Hiyaa!

Lhannaloves

Lhannaloves

Messages
20
Name
Lhanna
Edit My Images
Yes
Hiya!

I'm new here.
Currently, Im between a rock and a hard place.
In august, go to college for a photography degree, or study something else for a boring job.

However, I really need to improve my photography skills and editing.

Currently, I am part of a photography team for a local rabbit charity which I do love, but I haven't really expanded beyond rabbits and cats!
I need to basically learn if I'm good enough basically to go to college and try and make a career out of this :)

At the moment I'm of work with an injured knee :(

Anyway, hello, I've loved looking at the photo comp winners - wow you lot are talented!

Heres a few of my furries

IMG_6635_zps9325eeb8.jpg
IMG_6516_zps07fe2d68.jpg
IMG_6387_zps22f20884.jpg
 
Welcome to the forums Lhanna you will find lots of helpful advice here for your course.
 
#1 Does not look sharp, the ear has been cropped and the frame is on the wonk - ensure shutter speed is sufficient for hand held, that may be the cause of the slight blur (I cannot see exif data). Consider your backgrounds and composition before pressing the button, a wider angle and check on level would have helped.

#2 Again, ear and paw cropped & white balance issues. The focus has nailed the eyes which is critical - WB can be tweaked pp, I would suggest playing about with it in your editing software to see if you can improve it. In difficult lighting come away from auto WB and use a custom based on a known white area (or 18% grey card). Composition as above comment.

#3 Not sure if focus has nailed the eye & composition looks messy (to me). The OOF ear takes up a lot of the frame and distracts. Again, think composition the straw also is a distraction.

Have a look in the 'pets' thread for examples of similar genre pictures and try and pick up tips from those.
 
Thanks for your feedback.
The cropped parts were intentionally cropped - as the faces are what I wanted to capture.

As for being blurry - I have quite shaky hands, and find it difficult to steady them sometimes its a pain in the arse.

Also, whitebalance - what is ment by this?
im really not very technical, but really want to learn!
 
Lhannaloves said:
Thanks for your feedback.
The cropped parts were intentionally cropped - as the faces are what I wanted to capture.

As for being blurry - I have quite shaky hands, and find it difficult to steady them sometimes its a pain in the arse.

Also, whitebalance - what is ment by this?
im really not very technical, but really want to learn!
Click to expand...

Your shutter speed should equal or be higher than the focal length of the lens you are using (if a 50mm then 1/50th or faster). For 'shaky' hands try and keep it at 1/125th

White balance is related to the temperature of the light you are shooting in. Auto white balance on the camera is usually not a million miles out but does usually need a tweak. When the light is difficult (mixed sources) auto does a poor job and you need to take control and tell the camera more about the light to get a more accurate WB, hence my suggestion of setting a custom white balance. If you Google it, the info you find will be more comprehensive that I can type here! You can alter the temp in pp software to an extent but getting it right at the time of taking the shot is always the best option.
Ask loads of questions, have a look at some of the cracking images on here and it will all help you.
 
I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with unconventional crops, but I do think you need to be decisive - if it looks accidental, then I think you need to re-visit it.
 
Ah! I am just going to get the camera and look at shutter speed and changing it! They are pretty bad, trying to cut the pets nails is horrific!
Photographing the white rabbits is pretty difficult at times, and I reckon your right - I hope playing about with this will help. Ive never changed the white balance - but I do use my camera on manual focus.
As for cropping - I would normally crop them further, if I intended to use them.
 
For photographing animals, where getting the eyes absolutely tack sharp can make or break a picture, using manual focus is just setting yourself up to fail.

I think it'd be better to concentrate on composition and shutter speed (to eliminate shake), and let your camera work out the rest; it's what it's good at.

What camera are you using, by the way?
 
It' a Nikon D3200...
 
Well, I manually focus my lens if that answers your question?

