The Photography Thread

[Owain Taggart]

That's a really cool shot! It's amazing how many stars you were able to capture. Then again, living in NYC, I tend to forget just how many stars are visible when you're out in the country. Looks like this was also during the winter?

Compositionally, I really like how you added the light painting in the foreground, which nicely balances the image. Plus the power lines and pole help draw the eye away from the red lights and into the sky.

Yeah, I think a lot of people end up surprised by what we can actually see in the sky, often times even with the naked eye. Just a few weeks ago for example, someone had told us they had just seen the milky way for the first time, and these were people living in the Toronto area, and they had come to a stargazing event in a dark-sky sanctuary. Somewhat related, but during that big power grid outage years ago, there were reports of people in SF calling the police and wonder wtf was going on with the sky. What had happened was that they weren't used to the darkness and suddenly seeing the Milky Way was so strange to them, that they thought something unworldly was happening.

Ahh yep, that was winter. Some people like to call astronomy a crazy hobby as we tend to endure harsh temperatures. I was really happy with this particular shot, because as you point out, there's a perfect contrast between the two. In the upper left of the shot, you can see the Pleides or Seven Sisters depending on what you like to call it. It's that big bright area.

That's actually very helpful, thank you for taking the time to write that all up! I'd love to try my hand at this sometime, but it's very intimidating. And obviously downtown Chicago is not a great place for it.

I love that painting with red light in the foreground! It adds so much interest to the shot. Has anyone else here experimented with that sort of thing?

Thanks Kes! I can only hope to help and encourage. It's definitely intimidating, and one that takes careful planning (sometimes with lots of gear). But I think the rewards are quite satisfying when one gets a good clear shot. Depending on who you talk to, there will be some who frown on the red light painting and some who don't mind it at all. I consider it purely an artistic tool, kind of like a paintbrush A few weeks ago, I was at a stargazing/camping event and a photographer had shown us some of his similar pictures with red light, and he'd actually written his name with red light. I'd never thought of doing that! In effect, it takes a bit more work as you actually have to write it out in reverse for it to show correctly on the image. I'd recommend going out to a dark sky sanctuary if you ever find the opportunity.

 

[lurok]

This is a great thread idea, and love all the photographs so far

I don't take as many photos as I used to in good old 35mm SLR days, and haven't made the migratory leap to DSLR yet (though am tempted!)

So this is just a crappy iPhone pic from this morning, but loved the sunrise colours and cloud shapes above the silhouetted London skyline. Untouched image, just resized to manageable size

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ That's a gorgeous shot, lurok! You're right, the colors and lighting are quite remarkable.

Also, I tend to think iPhone (smartphone) images get a bad rap, when they shouldn't. Sure, historically, their cameras haven't been as powerful as, say DSLRs. But I think a photographer can overcome that discrepancy - as evidenced from this shot. Not to mention that now, with the much more powerful camera in the iPhone 6 (and comparable Droid phones, etc.), I think we're going to start seeing a lot of really great photos taken on phones. Heck, I'm thinking of upgrading my 4S for that reason alone. That way I'll have a powerful camera with me wherever I go.

 

[MacLeod]

Well my smartphone has a 41 mega pixel camera.

 

[Timby]

Also, I tend to think iPhone (smartphone) images get a bad rap, when they shouldn't. Sure, historically, their cameras haven't been as powerful as, say DSLRs. But I think a photographer can overcome that discrepancy - as evidenced from this shot. Not to mention that now, with the much more powerful camera in the iPhone 6 (and comparable Droid phones, etc.), I think we're going to start seeing a lot of really great photos taken on phones. Heck, I'm thinking of upgrading my 4S for that reason alone. That way I'll have a powerful camera with me wherever I go.

