Beginner needs help...

[greybeard]

When I look at your picture I see the main subject as the water tower and the name Pingree Grove. The scene has potential but, the lighting is really lacking. Using editing software, you could calm down the contrast, bring up the shadow detail and isolate the tower and brighten it up a bit. What I take from this scene is that you really like your town and you want to share its' beauty. I'd really wait for the light to be better and shoot it again.

 

[Designer]

Here is what I was able to come up with:

It actually looks better on my computer before posting on here.

 

[Fujidave]

Reading books on it all is good, but the best way to learn is get out and about take loads of images and learn from that and just practice more and more, and it will come to you. The most important thing to remember is take photos for your self only.

 

[Lisa Chapman]

So using all of the info you have all given me. I took my camera with me today when I went to pick up my daughter from the bus stop. Got a nice shot of my son. Did I do it? Is this a good one?

EXIF DATA:
Focal Length: 55mm
ISO: 100
Aperture: F/5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/160

 

[480sparky]

It looks like the hands/mittens are in focus, but not the eyes. With people, you generally want the eyes in focus even if that means other parts will be outside the DOF and will end up blurry.

Second thing I noticed is the tree growing from his head. Not only is the subject important, but you also need to pay attention to the background.

I do love the soft lighting, however. Allows for a much more subtle look as opposed to harsh direct sunlight. A little light in the eyes, either from a reflector or speedlight, would cancel out the 'raccoon' eyes.

 

[Lisa Chapman]

It looks like the hands/mittens are in focus, but not the eyes. With people, you generally want the eyes in focus even if that means other parts will be outside the DOF and will end up blurry.

Second thing I noticed is the tree growing from his head. Not only is the subject important, but you also need to pay attention to the background.

I do love the soft lighting, however. Allows for a much more subtle look as opposed to harsh direct sunlight. A little light in the eyes, either from a reflector or speedlight, would cancel out the 'raccoon' eyes.

Yeah I gotta work on the focus more. He wasn't really cooperating so much. This picture was taken in between a tantrum LOL. The place and such wasn't an option either otherwise I would not have chosen the tree hah! My daughter would have been a better subject, she would have let me choose the place and what not and I could have taken my time, in a split second, he was gone

 

[Designer]

Got a nice shot of my son. Did I do it? Is this a good one?

Yes, it's good! You're on the right track!

What I like about it: A very natural, spontaneous, gleeful expression. Excellent separation of subject from background (most of the background anyway). Coordinated colors in his clothing (red high and low, blue high and low).

What I think could be better: As 480Sparky pointed out; the pole right behind his head is distracting. Missed focus on his eyes (comes with practice). No catchlight in his eyes. Eyesockets are in shade.

The last two things can be improved by using "fill flash" (something that you can learn about as you progress). Please be aware that "fill flash" is a powered-down amount of flash, not really powerful, but just enough to soften the shadows and add a bit of sparkle to his eyes. Don't fret; few of us automatically think about it.

 

[Derrel]

Love the full-on Thomas The Train regalia. When shooting close-in like this, it's helpful to have the lens set to a smallish aperture, something like f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f/8, so you get more depth of field, and that makes focusing less-critical. As far as focusing when up-close like this: if you use a multi-square AF or "group AF" type of focusing pattern (meaning multiple AF squares are active), and you can use the camera's focusing area selection system, just swipe the active or in-use AF area up toward the eyes, and at f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f8 (or smaller, like f/11), there will be adequate depth of field to get the face in good focus, and perhaps a little "extra" in-focus as well.

In this shot, the mittens are in very crisp, good focus, and as such it's still a good Thomas The Train clothing type shot...the mittens are cute, and my son went through a major Thomas phase,so I know the allure of the little tank engine, and so the shot's not really a total loss in any way. It's possible that the camera's focusing was set to allow the camera to select the focusing area it desired; there's not a lot of EXIF information riding with the photo, so I could not check the shot's EIF information for clues.

I'll give you a piece of advice that will come in handy for years: when you want to make close-up shots like this, follow the advice of expert teachers, and use small f/stops...ones ranging from basically, f/8 to f/16, and you will have a lot of success. When working close-in, there's a big,big need to get a lot of things in-focus, to make good pictures. Please try to ignore comments about diffraction that you read on the web or see in YouTube videos. More in-focus, meaning more depth of field, is a good thing when the camera is inside of six feet from the subject. Instead of working on focus per se, you could just shift the camera's setting so you get a small f/stop, an f/8 to f/11 aperture, and you'll automatically make more-successful close-up shots.

