Beginner Recognising a good shot

Kernowgirl

Kernowgirl

Messages
77
Name
Kerry
Edit My Images
Yes
Curious... does everybody at some point visualise a good photo opportunity and once downloaded is nothing like you thought, I seem to be struggling a little with identifying a good shot (thank heavens for digital!)
 
Firstly - Yes it's all part of the learning curve.

2ndly - when you find a shot; shoot loads, the biggest mistake is not fully exploring opportunities, I still walk away from a shoot thinking of all the missed opportunities.
3rdly - learn to look around the viewfinder, we tend towards 'tunnel vision' and concentrate on our subject and don't notice the distractions.

Lastly - learn to 'see' the light, whilst we're looking at a subject, we just see the subject, what you have to remember is that the camera is recording the light reflecting off that subject. It really is all about the light.
 
•


This is a common trap, Kerry and this is where
the mastery of post production is so important.

The recording sensor, with all the beautiful tech-
nic within and around it, is, nevertheless, just a
mineral captor as the person who pressed the SR
had an organic motivation to do so.

Then you, Kerry, get on your machine with your
very organic expectations of a mineral capture. I
too am sometimes thinking :puke::banghead::crying:(n):(:oops: :$!

Your sense for aesthetique, your poetry, and all
other very organic properties, made you trigger
the mineral sensor. So I believe your image is
there but you have to bring it into life.
 
Last edited:
Maybe not to the point of the picture being nothing like I thought but I'm certainly sometimes disappointed usually because for some reason I rushed the shot or it was spoilt by too many people being about or something happened to spoil the shot... people walking into the shot, cars etc... or sometimes and possibly more often because the light is dead and lifeless.

I often have to force myself to take the time I need to get the shot I want but if it does all go wrong or the light just isn't right and the shot just isn't going to work I sometimes go back another day.
 
Should the mastery of the camera come before that of post production? There seems to be a move toward lazy photography now....shoot raw and you dont need to worry about exposure etc.
 
Simplythebeast said:
Should the mastery of the camera come before that of post production? There seems to be a move toward lazy photography now....shoot raw and you dont need to worry about exposure etc.
Click to expand...

I think that you can sometime rescue something from a shot that if it was straight out of camera should head straight to the bin. It's not ideal, but sometimes the choice is to delete a shot or work on it until it's worth keeping. That's certainly happened for me.
 
Simplythebeast said:
Should the mastery of the camera come before that of post production? There seems to be a move toward lazy photography now....shoot raw and you dont need to worry about exposure etc.
Click to expand...
•


No! … as one depends on the other,
both are equally important.
 
Simplythebeast said:
Should the mastery of the camera come before that of post production?
Click to expand...

Yes

And that now, due mostly to blinkies, is far easier than mastering PP

Knowing what will work as a shot and what won't though, that's an ongoing project for all of us I suspect

Dave
 
I'm still learning about the camera and only have the basic equipment, so everything is a work in progress, some shots work well and others leave me disappointed & I end up deleting them.
Taking my time is something I am beginning to do more of, hopefully I will see the benefit.
Thanks all
 
Being of a certain age I remember that well. We live in a time where it is so much easier to recover an average image than it ever used to be.
It was difficult enough learning to use a camera and now just when I am less able to take in new stuff I have to try to get my head around photoshop, lightroom etc.
They are great programmes and can do marvelous things but I end up just using the very basic sliders as I cant get myhead around the rest.
Meh.....just have to stick at it and pick up what I can,
 
Jeez, not this again! If you shoot raw you are not rescuing anything, and no, you can't sort it out later.
If you didn't record the data you can't retrieve it. If you can retrieve it then you must have recorded it and you did what was required.
If you shot jpeg and then found that your camera has dumped some data that you could have used then you made the wrong choice.

Rant over, as you were. :dummy:
 
Kernowgirl said:
Curious... does everybody at some point visualise a good photo opportunity and once downloaded is nothing like you thought, I seem to be struggling a little with identifying a good shot (thank heavens for digital!)
Click to expand...

Yes, or at least I suspect we have all done it at some time. Just keep working at it and be as self critical as you can, though from what you have said, you are already doing this.

I'm reminded of a quote that has been attibuted to, among others, Gary Player. He was asked what was his secret for being so good at golf. He replied, "I guess I'm just lucky, and the more I practice the luckier I get."

