How Can New Camera Owners Improve Their Photography Skills?

[wolram]

Criticism is welcome, but seeing as this is the first camara i have owned since the box brownie please be kind

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/marlow.robin

The farm house is circa 1650 but parts of it go way back in time.

 

[Borek]

Well, I can't see anything wrong about the pictures.

But I think you must try harder, as in fact I can't see any pictures as of 13:08 my time.

 

[wolram]

Well, I can't see anything wrong about the pictures.

But I think you must try harder, as in fact I can't see any pictures as of 13:08 my time.

Any way a link to the mythology of the church

http://www.grahamphillips.net/Ark/Ark_8.htm

 

[wolram]

The barn and house, first 4 picts Knightcote, are owned by an eccentric, he has been offered untold thousands of £s for the barn and bless his socks he has refused every one.

 

[Borek]

You definitely need more experience and better weather (judging from where you are living the latter can be more challenging). I won't babble that these pictures are beautifull and perfect, because they are not, but they look like a pretty good starting point. You have captured and shown the site, that's a solid documentary work. Good enough that I liked the place. Now go and take some more

They all (or at least most) look a little bit too dark for me. That's because you had very bright sky (cloudy, but bright) and dark objects. Check if you can force your camera to slightly overexpose, or try to compose pictures in such a way that they don't contain large areas of high contrast. Compare pictures 3/4 from Kightcote - on 3rd barn is much darker, because there were a lot of bright sky and camera tried to catch this sky properly - at the price of loosing details of the building. On 4th picture barn dominates, and exposition was fit to the dark parts of the picture. In effect building looks much better, but the sky is completely flat and overexposed. In many cases it is impossible to get everything exposed properly, so you have to decide what you want to show - sky or building.

 

[wolram]

Thank you Borek, your critique is well taken, i know the arty people all ways talk about light
but i have never understood it, to me the buildings are most important.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Interesting subjects, Wolram, and illustrative shots. I am not good with photography so can't suggest improvements along those lines. The Church looks to have some Norman-ness to it, as well as Gothic, that is, some of it pre-dating the Templars?

 

[turbo]

Where are the grazing sheep, Woolie? You need props!

Great subject-matter, BTW. If you can get a clear morning or late afternoon when the sun is low and the light is warmer, get out and reshoot. Borek is right about overcast-day light. The light tends to be cool (bluish) and flat so your subject matter looks static and dark.

 

[Astronuc]

A bright background causes the foreground to be shadowed (underexposed) and that is why photographers use flash lights even in the daytime where there might be a bright background competing with the subject.

Without a set of large flash lamps or respositioning to avoid/minimize the brighter background, one can correct the digital image by lightning the subject.

One might think about a ladder (e.g. 3 m) to gain elevation with respect to ground. I've even stood on the roof of my car or on a fence or in a tree to get a better angle on a subject.

 

[Borek]

One might think about a ladder (e.g. 3 m) to gain elevation with respect to ground. I've even stood on the roof of my car or on a fence or in a tree to get a better angle on a subject.

Don't feel alone.

 

[lonton]

Only he does it. I know
[alone!]

 

[hypatia]

I enjoyed the Dassett-hills group the most. It seemed you explored the different angles and a few close ups of details. And I would agree about going back at several different times of day, for several days in a row.
I loved the architecture of the village homes, but they were so very hard to see. Most people will give permission for you to shoot their home from the outside. That way you can avoid the" from the street photos", and nab some great angles.
I'd love to see the very long building, looking down the length of it, perhaps at ground level or roof line. Play with it, but most of all have fun.
I think your off to a wonderful start. Remember to take lots of photos. For me to have one in 50 turn out really well, would make it a good day.

 

[wolram]

Thanks every one, but i do not know good from bad, can you post some examples of what is good and what is bad? i mean (flat) just does not register.

 

[BobG]

I like the Dasset Hills photos. I thought photo 7 came out very well. Photo 18 is a little odd and would probably be considered a bad photo, but gravestones and church lurching off in opposite directions wind up making the picture a lot more interesting.

I'd try checking objects in the background to make sure your photo is level. Your camera uses a memory card as well, doesn't it? Get a memory card with quite a bit of capacity. They're digital photos. You can delete the ones you don't want at virtually no expense.

That means you can do a lot of experimenting; taking a few photos of the same object with different settings to get a feel for what works and what doesn't work.

You can also massage your photos with photoshop, or even the office picture manager (just save the modifications with a modified name; add a suffix or letter so you can reference them back to the original).