All you need to look at to see how good an iPhone camera can be is That Tree.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Also, I tend to think iPhone (smartphone) images get a bad rap, when they shouldn't. Sure, historically, their cameras haven't been as powerful as, say DSLRs. But I think a photographer can overcome that discrepancy - as evidenced from this shot. Not to mention that now, with the much more powerful camera in the iPhone 6 (and comparable Droid phones, etc.), I think we're going to start seeing a lot of really great photos taken on phones. Heck, I'm thinking of upgrading my 4S for that reason alone. That way I'll have a powerful camera with me wherever I go.

Yeah, I think phones have begun to catch up. I've seen some incredible pictures taken with phones as of late. Though I think the thing they still struggle with are the sensors. They keep going up in megapixels, but the sensors are lagging behind. Also, I think the lack of an actual shutter might be an issue too. I notice that if something is bright, it will do fine, but if a subject is in shadows, they'll have a hard time.

But great picture, lurok! Kind of looks like someone was dancing up there

 

[lurok]

I've seen some great smartphone pics, but there are times I've wanted to snap an image and just realised that without any exposure or depth of field control, it's not going to come out as I wanted.

 

[Kestra]

A friend asked me to take photos at her baby shower yesterday and it was a great experience. I'm not going to post any photos here for privacy concerns and all, but I wanted to post about the experience here and see if anyone had any tips. I think it was a good size event for me to practice with, probably about 40-50 people there. They had rented a room at a restaurant and had tables set up. I used my Canon Rebel T3i and warned her that I was just a person with a camera and didn't really know what I was doing.

I found the lighting very challenging. It was during the afternoon on a sunny day. There were a few large windows on one side of the room with white curtains. The rest of the room was very dimly lit. I found it nearly impossible to take photos from a lot of angles because the light that did come through was extremely bright compared to the rest of the room. If I had people face the light, I had trouble handling just how bright it was and some of the shots looked overexposed. If people stood at an angle, it was one of those shots where half of their face was super bright and half was in darkness. In addition, there were a lot of different skin tones to work with and I had a hard time bringing them all out in group shots.

I never use the flash on my camera because I don't think I've ever taken a photo with flash that I've liked more than not having the photo at all! I don't have any other sort of external flash.

I didn't really know what I should be shooting with or what settings! There was the movement of people socializing, very active children, and some posed shots. I found myself using a shutter speed of 1/60 on my 50mm prime lens quite a bit. I wonder if I should have used my kit lens more for some of the group shots. For those of you who photograph children, any tips?

All-in-all I really enjoyed it. So many of my pics were crap, but I feel like I had a few pretty solid ones. And more than that I feel like I could look at the ones that didn't turn out well and had some idea of how to improve them in the future, seeing where I went wrong, etc. I just wondered if anyone here had any general suggestions!

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, shooting in a public setting where you have no control of the lighting can be quite challenging. Unfortunately, I don't really have much to offer as my luck in photographing people isn't all that great. I tend to fare better with objects of a celestial nature.

I think you're probably on the right track, though. I don't use the flash much anymore either. More often than not, the camera's sensors are good enough to compensate. I usually shoot in natural lighting when I can, as using the flash can often lead to unnatural looking shots. Cameras can also be really good in low-lighting conditions given the chance. There are those situations where you encounter weird lighting arrangements, though, and it's hard to predict what the camera will do.

I'm heading out for the lunar eclipse next weekend and I'm bringing my camera. I'm looking forward to seeing what I get and I'll post the results here.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Kestra, I'm curious: what kind of ISO were you getting with you 50mm prime and 1/60 shutter speed?

Also, it sounds to me like you did some fine work. A prime lens is certainly the way to go in dodgy/challenging lighting because the glass is sharper and (generally) lets in more light to help compensate for low(er)-light conditions. If it's something you're thinking of doing in the future, I'd suggest maybe looking into another prime lens, perhaps a 28mm, if you'd like some wider-angle shots (then again, you'd have to be comfortable changing lenses on the fly).

