I'm having trouble making my pictures look professional!

[danman281]

I know I just started, but this is turning out a little more difficult than I expected. How do y'all make the pictures turn out so professional looking? Like worthy of going on maxim or something.

I have a Canon 40D, 28-135mm lens, UV filter, with speed lite flash. I can't blame my camera lol. I have been taking pictures practically my whole life, but this is my first real camera. I still love photography even if it doesn't turn out the exact way I perceived, but are there are any tips to help me? Even something encouraging? Still a "noob"

I went to the park to take some pictures. These aren't my best, but I did attempt to make them look good.
These were on a cloudy day, in the afternoon. They look like normal pictures from amateur. (Not Edited, Not Raw)

 

[Battou]

You are right, you can't blame the camera, blame the UV filter. Take it off before shooting, A poor filter will soften shots considerably.

I base on the last shot, Assuming you are using AF, I do not see a DOF failure but yet the picture is still....hazy. Unless that was heavily cropped, it should not be that soft. Bad filter.

The second picture is ok to me but I would bump the saturation a little bit, Don't go over board but definately bump it in PS.

the first just lacks interest to me, I can't help there. I do not look at those enough to see just what is off, that is my inexperience with the subject.

 

[tirediron]

One of the biggest detractors from all three of these images is indeed the sky. Technically they're fine, but they all need a little more post, esp a mild saturation boost.

The reason you these pictures don't look professional is because you didn't take them under 'professional' conditions. It's important to undertand that those pictures on the cover of National Geographic or Outdoor Photographer don't just happen (Granted the odd one is a lucky shot but not too many).

I'll trade the word 'professional' for the word 'skilled' since all professional means is that you make money at it. A skilled photographer would see the scene in your second image and go, "Hey, that would make a great photo - hmmm, light's crap though." He would then commit it to memory, write it down, or whatever, and come back to it when the conditions are right.

As well, there are tools to enhance your images, filters, tripods, remote releases, and knowing what will and what won't make a good image when it's processed. For instance, in your first image, yes, the church is an interesting buidling, but is it a good photograph? I wouldn't have taken it simply because the trees block a good part of the building. In the second one, there's definitely a good photograph there, but I don't think you quite got it. Try and avoid having visual barriers in your image; in this case the the bridge cuts directly across the lower third of the image. A better way to do this might have been to compose it so that the bridge was on an angle running into the centre of the image. With the last image, always try and have animals (and people) move toward you, not away from you. I would have located myself so that the ducks were coming toward me, lay down on my stomach (yep, you get dirty doing this) and focused tightling on one or two of them

Hope that helps, just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.

~John

 

[tirediron]

A poor filter will soften shots considerably.

Very true; rule of thumb, if it's made of glass, don't buy cheap.

You are right, you can't blame the camera, blame the UV filter. Take it off before shooting,

And what are you basing this on; if the OP has in fact bought a $10 'No-name' UV filter through eBay, I'd agree, but I've done some fairly extensive testing on the B+W filters I use (UVs among them) and have yet to detect any noticable degradation of the image at normal conditions.

 

[usayit]

Easy way to test the filter is to take shots in similar conditions with both filter and unfilter. I use filllters and never noticed any problems but I do buy quality filters.

Remember... photography is light. You have to consider lighting conditions as well.

 

[Montana]

I agree with tirediron, its the harsh lighting of mid-day that made for the bad photos. The highlites are blown in all 3. Try metering for the sky and then reshooting. If the forground is too dark, bump exposure until you find a happy medium. Although a happy medium cannot always be found in bright sunlight and shadows. Shoot in RAW too. That way, if you do overexpose, you may still be able to pull back some of the bright details. Don't be afraid to shoot 5 or 6 shots of the same subject if you have card room. Meter...shoot, adjust settings to right...shoot, adjust settings to left...shoot. (left and right on your in camera exposure meter). Or "chimp" your histogram. When you get home, study the shots and exif data....learn from it. Don't get discouraged, if it was easy you'd see everyone carring one of this big cameras around. It just takes tons of practice and understanding.

