eye training

[El2]

I agree with #1 WB issue and #2 OOF.

Great start!

 

[nicholasw]

1+2 both could have been very nice, I like the composition a lot.

 

[ksmattfish]

But I'm having a hard time seeing how the white balance is out on #1. And for #2, wouldn't it be more proper to say the depth of field is too narrow, and not the point of focus? I feel that even if I had focused on her eyes, still not enough of her would have been in focus.

Are you calibrating your monitor? Are the people commenting on the wb calibrating theirs? If not who knows what the true wb is. It does look a little off to me in pic #1, but I know for sure that the laptop I'm viewing it on has a lousy screen, and tends to make things look blue. Even after calibration this laptop screen sucks.

That the eyes must be in focus in a portrait is a rule of art, which of course is an oxymoron as there are no rules in art. Human beings are very visual creatures, and we place significant value on the eyes, so we do like to see sharply focused eye detail. As I understand dogs they are probably more olfactory centered, so I think that if this portrait is trying to catch the true nature of the subject, or be a portrait for other dogs, focusing on the nose might be the right thing to do. I don't mind that the eyes are soft; I like the photo as is.

If you have the time you might consider taking Drawing 101 and Basic Design at your local college. These are prerequisites to many art classes including photography. While you won't be holding a camera in either class, your mind and eyes will be retrained to see how the world looks when converted to 2D, and that's extremely helpful for photographers. Along the way you will also learn about composition, tone/shape/form, color, and even some lighting basics (how light affects subjects visually).

 

[OldClicker]

Thanks. There are some aspects of that picture that I really like. But the person who mentioned the bed post was right - It's in a really bad place. It's amazing that I never noticed it until OldClicker pointed it out to me, and that now it's something that really bothers me about the picture. My eye has changed...

The problem with learning to 'see' is that you loose your 'ignorance is bliss'. I used to think my photos were pretty good. TF

 

[dxqcanada]

I don't use a digital camera. I just do my best on setting the shutter speed and aperture, but am often disappointed when I go pick the photos up.

Be aware that the photofinisher is also changing the way the photograph will appear.

I used to run a photofinishing shop, and I can tell you that we had a lot of control over the final image. We could easily print something poorly.

 

[gsgary]

Thanks everyone. That all mostly sounds pretty good to me. But I'm having a hard time seeing how the white balance is out on #1. And for #2, wouldn't it be more proper to say the depth of field is too narrow, and not the point of focus? I feel that even if I had focused on her eyes, still not enough of her would have been in focus.

And on both, as far as the distracting backgrounds, I see what you all are saying. But I think there fine. I was just trying to document life around the house with the dogs. But, maybe I'll come to see better ways of doing that.

What about this one? It's of broccoli growing in the garden.

#3

This is much better focus but still with narrow depth of field

 

[gsgary]

I understand. Sorry if you all thought I was defensive. I did consider the opinion on the background after it was pointed out, but I hadn't before. Thanks again for that. I was just pointing out that I now notice something new, but have a different feeling about it.

Just hope I didn't come across as some jerk who asks for an opinion and then wants to argue about it. I'm not bothered if you don't like the photo so long as I learn to see what you see.




I hate the flash. Before I even started learning about photography, I developed the opinion that the flash was bad news (or at least hard to use). I swear to you that I did not use the flash in any of those photographs.

I've become real curios of what you said though, since you see the picture whether I used the flash or not. That's just the kind of thing I need to be directed to consider. The more I look at the photo, the more the exposure bothers me. (Although at first I thought it was a nice picture.) I have trouble getting the exposure right. I don't use a digital camera. I just do my best on setting the shutter speed and aperture, but am often disappointed when I go pick the photos up.

The main problem is you are emotionally attached to the subject so you cannot be subjective

 

[Michael P. Harker]

If you want to "Learn to see" leave the camera in the bag and use a hand-made "framer" - get an 8x10 inch piece of black mount board and cut out a 3"x4" hole in the center of it (use a sharp box cutter and a straight edge to guide you).

Now hold it up in front of you and look at what it frames of the world. You have to scan the whole scene slowly looking at everything within the window - anything that detracts from a simple, clean composition will be in your photo. Move the card closer to your eye for a wide-angle effect and farther away for a telephoto effect. This technique works indoors or outdoors and you can supplement your self-training by going to your library and checking out Ansel Adams' book, The Camera (or buy one for yourself).

Change your angle of view too by moving around from side to side, and raising or lowering your view.

Believe me that just an hour or two a week with this method will allow you to experience composing with your eye and mind in sync. Study some of the famous photographer's work to see how they saw. (Steiglitz, Adams, Weston, Strand Cartier-Bresson)

Learning "to see" is the really difficult part of becoming an accomplished photographer. It takes study and practice.

Cheers!
Michael P. Harker

 

[ypperin]

"Eye training" was a blessing for me..... and quite simple to obtain. Walk around with a toddler if you can, and everything the young toddler stops to look at will likely have neat colors, lines, shapes and so on. It has proven invaluable for me (having 3 kiddos) and even moreso with my eldest being mildly autistic. together we notice things in the neighbourhood nobody else does..... for example, the other day he got out of the car (he's now 9 btw) and put his foot down on a partially frozen puddle at the parking lot on a piece of what, at first glace, was paper garbage..... it was in fact the Canadian Charter of Rights, with a muddy footprint on it, it's edges a bit tattered imprisioned partially in the ice..... would have been a great shot!

It's pretty amazing what kids will stop and look at, and if you make a practice of going out once per week with a small child you will find that your eye will be trained in no time to notice the "little" things and interesting perspectives alike.