And don't worry about how many pictures don't come out right. I started at maybe a 10% success ratio (because I'd press the shutter for just about anything). Now I'm up to about 30-40% success, depending on the kind of shoot. Because I'm so trigger-happy (and in a wedding setting, you kind of have to be because there's almost always something amazing to capture), the success rates are going to be much lower than average.

As for trying to photograph children ... I'd (only half-jokingly) suggest a fast shutter speed, and a large memory card to store lots of shots. Kids almost always look best in candid moments, but those are very hard to capture without a fast shutter and a willingness to wade through a lot of "just missed it" kind of shots.

 

[Kestra]

Kestra, I'm curious: what kind of ISO were you getting with you 50mm prime and 1/60 shutter speed?

Also, it sounds to me like you did some fine work. A prime lens is certainly the way to go in dodgy/challenging lighting because the glass is sharper and (generally) lets in more light to help compensate for low(er)-light conditions. If it's something you're thinking of doing in the future, I'd suggest maybe looking into another prime lens, perhaps a 28mm, if you'd like some wider-angle shots (then again, you'd have to be comfortable changing lenses on the fly).

And don't worry about how many pictures don't come out right. I started at maybe a 10% success ratio (because I'd press the shutter for just about anything). Now I'm up to about 30-40% success, depending on the kind of shoot. Because I'm so trigger-happy (and in a wedding setting, you kind of have to be because there's almost always something amazing to capture), the success rates are going to be much lower than average.

As for trying to photograph children ... I'd (only half-jokingly) suggest a fast shutter speed, and a large memory card to store lots of shots. Kids almost always look best in candid moments, but those are very hard to capture without a fast shutter and a willingness to wade through a lot of "just missed it" kind of shots.

There was actually a huge range because of the awkward lighting. I'd say there were a bunch around 500-800 though. It's funny that you mentioned getting another prime lens, because I just got a 24 mm prime last week. I took a few shots with it but was uncomfortable switching a lot. I came home and as soon as I started looking through my photos, I was kicking myself for not using it more. I think if I hadn't been a guest and been wearing a dress with no pockets, I could have gone between the two more easily and had a few more successful shots.

I'll definitely need to experiment with kids and shutter speeds. I'm not around kids that much, so I don't get as much practice as I'd like. I think it's one of the aspects I enjoyed the most about taking pictures this weekend.

And I feel better with what you said about success rates! I get so critical of myself even though I know that I just need time and practice. I still consider it an overall success since the whole point is for them to have decent photos to remember the event by, and I've at least achieved that.

Any thoughts on using flash?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Congrats on the new lens! Last winter, I bought a 28mm prime, and I find it does very well with indoor portraits, and night shots in the city. But, I do find that shooting with a prime lens takes a lot of getting used to. Being able to zoom in and out with my everyday 18-135mm lens means I have to work extra hard to get good shots with a prime lens.

Regarding flash photography ... I'm woefully inexperienced. Just recently, though (especially during my vacation in August), I tried switching on the flash in some low-light situations, where I wanted to capture a specific subject. I found that it actually helped, especially when, during processing later, I could tone down the highlights.

I think, especially with wedding photography, a separate mounted flash, properly diffused to provide light - but not harsh light - would be a big asset. But I know I'd have a lot to learn before I could be successful with it.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I only shoot with prime lenses anymore. The quality is just worth it imo. Zoom lenses just can't touch that. It does take some getting used to but I found it makes me less lazy when it comes to composition. You think about the shot more.
Plus the line of prime lenses Zeiss makes for Sony's e-mount is becoming really spectacular.

Regarding flash I guess there's nothing worse than an on-the-camera flash straight into people's faces unless it's a very subtle fill. There are cheap wireless triggers for off-the-camera flash, though. If all else fails and you're in a dark venue... you can point the flash up towards the ceiling to get some diffused softer light by bouncing it.

I'm just not a fan of TTL, with manual you get exactly what you want.