Dave
 
The more I learn and get better (well i think I am) the less times i get the camera out. This is me learning (hopefully) that if the light isn't right or can't be manipulated then i don't take the shot. It doesn't always happen mind you because sometimes I take photos for me as a record of something or a time, these photos don't need to be perfect.
 
Hi all,

First post so excuse the mess (shall tidy up later honest) as an amateur / hobbyist I don't mind so much if I have a bad day as it is all part of learning, for example a recent trip to the zoo with the other half resulted in almost 300 shots taken and only 1 that I class as worthy of keeping.

I'd been so busy yapping and ogling hot dogs that I hadn't checked my settings on my RX100 and was shooting at far too low an ISO which you can imagine with lot's of animals mooching around meant nothing was crisp, lesson learned.

Of course the beauty of digital is that nothing other than time was wasted, I'll re visit and make sure to give my head a wobble and make sure everything is as it should be before venturing in, as to your point on recognising a good shot well it's a bit fuzzy really, some folk really do just have an artistic nature and can see the magic in the mundane.

Don't become disheartened!
 
Shoot lots, make mistakes, try to learn from them. Never be afraid to shoot stuff that might not work, even if you bin it as soon as you check through your images.

One of the issues that both Phil and Kodiak alluded to is that things look different in reality compared to what the camera can 'see'. An interesting experiement to try is to set up a still life image in front of the camera - very often things need to be arranged somewhat differently for the camera compared to how you would do it if creating a display for someone to look at. It helps to see how the camera views everything flat, radiating from the centre of the image, rather than in 3 dimensions and in relationship with its surroundings.

This might be interesting too, though I've read some scathing comments about Kelby and this video in particular:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpHMuK7Htic
 
If you see something you like, work the subject.
Move around and take lots of images from different angles, apertures, focal lengths, compositions, etc. Get home and analyse them. See what works for you and meets your personal tastes. You may often find something that works better than you'd originally thought would work.
 
Graham W said:
Jeez, not this again! If you shoot raw you are not rescuing anything, and no, you can't sort it out later.
If you didn't record the data you can't retrieve it. If you can retrieve it then you must have recorded it and you did what was required.
If you shot jpeg and then found that your camera has dumped some data that you could have used then you made the wrong choice.

Rant over, as you were. :dummy:
Click to expand...

You can (sometimes) rescue something and improve a shot post capture and you can (again sometimes) take a shot which is heading for the bin and make something worth keeping in post, or rather some can even if others can't.

The whole history of photography shows us that people we think of as masters of the art did things post capture and if they didn't the chances are that we wouldn't be thinking of them as notable now. Some of them even wrote books on what we'd today call photo shopping. Back then the fiddling was done differently than how we'd do it today, on the PC, but I'd argue that nothing has changed and if the notables of the past were shooting today they'd be using Adobe/Capture one/whatever.

I just wish people would get over the get in right in camera snobbery we see here sometimes as you simply can't always do that. I wouldn't argue for making a bikini model out of a pizza (haha...below... which may or may not be fake but it's still funny either way...) but you can sometimes and at least to degree improve or even rescue a shot post capture.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnvoz91k8hc
 
All reminds me of a chapter in a book from film days called '`Holiday Photos".

It suggested that on holiday all the hard learnt photography knowledge and skills quite often went to pot, given that the photographer was 'living the dream' and was disappointed with the resultant shots when they were picked up from the chemist the following week.



Digital for many folk is 'living that dream' and the number of times that I have been sent and asked to make a silk purse from a sows ear, 'because you know about these photographic things' and 'just use Photoshop', means I now absolutely refuse.

If folk are far too lazy to understand how to compose and capture correctly a photograph, then their dream will have to remain their nightmare, although for most, its something that doesn't r e a l l y matter to them anyway because the 'come day, go day' attitude really means that they will never bother to learn to do it properly anyway.





For those who take the art a little more seriously, attempting to capture it as well as possible SOOC and then using skills and knowledge, enhance the shot in much the same way as the darkroom masters of old (and new) where this is required, is the right way to go.




There are unfortunately far too many lazy numpties out there attempting to 'live the dream' without possessing the skills or even making any attempt to gain those skills.

