Beginner needs help...

[Lisa Chapman]

Of course it’s ok to edit. They’re your images. Don’t worry about trying to please some other person’s idea of what makes a photographer great. Also, you mentioned a recent drop off in your quality - just wanted to say that when you go from iPhone or dslr on auto to Manual, A mode and are trying to get the camera to creat your vision not just record a scene, there is usually a learning curve where you get “worse” before you see the results of your new knowledge.

That's a great way to look at it! I immediately thought I was just going downhill and there would be no return if I didn't do something about it. When I got my camera a week ago I had so much fun with it, walking down by the river, taking pictures, enjoying just being out and looking around at possible shots I could get. I lost the fun and now it's just depressing me.

Thank you.

 

[stapo49]

I was told and I quote "If you take your shot and use an image editor afterwards you're not a photographer, not a good one anyways" So I thought okay, avoid editing at all costs, if I can take a great shot with my camera, I won't need to edit my images and I CAN become a great photographer in time. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Ugh.
Now I know it's okay to edit my images, this could be fun!

I think the problem is when you are starting out you are bombarded with things like " you must always shoot in manual mode", " you should be that good that you never have to edit your photos after you have taken them". What you need to do is ignore all this and experiment with a bunch of different techniques and find what suits you. Perhaps find a style of photography you admire and a photographer and get ideas from them. If you enjoy it the technical skill will come.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Thank you for this. You are totally right. I need to stop and ignore it all. Start again and have fun with it instead of letting it stress me out like it is. I haven't yet found a style that has jumped out at me but, I do seem to like images that most people find over exposed? LOL. However I will try not to over expose my images!

You may be want to start in "auto" mode and work on composition, rule of thirds etc and do some post processing in lightroom or whatever software you have. Then progress from there with aperture priority etc.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Lisa Chapman]

I was told and I quote "If you take your shot and use an image editor afterwards you're not a photographer, not a good one anyways" So I thought okay, avoid editing at all costs, if I can take a great shot with my camera, I won't need to edit my images and I CAN become a great photographer in time. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Ugh.
Now I know it's okay to edit my images, this could be fun!

Processing and editing are 2 very different things.

Processing is fully developing the image. Editing gets more complicated as it what constitutes "editing" varies greatly.

Well apparently whoever made that quote does understand photography. Also often times not only is editing not a problem, but necessary to create the image you want, or the vision you see in the image. Apparently none of these actual famous images were taken by "good" photographers, https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

I didn't realize professionals worked so hard in post to create those iconic images. That's encouraging! I have so much to learn. I'm letting it get me down. I need to go back to simple exposure, aperture and shutter speed/ ISO. Thank you.

 

[SquarePeg]

As someone mentioned above, get the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. A great starting point.

 

[Lisa Chapman]

As someone mentioned above, get the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. A great starting point.

Another one to look up on Amazon!

 

[480sparky]

I was told and I quote "If you take your shot and use an image editor afterwards you're not a photographer, not a good one anyways" ......

This is complete and utter balderdash. I guess even Ansel Adams wouldn't be a 'good' photographer because he edited his images afterwards. (Skip to 5:42 for the jist)



Newsflash for whoever told you that..... EVERY image is edited. Period. No camera takes a JPEG. They ALL use some raw format and edit it..... even in-camera.

 

[JoeW]

Some additional thoughts:
1. Both Peg and Derrel (highly respected members who provide a LOT of feedback and advice to newbies on this forum) recommended Bryan Peterson's book. I highly recommend it. Part of the reason is that Peterson is very approached for new photographers. But he's also prolific. So if you read "Understanding Exposure" and find it all connects with you and is readable and not boring you to tears, you've got the rest of his trilogy. Plus his videos. Plus his articles. He does a LOT of stuff with photography education and information.
2. Regarding RAW: the real advantage of RAW is that it gives you more capability for post processing. If you are not going to do a lot of post processing now or later (sometimes people shoot, do simple edits, than when they become more experienced may go back to a file years later and do something more sophisticated)--if you're not going to do that kind of editing where you bring out the reds and dilute the blues, lighten shadows, change the tone, maybe use layers, then it really doesn't make a lot of sense to shoot in RAW. If you're not going to do sophisticated editing now or later with these files, then shoot in Jpeg.
3. And yeah, you want to try and get as much of it right "in camera." But there will always be situations where you'll need to do post processing. Example: you have a prime lens (ie: it doesn't zoom in or out) on your camera--let's say a 50mm lens. There is a lane of traffic between you and the subject you're shooting (maybe, two lovers on a bench on the other side of the highway). It's a brilliant shot but unless you go run through traffic, it's cluttered. Unless--in post--you crop it massively to eliminate the lanes of traffic so the picture is just the bench with the lovers. Refusing to ever do post-production work is to walk away from a lot of potentially good work. Remember, some people take snapshots, what you want to do is to create photos. You can do a lot of this pre-shutter by where you stand, what light you wait for (or add/delete/modify), how you compose the shot, what props you add or clutter you delete. But ultimately, there will always be instances where the photo benefits from some post production. Your eye will not notice the empty coke can at the foot of the model. Or the squirrel on the branch that distracts from the subject. Or the shadow on part of her cheek. Or the distracting telephone line in the background. Or a little contract or a different white balance enhances the photo.