 

[Kestra]

Yeah, shooting in a public setting where you have no control of the lighting can be quite challenging. Unfortunately, I don't really have much to offer as my luck in photographing people isn't all that great. I tend to fare better with objects of a celestial nature.

I think you're probably on the right track, though. I don't use the flash much anymore either. More often than not, the camera's sensors are good enough to compensate. I usually shoot in natural lighting when I can, as using the flash can often lead to unnatural looking shots. Cameras can also be really good in low-lighting conditions given the chance. There are those situations where you encounter weird lighting arrangements, though, and it's hard to predict what the camera will do.

I'm heading out for the lunar eclipse next weekend and I'm bringing my camera. I'm looking forward to seeing what I get and I'll post the results here.

Looking forward to seeing that! Do you mostly stick with that type of photography then?

Congrats on the new lens! Last winter, I bought a 28mm prime, and I find it does very well with indoor portraits, and night shots in the city. But, I do find that shooting with a prime lens takes a lot of getting used to. Being able to zoom in and out with my everyday 18-135mm lens means I have to work hard to get good shots with a prime lens.

Regarding flash photography ... I'm woefully inexperienced. Just recently, though (especially during my vacation in August), I tried switching on the flash in some low-light situations, where I wanted to capture a specific subject. I found that it actually helped, especially when, during processing later, I could tone down the highlights.

I think, especially with wedding photography, a separate mounted flash, properly diffused to provide light - but not harsh light - would be a big asset. But I know I'd have a lot to learn before I could be successful with it.

Thanks! I had been eyeing the lens for awhile but even as an inexpensive lens, it's difficult to justify the cost. Photography is like that for me in general though, buying this camera is easily the biggest purchase I've ever made without any real need.

I have a friend who has really encouraged me to take more photos and offered to help if I want to try shooting someone's wedding professionally, but I just don't see myself ever doing this professionally. At the same time, doing this shower made me realize how much fun it is to capture an event.

I only shoot with prime lenses anymore. The quality is just worth it imo. Zoom lenses just can't touch that. It does take some getting used to but I found it makes me less lazy when it comes to composition. You think about the shot more.
Plus the line of prime lenses Zeiss makes for Sony's e-mount is becoming really spectacular.

Regarding flash I guess there's nothing worse than an on-the-camera flash straight into people's faces unless it's a very subtle fill. There are cheap wireless triggers for off-the-camera flash, though. If all else fails and you're in a dark venue... you can point the flash up towards the ceiling to get some diffused softer light by bouncing it.

I'm just not a fan of TTL, with manual you get exactly what you want.

I think this was the first time where I actually found myself wanting to use manual! Which I hope means I'm growing a bit as a photographer. Do you mind if I ask which prime lenses you use? I have a 50 mm prime and newly acquired 24 mm prime. I can see what you mean about shooting with prime lenses, although I feel like it could easily become a very expensive habit. As I've said above, I don't think this is something I'll ever do professionally so I'm not sure how much I'll invest in this.

My friend that I mentioned above did show me a flash he got that he mounted to his camera but can be angled all sorts of ways. I know nothing about flash, but it did seem much more usable than what the camera comes with. It sounds like most people here don't use flash much in general, though I suppose it depends on the types of photography we choose to do.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I think this was the first time where I actually found myself wanting to use manual! Which I hope means I'm growing a bit as a photographer. Do you mind if I ask which prime lenses you use? I have a 50 mm prime and newly acquired 24 mm prime. I can see what you mean about shooting with prime lenses, although I feel like it could easily become a very expensive habit. As I've said above, I don't think this is something I'll ever do professionally so I'm not sure how much I'll invest in this.

The price really depends on what you're shooting with. The cheap F1.8 prime lenses for Nikon and Canon are outstanding considering the low price. They blow even the expensive zoom lenses out of the water when it comes to sharpness. And hell, it's so much fun to play with the depth of field, right?

