.
I think it is best to get it right in camera, as far as possible, and not rely on PPing to get 1/2 decent images.

You do have some good stuff on your 500PX stream - I especailly like the street cleaner photograph.
 
Last edited:
Mike - This was the edit i did yesterday.....

8541837443_b9a7aed3cf_z.jpg
 
Sometimes there just aren't any obviously good images to be had, even in some lovely places, or at least not ones that can be easily captured in a single shot. The way we look at a scene, with scanning 3D movie-vision, doesn't always convert readily into a fixed-view 2D slice of time.

Good questions to ask are, what exactly is the subject here? Concentrate on that. If the answer is everything (rarely true) then ask yourself which elements are least important, and try to minimise them.

Richard T's cropped and PP'd version is much better, but still lacks a focal point, like a boat, or something different on the far side. Introducing some human interest is a good trick, but not always possible or appropraite. It looks like there just wasn't much to concentrate on in that view, from that position, on that rather dreary day. It happens, you need good light, it's the lifeblood of most landscapes and there's only so much you can do without it... :(
 
Whilst those 2 PPd versions show that the original can be improved, neither are interesting photos, and I'm surprised they both left the cars on the left which just grab attention and mean nothing.
 
Phil V said:
Whilst those 2 PPd versions show that the original can be improved, neither are interesting photos, and I'm surprised they both left the cars on the left which just grab attention and mean nothing.
Click to expand...

I only gave the levels a tweet to show it could be improved, i didnt do a full PP on it :D
 
Nick_1981 said:
I only gave the levels a tweet to show it could be improved, i didnt do a full PP on it :D
Click to expand...

I never said it was bad PP, just that it hadn't produced a good photo. Because to put it bluntly, to produce a good photo with PP you'd need to insert a sailboat on one of the lower intersection of thirds. The photo has no discernible subject.
 
mikebeecham said:
Hi Nick, this is one of the unedited shots, which I took straight from iPhoto. Obviously, this means it will be jpeg but I think this only points out the problems I'm having with (I think) my lack of knowledge:


IMG_3865 by teambeecham, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Well.. that lighting is pretty awful for a start. You're shooting into a bight, slightly overcast sky, so you'll always have that bright featureless sky and low colours in light like that.

You can't just shoot anything and expect to correct it in processing. Good landscape photography needs great light, and you just didn't have it in that shot.

For landscape, you need to learn patience and keep visiting the same scene at different times of the day, and in different lighting and weather conditions.

Processing can only enhance what's there... not what's NOT there.
 
had a quick play with the jpeg (a raw would offer more scope), theres plenty of different colour in the trees to the back of the lake that can make for a nice image

lake_zps80c8ab68.jpg
 
Thanks for the edits on the photo...it's clear that with a photo lacking a decent focal point (another learning curve), the most you're going to be able to do is enhance what is already there!

I particularly take note of point that if there's nothing interesting to look at in the photo to begin with you're not going to be able to do much with it.

I guess I had seen so many nice photos of landscapes with reflections, and it was this I was trying to capture...maybe I just won't be able to do a location like this justice with a fixed 50mm lens.
 
mikebeecham said:
Thanks for the edits on the photo...it's clear that with a photo lacking a decent focal point (another learning curve), the most you're going to be able to do is enhance what is already there!

I particularly take note of point that if there's nothing interesting to look at in the photo to begin with you're not going to be able to do much with it.

I guess I had seen so many nice photos of landscapes with reflections, and it was this I was trying to capture...maybe I just won't be able to do a location like this justice with a fixed 50mm lens.
Click to expand...

You can't get a reflection shot without sunshine. That's how reflections work, bright light, subject, still water.
 
mikebeecham said:
maybe I just won't be able to do a location like this justice with a fixed 50mm lens.
Click to expand...

I think you need to stop blaming your lenses, on a good day with a slightly more interesting landscape a 50 lens is not going to be holding you back in terms of quality of image, interest of image, lighting of image etc,.
It may limit your field of view but that is not the problem with this shot.

I am very much a beginner and struggle with getting interest into my photos as can be seen but ignoring all that, this was with a kit lens hand held at 55mm taken just as I was walking past the lake which shows fairly good light, reflection etc,.


house by lake by cheguevarauno, on Flickr
 
Phil V said:
You can't get a reflection shot without sunshine. That's how reflections work, bright light, subject, still water.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. You can get a reflection in water under many lighting conditions. What you actually need is still water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top