 

[Lisa Chapman]

Some additional thoughts:
1. Both Peg and Derrel (highly respected members who provide a LOT of feedback and advice to newbies on this forum) recommended Bryan Peterson's book. I highly recommend it. Part of the reason is that Peterson is very approached for new photographers. But he's also prolific. So if you read "Understanding Exposure" and find it all connects with you and is readable and not boring you to tears, you've got the rest of his trilogy. Plus his videos. Plus his articles. He does a LOT of stuff with photography education and information.
2. Regarding RAW: the real advantage of RAW is that it gives you more capability for post processing. If you are not going to do a lot of post processing now or later (sometimes people shoot, do simple edits, than when they become more experienced may go back to a file years later and do something more sophisticated)--if you're not going to do that kind of editing where you bring out the reds and dilute the blues, lighten shadows, change the tone, maybe use layers, then it really doesn't make a lot of sense to shoot in RAW. If you're not going to do sophisticated editing now or later with these files, then shoot in Jpeg.
3. And yeah, you want to try and get as much of it right "in camera." But there will always be situations where you'll need to do post processing. Example: you have a prime lens (ie: it doesn't zoom in or out) on your camera--let's say a 50mm lens. There is a lane of traffic between you and the subject you're shooting (maybe, two lovers on a bench on the other side of the highway). It's a brilliant shot but unless you go run through traffic, it's cluttered. Unless--in post--you crop it massively to eliminate the lanes of traffic so the picture is just the bench with the lovers. Refusing to ever do post-production work is to walk away from a lot of potentially good work. Remember, some people take snapshots, what you want to do is to create photos. You can do a lot of this pre-shutter by where you stand, what light you wait for (or add/delete/modify), how you compose the shot, what props you add or clutter you delete. But ultimately, there will always be instances where the photo benefits from some post production. Your eye will not notice the empty coke can at the foot of the model. Or the squirrel on the branch that distracts from the subject. Or the shadow on part of her cheek. Or the distracting telephone line in the background. Or a little contract or a different white balance enhances the photo.

Thank you for the feedback! I guess for now I could shoot JPEG since I only know the basics of RAW from what I've been taught here so far. Though maybe I could tinker a little in lightroom with the RAW files now too, does anyone shoot JPEG and RAW? Is there any benefit to that? Would that take up a lot of space on my SD card?

I will absolutely be getting the book that was recommended, I bought one already, it's on classic and digital photography, though I'm only doing digital right now, classic has always interested me so I thought it wouldn't hurt to learn about both.

 

[SquarePeg]

I shoot raw + jpeg (dual sd cards). I typically use the jpegs because I like the way Fuji jpeg colors look. The raw files are a back up in case I need to edit exposure or white balance issues. Jpegs sometimes don’t need any post processing. As joe indicated, raw files always do.

 

[dxqcanada]

Be aware that the optical viewfinder (which I am assuming you have) will not show how the camera will represent the scene.
The LCD is a helper to give you something close to what it will get.

Oh okay thank you, do you use them both? Do you choose one or the other? Do you have a preference? Like, do you switch between the Viewfinder and the LCD? With my camera it's a pretty tedious process so I try and choose one or the other but, if using them together will help then I certainly will.

Ah, tricky question.
I started photography when there was no such thing as an LCD on a camera. Shooting with film, you had to know when to adjust exposure manually or how much to set exposure compensation when using an Auto mode ... you only found out if you did it right after you get the film developed, so you start to learn quicker than today with digital cameras cause mistakes cost money.

When I switched to a Digital camera it had an OVF and LCD. It did not have a live view and most of the time I wouldn't even immediately play back the shot to check it ... just habit coming from film.

When you get experienced enough you will start knowing in your head if/when/what/how to adjust these things ... sometimes you won't have to, sometimes you do.