The focal length obviously depends on the sensor. You're shooting with a Canon Rebel, right? You've got the smaller APS-C size sensor (compared to a larger full-frame sensor) which means your lens isn't "really" a 24mm.
Your 24mm is pretty much exactly a 35mm on a full-frame camera. And your 50mm is pretty much an 85mm lens. I suppose you often found it too "long" in that you had to step back too much? It's good for portraits, though.

I mostly use 35mm (your 24mm) and 50mm (35mm for you) lenses but that's on full frame.
I'm not a huge fan of telephoto but I use my 85mm for portraits a lot since longer focal length are more flattering (makes facial features stand out less. You're further away so there's less distortion. If you want to see a comparison of different focal lengths for portraits: Check this out.)

35mm and 50mm are both often called "standard" because they're just so incredibly handy. I find 35mm (again, your 24) perfect for travel and street photography for example. Also really good for environmental portraits when you don't have room to work with.

I think Henri Cartier-Bresson shot just about all his shots with a 50mm (full-frame obviously so that would be 35mm for you). You might wanna try that out.

My friend that I mentioned above did show me a flash he got that he mounted to his camera but can be angled all sorts of ways. I know nothing about flash, but it did seem much more usable than what the camera comes with. It sounds like most people here don't use flash much in general, though I suppose it depends on the types of photography we choose to do.

Yeah, forget the built-in flash. It's a mess. A very small light source from the front creates the harshest light you can imagine. Ideally you want to take the flash off-camera and diffuse it a little but hey... I'm used to being lighted by huge softboxes and umbrellas.
Sometimes it's enough to just not point your light source directly into the person's face from the front.

A nice flash pointed up against the ceiling can work wonders. Getting a TTL flash (which automatically tries to find the correct exposure) would set you back quite a bit. I'd suggest just going for a manual one. You can find the amazing Yongnuo 560 for like $50-80. It's all-manual but doing flash manually really isn't that bad. The TTL automatic doesn't KNOW what you want to expose for, it'll just try to find a nice average. Manual gives you full control and isn't that hard.

Have you checked out David Hobby's "Strobist" site? He's a bit of a small flash guru for amateurs and enthusiasts. You can learn a lot about portrait lighting, off-the-camera flash and so on.
(His Lighting 101 is here)

 

[Owain Taggart]

Looking forward to seeing that! Do you mostly stick with that type of photography then?

Well, I do take pictures of other stuff, but it is more or less the bulk of my photography. Love seeing what I can do with a camera pointed at the sky

I do also love to take nature photography when I can.

Here's one for good measure. You're probably familiar with the type of bird! We were having lunch in Yosemite, when this guy landed just a few feet away from us.

 

[Kestra]

The price really depends on what you're shooting with. The cheap F1.8 prime lenses for Nikon and Canon are outstanding considering the low price. They blow even the expensive zoom lenses out of the water when it comes to sharpness. And hell, it's so much fun to play with the depth of field, right?

The focal length obviously depends on the sensor. You're shooting with a Canon Rebel, right? You've got the smaller APS-C size sensor (compared to a larger full-frame sensor) which means your lens isn't "really" a 24mm.
Your 24mm is pretty much exactly a 35mm on a full-frame camera. And your 50mm is pretty much an 85mm lens. I suppose you often found it too "long" in that you had to step back too much? It's good for portraits, though.

I mostly use 35mm (your 24mm) and 50mm (35mm for you) lenses but that's on full frame.
I'm not a huge fan of telephoto but I use my 85mm for portraits a lot since longer focal length are more flattering (makes facial features stand out less. You're further away so there's less distortion. If you want to see a comparison of different focal lengths for portraits: Check this out.)

35mm and 50mm are both often called "standard" because they're just so incredibly handy. I find 35mm (again, your 24) perfect for travel and street photography for example. Also really good for environmental portraits when you don't have room to work with.

I think Henri Cartier-Bresson shot just about all his shots with a 50mm (full-frame obviously so that would be 35mm for you). You might wanna try that out.