Derrick

P.S. what aperture was these shots taken at? I bought my 40D with the same kit lens, but I think I took 2, maybe 3, shots with that lens then threw it in the bag and never even looked at it again. I wasn't overly impressed, but the colors were good. Just not a focal length that I didn't already have covered by a better lens. (All this is speculation, it may be a superb lens, I just haven't tried it much. Heck, it may be my best piece of glass and I'm using it to catch dust. LOL)

 

[DWS]

stick with it and learn the camera's characteristics and capabilities......also, light is not light, ie., lighting is an art within itself.....your best colors will come at dawn and dusk, while mid day is the worst time for light impacted colors.....

 

[Alpha]

use more cowbell.

 

[Resin42]

use more cowbell.

You made me spill beer on my keyboard!

 

[Rachelsne]

a circular polariser will help with keeping skys blue, or darker, i think the first pic would benifit from having a little more foregraound too, maybe with a wide angle lens and have it landscape instead of portrait?

keep an eye on your high lights try to expose so they dont blow out, or take two shots (if the item is stationary) using a tripod, and expose both differently then combine the two, i used to do that with my old point and shoot

enjoy your self

 

[clarbin]

use more cowbell.

I got the fever........

 

[epp_b]

Like worthy of going on maxim or something.

I'll forget you said that and move right on to C&C

It's pretty rare that you'll get exactly what you want straight out of the camera, you'll find that you nearly always need to do some editing.

The main problem I see with your photos is that the highlights are completely blown out, particularly with the sky. tirediron covered most of points on how to avoid this (using CPLs, playing with exposure settings, etc), but I'll make a couple of suggestions as well.

For example, I think the first picture could have been a great photograph if you'd...
1) Used a polarizer
2) Shot in RAW to adjust balances later
3) Bracketted with a tripod (I'm pretty sure the 40D has this built-in)

There's not much you can do with it now because to the JPEG compression is too harsh to make any significant adjustments (though, I assume this compression was done by your graphic editor)

 

[danman281]

You are right, you can't blame the camera, blame the UV filter. Take it off before shooting, A poor filter will soften shots considerably.

I base on the last shot, Assuming you are using AF, I do not see a DOF failure but yet the picture is still....hazy. Unless that was heavily cropped, it should not be that soft. Bad filter.

The second picture is ok to me but I would bump the saturation a little bit, Don't go over board but definately bump it in PS.

the first just lacks interest to me, I can't help there. I do not look at those enough to see just what is off, that is my inexperience with the subject.

The UV filter I was using was from HOYA. I think HOYA is an alright brand, and I read good reviews from them, nothing fancy though. Any brand suggestions?

One of the biggest detractors from all three of these images is indeed the sky. Technically they're fine, but they all need a little more post, esp a mild saturation boost.

The reason you these pictures don't look professional is because you didn't take them under 'professional' conditions. It's important to undertand that those pictures on the cover of National Geographic or Outdoor Photographer don't just happen (Granted the odd one is a lucky shot but not too many).

I'll trade the word 'professional' for the word 'skilled' since all professional means is that you make money at it. A skilled photographer would see the scene in your second image and go, "Hey, that would make a great photo - hmmm, light's crap though." He would then commit it to memory, write it down, or whatever, and come back to it when the conditions are right.

As well, there are tools to enhance your images, filters, tripods, remote releases, and knowing what will and what won't make a good image when it's processed. For instance, in your first image, yes, the church is an interesting buidling, but is it a good photograph? I wouldn't have taken it simply because the trees block a good part of the building. In the second one, there's definitely a good photograph there, but I don't think you quite got it. Try and avoid having visual barriers in your image; in this case the the bridge cuts directly across the lower third of the image. A better way to do this might have been to compose it so that the bridge was on an angle running into the centre of the image. With the last image, always try and have animals (and people) move toward you, not away from you. I would have located myself so that the ducks were coming toward me, lay down on my stomach (yep, you get dirty doing this) and focused tightling on one or two of them

Hope that helps, just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.