Today I shoot with a camera that has an EVF, electronic view finder, so I get to see through the viewfinder pretty much what I am going to get ... so I tend to think less, but that does not mean I do not need to make adjustments, as still the camera does not know what I am thinking the image should look like.

It takes time/experience ... you will find in this forum that there are many who have been shooting for years and decades to get the "automatic" inhead camera mentality. Even previous Newbies will tell you that it took them a while to get a "feel" for it ... there are many threads in this Forum just like yours. Just keep working on the exposure bits, then eventually it all comes together.

 

[JoeW]

If you have a camera with two slots (most DSLRs will in my experience, at least most Nikons will) then you decide what you want the 2nd slot for. In my cases, it's overflow so both slots are set to RAW in 90% of the times I shoot.

However, there will be times when I'll want some JPEG files to give to someone I'm going to be shooting a "Rise Up Against Hunger" event at our church on Saturday--I'll have one slot set to RAW, another to Jpeg. I'll keep the RAW files for myself and selectively edit what I think are great shots. I'll give all of the jpeg files to the Church communications coordinator who doesn't want "great" photos but wants to document the event, get pictures of certain people or certain activities and prefers getting files in jpeg format. Other times, it will be about space or processing issues (if you are going to take a lot of photos and don't have a 64mb card--jpegs take up less space than RAW files do). Or if you KNOW you will never go back and play with a lot of files in post processing. Or color isn't a big factor with the specific shots you're shooting. Or speed matters (buffer speed, speed at uploading to a computer, speed at uploading to a website, speed with a laptop processing and converting the photos). Jpeg will be faster at everything.

So there will be times you'll set one slot to RAW and another to Jpeg. Or one to Jpeg-fine and the other slot to a more basic Jpeg quality.

But if I was going to shoot autumn foliage in New England, you'd bet for sure everything will be in RAW. If it's a photo I think can be great, it will almost always be in RAW. The primary reason for shooting in RAW is that it captures more digital data on each photo/file. And more data means more ability to manipulate--to pull details out of shadows, make colors more complex. But if you're not going to do more than crop and brighten or saturate when you develop a digital file than shooting in RAW probably doesn't make sense right now.

 

[Designer]

Thank you for the feedback! I guess for now I could shoot JPEG since I only know the basics of RAW from what I've been taught here so far. Though maybe I could tinker a little in lightroom with the RAW files now too, does anyone shoot JPEG and RAW? Is there any benefit to that? Would that take up a lot of space on my SD card?

I will absolutely be getting the book that was recommended, I bought one already, it's on classic and digital photography, though I'm only doing digital right now, classic has always interested me so I thought it wouldn't hurt to learn about both.

Good morning! Opening this thread this morning, I am surprised at some of the responses you received.

Getting right to the opening image; your camera has attempted to "average out" the exposure between the bright sky and the shady parts in the trees. Unfortunately, your camera is not as good at this as our own eyes (brain, actually).

Some cameras have a wider dynamic range than other cameras, so without trading cameras, you're kind of stuck with whatever dynamic range your camera has.

The easiest way to improve the shot is to move the file into your editing software and try to lighten the shadows and/or recover the highlights. Please note; some software is better at this that others.

By capturing the Raw file, you have allowed yourself more "latitude" in terms of color correction and possibly dynamic range, although that will depend on many factors in play that you may or may not have complete control over.

As has been pointed out already, Raw files will need a bit of sharpening in post, and depending on your software, shadow recovery, contrast, definition, range, and many other qualities may be improved. It is, however, not the answer to images that are very poor to begin with, so try to get the exposure as good as you can when you take the shot.

One more thing in this post: Please change your setting to "photos OK to edit" so we can try to show you what we would do with which ever shot is the topic of discussion.

 

[waday]

I'd also like to add... in your quest to improve composition and your photos, @SquarePeg posts weekly challenges on here. They're for fun, so definitely don't take it too seriously. People shoot pictures with their phones, and some edit quite heavily to suit the image they had in their head.

Join us, post pictures in those weekly challenges. They'll get you to shoot more, while also thinking of different aspects of photography. This week is negative space. Weekly challenge 10/14 - 10/20 Negative Space

You can also go through the other photo themes, and previous weekly challenges, and continue to take and add photos to those threads. Please see the following forum: Photo Themes

 

[Lisa Chapman]

If you have a camera with two slots (most DSLRs will in my experience, at least most Nikons will) then you decide what you want the 2nd slot for. In my cases, it's overflow so both slots are set to RAW in 90% of the times I shoot.