Photography is no longer an 'art,' it is a shallow pastime to subjugate the masses. .......................Discuss.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I just wish people would get over the get in right in camera snobbery we see here sometimes
Click to expand...

Oops, I'm sorry to have raised the issue. It certainly wasn't snobbery as I am nowhere near as proficient with a camera as many on here. I will have to just crack on and do better in post processing.
 
Simplythebeast said:
Being of a certain age I remember that well. We live in a time where it is so much easier to recover an average image than it ever used to be.
It was difficult enough learning to use a camera and now just when I am less able to take in new stuff I have to try to get my head around photoshop, lightroom etc.
They are great programmes and can do marvelous things but I end up just using the very basic sliders as I cant get myhead around the rest.
Meh.....just have to stick at it and pick up what I can,
Click to expand...
This is the early digital fallacy I thought had died.

There were 3 distinct 'photographers' pre digital.

  • The happy snapper, who used to send his print film off to the lab and get back his nearly always perfectly exposed prints. Because the latitude on print film is massive and the lab was sorting out all the mistakes they didn't even know they'd made. - if you want to do similar today, shoot JPEG, but you'll have to be more careful with your exposures than with film.
  • The 'capturing reality' brigade, armed with slow slide film and a handheld meter who bracketed images of the hotel pool to make sure what they captured was 'as it was perfectly' whilst choosing film that had the saturation cranked up to 11. You can still do this by choosing 'vivid' or whatever for your in camera JPEGS.
  • The 'darkroom junkies', who spent longer choosing their paper and chemicals than they did choosing where to shoot, but they worked hard to produce perfect prints of what they'd preconceived. Which is more or less the prevalent attitude today for lots of 'serious' photographers. Whilst hopefully, the prevailing attitude is to think carefully about the shot and then perfect it in processing.
But the idea that any of the digital manipulation we do today is 'new' is plain daft, it's as old as photography itself. Just remember that 'proper' photography started with the arrival of the negative which gave us all a 2nd chance at creating an image, one in the camera, one in the darkroom.
 
Last edited:
If you you captured all the data you needed to make the picture you wanted then you "Got it right in camera".
If you choose to accept the quick jpeg rendition of the shot presented to you by your camera as the only true representation of the shot and using your own judgment is cheating,or being lazy then I would suggest that it is you that is being lazy.
 
Graham W said:
If you you captured all the data you needed to make the picture you wanted then you "Got it right in camera".
If you choose to accept the quick jpeg rendition of the shot presented to you by your camera as the only true representation of the shot and using your own judgment is cheating,or being lazy then I would suggest that it is you that is being lazy.
Click to expand...
Seem to have kicked an ants nest here, I just asked if one should become proficient in using a camera before moving on to learning how to properly use PP software.
The answer appears to be no. Thats fair enough, thanks everyone.
 
Simplythebeast said:
Seem to have kicked an ants nest here, I just asked if one should become proficient in using a camera before moving on to learning how to properly use PP software.
The answer appears to be no. Thats fair enough, thanks everyone.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you read that. The answer I read was that unless you're happy with your cameras choice of processing*, you'll need a bit of both.

*which is like being happy with whatever your lab delivered from print film
 
What did we do before Photoshop? We only took a limited number of shots because the lenses and equipment available could not capture the distant or close up scenes in detail, the film's speeds available could not capture moving objects in detail or handle low light. Photoshop is only another development in the relentless upgrading of tools available to those working with light.
I think it would be a shame to be stuck at pinholes and glass plates.
All the developments in bodies, motor drives, lenses, flash, lighting rigs and tripods linked to chemical advances, paper types, printers and the availability of digital equipment including computing advances and software all come together to make photography what it is. Everyone has the ability to choose how and what they use to obtain the images they want without having to comment on the choice of others. There surely is no right way just the way that suits each individual to achieve the results they are happy with?
And this leaves out the equipment choice made due to a person's relative financial circumstances.
Just some thoughts
 
Last edited:
Simplythebeast said:
Seem to have kicked an ants nest here, I just asked if one should become proficient in using a camera before moving on to learning how to properly use PP software.
The answer appears to be no. Thats fair enough, thanks everyone.
Click to expand...

In my limited experience the 2 go hand-in-hand. You need to learn both. Getting out and using the camera is great but appears to me to be an on-going process. When does one become proficient? I can find my way around my Canon and continually fiddle and fettle with settings but do I consider myself proficient? No.

