MiataMark
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,961
Club RR Member Number: 29
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 17:14:21 GMT
|
Maybe the question about what kit a photo was taken on isn't meant in that way. For example, I've got a (to me) reasonable spec Pentax DSLR and some reasonable lenses, I look at photos I've taken and see that some of them aren't quite as sharp as I'd like, or don't have the tonal range, or all sorts of other stuff I can't put into words that means they just don't look quite right somehow. Then I'll see a similar photo on the web that looks much better, and I'll wonder what was used to take it simply because if it's been taken on the same model of camera as mine, it's clearly something I'm doing wrong, or not doing at all. If it's a much higher-spec body or lens, then fair enough, it might just be that making all the difference, but if not, then I clearly need to learn more about what I use than just get the wallet out. Fair point, but they never ask things like what aperture or exposure or anything linked to technique just what camera.
|
|
1990 Mazda MX-52012 BMW 118i (170bhp) - white appliance 2011 Land Rover Freelander 2 TD4 2003 Land Rover Discovery II TD52007 Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon JTDm
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,503
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 19:49:39 GMT
|
Maybe the question about what kit a photo was taken on isn't meant in that way. For example, I've got a (to me) reasonable spec Pentax DSLR and some reasonable lenses, I look at photos I've taken and see that some of them aren't quite as sharp as I'd like, or don't have the tonal range, or all sorts of other stuff I can't put into words that means they just don't look quite right somehow. Then I'll see a similar photo on the web that looks much better, and I'll wonder what was used to take it simply because if it's been taken on the same model of camera as mine, it's clearly something I'm doing wrong, or not doing at all. If it's a much higher-spec body or lens, then fair enough, it might just be that making all the difference, but if not, then I clearly need to learn more about what I use than just get the wallet out. its a digital camera so the images will be fairly flat tonally straight out of the camera. you need to edit them and preferably take your photos in raw format than opposed to jpg. editing in raw (and learning how to do so properly) will get you nicer photos on your current gear. editing further in photoshop will do more. trick with photoshop i find is to do lots of miniscule adjustments to get a high quality final image - as opposed to using one heavy filter over the whole thing. ideally nothing should be particularly obvious as to what you have done. if you don't want to edit then use film, as that will give you depth of colour, tone, etc sharpness can be down to shutter speed and aperture - ultimately these variables are dictated by light and how much of it you get into the camera. to counter low light you need the camera to be 100% stable - so sit it on anything sturdy, like a table, a wall, a firm bean bag, etc. if you must you can blow money on a tripod - trouble with tripods is that a lot are junk and you need to spend out on good ones. i have a relatively good manfrotto tripod and even that is pretty poor considering the price tag. ultimately a lot of it is editing - ive spent more time learning how to use photoshop than use a camera
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,503
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 19:55:51 GMT
|
this is an example of a photo i did for someone a few years back to show the difference between a photo which had been edited and as it was fresh out of the camera. it didnt require much but it does help it along a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice! Here's one I took at the weekend of my wife and son. (straight from the camera, old 50mm f1.8 nikon lens) I think i'm improving slowly, but I love this one for all the blues in the foreground and then the bokeh...
|
|
|
|
bstardchild
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,886
Club RR Member Number: 71
|
|
|
this is an example of a photo i did for someone a few years back to show the difference between a photo which had been edited and as it was fresh out of the camera. it didnt require much but it does help it along a bit. No offence intended but the touched version no longer looks real to me.. A bit HDR
|
|
|
|
awoo
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,503
|
|
|
thats fair enough but it is only essentially a contrast and colour boost, no hdr involved at all. imo it needed it as the image was exposed for the scenery and not the sky, so the sky was washed out and it does look really flat. this is a look i have applied to a lot of photos in desolate kind of areas like this one, it's not necessarily meant to be a true representation of it.
the first image still isnt how it would appear to the naked eye though so would need adjustment of some kind to make it look more true.
that would be a good example of a bland digital photo, a film photo would have looked way nicer and not needed anything doing to it
|
|
|
|