However, there will be times when I'll want some JPEG files to give to someone I'm going to be shooting a "Rise Up Against Hunger" event at our church on Saturday--I'll have one slot set to RAW, another to Jpeg. I'll keep the RAW files for myself and selectively edit what I think are great shots. I'll give all of the jpeg files to the Church communications coordinator who doesn't want "great" photos but wants to document the event, get pictures of certain people or certain activities and prefers getting files in jpeg format. Other times, it will be about space or processing issues (if you are going to take a lot of photos and don't have a 64mb card--jpegs take up less space than RAW files do). Or if you KNOW you will never go back and play with a lot of files in post processing. Or color isn't a big factor with the specific shots you're shooting. Or speed matters (buffer speed, speed at uploading to a computer, speed at uploading to a website, speed with a laptop processing and converting the photos). Jpeg will be faster at everything.

So there will be times you'll set one slot to RAW and another to Jpeg. Or one to Jpeg-fine and the other slot to a more basic Jpeg quality.

But if I was going to shoot autumn foliage in New England, you'd bet for sure everything will be in RAW. If it's a photo I think can be great, it will almost always be in RAW. The primary reason for shooting in RAW is that it captures more digital data on each photo/file. And more data means more ability to manipulate--to pull details out of shadows, make colors more complex. But if you're not going to do more than crop and brighten or saturate when you develop a digital file than shooting in RAW probably doesn't make sense right now.

I thought I replied to this but I guess I just imagined it LOL. Sorry!

Thank you for the feedback, Much appreciated. I found some videos on You Tube about Exposure and such while I wait for my books to arrive but, they get to the good parts and then BAM they want cash. Typical.
I imported a couple of my RAW files into Lightroom and then exported them out as JPEG's but, I came across another question, there are a lot of options that come up when you decide to export. Size options and such. Is there anything specific I should know there for best results? I will check Google but, I am getting mixed messages from it on most topics I research, figured I would ask here first.

Thanks again!

 

[Lisa Chapman]

Thank you for the feedback! I guess for now I could shoot JPEG since I only know the basics of RAW from what I've been taught here so far. Though maybe I could tinker a little in lightroom with the RAW files now too, does anyone shoot JPEG and RAW? Is there any benefit to that? Would that take up a lot of space on my SD card?

I will absolutely be getting the book that was recommended, I bought one already, it's on classic and digital photography, though I'm only doing digital right now, classic has always interested me so I thought it wouldn't hurt to learn about both.

Good morning! Opening this thread this morning, I am surprised at some of the responses you received.

Getting right to the opening image; your camera has attempted to "average out" the exposure between the bright sky and the shady parts in the trees. Unfortunately, your camera is not as good at this as our own eyes (brain, actually).

Some cameras have a wider dynamic range than other cameras, so without trading cameras, you're kind of stuck with whatever dynamic range your camera has.

The easiest way to improve the shot is to move the file into your editing software and try to lighten the shadows and/or recover the highlights. Please note; some software is better at this that others.

By capturing the Raw file, you have allowed yourself more "latitude" in terms of color correction and possibly dynamic range, although that will depend on many factors in play that you may or may not have complete control over.

As has been pointed out already, Raw files will need a bit of sharpening in post, and depending on your software, shadow recovery, contrast, definition, range, and many other qualities may be improved. It is, however, not the answer to images that are very poor to begin with, so try to get the exposure as good as you can when you take the shot.

One more thing in this post: Please change your setting to "photos OK to edit" so we can try to show you what we would do with which ever shot is the topic of discussion.

Thank you very much. I was rather shocked myself as it was not my intention to ignore or upset anyone, I am just a complete beginner. My ignorance is not intentional. Most people here have been very kind, patient and understanding, some just plain mean and I'm not here for that.

I will be doing some tests later today. Must be done inside, the weather is not cooperating to go outside, I don't want to be a Popsicle today LOL.

I'd also like to add... in your quest to improve composition and your photos, @SquarePeg posts weekly challenges on here. They're for fun, so definitely don't take it too seriously. People shoot pictures with their phones, and some edit quite heavily to suit the image they had in their head.

Join us, post pictures in those weekly challenges. They'll get you to shoot more, while also thinking of different aspects of photography. This week is negative space. Weekly challenge 10/14 - 10/20 Negative Space

You can also go through the other photo themes, and previous weekly challenges, and continue to take and add photos to those threads. Please see the following forum: Photo Themes

I love a challenge! Thanks! I will have a look and see what I can do.