Me too! (need help to improve my pictures)

[tezclarke]

Me Too!! I went out with my new D7100 and took some shots. I used the P mode but They re not really good. It can't be the camera it must be me. my work is very basic and I am trying to learn, that's why I am here. I have attached two of them.

Thanks Tez

[Shadowman]

Me Too!! I went out with my new D7100 and took some shots. I used the P mode but They re not really good. It can't be the camera it must be me. my work is very basic and I am trying to learn, that's why I am here. I have attached two of them.

Thanks Tez

I only see one image but it's not bad, the tones of the mushroom and grassy area are very similar so you are getting as much POP as you could. Do you do any post processing?

[Mike Buckley]

Terry,

Me Too!!

MOD Comment:
Terry's post, originally in another thread (here), has now been moved to its own thread (this one).

I recommend that you start your own thread by displaying that image (only one is displayed even though your narrative mentions two images). Most important, you mentioned that the image is "not really good," but didn't explain the characteristics that you don't like. People will be able to provide much more help if they know what you don't like. Personally, I think the image is quite nice, especially considering that you are new to this stuff if I remember correctly.

[Geoff F]

Terry, fungi are very tricky subjects. I start by giving them a bit of a 'touch up' in much the same way as you would approach a portrait of a person.

Then, using a tripod, I meter around the scene to work out a good exposure which avoids over exposed 'hot spots' or deep shadows. Preferably without any direct sunlight. Often it is necessary to take two or more shots at different focus points then combine them.

But we really need to know more about your camera equipment and editing software. Which really needs a new separate thread so we can go into greater depth, as Mike suggested.

ps. I see this has now been moved to a new individual thread.

[James G]

Terry, +1 to Geoff's advice.

I'll also add that I use a tripod which can get very low when shooting fungi. I too tend to take several shots and stack them. Controlling focus is done by hand, and when necessary (for comfort... I'm getting too old to lie on my belly in damp conditions), I tether my camera to a tablet and use a focus stacking program control the captures.

For post processing I use Photoshop, but as long as your software allows you to process a stack of images... Otherwise there is a free software solution CombineZP which you can download for this. It's a bit long in the tooth, but does quite a good job.

[Dave Humphries]

This is now a separate thread, link to the other one as a MOD Comment in Mike's post above.

[pnodrog]

The first thing you need to do is crop the photograph. The right hand side is not contributing to the image. Next the lighting needs to be evened up a bit. Thirdly when taking the photograph (using a tripod as well as a camera) you need to use a wider aperture so the background becomes softer.

Below is an indication of the direction I think you should be taking the image.




The yellow leaf resting on it needs to be darkened even more than I have done above.

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Tez. You've asked a pretty wide open question there. CIC is a great place to get the input that you seek. However this is a very diverse community in terms of experience, expertise, genre of interest etc. not to mention the typical cultural differences of an international forum. So it can be very helpful if you provide a bit more background to help focus the feedback. For example, what did you have in mind when you tripped the shutter on this? Sid the bright colors catch your attention and that's what you wanted to capture? Or are you a fungi expert trying to make the most technically accurate documentary photo?

In lieu of more directed inquiry we will all answer through our own view of the world and it may be confusing and/or frustrating to interpret.

At any rate, welcome to CIC.

[JBW]

Hi Terry, If I understood you correctly you not only have a new camera but you are new to this hobby as well. That being the case you're right your camera is not the problem your lack of experience is.

So here are my suggestions to help you down this path.

(1) get out there and take lots and lots of pictures.

(2) take them using one of the semi automatic settings. Or even the fully automatic setting. All of the possibilities on full manual control could be confusing.

(3) get a good post processing program. There is as much to learn in the pp field as in the shooting field. Picasa is straightforward and free. Gimp is complicated and free. Everyone has their favourite.

(4) post your most troublesome shots or your best here.

(5) pay attention to the advice you receive.

