Help please I am stuck

CyclonePWR · Apr 12, 2009

Help please I am somewhat stuck in my photography.

First of all I have had my camera for about 4 months now. Before that the only instruction in photography I had, was in a high school class over 10 years ago. Before I bought the camera, I got a book by David Busch to tell me all about. I read it cover to cover many times and can use all the settings in my camera with ease on the fly. So since day one I only really use it in manual mode.

I have also learned the guide lines to composition, which I follow most of the time. Like rule 3rd, leading lines, contrast,geometrical and so on.

I usually get good exposure; all though sometimes it’s hard when there is really bright and dark subjects. I try to meter for what I need.

So even if I can get neat composition and good exposure. I feel like my pictures lack something, especially in lighting. The best photos I have seen on here have amazing lighting. It seems like the light changes in the photo to paint a certain picture and to emphasize the subject in an interesting way.

I guess its really hard maybe to explain in a forum how to do that or what to look for but If someone has any ideas that would be great!!!! ( I know shooting closer to sun set and rise is better.)

I went for a little walk through a forest couple days ago and the following photos are the best that I could come up with. For some reason I wanted to make most B&W. I guess looking at them now, some kind of lack a subject. Also I can post some previous work I have done if it would help?

Thanks so much, the people on this forum have been really help full so far!

1

2

3

4

5

CyclonePWR · Apr 12, 2009

Idk why but #2 is suppose to be vertical but it keeps posting horizontal? Also if need I can provide the exif info.

Samanax · Apr 13, 2009

#1 - This image seems too grey/mid-tone heavy and not enough contrast. And it's just trees...lots and lots of trees. Maybe if you had on tree in the left third or right third foreground or maybe a boulder or something it would help give more interest to this image.

#2 - Were you trying to silhouette the trees?

#3 - This is an interesting point of view...wish it were in color.

#4 - The tree on the right seems very soft...like you missed focus. Might help if you gave it more contrast.

#5 - Interesting reflection shot...could use more contrast.

Sherman Banks · Apr 13, 2009

Do you have a program for post processing? You may be able to fix shots like 1,3, and 5 with the help of some PP. Just push the blacks and whites a bit and push your curves to add contrast. It will be difficult to expose a shot like #2 properly in 1 shot. You can meter for the trees, but the sky will end up blown out, or meter the sky, which it looks like you did, and get no definition in the trees. Read up on HDR's. If done well, they seem to help out in situations like this.

CyclonePWR · Apr 13, 2009

Samanax said:
#1 - This image seems too grey/mid-tone heavy and not enough contrast. And it's just trees...lots and lots of trees. Maybe if you had on tree in the left third or right third foreground or maybe a boulder or something it would help give more interest to this image.

#2 - Were you trying to silhouette the trees?

#3 - This is an interesting point of view...wish it were in color.

#4 - The tree on the right seems very soft...like you missed focus. Might help if you gave it more contrast.

#5 - Interesting reflection shot...could use more contrast.

Thanks for the input.

1. I was trying to get the felling like the shadows from the trees are coming at you and its an army of trees. I was trying to get interesting lighting.

2. Yes I was. I think it makes a cool V.

3. I'll post it in color.

4. Yes it does seems a little out of focus. It was actually shoot at 250mm.

5. Ill try that.

LarryD · Apr 13, 2009

Landscapes don't always need a subject, but they should be interesting to look at.

The most interesting one is number 1, but it doesn't really show the shadows and contrast across the snow, nor does it pull off the sunlight behind......... seems to be a bit underexposed and B&W isn't really working here......

CyclonePWR · Apr 13, 2009

Thanks everyone,

I have taken your suggestions and tryed to incorporate them into these.

Any better?? :thumbup::thumbdown:

1

2

3.

I think I might have over saturated them a little.

Samanax · Apr 13, 2009

CyclonePWR said:
1. I was trying to get the felling like the shadows from the trees are coming at you and its an army of trees. I was trying to get interesting lighting.

You might try shooting from a slightly lower point of view or a higher point of view and place the horizon at the top third of the frame...that way the shadows will appear to have more importance in the shot.

CyclonePWR said:
2. Yes I was. I think it makes a cool V.

Silhouettes can be tricky to pull off just right. Works real good for beach sunset shots. For your image it's not working for me.

CyclonePWR said:
3. I'll post it in color.

Thanks.

CyclonePWR said:
4. Yes it does seems a little out of focus. It was actually shoot at 250mm.

Were you using a tripod? The lack of sharpness could be from camera shake.

Samanax · Apr 13, 2009

CyclonePWR said:
Thanks everyone,

I have taken your suggestions and tryed to incorporate them into these.

Any better?? :thumbup::thumbdown:

2

Hmmm...the B&W one seems to have more depth to it. This color version seems flat.

CyclonePWR said:
3.

Could still use more contrast.

CyclonePWR · Apr 13, 2009

Samanax said:
Were you using a tripod? The lack of sharpness could be from camera shake.

No I was not using a tripod. Although it was shoot at 1/125 with IS so it should be ok. I often have trouble focusing with kit lenses. I went out and tried 17-55 2.8. I was amazed how sharp it was and how well it focus especially indoors in low light compare to my 18-55 3.5. I read that is was a great lens and its over 1000$ vs $150, but you can see why.

My goal is to get the 2.8 when I get better or maybe also a prime like 50mm. Do you have any opinions on those?

I think I am going to get a flash soon though. I been reading bunch on flash photo and it seems really exiting.

CyclonePWR · Apr 13, 2009

Samanax said:
Hmmm...the B&W one seems to have more depth to it. This color version seems flat.Could still use more contrast.

What do you mean more depth, more contrast?

Yeah that one could use more contrast but some white spots were becoming over exposed but that's probably ok in this case.

Also if you are curios these were taken in a Russian forest closer to Finland.

Samanax · Apr 13, 2009

CyclonePWR said:
No I was not using a tripod. Although it was shoot at 1/125 with IS so it should be ok.

1/125 shutter speed for a focal length of 250mm? That's too slow, even with IS. When zoomed out to 250mm you should try to keep the shutter speed up above 1/200 if possible.

CyclonePWR said:
I went out and tried 17-55 2.8. I was amazed how sharp it was and how well it focus especially indoors in low light compare to my 18-55 3.5. I read that is was a great lens and its over 1000$ vs $150, but you can see why.

My goal is to get the 2.8 when I get better or maybe also a prime like 50mm. Do you have any opinions on those?

I have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and enjoy using both lenses...both are very sharp lenses although the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM does focus faster than the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. I have a few other lenses but use these two most of the time.

I've been leaning more toward prime lenses lately and hope to get the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM soon followed by the EF 100mm f/2.0 USM and then the EF 135mm f/2.0L USM. The only zoom lens I plan to get in the near future is the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

It's hard to beat prime lenses for low light photography.