~John

Thanks John. Lighting that day was indeed very dark. I tried compensating by longer shutter speed and messing with the aperture. Unfortunately my tripod didn't come in until the day after I shot it. great suggestions

I agree with tirediron, its the harsh lighting of mid-day that made for the bad photos. The highlites are blown in all 3. Try metering for the sky and then reshooting. If the forground is too dark, bump exposure until you find a happy medium. Although a happy medium cannot always be found in bright sunlight and shadows. Shoot in RAW too. That way, if you do overexpose, you may still be able to pull back some of the bright details. Don't be afraid to shoot 5 or 6 shots of the same subject if you have card room. Meter...shoot, adjust settings to right...shoot, adjust settings to left...shoot. (left and right on your in camera exposure meter). Or "chimp" your histogram. When you get home, study the shots and exif data....learn from it. Don't get discouraged, if it was easy you'd see everyone carring one of this big cameras around. It just takes tons of practice and understanding.

Derrick

P.S. what aperture was these shots taken at? I bought my 40D with the same kit lens, but I think I took 2, maybe 3, shots with that lens then threw it in the bag and never even looked at it again. I wasn't overly impressed, but the colors were good. Just not a focal length that I didn't already have covered by a better lens. (All this is speculation, it may be a superb lens, I just haven't tried it much. Heck, it may be my best piece of glass and I'm using it to catch dust. LOL)

The aperture I used on that duck one was f/5.7
I'm honestly not that fond of these lens either, but these are the only ones I got to work with.

I'll forget you said that and move right on to C&C

It's pretty rare that you'll get exactly what you want straight out of the camera, you'll find that you nearly always need to do some editing.

The main problem I see with your photos is that the highlights are completely blown out, particularly with the sky. tirediron covered most of points on how to avoid this (using CPLs, playing with exposure settings, etc), but I'll make a couple of suggestions as well.

For example, I think the first picture could have been a great photograph if you'd...
1) Used a polarizer
2) Shot in RAW to adjust balances later
3) Bracketted with a tripod (I'm pretty sure the 40D has this built-in)

There's not much you can do with it now because to the JPEG compression is too harsh to make any significant adjustments (though, I assume this compression was done by your graphic editor)

I'm not very familiar with ps. I have used a couple of times, but the most I can do with it is adjust brightness and contrast. I'm an MS paint person haha jk... sort of. Should I just jump into RAW mode anyways?



And Thank you for the awesome comments and suggestions everyone else has posted. Just got home and I need to get ready for tmr.

 

[epp_b]

Should I just jump into RAW mode anyways?

For situations where you are unsure about lighting, yes. You can always use IrfanView (free) to quickly batch convert your RAW images to a lossless format like TIFF and then open them in any graphics editor.

I'm not very familiar with ps.

Personally, I think Photoshop is needlessly overcomplicated. See if you can "find" a copy of Micrografx Picture Publisher 8, which is now abandonware (PM me if you want to know what I "mean"). It's kind of buggy, but it works well for many photo adjustments.

 

[tirediron]

I will have to disagree with epp b; Photoshop is not needlessly over-complicated, it is, rather, very powerful, and features a huge array of tools. The nearly infinite array of adjustments you can make to an image neccesitate a complex menu system, and some commands which are less than intuitive. That aside, it is the industry standard for image editing.

While you certainly don't need to go to the expense of purchasing Photoshop CS3, I would strongly recommend spending ~$100 on either Adobe Photoshop Elements, or Corel PaintShopPro. Both of these are very full-featured editors which will last you for a long time, and have the power to deal with most situations you're likely to encounter. Something like MS Picture Publisher while cheap (and if money's a concern, try The GIMP; it's freeware - www.gimp.org) are not going to be updated, and do not follow the informal standards accepted by the "big boys".

Time spent learning Photoshop is time well spent.