For myself I took more than 10,000 shots before I started to post shots that were getting pretty good. Getting close to 30,000 now and there is still a lots to improve on.

Good luck and welcome to the group.

[tezclarke]

Gentlemen,
I am sorry for the length of this post and I must state that i intend no offence.
As one contributor to this thread said - I might be a beginner. Not really, I have been taking pictures for years, 'snaps' really' but I wanted a good camera to learn 'proper photography'. I joined a photographic society and the other night at the club there were the results of a competition. I sat there through 80 or so images which were presented. Some by experts! others by beginners. With only one exception, all had been doctored or as you guys say 'post processed'. What is a photograph? I think it is a record of a moment in time. I don't however believe in faking images, no matter how unpopular that might make me. The winner of the comp' showed a snow scene of three people descending a slope of about 50 degrees. it was also shrouded in a light mist. The 'artist' told me that in actual fact the original was of three persons walking on a flat terrain. He had altered it to a severe slope, adjusted the people to be upright on the angle and had removed trees etc etc. In fact the image was a 'fake' and in my opinion not worthy of being the winner.
I now have an expensive camera, a Nikon D7100, an 18 -140mm and a 55-300mm lens, flash gun, filters and even an expensive bag to put it all in. When I turn up with all this gear, people think "Wow! I bet he's good at photography" Not so! I also have Abobe Photoshop 12 but its so complicated, I really don't use it. So may I thank you all very much indeed for your kind and instructive comments and suggestions, but quite frankly, I am out of my league here. In fact in one question put by a gentleman named Ted the answers were so complex, I didn't even understand it. Better that I left it to you all and stepped aside to get on with my snapping!! It was an education and I have to say, that this is one of the best photographic sites I have ever seen.

Good-Bye and - Good luck.

[Didace]

With only one exception, all had been doctored or as you guys say 'post processed'. What is a photograph? I think it is a record of a moment in time. I don't however believe in faking images, no matter how unpopular that might make me.

Every single digital photograph ever taken has been processed in one way or another.

[artistguy]

There are many genres of photography, record shot photography is one of them, as in recording what is there. You've achieved this so you're really asking for advice that you don't need. With the equipment you have you should be fine, my only advice would be to try off camera flash to get away from direct flash and create interesting shadows and highlights.
Photographic Societies here in the UK seem mainly to be an audience and speaker type environment, not particularly conducive to learning new techniques for your own photography.

[Adzman808]

Not sure if the OP is still here to read our replies?!

IMO it's a fine line... I have no issue with people artificially adding things to their pictures, and full disclosure I often clone out things I don't want.

But for me, adding in something that was never there, isn't for me.

Back in my darkroom days I'd correct a wonky image, or selectively expose different parts of the image when using the englarger

I don't see any difference is doing this digitally

The fact is if you want the best out of your camera, then raw is the way to go, raw offers you tye most detail.

That's not to say that SOOC is bad, and often it can do the job just fine.

[Mike Buckley]

Every single digital photograph ever taken has been processed in one way or another.

That's also true of every single film photo ever taken thanks at the very least to the emulsion applied to the film by the manufacturer; each type of film had different emulsions and each set of emulsions made a captured scene appear differently. Similarly, there is not a single method of photography going all the way back to the birth of photography that didn't require processing decisions to permanently reveal the captured scene. Those decisions affected the appearance of the captured scene every bit as much as decisions made using today's digital photography. Those who think otherwise are uninformed.

[Manfred M]

Terry - this argument has been going on for a very long time, even back in the film days.

Terry - If you haven't permanently signed off, let me give you a bit of a history lesson from the film days.

Strangely enough, back in the wet darkroom days, I would print on a diagonal, would dodge, burn and crop quite routinely. I would even cut out parts of a photography, sand the edges to feather them and then glue them down on another image and rephotograph and reprint the whole thing. The results were not as good as we can do with post-processing software, and it was a lot slower and harder to do, but it was fun.

