* Simple ways to improve photography *

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Simple, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. Simple

    Simple Guest

    * Simple ways to improve photography *


    -Diagonal Line
    -Focus Point
    -Natural Shape
    -Focus On Eyes
    -Shoot Lanscapes on early morning and later evening
    -Walk around
    -Press Shutter Release Button Gently
    -Slow shutter to make silk effect on flowing water
    -Try to compose in vertical and horizontal
    -Adjust +EV on object of light color
    -Adjust -EV on object of dark color
    -Cross Screen Filter
    -Use ND filter on Water Spray
    -Light & Shadow
    -Gradual Color Filter
    -Exposure Modes
    Simple, Jul 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Simple

    Alan Browne Guest

    Zoom with your feet
    Timer or cable release
    Record your settings
    Shoot slides at least as much as you shoot negs
    closeups ...NO! I mean get close!!
    Fill the frame ... that's better, now fill it even more
    shoot for a month with a 20 or 24mm lens
    Read books on photography
    Join a club ... enter contests
    Learn to use a grey card
    Incident meter
    Fill flash
    Slow Sync
    Polarizer for those wet fall leaves
    Don't pick your nose
    read a few more books
    visit photo exhibitons
    Take more photos and take your time doing it
    ( btw: 50 rolls per average *week* is the standard by which we are

    judged around here.)

    HAVE FUN!!!

    Alan Browne, Jul 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. How about at night?
    May I drive around? Or ride around?
    Do you mean "Zoom out"? Wouldn't it defeat the purpose
    of the long end of a zoom lens?
    Do I have to? What if I _want_ to see separate droplets?
    Which colour?

    I think you might want to elaborate on those... If you know
    what they mean, that is.

    Victor Bazarov, Jul 29, 2003
  4. Simple

    matt Guest

    Using good slide film... 50 rolls/week will surely make most people go
    Unless that's your living, of course, and somewhere in the 1000's of
    exposures, you make some money!

    Lets see...given you are shooting 24/7... thats 1800 exposures/week =
    257/day = 10/hour = 1 every 6 minutes
    More realistically.. 12/6.... thats 1800 exposures/week = 300/day = 25/hour
    = about 1 every 2 - 2.5 minutes.
    I would think your shutter finger would get tired.

    I like your other tips, though.
    matt, Jul 29, 2003
  5. Simple

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hi Matt

    You're welcome, it's just the tip of the berg.

    See the "Tall Photographic (TP) Tales" thread for guidance on the 50

    Cheers, Alan
    Alan Browne, Jul 29, 2003
  6. Simple

    EarGuy Guest

    True, but...

    Motor-wind sports shots at 8 frames per second = one 36 exposure roll shot
    in about five seconds.

    More realistically, bursts of sports shots at 4 frames per second, and you
    could kill off a roll in 15-20 minutes. Ignoring all the other kids on my
    son's baseball team, I can shoot 3 rolls in a 6-inning baseball game. 50
    rolls per week could certainly be done.

    I agree, though, that unless you're a pro or a lottery winner...

    EarGuy, Jul 29, 2003
  7. Yeah! One of those things that everyone learns early on (or it seems to me)
    is that you should have a go at a long exposure on water features... Sure it
    looks nice and yes it's great to get a few shots that way, but after you've
    shot a few it loses it's appeal. I've lost count of the number of
    photographs I've seen with that 'silk' effect on flowing water and, well,
    it's a bit boring, isn't it?

    Hmm, those words are probably going to come back to haunt me next time I see
    a good river/waterfall/etc.. ;)

    Chris Barnard, Jul 29, 2003
  8. Simple

    Alan Browne Guest

    The 'silk' effect as you call it is just one more way of showing the
    stream or river on its course. It can be used in varying degrees and
    sure, shoot it without the effect also.

    Anything overdone gets boring; anything not done is missing.

    When showing a batch of slides of a visit to some natural setting, I
    would not throw in more than two slides with this effect. Let the punch
    of it work, and then move on.

    Alan Browne, Jul 30, 2003
  9. Good point. I guess when you are presenting a collection of work, then you'd
    inevitably want to include a long-exposure shot of some water if the subject
    allows for it. I think I've sort of got fed up with it a bit since I know
    how it's done. It makes me wonder where the creativity is, since it's not
    anything new is it?
    Anyway, perhaps I'm just venting my own frustration at not being creative
    enough with my shots rather than being critical of a particular technique.

    Chris Barnard, Jul 31, 2003
  10. Simple

    Alan Browne Guest

    Any image has more than just 'effects' such as the silky water effect.
    That is just one element to the scene which still needs to be very well
    composed to be interesting in the first place. 99.999% of photography
    is not "anything new", but people still manage to get great photographs
    of many-many things that have already been done... You can and should
    approach a subject differently, change perspective, be daring, take
    risks, break rules and you can also become proficient, if not a master
    of the "common" approach. They are not mutually exclusive.
    (look at the many user contributions on photo.net and you will see
    mediocre, mundane and magnificent images.)

