new here....here are some of my pictures!

[EchoingWhisper]

Most of your photos are wide open, you should really stop down a bit.
What for? I can't see where any of these would benefit from the extra depth of field..

Picture number 1, 4 and 8 have the ISO too high.
Why? I don't see recognizable noise in them. That's probably because the ISO was only at 400. Not too high at all.

Message in ​red.
I honestly don't see the base for your statements..

Mark

You could always have a better photo with more dynamic range, less noise and higher color sensitivity with lower ISO, I don't see a reason to shoot a still subject at ISO 400 when your shutter speed is 1/1000s.

Lens are always sharper stopped down from its max aperture. If you want less depth of field, you could always use a longer focal length and stand back further.

 

[Ciggy_Num_Num]

i think i shot the 3 you said with an ISO at 200(thats what i generally have it set to), should i have gone to 100?

when you say stopped down, what do you mean?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

i think i shot the 3 you said with an ISO at 200(thats what i generally have it set to), should i have gone to 100?

when you say stopped down, what do you mean?

Yes, you should have chose ISO 100 as long as you can. And stopping down means don't shoot wide open, Canon Lens: Zooms - Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (Tested) - SLRgear.com! - it shows that sharpness improves in every focal length when you stop down by one stop.

 

[Ciggy_Num_Num]

oh ok. ill definitely keep that in mind when i go out to shoot next time.


thanks to everyone for the critique and tips. i really do appreciate it.

 

[Markw]

Most of your photos are wide open, you should really stop down a bit.
What for? I can't see where any of these would benefit from the extra depth of field..

Picture number 1, 4 and 8 have the ISO too high.
Why? I don't see recognizable noise in them. That's probably because the ISO was only at 400. Not too high at all.

Message in ​red.
I honestly don't see the base for your statements..

Mark

You could always have a better photo with more dynamic range, less noise and higher color sensitivity with lower ISO, I don't see a reason to shoot a still subject at ISO 400 when your shutter speed is 1/1000s.

Lens are always sharper stopped down from its max aperture. If you want less depth of field, you could always use a longer focal length and stand back further.

Using a longer focal length changes the FOV, and dynamics of a photo. For example, longer lenses magnify the background features. Wider lenses elongate the distance and shrink the background. Things aren't really as simple in real life as they are on paper. It most of these cases, a telephoto lens may not have been practical, or handy. There is nothing in these photos to signify that different equipment was needed, or if different exposure settings would have helped any of the images. Sure, it would have sharpened things, but would this sharpness have increased the quality of these photos? Maybe, but not by any significant or needed level.

Mark

 

[shaneclark]

I love overall images. Especially like the 5, 9. Impression and all things are well captured.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Message in ​red.
I honestly don't see the base for your statements..

Mark

You could always have a better photo with more dynamic range, less noise and higher color sensitivity with lower ISO, I don't see a reason to shoot a still subject at ISO 400 when your shutter speed is 1/1000s.

Lens are always sharper stopped down from its max aperture. If you want less depth of field, you could always use a longer focal length and stand back further.

Using a longer focal length changes the FOV, and dynamics of a photo. For example, longer lenses magnify the background features. Wider lenses elongate the distance and shrink the background. Things aren't really as simple in real life as they are on paper. It most of these cases, a telephoto lens may not have been practical, or handy. There is nothing in these photos to signify that different equipment was needed, or if different exposure settings would have helped any of the images. Sure, it would have sharpened things, but would this sharpness have increased the quality of these photos? Maybe, but not by any significant or needed level.

Mark

Yes, I do understand what you are talking about, I like to perfect things, so they are just my suggestions.