 

[Lisa Chapman]

Got a nice shot of my son. Did I do it? Is this a good one?

Yes, it's good! You're on the right track!

What I like about it: A very natural, spontaneous, gleeful expression. Excellent separation of subject from background (most of the background anyway). Coordinated colors in his clothing (red high and low, blue high and low).

What I think could be better: As 480Sparky pointed out; the pole right behind his head is distracting. Missed focus on his eyes (comes with practice). No catchlight in his eyes. Eyesockets are in shade.

The last two things can be improved by using "fill flash" (something that you can learn about as you progress). Please be aware that "fill flash" is a powered-down amount of flash, not really powerful, but just enough to soften the shadows and add a bit of sparkle to his eyes. Don't fret; few of us automatically think about it.

Thank you! I will try and consider my backgrounds and things like that in future for sure. I am not sure what fill flash is but, I will do a little research on it and go from there. I didn't even notice his eyes until it was mentioned here but now I can't un see it LOL. I appreciate the feedback!

Love the full-on Thomas The Train regalia. When shooting close-in like this, it's helpful to have the lens set to a smallish aperture, something like f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f/8, so you get more depth of field, and that makes focusing less-critical. As far as focusing when up-close like this: if you use a multi-square AF or "group AF" type of focusing pattern (meaning multiple AF squares are active), and you can use the camera's focusing area selection system, just swipe the active or in-use AF area up toward the eyes, and at f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f8 (or smaller, like f/11), there will be adequate depth of field to get the face in good focus, and perhaps a little "extra" in-focus as well.

In this shot, the mittens are in very crisp, good focus, and as such it's still a good Thomas The Train clothing type shot...the mittens are cute, and my son went through a major Thomas phase,so I know the allure of the little tank engine, and so the shot's not really a total loss in any way. It's possible that the camera's focusing was set to allow the camera to select the focusing area it desired; there's not a lot of EXIF information riding with the photo, so I could not check the shot's EIF information for clues.

I'll give you a piece of advice that will come in handy for years: when you want to make close-up shots like this, follow the advice of expert teachers, and use small f/stops...ones ranging from basically, f/8 to f/16, and you will have a lot of success. When working close-in, there's a big,big need to get a lot of things in-focus, to make good pictures. Please try to ignore comments about diffraction that you read on the web or see in YouTube videos. More in-focus, meaning more depth of field, is a good thing when the camera is inside of six feet from the subject. Instead of working on focus per se, you could just shift the camera's setting so you get a small f/stop, an f/8 to f/11 aperture, and you'll automatically make more-successful close-up shots.

My son is obsessed with Thomas. Not just your average toddler obsession, I'm talking it's been 4 years and my house is like a museum. He may need some kind of rehab if he keeps going. I have more Thomas toys and items in my house than you will find on Amazon and the official Thomas website combined. It's insane! But, he adores it all so, I keep buying them! Whatever makes them happy right?! My daughter has the same obsession but, hers is My Little Pony.

If I use an Aperture of say F8 or F11 as you suggested instead of F5.6 like I did, will I still be able to get the softer background? Or will I lose that? You mentioned, group AF and multi square AF, I am confused as to what this is. When I look through the viewfinder I have multiple little boxes that turn red when I press the button down half way to focus, is it those you are referring to or something else?
I will adjust my aperture to those recommended and re take this shot. I'm interested in how it will look with those adjustments. This shot was taken in aperture priority mode. Is there EXIF data missing? Maybe I can fill in the blanks if you'd like more info.

Thank you for the feedback!

 

[Designer]

If I use an Aperture of say F8 or F11 as you suggested instead of F5.6 like I did, will I still be able to get the softer background? Or will I lose that? You mentioned, group AF and multi square AF, I am confused as to what this is. When I look through the viewfinder I have multiple little boxes that turn red when I press the button down half way to focus, is it those you are referring to or something else?
I will adjust my aperture to those recommended and re take this shot. I'm interested in how it will look with those adjustments. This shot was taken in aperture priority mode. Is there EXIF data missing? Maybe I can fill in the blanks if you'd like more info.

No, you'll lose that background softness. I think the best way to keep your subject in focus while throwing the BG out of focus is to understand the DOF with that lens, aperture, and distance, etc. Study up on DOF, and what influences it, and get a DOF calculator that you can use to pre-figure the DOF for a particular shot.