    What hasn't been stated in this sub-thread is that the silky-water
    effect usually makes for an odd combination of a soft image when the
    skies are cloudy and there is some mist too; combined with color
    contrasts of whites, blacks, greys and greens of the forest (or in the
    fall with the color foliage, bright oranges, reds and yellows). The
    "white" of the silk effect provides a nice veil and trim to the image.

    Again, it is a classic photographic effect, but should never be over
    presented. The overall composition should take precedence over the effect.

    Alan Browne, Jul 31, 2003
  11. Alan,

    Again you make a good point. Thanks for the insight. I guess I spend a lot
    of time looking for something new when I photograph (or at least when I
    rummage through the photographs I've taken), rather than create something
    that has already been covered. In doing so, I maybe miss something important
    that is already there.
    I guess it's slightly frustrating to feel that I may spend years trying to
    perfect my photography, without actually creating anything that I feel is
    If you want to, take a look at my website at www.waymaster.com. You can
    follow the link from the main page to my photographs (all the pictures there
    are my own). Yes, the website design is boring and I'm thinking the
    photographs there are boring too!! I don't think some long-exposure shots of
    water would help the situation. Anyway, I'm beginning to try new things now
    and I hope my future shots will be better.

    Chris Barnard, Aug 1, 2003
  12. Simple

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hi Chris,

    Not sure how you metered the aircraft shots, but most seem under-exp.
    On overcast days, open up a couple stops. On sunny days, meter a grey
    card towards the sky where the show will be (have somebody hold it up
    for you at about 10 feet away, over the grass (not white concrete
    taxiways which will add light) and spot meter it. Go manual and stick
    with that setting. With print film open up another stop fearlessly.
    If you have an incident meter, use it, but over the grass (same reason
    as above).

    The Dartmouth shot of the harbour is very nice. A grad ND would have
    allowed you to balance the sky and harbour better. Tripod required of
    course. The bird on the post is the same as the aircraft above...

    You have some nice shots and some "blah" shots there. Only put up the
    better ones. Work composure. Have fun.

    Alan Browne, Aug 5, 2003
  13. Hi Alan,

    Thanks for your comments and advice. I'll definately remember it. I've been
    photographing with SLRs for quite a few years now, but it's only really in
    the last year or so that I've begun to get into the more technical aspects
    of photography, rather than just letting my camera choose the shutter speed,
    whilst I focus the camera and pick an aperture that gives me a reasonable
    exposure time.
    I see what you mean about the aircraft shots. Some of them I just let the
    camera sort the metering out, which of course means that it will meter for
    the sky more than the object in it. Others I tried to compensate for the sky
    with a sort of random 'lets see what happens' methodology. Spot-metering on
    a grey card would seem a more precise approach and is something I will
    consider in the future ;)
    Unfortunately, all my cameras have centre-weighted metering - none of that
    fancy spot-metering stuff! Maybe it's time to consider getting something a
    bit newer?
    It's also probably time I spent some money on some decent filters, as you
    suggested for the Dartmouth shot. I was quite pleased with that particular
    photograph, but I'm afraid I ruined it with film choice at the time. I was
    experimenting with different print films and I had Kodak Gold 800 in the
    camera for that shot. It meant I could take it hand-held - which I though
    was good, because I didn't have my tripod with me - of course I found out
    the massive amounts of grain basically ruined any chance of a decent
    enlargement! I also kicked myself several hundred times for not realising
    that 800 speed film would have that effect - it seemed obvious to me
    Still, my messing around with different films, plus the advice from people
    here, means that I think I have a better idea of what films to use now.
    Did you check the 'cars' section? There's a sub-section for Goodwood 2003,
    which represents my most recent photographs. Again, a bit of a mixed-bag I
    suppose, but I was pretty pleased with the results considering I was using
    an ME-Super and Pentax A3000 with a Centon 28-70mm and a Tamron 80-210mm
    lens. I half-expected a lot of the high-speed car shots to be out of focus,
    blurry and out of frame!


    Chris Barnard, Aug 6, 2003
  14. Simple

    Alan Browne Guest

    Make the grey card occupy most of the viewfinder. If this can be sone
    without casting shaddows on the card or otherwise changing the light
    there, then you are fine.
    Regardless of the film speed (although I agree with the grain aspect), a
    grad ND is the way to go. I forgot to mention you should use DOF
    preview to assure that the transition line is along a natural break in
    the scene (eg: horizon).

    High speed car shots look high speed when there is blur. If you shoot
    at 1/1000 you get a parked car! A tripod and a relatively slow shutter
    speed (1/60 ... 1/125) is great with the car blurred a hair or while
    panning, a blurred background. A pop of flash (rear shutter) when close
    enough really freezes the "front" of the blurred car (avoid shooting at
    the drivers face).

    Stop using P mode and start using A mode for most of your shooting. For
    action effects use S (or Tv) as it is the time element to be controlled.
    If you have DOF preview, use it after you select focus and aperture to
    see what the heck it is you're getting.

    Have fun too!

    Alan Browne, Aug 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.