Even in those days some folks would print the entire negative to the edges to prove that they were "purists". Some even insisted that the print had to be made on #2 paper and show a tonal range from 100% white to 100% black.

Mike (in the previous thread) is quite right as we would select certain films for how they looked.

If you look at a couple of renowned photographers of the past, Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh, both had extensive rework done on their negative and in the printing process. Adams would spend a long time rework and chemically changing his negatives and then do the same thing when he printed them. Karsh employed both a negative retoucher and a printer to produce those famous portraits of his.


I'm not someone who enters contests, so really have no axe to grind. As long as the rules are clear and they are obeyed by the participants.

I can also show you some images that I've done with normal camera settings that have been done as jpegs that look fantastic and took absolutely ZERO retouching. Unfortunately, these were 100% studio shots, so represent a very specific subset of photography.

You are absolutely within your rights to feel that straight out of the camera is the only way to go. This is a constraint that is certainly up to you; most serious photographers will tweak their work in post production.

[tezclarke]

Hi,

My apologies to all the people who kindly offered me their support and advice. I have a big problem at home, my wife is very ill and I kind of let of steam. I wrote to one of the moderators to apologise and he accepted that, so I am back ready to gratefully accept any help that's offered. Have to say though chaps, I am not very good at post processing although I have the software to do so in Photoshop Element 12. Still trying to learn all the buttons on the new Nikon

May I say I am glad to be back.

[JBW]

Hi,

My apologies to all the people who kindly offered me their support and advice. I have a big problem at home, my wife is very ill and I kind of let of steam. I wrote to one of the moderators to apologise and he accepted that, so I am back ready to gratefully accept any help that's offered. Have to say though chaps, I am not very good at post processing although I have the software to do so in Photoshop Element 12. Still trying to learn all the buttons on the new Nikon

May I say I am glad to be back.

Prayers for your problems. Welcome back.

[Mike Buckley]

Good to see you again, Terry. I hope everything is going as well as reasonably possible concerning your wife's health.

My thinking is that your best approach is to first explain what you don't like about your image. You'll then get very specific, helpful responses. Without knowing what you don't like about it, we can't be of very much help.

[tezclarke]

Thank you Mike & Brian.

We shall get through it, I am sure. I am going to get to work taking some images and hopefully learn from you all. I just want to take better pictures, that's all.

[Inkanyezi]

Hi Terry, sorry to hear about problems, hoping they get sorted out in a good way.

I fully second JBW:s post #9 in the thread. The only thing maybe that I could add is that for images of small things, get close, and when the items are low down on the ground, get down to where the business is. Maybe a mushroom is mostly seen straight down, from top, but other angles can be more interesting. I have often laid on my tummy among the weeds with my chin right down in the mud, to make the image I want to see.

The post processing suggested is not in any way manipulation, that will misrepresent your subject, but we all do some post processing, whether it is done with the camera settings for conversion of the RAW data or afterwards in the computer. The aim mostly is to portray the subject in a way that conveys what we saw when the image was taken. Some post processing skills can improve the images, but the basic thing always is to "see the light" - how the light builds the image. That is done when the picture is taken, and your care when exposing the image will always be reflected in how the image will be perceived by an audience.

To me, a mushroom can be taken from top down like this, although it might not be the most interesting angle. Imagine a gnome, to whom the mushroom might be his home, and how this gnome might perceive the mushroom. It is probably quite another picture. Look at it from different angles, and get close. Try to capture it in the best light you might encounter, which might be at another time of the day, or with a reflector, to cast light upon it from a different angle, maybe backlighting it, to create rimlight. There's a lot of things you can do to improve your images, and all of them include training your vision.

We all have different learning curves, and one or another might not need to take tens of thousands of exposures before getting the really good ones. It goes about visualising how the image might come out and learning the skills to get the most out of it.

I hope you will enjoy the forum. You are very welcome.