See, I was told by a photographer that using auto focus was cheating, and I should learn to use manual focus . . . is this the case or have I been miss informed . . .?
 
Lhannaloves said:
Well, I manually focus my lens if that answers your question?

See, I was told by a photographer that using auto focus was cheating, and I should learn to use manual focus . . . is this the case or have I been miss informed . . .?
Click to expand...


They are talking crap. Millions of dollars have been spent by camera companies getting autofocus to be as good as they can get it to be, you'd have to be a fool not to take advantage of it when you can. You gain nothing apart from out of focus shots relying on manual focus, unless you are well skilled and have the correct kit to do it effectively.
DSLR's aren't very good at manual focus, especially the budget bodies, you just can't see enough in the viewfinder to accurately judge if its in focus or not.
 
Lhannaloves said:
Well, I manually focus my lens if that answers your question?

See, I was told by a photographer that using auto focus was cheating, and I should learn to use manual focus . . . is this the case or have I been miss informed . . .?
Click to expand...
Yes you have.That is possibly the silliest advice I have ever seen given to any photographer.

See Toms post above.
 
I am old enough to have used film cameras with manual focus, they had a different screen inside so that it was easier to see when the subject was in focus, most DSLRs do not have this.
Manual focus with moving subjects was hard, very hard, and as soon as Auto Focus came in I went for it. As Tom says it is very good these days and it is only for specialised cases that I would consider using manual focus, and then I often focus by moving the camera nearer or further from the subject :)
 
Can I advise you don't ever listen to anything that photographer says again....ever...

What a tool.

Lhannaloves said:
Daaammnnnn!
Thats all I have to say on that!
Oh well, lesson learned - time to experiment with auto now!!
I've only used it, like twice?!
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, another vote for autofocus. Manual has it's place but not for this kind of stuff. Only time I use it is if I'm on a tripod and I've got a particular reason to, like macro stuff or if I'm doing composites and don't want it to change. Manual exposure isn't a bad thing to learn but you need to get your head around the exposure triangle (aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO sensitivity) and then it'll all make sense!
Boring jobs are over rated and there's plenty of time for that later. Take a risk...!

PS I like shot #2. Eyes are crisp which is essential. Maybe having a fraction more depth of field so the nose was also razor sharp might be nice (smaller aperture) but I'm being picky!

For colour balance etc then all that can be fixed afterwards in a program like Lightroom. LR is an amazing bit of kit that has improved my photography results enormously...
 
Lhannaloves said:
See, I was told by a photographer that using auto focus was cheating, and I should learn to use manual focus . . . is this the case or have I been miss informed . . .?
Click to expand...

Very missinformed.. Manual focus has its uses.. For example.photogrpahing a bird in a tree wiht lots of annoying branches in the way.. you may need to manual focus past these...Every setting on your camera has a use and should not be ignored. But manual focus is not a good idea for moving subjects as I presume pets will :)
 
landwomble said:
For colour balance etc then all that can be fixed afterwards in a program like Lightroom. LR is an amazing bit of kit that has improved my photography results enormously...
Click to expand...

You just advised a learner to take bad pictures and fix later in lightroom :( The clue is in your sentance... "can be fixed afterwards"
 
No I didn't. If you shoot RAW then white balance is entirely software driven. A slide of the slider will put it to whatever you want, rather than letting the camera decide. I can set WB better than my camera can this way.
Having ability to tweak levels, NR etc is a huge advantage rather than just taking the JPGs straight out of camera.
 
Last edited:
What camera + lenses are you using?

Are there any oppurtunities for you to photograph the rabbits / cats outdoors without cages / clutter etc as backgrounds? A nice clear background can help the animal stand out in the shot.
 
landwomble said:
No I didn't. If you shoot RAW then white balance is entirely software driven. A slide of the slider will put it to whatever you want, rather than letting the camera decide. I can set WB better than my camera can this way. Please think before posting.
Click to expand...

First you never mentioned shooting RAW
Second.. the correct way to take a picture is to get it right in camera.. not in software..