My friend that I mentioned above did show me a flash he got that he mounted to his camera but can be angled all sorts of ways. I know nothing about flash, but it did seem much more usable than what the camera comes with. It sounds like most people here don't use flash much in general, though I suppose it depends on the types of photography we choose to do.

Yeah, forget the built-in flash. It's a mess. A very small light source from the front creates the harshest light you can imagine. Ideally you want to take the flash off-camera and diffuse it a little but hey... I'm used to being lighted by huge softboxes and umbrellas.
Sometimes it's enough to just not point your light source directly into the person's face from the front.

A nice flash pointed up against the ceiling can work wonders. Getting a TTL flash (which automatically tries to find the correct exposure) would set you back quite a bit. I'd suggest just going for a manual one. You can find the amazing Yongnuo 560 for like $50-80. It's all-manual but doing flash manually really isn't that bad. The TTL automatic doesn't KNOW what you want to expose for, it'll just try to find a nice average. Manual gives you full control and isn't that hard.

Have you checked out David Hobby's "Strobist" site? He's a bit of a small flash guru for amateurs and enthusiasts. You can learn a lot about portrait lighting, off-the-camera flash and so on.
(His Lighting 101 is here)

Yes, it's from the Rebel line so it's a crop sensor. I got the 24 mm partially for street photography so it's nice to know that I wasn't totally off on that! Using the 50 mm did mean stepping back but in some ways I actually liked that for this, not being in people's faces. I definitely need to play around more as it wasn't right for some of the shots. It just takes such beautiful photos!

It's funny that you mentioned Yongnuo because my friend was just telling me to get one today. He's encouraged me in the past to get a flash, but he's looked at the recent photos I've taken and just today over text he was like okay, you need to take it to the next level and get one of these. I know basically nothing about flash so that site will be a big help, thanks! I think I'm going to do some research and then maybe put one on a Christmas list since Stoo was asking if I wanted anything camera related for Christmas.

I still feel like a person that just picked up a camera, but I can tell that this is not going to be some passing hobby for me. It's so addicting! Thanks to everyone who is responding in this thread, it really helps me.

Looking forward to seeing that! Do you mostly stick with that type of photography then?

Well, I do take pictures of other stuff, but it is more or less the bulk of my photography. Love seeing what I can do with a camera pointed at the sky

I do also love to take nature photography when I can.

Here's one for good measure. You're probably familiar with the type of bird! We were having lunch in Yosemite, when this guy landed just a few feet away from us.

Wow, that's gorgeous! What did you use for that shot?

 

[Owain Taggart]

Wow, that's gorgeous! What did you use for that shot?

My P&S again. It's what I was using on my hike up to the upper falls in Yosemite. I got lucky. He was hanging out with us when we sat down for a break. He wasn't shy at all, and in no rush to fly away. I've got others of him in that series, but this is my favourite.

 

[Kestra]

Wow, that's gorgeous! What did you use for that shot?

My P&S again. It's what I was using on my hike up to the upper falls in Yosemite. I got lucky. He was hanging out with us when we sat down for a break. He wasn't shy at all, and in no rush to fly away. I've got others of him in that series, but this is my favourite.

You are crazy with that thing. I've never seen anyone take the types of photos you manage with that!

 

[Owain Taggart]

Aww, thanks! I think it's mostly luck and patience. And a good camera. Been really pleased with what I've been able to do with it. It's allowed me to really do a lot of things with it that I wouldn't have expected out of it for a P&S camera.

As promised, I have an eclipse picture. Taken with the same camera. Mind you, it got clouded out as it neared totality where we were, so we never got to see the blood moon. Kind of feel cheated by that. This is as far I got before the clouds started coming in and made taking pictures impossible. This is on a low-light-setting for tripod, zoomed in as far as it will go. The camera is smart enough that it will allow you to zoom in further with a tripod.