Just snapshots, or what?

[JenKate22]

I need some cc here please. I have been expirementing with my new camera, Canon Rebel XTi, in manual mode. Taking some pictures.
Do you think these are just snapshots or something more?
Any input on composition, settings, anything is greatly appreciated.

Settings:
1.
1/40 sec
f/1.8
ISO: 800
50 mm 1.8 lens
2.
1/100 sec
f/1.8
ISO: 800
50 mm 1.8 lens
3.
1/2500 sec
f/2.8
ISO: 200
50 mm 1.8 lens

I shot these all in manual mode. I am a beginner. I just think I'm seeing this all wrong. If anyone can give me some help it would be great.
Sorry they are so big. Wasn't sure how to resize.
Thanks
Jenkate

 

[mysteryscribe]

I like them all but they seem a little flat.... Composition is excellent though in my opinion

 

[JenKate22]

Flat? Forgive me for my ignorance, but what do you mean by that, and what can I do to fix it?

Again, Thank you for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

 

[cameraman78]

These are cute I like them also, I think what they mean by flat is the lack of depth of field. I amy be wrong but they are still in my oppinion nice shots

 

[mysteryscribe]

No this is what I meant. you dont need dept of field with people usually.

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

For future reference...The critique section rules say that you should keep it to one image at a time...to avoid too much confusion. The three shots here are pretty similar, so I think it's OK.

I think the first one is great. The only thing I would change...would be to get rid of the double catch lights in the eyes.

In the 2nd one, the focus is on the hand/arm rather than the face. When using a wide aperture (low F number) you get a shallow DOF, which can be nice (as we can see in all three)...but you have to be careful to get the right parts into sharp focus. Almost always, you want the eyes sharp.

The third one...it also looks like the toy & hand are sharper than the face. In this case, maybe a little bit deeper DOF would be better.

The 2nd and 3rd do look a little flat. Meaning that they lack contrast and that 'pop' that some people like to see. Maybe they are a bit under exposed...but not too much that a little tweak in Photoshop couldn't fix it.

 

[becmaclean]

Welcome and cute baby

As previously mentioned, they are nice shots but, be careful of your dof. Your first shot, you lost the fuzz on the little ones arm and me thinks it should have been included. The others just needed to be a little more in focus with a deeper dof maybe.

Once again, welcome. Look forward to more cute baby shots!!

 

[The_Traveler]

A more complete explanation of 'flat' is that there isn't enough distance between the highlights and the darkest shadows. Typically what is seen are muddy colors and a lack of overall brightness. Oftentimes the mid tones are in the wrong place. This is often seen when the light is very 'flat' on an overcast day and/or when the image is underexposed.

I have imposed histograms of the distribution of darkness/lightness values on the pictures below. On the left is your original picture, on the right is a the picture 'adjusted' in Photoshop.

On the left you see that there are no or few highlights that come close to the top (the bright) side. In Photoshop, I corrected the placement of the highlights to be brighter and then moved the mid-tones (usually skin tones) so that they were brighter.

I cropped off the top of the picture for two reasons:1) there was a lot of non-contributory space and 2) There were some highlights at the top that would affect the histogram and give an incorrect impression of the distribution of the brightness values.

You are using a Digital Rebel and you can (I think) set the LCD on the back of the camera to show this histogram. Spikes on the extreme right edge (not shown here) represent overexposure where the detail is all burnt out. Spikes on the left side represent shadows with no detail. (you don't have these either but there are some values that are black - without detail. These are probably the stripes in the zebra and are no big loss)

You want to adjust your exposure so that as much as possible of the histogram is centered or to the right of the midline without huge spikes on the far right edge. In general, exposure to get as much detail in the highlights as possible and let the shadows fall where they may.

I hope this is useful.

 

[The_Traveler]

Depth of Field.

Although adequate Depth of Field is not usually a problem with portraits when any of the following conditions exist (assuming a 50 mm lens) 1) the f stop is 5.6 or greater (->f16), 2) when the subject is 8 or 10 feet away 3) when manual focus is used.

However when the lens is wide open (for example 'f1.4' or 'f1.8') and the distance to the subject is relatively short the depth of field is very shallow, perhaps 4 inches. Thus, if the baby's nose is in crisp focus, his ears may be about the furthest away part of him that is acceptably sharp. If you use auto-focus, the camera may 'see' his arm or something else closer to you and thus the arm and his nose will be in the field but his ears will be beyond the area in focus.

Soooo, get further away, use a wider open aperture (larger f number) or manual focus or any combination of the above.

Hope this makes sense and is of some use.

T_T

 

[JenKate22]

Thank you very much for your help and explinations. I understand what your saying, and I will work on it for awhile. I'll post back and let you know how it goes.
Again, Thank You!
Jenkate

 

[craig]

I define snapshot as little or no thought put into the image. These seem well thought out.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I ageee with craig they are difinitely not simple snapshots though there is nothing wrong with those either.

When my mom died, we went through a couple of show boxes of pictures. There were a couple of studio portraits that we pushed aside quickly. The snapshots got scrutinized for serveral minutes each. So there is nothing wrong with shooting snapshots. One of my great regrets is that I didnt shoot nearly enough of them. Once I began to take photography seriously. What a waste.

 

[midnitejam]

I define snapshot as little or no thought put into the image. These seem well thought out.

Ditto.

 

[The_Traveler]

Distinguishing between snapshot and picture is a difficult issue that works better in words than in the images.

When you start wanting your images to be better than they currently appear to you and start putting some thought into how you take them, then your pictures become elevated from snapshots to pictures. They may not be good pictures but they are not just 'snapped shots'.

Whether a picture is good is always relative because it is difficult for a photographer to be objective about their own pictures and so what might be a wonderful picture to you and your family might be a snapshot to the world at large.

I suggest to people who want to improve their photography in some objective sense that they not take pictures of people they love or of objects, like flowers, with their own intrinsic beauty.

Learn design, composition and tone without having to cope with the issues of love or esthetic attraction.

 

[druzilla]

much better then snapshots. the 1st photo is beautiful