Fixing.. as YOU put it is for when you have got things wrong are where not able to do somehtign in camera..

A blanket do colour balance etc in lightroom is poor advice..

as for your think before posting comment... oh the irony :)
 
I amended my language. Sorry. Bad day today..!
I'm not advocating taking bad pictures and processing the hell out of them to fix them. But I do maintain that being able to use a tool correctly for good PP will improve your pictures. It won't fix focus, composition etc but if you shoot RAW then basic simple PP is very very effective.
The WB setting on my camera has no effect on RAW sensor data. Regardless of what you might set on the camera you get exactly the same result by moving the slider in LR. This isn't a hacky tweak, it's just an easier way of doing it. So you can leave the camera in auto and adjust casts readily yourself afterwards - the days of manually setting WB using a grey card etc aren't really needed except for very particular circumstances.
Bang for buck in an easy PP tool is well worth it is kind of what I'm getting at!
 
Thank you gents . . . advice is greatly received, and I plan to try out tomorrow.
As for the second image, my cat, it won a competition ran by a pet food company to be in there 2014 animal calendar so it is one of my favourites.

The rabbits - even when free ranging always kind of stick to things - so its pretty rare to get them alone as they like looking inside now they are out . . . weird animals!
In retrospect I possibly picked two of my not so good images of them . . . typical!

I have PSE12, I do understand what you mean re editing the colours, which I play about with but can never settle on.
And yes, I do think your right . . . normal jobs are boring!
Discussed it with my partner and we decided I should follow my heart ;)
 
First, welcome to the forum.

Your primary question seems to be are you good enough? Before giving my opinion, I wonder if it shouldn't be turned round the other way and ask if the college is good enough to teach you, rather than if you are good enough to learn.

The are two aspects to photography (although not all types of photography need the second): technical and artistic. The technical essentials (apart from how to use your camera) can be covered in 30 minutes; the non essentials (things you won't need all the time, but should know) will take longer. This can be taught, but not all people are motivated enough to want to learn it; so there are limitations on how far anyone can go.

I don't believe that the artistic side can't be taught. There will be differences in how creative people will be, just as there are differences in how much technical knowledge they will be able to acquire; but everyone can reach a certain level.

So, how do I rate you on motivation (which is what it boils down to) and starting point on how you "see" artistically? Short answer - you should be OK.

Since the question of autofocus has come up, my own experience with an Olympus E3 used on my subjects (landscape and architecture, mainly) are that it's more trouble than it's worth, because over half the time the camera focuses on the wrong place; and changing the composition to get the correct focus spot on the right part of the image then trying to half hold the shutter to lock it while recomposing takes more time and effort than focusing manually. But note that I only use digital when the results don't matter; for serious photography I use medium or large format film, and no automation of any kind in sight.

One general piece of advice: pay less attention to the subject. You've concentrated well on your subject, but omitted to study the rest of the image. In many images, the subject isn't covering most of the frame area, so don't ignore the silent (but not invisible) majority. You'll soon see them when you look critically at the image when it's too late.
 
Lhannaloves said:
Well, I manually focus my lens if that answers your question?

See, I was told by a photographer that using auto focus was cheating, and I should learn to use manual focus . . . is this the case or have I been miss informed . . .?
Click to expand...


are you sure he was a photographer? oh and hiya welcome to the forum you will learn lots from here
 
Lhannaloves said:
Well, I manually focus my lens if that answers your question?

See, I was told by a photographer that using auto focus was cheating, and I should learn to use manual focus . . . is this the case or have I been miss informed . . .?
Click to expand...

:D:D:D:D That made me laugh, welcome to the forum, plenty of good advice to be found from the member's here, have a look at peoples web sites flickr etc you'll gain some idea's on composition etc

above all have fun with your photography

Les ;)
 
Lhannaloves said:
Well, I manually focus my lens if that answers your question?