Since you want a DOF that will be around 12 inches thick (cap, nose, eyes, ears, shoulders and hair all in pretty good focus), then your choice of focal length, aperture, distance, etc. should yield a DOF of at least 12 inches. A little more wouldn't hurt, but to make the BG softly out of focus, the DOF should stop just behind your subject.

Naturally, this involves perceiving a spatial concept when you can't actually see it in space, so you'll have to learn about it, practice, and get a feel for DOF so you won't always have to look it up.

The AF boxes; When your camera is in multi-AF mode, it senses boxes that contain a figure (such as an edge, for instance) that it can use to focus the lens, but it might not be the box that you want it to use, so learn about that by reading your user's manual. You can select just one box, and the location of that box in the frame, so learn about that. In portraiture, you would most likely want to put that one box on your subject's eye.

Many of us have an EXIF reader that we can use to read the EXIF of a photo, but mine quit working, so I need to find another one. Yes, it helps to post the relevant information, and you will see that some members here will post the camera, lens, aperture, shutter, and ISO along with the photo. If it's no trouble, you can include that information, particularly when asking some kind of technical question relative to the exposure.

 

[Derrel]

I would not worry too much about the degree of background softness when shooting close-up shots; even stopped down to f/8 or f/11, when the camera is as close as it was in this shot of the boy with the mittens, then background will be well out of focus. The more-critical priority is getting the main subject in-focus; it's possible to select the background, and blur it out, using post-processing techniques, and there's plenty of future opportunity for post-processing that will subdue the backgrounds of shots, but restoring focus to out of focus areas is exceptionally difficult to do on close-up shots like this one.

Also: at _close_ camera-to-subject ranges, the difference between f/.5.6 and f/11 is not that big in terms of background blur, but the difference in getting the whole person in-focus is a huge,huge deal; if a subject's face in not in-focus, many shots are rubbish bin material.

If you want more background blurring: use a longer focal length lens setting, and stand a bit farther back, and then use a roughly f/4 to f/5.6 aperture value, and throw the background OOF through the higher degree of background blur that a longer focal length lens gives at an f/4 to f/5.6 aperture value.

I have 40-plus years of interchangeable lens camera photography experience, and some things like the difference between shooting with a 50mm lens from three feet and shooting with a 135mm lens from ten feet, with both lenses at f/5.6, are impossible for me to describe in fewer than probably 10,000 words, but there are some basics that you just have to accept on faith, and one of those is that, when you wish to end up with "blurred backgrounds", using a longer focal length lens will tend to blow the background more out of focus than will a shorter focal length lens. The world wide web and YouTube are filled with articles and videos about blurred backgrounds; one of the most over-rated things is a blurred background,and one of the most-valuable things is a crisp,sharp face with the nose and eyes and ears in clear,sharp focus.

 

[Lisa Chapman]

I would not worry too much about the degree of background softness when shooting close-up shots; even stopped down to f/8 or f/11, when the camera is as close as it was in this shot of the boy with the mittens, then background will be well out of focus. The more-critical priority is getting the main subject in-focus; it's possible to select the background, and blur it out, using post-processing techniques, and there's plenty of future opportunity for post-processing that will subdue the backgrounds of shots, but restoring focus to out of focus areas is exceptionally difficult to do on close-up shots like this one.

Also: at _close_ camera-to-subject ranges, the difference between f/.5.6 and f/11 is not that big in terms of background blur, but the difference in getting the whole person in-focus is a huge,huge deal; if a subject's face in not in-focus, many shots are rubbish bin material.

If you want more background blurring: use a longer focal length lens setting, and stand a bit farther back, and then use a roughly f/4 to f/5.6 aperture value, and throw the background OOF through the higher degree of background blur that a longer focal length lens gives at an f/4 to f/5.6 aperture value.

I have 40-plus years of interchangeable lens camera photography experience, and some things like the difference between shooting with a 50mm lens from there feet and shooting with a 135mm lens from ten feet, with both lenses at f/5.6, are impossible for me to describe in fewer than probably 10,000 words, but there are some basics that you just have to accept on faith, and one of those is that, when you wish to end up with "blurred backgrounds", using a longer focal length lens will tend to blow the background more out of focus than will a shorter focal length lens. The world wide web and YouTube are filled with articles and videos about blurred backgrounds; one of the most over-rated things is a blurred background,and one of the most-valuable things is a crisp,sharp face with the nose and eyes and ears in clear,sharp focus.