Learning to use PP tools give your pictures that edge that they may otherwise not have and to be honest, applications like Lightroom are pretty intuitive today and relatively straight forward to use in comparison to being outside with the camera in the first place. Plus, with LR you can never ruin your original so you can mess about with your snaps until they're perfect.
 
Kernowgirl said:
Curious... does everybody at some point visualise a good photo opportunity and once downloaded is nothing like you thought, I seem to be struggling a little with identifying a good shot (thank heavens for digital!)
Click to expand...

Phil is spot on.. photos have content, composition and light.

If you're shooting for yourself then you're already engaged with the content.

Composition.. is a strange thing. I've studied it a fair bit. The widely publicised guidelines are helpful but it's more useful to think in terms of what feeling a particular composition conveys - e.g. a portrait shot from low down can convey power; close to the edge of the frame can be a bit uncomfortable.

Assuming you've got content and composition sorted then the difference between a boring image and a corker will often be the light - and how you use that light. For example, imagine a field of poppies at sunset. If you aim for a nice even exposure you'll get a pretty picture. If you let everything go dark except the few poppies which are backlit by a shaft of light then you'll get something quite different and a lot more dramatic. (but for heaven's sake don't do what I just did and google poppy field sunset and take that as inspiration. My eyes hurt!!)

Processing.. should just be your personal polish.

Lastly, there's a famous Robert Capa quote: "If you're pictures aren't good enough you're not close enough". There's lots of ways of interpreting that statement. It could be saying there's no need to include every element of a scene, or it could be suggesting that we should get close, use a wide angle to make the subject pop out of the frame and include lots of context in the background. Either way, it's worth thinking about.
 
Simplythebeast said:
Seem to have kicked an ants nest here, I just asked if one should become proficient in using a camera before moving on to learning how to properly use PP software.
The answer appears to be no. Thats fair enough, thanks everyone.
Click to expand...

You can learn both at the same time, just remember that polishing a diamond raises its value but a polished turd is still a turd - ever watch Gordon Ramsey where he rants at people not using local fresh ingredients, why is that? Because it is a damn sight easier to make something from good ingredients and your ingredients for a photograph start with what you capture.

Mike
 
Deadlock said:
If you see something you like, work the subject.
Move around and take lots of images from different angles, apertures, focal lengths, compositions, etc. Get home and analyse them. See what works for you and meets your personal tastes. You may often find something that works better than you'd originally thought would work.
Click to expand...

Thanks, am a real beginner and having to learn everything, including the capabilities of my camera so any feedback/comments are useful.
 
@Kernowgirl
Do you look at photographs? - exhibitions, exhibition catalogues for those you can't get to, books of photographs, the photography sectons of newspapers (e.g. the Guardian and the Telegraph both have dedicated sections on their web editions) etc. If you expose yourself to photography and spend some time really looking and thinkng about the images you see and why they work it will help you develop an eye for the image.

If someone asked you who your favourite photographers are or which photographer's work you'd seen most reently, what would your answers be?
 
It's also good to look through the sections displaying photos for critique here and ask yourself whether the images displayed are good (or not) and what makes them good or bad.

People often tend to post their 'best' work, wantiing a pat of the back, which can make it harder to see flaws, but there's plenty of more ordinary stuff too. I always look for pictures with few or no comments (these are often the less good images that no-one wants to crit) to practice trying to see what would make them better. It's a great way to helpm you analyse your own pictures too.
 
Alastair said:
@Kernowgirl
Do you look at photographs? - exhibitions, exhibition catalogues for those you can't get to, books of photographs, the photography sectons of newspapers (e.g. the Guardian and the Telegraph both have dedicated sections on their web editions) etc. If you expose yourself to photography and spend some time really looking and thinkng about the images you see and why they work it will help you develop an eye for the image.

If someone asked you who your favourite photographers are or which photographer's work you'd seen most reently, what would your answers be?
Click to expand...

Hi Alastair, I haven't attended any exhibitions but am always on the look out for photography work whether that be newspapers, books or window displays of people's work. I do this to generate ideas for myself and to see others perspectives, and compositions.