See, I was told by a photographer that using auto focus was cheating, and I should learn to use manual focus . . . is this the case or have I been miss informed . . .?
Click to expand...

No. Using auto-focus is not cheating.

But learning to use manual focus is very important, it is a skill that should be learnt not missed out.

There are number of reasons when you may end up having to switch to manual focus when AF is either unless or not available, examples being...

Attempting to take a photo of say a tiger while there is a chicken wire fence in between, and the AF keeps getting messed up becuase it keeps focusing on the wire instead of the tiger. Switch to MF and do your own focusing.

AF could not focus due to confusing light levels, ie: trying to take photos of a bright snowed land, or similar.

You wish to control the depth of field.

When I mention AF being not available, examples are...

Old 1970's/1980's Nikon lens on a modern digital Nikon camera. Those lens are non-AF, so you need to focus them manually.

Using cheap 500mm mirror lens on a camera designed for AF.

Your camera's AF system got damaged, but otherwise everything else works, so until you get the camera in for repairs, you could get away with using MF.

So, look at it as a challenege to train yourself to use MF in case you can't use AF.
 
Lhannaloves said:
I want to learn to use my camera manually though, not rely on autofucus.
Thanks for the link I'll have a read :)
Click to expand...
It's not a case of 'learning to use it manually' it's a case of 'if you own a camera that was designed to autofocus - let it get on with it.

You've got a lifetime of learning ahead, all you'll learn trying to manually focus a camera that wasn't designed to be used that way is some new swear words.

I know it's difficult to understand what's most important when you're setting out, but so far in this thread you've dismissed some advice to make your pictures better (watching your framing), and said you want to spend time on something that probably never will (manual focus).
 
Major Eazy said:
...
There are number of reasons when you may end up having to switch to manual focus when AF is either unless or not available, examples being...

Attempting to take a photo of say a tiger while there is a chicken wire fence in between, and the AF keeps getting messed up becuase it keeps focusing on the wire instead of the tiger. Switch to MF and do your own focusing.
Click to expand...
If you've selected the correct focus point the camera will work fine - but you'll have a substandard picture - go find a view without the fence.


Major Eazy said:
AF could not focus due to confusing light levels, ie: trying to take photos of a bright snowed land, or similar.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand?

Major Eazy said:
You wish to control the depth of field.
Click to expand...
I'm presuming you mean hyperfocal focussing - that's not really the same as using the viewfinder to MF

Major Eazy said:
When I mention AF being not available, examples are...

Old 1970's/1980's Nikon lens on a modern digital Nikon camera. Those lens are non-AF, so you need to focus them manually.

Using cheap 500mm mirror lens on a camera designed for AF.

Your camera's AF system got damaged, but otherwise everything else works, so until you get the camera in for repairs, you could get away with using MF.

So, look at it as a challenege to train yourself to use MF in case you can't use AF.
Click to expand...
These get a bit niche just to try to prove a point, why would someone new to photography tie one hand behind their backs by buying incompatible lenses or using faulty equipment?

99% of the time my AF fails it's time to go home because there won't be enough light / contrast for my eyes either.
As I said, AF cameras aren't designed to be manually focussed, just like cars, you can sit in an auto car and change the gears yourself, but you're adding nothing except creating work for yourself.

We do agree on the first point though - AF is not cheating, I was a late adopter (2001 ish) but if I want to use manual focus, I'll buy a MF camera.
 
I didn't as much as dismiss the comments - but explained what I was doing in response to the critique.
I explained I was wanting to the faces to be the main focus not a paw / ear - not dismissing it but explaining my choice.

As for the comments re: waiting on equipment to get fixed, I got a bit lost there, but none of my equipment is broken and I hope I don't fall foul to buying broken equipment in the future.

Thanks for the positive responses, and interest so to speak.
 
Welcome to the forum! Love your cat :)

Regarding doing a photog degree: Do it but choose one that is going to be suited to what you want to get out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top