This makes a lot more sense after reading a few chapters of the book I got from Amazon too. I have both the 18 - 55mm and the 75 - 300mm lens. I take both out with me when I go but, I struggle to know which lens to use for which shot I am taking. I prefer my 75 - 300mm lens overall even though everyone I talk to says it should go in the trash, I don't agree LOL. I love it but, maybe that because I'm new and don't know any better, I don't know. Anyway for now, I like it.

My question on that for you is. If you had only those two lenses and you were going out, you could only take 1, which one would you take with you and why? Which would you leave behind and why? See I took a picture tonight of the sunset in my neighborhood. I thought it was beautiful and we were out halloween shopping, I had my camera with me so I had my husband pull over and I grabbed a couple shots. Thing is, this is the first time I have taken any pictures with such little light so... obviously they were dark, this time in my opinion it worked out a little because the focus is on the colors in the sky and it created a silhouette effect but, what if I didn't want that? What then? I also forgot to adjust my settings, I was in a hurry, I didn't want to miss the pretty colors so I went for it and, the aperture was off, it was at F4 for some reason. The shutter speed was too slow for the wind and movement. It was just... not great. Any tips on how I can improve the shot next time would be greatly appreciated. I am not 100% disappointed with the shot, it looks interesting and I captured the colors I wanted etc. I just know I can do better and so can my camera.

85mm at F/4 and 1/60 sec at 800 ISO



I will try the portrait of my son again with my longer focal lens and see what I can get with it, a little experiment, I love a challenge! Thank you!

 

[Designer]

Thing is, this is the first time I have taken any pictures with such little light so... obviously they were dark, this time in my opinion it worked out a little because the focus is on the colors in the sky and it created a silhouette effect but, what if I didn't want that? What then? I also forgot to adjust my settings, I was in a hurry, I didn't want to miss the pretty colors so I went for it and, the aperture was off, it was at F4 for some reason. The shutter speed was too slow for the wind and movement. It was just... not great. Any tips on how I can improve the shot next time would be greatly appreciated. I am not 100% disappointed with the shot, it looks interesting and I captured the colors I wanted etc. I just know I can do better and so can my camera.

Heh, heh. That's how I do it, too! I usually snap off a quick shot, then I remember to focus and grab another one, then I remember to check the exposure, and take a third shot, then, if I actually remember to compensate for the camera's light meter, I will add some compensation and take another shot. LOL!

O.k., here's how to do that:

Decide which setting will take priority. If it is motion (wind, car motion, subject motion) then you might want to consider the shutter speed to take priority (shutter priority). If that is the case; set the shutter speed to "freeze" the motion as you think best.

If you think the aperture should be top priority, then set the camera to "aperture priority", and make your other adjustment in the shutter speed. This is how you decide what all will be in focus, and the light.

If the scene is too dark, you can add in some "exposure compensation" with the button on top. (if your camera has that) Or if you like the way it turns out, then what you've got is your artistic expression coming out.

I took the liberty of making a slight adjustment to this to add some texture in the clouds.

 

[Derrel]

Lisa, I think the 70-200mm or 70-300 mm zoom lenses are super-handy, and that's one reason that the 70-200mm zoom of modest aperture (like f/4 maximum aperture) has been around since the 1970's: it's just a great range of focal lengths to have in one, fairly lightweight lens! I own several lenses in this range, as well as an older 80-200mm f/4 Nikon lens.

You will find that for family photos and day trips and just walking around and shooting pictures, that the 70-300mm lens is fantastic when what you want is a selective angle of view. To answer your question, if I had to take only one lens, an 18-55 or a 70-300, which would I take? Honest answer? I like telephoto pictures, small slices of the world, so I would choose the 70-300mm zoom. I personally think that many landscape photo situations look best with a telephoto lens. When I look at the world, I see things in a narrow, selective angle way.

The sunset shot above has a typical problem: black foreground that adds little interest, and a beautiful,spectacular sunset sky. One common shooting-time method to improve this is to use a graduated neutral density filter to even out the scene; the graduated ND filter is like sunglasses for your lens! A four-stop graduated ND filter could have darkened the sky, allowing the dark foreground to be exposed through the lower, clear-glass part of the filter, thus "equalizing" the exposure between bright and dark.