I have been online and seen some local photographers work but have not identified a favourite photographer, I admire the work of several, perhaps I n ed to hone this and think about what it is that inspires me about their work.

ancient_mariner said:
It's also good to look through the sections displaying photos for critique here and ask yourself whether the images displayed are good (or not) and what makes them good or bad.

Hi Toni, People often tend to post their 'best' work, wantiing a pat of the back, which can make it harder to see flaws, but there's plenty of more ordinary stuff too. I always look for pictures with few or no comments (these are often the less good images that no-one wants to crit) to practice trying to see what would make them better. It's a great way to helpm you analyse your own pictures too.
Click to expand...

I have looked at images all over the forum some are a question of taste I appreciate we cannot all like the same thing, one thing I do struggle with is I have seen images that I would consider over edited (although probably not qualified to judge!) and have lost the natural element, I personally love the natural element and tones of nature.
I read the comments and quite frankly do not understand some of the jargon (I'm sure I will learn) but seeing the original and edits is a useful comparison.
I will be putting some more photos on for honest critique as I am keen to learn.

Thanks for both your constructive comments.
 
Kernowgirl said:
I have been online and seen some local photographers work but have not identified a favourite photographer, I admire the work of several, perhaps I n ed to hone this and think about what it is that inspires me about their work.
Click to expand...
Don't just restrict it to local photographers, and also look at those who shoot subjects that don't interest you as well as those that do - you can learn a lot from both.

Have a look for The Photograph as Contemporary Art by Charlotte Cotton in the library, it's quite a good overview of contemporary photography and should give you some names to look up. There are also feeds like Colossal (www.thisiscolossal.com/category/photography/) and Feature Shoot (www.featureshoot.com/) that can give you a daily dose of photography you might not always come across elsewhere - and you won't like all of it, you're not supposed to! But you can learn and hone your eye from it all.


Holidays are a good time for exhibition visits. For me, yesterday was Martin Roemers and later in the week it will be Cindy Sherman.
 
Alastair said:
Don't just restrict it to local photographers, and also look at those who shoot subjects that don't interest you as well as those that do - you can learn a lot from both.

Have a look for The Photograph as Contemporary Art by Charlotte Cotton in the library, it's quite a good overview of contemporary photography and should give you some names to look up. There are also feeds like Colossal (www.thisiscolossal.com/category/photography/) and Feature Shoot (www.featureshoot.com/) that can give you a daily dose of photography you might not always come across elsewhere - and you won't like all of it, you're not supposed to! But you can learn and hone your eye from it all.


Holidays are a good time for exhibition visits. For me, yesterday was Martin Roemers and later in the week it will be Cindy Sherman.
Click to expand...

Will check those websites out and look for some exhibitions
 
Alastair said:
Don't just restrict it to local photographers, and also look at those who shoot subjects that don't interest you as well as those that do - you can learn a lot from both.

Have a look for The Photograph as Contemporary Art by Charlotte Cotton in the library, it's quite a good overview of contemporary photography and should give you some names to look up. There are also feeds like Colossal (www.thisiscolossal.com/category/photography/) and Feature Shoot (www.featureshoot.com/) that can give you a daily dose of photography you might not always come across elsewhere - and you won't like all of it, you're not supposed to! But you can learn and hone your eye from it all.


Holidays are a good time for exhibition visits. For me, yesterday was Martin Roemers and later in the week it will be Cindy Sherman.
Click to expand...

Will check those websites out and look for some exhibitions
 
Kernowgirl said:
I have looked at images all over the forum some are a question of taste I appreciate we cannot all like the same thing, one thing I do struggle with is I have seen images that I would consider over edited (although probably not qualified to judge!) and have lost the natural element, I personally love the natural element and tones of nature.
I read the comments and quite frankly do not understand some of the jargon (I'm sure I will learn) but seeing the original and edits is a useful comparison.
I will be putting some more photos on for honest critique as I am keen to learn.
Click to expand...

It's still worth doing critique on other people's pictures, and as you noticed, you have already spotted flaws in images even if they are a matter of taste. If you see jargon (like DRL - refers to dynamic range i.e. how light and dark the extreme highlights and shadows of an image are) then ask in the thread where you see them and people will often be happy to explain.

Be aware too that sometimes the very good guys round here make mistakes or miss the mark, so never be afraid to politely mention what seems like a flaw to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top