I've never been very good at photography, but not having to be afraid of wasting film and being able to better frame a picture by cropping after the fact helps me a lot.

 

[wolram]

Where are the grazing sheep, Woolie? You need props!

Sheep are the good guys, for the first time ever a cow attacked me, out of fear i punched her on the nose and she skulked off, leaving me with a snotty throbbing hand.

 

[turbo]

Woolie, "flat" is a subjective thing, but you'll know when you've experimented a bit more when a photo seems lifeless and when it pops. If you shoot on an overcast day, the light illuminating your subject seems to come from all directions, and it is bluish. If you shoot early or late on a clear day when the sun is fairly low, the light will be warmer (more red) and the directionality of the light will highlight the surface texture of the subject. You don't have to actually take pictures to see the difference. As you walk around, look at objects and imagine how you would like to have them lit to show them better. Imagine looking at a stone wall on a cloudy day, for instance, and think if it would look better if you had more directional (point-source) light to highlight the texture of the stones. This is not to say that you can't take really nice pictures on an overcast day, but when shooting architecture you've got some pretty static subjects, and it's nice to have lighting that complements the subjects. Shooting large static subjects like old buildings on an overcast day (flat lighting) usually doesn't work well aesthetically.

 

[Borek]

Perhaps not the best example, but one that I had almost ready. Both pictures taken in the same place (you can identify same birch on both), in about an hour. Almost no sky on the first - that's what I call flat. Nice clouds on the second - that's what I would not call flat.

 

[Evo]

Thank you Borek, your critique is well taken, i know the arty people all ways talk about light
but i have never understood it, to me the buildings are most important.

There may not be a lot you can do other than try for shots at different times of day.

My first husband was a professional photographer, so he had light meters and filters and incredible lenses to get the best shots.

I love the pictures, btw. Also, thanks for adding the bits of history.

 

[wolram]

Thank you so much edward i am sure you do not know just how much your picture just so much does not help

 

[edward]

Thank you so much edward i am sure you do not know just how much your picture just so much does not help

Excuse me I was certain that you were the person who asked what a bad picture looked like. Color it gone

 

[Evo]

Excuse me I was certain that you were the person who asked what a bad picture looked like. Color it gone

Can I put it back? You can see its face, it's cute.

 

[BobG]

Bad.

The rock may have been why I took the picture, but centering on the road would have made a better picture. You have to keep in mind why the object you're photographing is interesting. Even in focusing in on the rock, my aim drifted toward the road.

Which is why you got comments about your pictures being a good documentation of the features of the church, etc. The details were interesting to someone interested in the architecture since they would help date the church, etc. The details didn't draw the viewer into the picture, though.

The lighting in my picture is marginal, as well, especially in a resolution suitable for forums, but people already discussed lighting.
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/281/p6020012bc1.jpg

This one is better. The subject isn't centered, but it shouldn't be. What's about to happen is as important as the instant of the picture. In fact, I wish I'd gotten more of the mudpit.
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/7535/slaughterhouse031gt2.jpg

 

[tribdog]

If you were painting a picture a safe rule is to put the main subject at one third. 1/3from top, or 1/3 from right or 1/3 from left or 1/3 from bottom. It's not a steadfast rule, but I've read it in a few different books.

 

[Borek]

If you were painting a picture a safe rule is to put the main subject at one third. 1/3from top, or 1/3 from right or 1/3 from left or 1/3 from bottom. It's not a steadfast rule, but I've read it in a few different books.

Poor man's version of golden ratio.

 

[wolram]

Bob, that rock is one cool picture, right or wrong it has my attention.

 

[wolram]

Excuse me I was certain that you were the person who asked what a bad picture looked like. Color it gone

Terribly sorry old chap i did not mean to offend you.

 

[edward]

Terribly sorry old chap i did not mean to offend you.

No apologies needed wolram, I think I just misunderstood what you wanted to see. I have extraordinarily difficult problems with the bright sunlight here in the desert.

 

[edward]

Bob, that rock is one cool picture, right or wrong it has my attention.

That rock does capture the eye. Yet if the picture was a story the main character would be the road. (does that make any sense ??)

 

[lisab]

That rock does capture the eye. Yet if the picture was a story the main character would be the road. (does that make any sense ??)

I guess I'm the odd one out...I focused on the bird.

 

[Evo]

I guess I'm the odd one out...I focused on the bird.

So did I!