Another way to have shot this? See the plants shot-left? Move 25 feet to the left on foot, then frame those plants up, and silhouette them against that glorious sky! This could have been done with the 18-55mm lens pretty easily, or the 70-300mm lens. As to the exposure, at 800 ISO...the dark foreground is pulling the speed "down", or slow; this could have been shot at a slightly higher shutter speed, if the metering had been based off of the brighter clouds.

The secret in this type of sunset shooting is to find a large object that is close-in, and to silhouette that object against the sky. Otherwise, one ends up with a large, 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame area used on what will end up as black, subject-less areas. In this case, the two telephone poles and wires in the middle of the image could have been used as subjects, with the 70-300 lens zoomed to 250-to 300-mm, and an orange sky being shown around those two objects. The trick is to find a substantially-sized object to silhouette against the glorious sky...and with a long zoom lens, like a 70-300, you have the ability to get low, then zoom in, and MAKE things pop out of the world in front of the camera, by magnifying their on-camera size with the telephoto effect; with the 18-55 zoom, you have a wide-angle to normal lens effect set at your disposal. This is why I choose the 70-300mm zoom for more work than I do a wide-to-normal lens...I prefer the ability to zoom in, to pick things out, and then to focus in on them.

Lastly: the 70-300 zoom offers the potential for what is called selective focus work. Selective focus is like shallow depth of field work. Selective focus is using shallow focus planes to make objects stand out from the foreground or background,and it is something that a 70-300mm lens is very good for at the closer and medium distances of 2 meters to 20 meters.

 

[Lisa Chapman]

Lisa, I think the 70-200mm or 70-300 mm zoom lenses are super-handy, and that's one reason that the 70-200mm zoom of modest aperture (like f/4 maximum aperture) has been around since the 1970's: it's just a great range of focal lengths to have in one, fairly lightweight lens! I own several lenses in this range, as well as an older 80-200mm f/4 Nikon lens.

You will find that for family photos and day trips and just walking around and shooting pictures, that the 70-300mm lens is fantastic when what you want is a selective angle of view. To answer your question, if I had to take only one lens, an 18-55 or a 70-300, which would I take? Honest answer? I like telephoto pictures, small slices of the world, so I would choose the 70-300mm zoom. I personally think that many landscape photo situations look best with a telephoto lens. When I look at the world, I see things in a narrow, selective angle way.

The sunset shot above has a typical problem: black foreground that adds little interest, and a beautiful,spectacular sunset sky. One common shooting-time method to improve this is to use a graduated neutral density filter to even out the scene; the graduated ND filter is like sunglasses for your lens! A four-stop graduated ND filter could have darkened the sky, allowing the dark foreground to be exposed through the lower, clear-glass part of the filter, thus "equalizing" the exposure between bright and dark.

Another way to have shot this? See the plants shot-left? Move 25 feet to the left on foot, then frame those plants up, and silhouette them against that glorious sky! This could have been done with the 18-55mm lens pretty easily, or the 70-300mm lens. As to the exposure, at 800 ISO...the dark foreground is pulling the speed "down", or slow; this could have been shot at a slightly higher shutter speed, if the metering had been based off of the brighter clouds.

The secret in this type of sunset shooting is to find a large object that is close-in, and to silhouette that object against the sky. Otherwise, one ends up with a large, 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame area used on what will end up as black, subject-less areas. In this case, the two telephone poles and wires in the middle of the image could have been used as subjects, with the 70-300 lens zoomed to 250-to 300-mm, and an orange sky being shown around those two objects. The trick is to find a substantially-sized object to silhouette against the glorious sky...and with a long zoom lens, like a 70-300, you have the ability to get low, then zoom in, and MAKE things pop out of the world in front of the camera, by magnifying their on-camera size with the telephoto effect; with the 18-55 zoom, you have a wide-angle to normal lens effect set at your disposal. This is why I choose the 70-300mm zoom for more work than I do a wide-to-normal lens...I prefer the ability to zoom in, to pick things out, and then to focus in on them.

Lastly: the 70-300 zoom offers the potential for what is called selective focus work. Selective focus is like shallow depth of field work. Selective focus is using shallow focus planes to make objects stand out from the foreground or background,and it is something that a 70-300mm lens is very good for at the closer and medium distances of 2 meters to 20 meters.

Thank you! I will take all of this into account on my next outing. Quick question. On the sunset shot. what should my settings have been? What should the aperture have been? With the ISO at 800 and the shutter speed a little higher like you mentioned.