Show Us Your Photos!

[Jazzmaster 716]

Wow Jazz, your pics are amazing

 

I don't have a very good camera so I use my phone to take all my pics.. But I'm hoping to buy one >_<

 

Here's one I took recently in Docklands Melbourne.

[image]

 

Any suggestions or tips for getting a new camera? I'm thinking of getting Nikon 1

 

Well, thanks.  

 

The Nikon 1 is alright.  The small sensor means it won't perform that much better than your current equipment.  I'd save a little more and get an entry level Nikon or Pentax D-SLR, or a Sony NEX.  But, it's up to you.

 

I've gone back to shooting industrial and urban environments.  I'm sort of annoyed at myself for not using my expensive CPL on this shot because the contrast would've looked so much better.  Nevertheless...

 

[__A 792]

I like that rail yard, also with the skyline in the back. Very nice!

 

I've decided to get a Nikon D3100 DSLR (hopefully).

 

Here's a pic of Flinders Street Station with a B&W edit as well.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ nice, but things like the GIMP are made for correcting the underexposure of this shot.  Can be made brighter without spoiling it.

[__A 792]

Aah ok, thanks for the tip. It was just a quick edit

[AkemiAzula 280]

Something I shot while in Melbourne last year.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An interesting square rigger.  Is she private or public?

[blunder 1,080]

Howdy photographers.

 

So speaking of exposures and digital cameras, i'm looking for a little advice.  I have a little canon powershot.  It does great for most things, and the digital macro zoom is phenomenal, but when i'm taking shots outdoors it completely screws up the sky in the background if the sky is anything other than solid blue, solid white, or a firm contrast between white clouds and blue sky.  Here's an example to show you what i'm talking about: (look at the sky reflection in the lake, and look at the sky itself)

 

This is taken with full auto settings.  Morning, an hour past sunrise, facing west.  Like i said, look at the sky vs the reflection of the sky.  I've tried compensating with manual settings but only had little success.  Playing with the exposure hasn't solved this.  Taking the lighting sensor off auto helps but there's always a tradeoff; taking the above shot with lighting preset to 'day light' gives the sky definition but drastically darkens the trees in the midground, and selecting the lighting preset for 'cloudy' looks almost exactly like the pic above, but with less blurring of the treetops.  When i take the ISO off auto it seems i usually blur it without the camera braced on something (i don't have a tripod).

 

So i'm guessing to resolve this it takes a combination of those 3 settings: exposure, lighting preset, and ISO.  My question to you is what should i try when attempting to fix this?  (and i know the easy answer is: buy a better camera.  Believe me, if i had the money, i would).  Thanks for any help.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In the bad old days, I used a "sky" filter which was a graduated yellow filter (very faint for colour photography) and I suspect you can still get them.  These days, you might want one that takes out the UV as well.
 
Another trick of modern imaging would be to underexpose the shot a little and touch it up with a photo editor.
 
I haven't done any serious process photography since sometime in the late 1960s, but my Olympus D510 seems to handle sky quite readily.
 
Example 1: Mixed sky from a moving boat. (Desktop from a while back).
 



Example 2: Cloudy shot on a rather dull day.  (another desk top)

 

 

Would you believe that both of these are in Gros Morne National Park, on the same day about four hours apart?  No processing was done on either shot except to embed them in my desktop.

 

You could try stopping down one or two clicks.  Bracket your shots and pick the best.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Howdy photographers.

 

So speaking of exposures and digital cameras, i'm looking for a little advice.  I have a little canon powershot.  It does great for most things, and the digital macro zoom is phenomenal, but when i'm taking shots outdoors it completely screws up the sky in the background if the sky is anything other than solid blue, solid white, or a firm contrast between white clouds and blue sky.  Here's an example to show you what i'm talking about: (look at the sky reflection in the lake, and look at the sky itself)

[image]

 

This is taken with full auto settings.  Morning, an hour past sunrise, facing west.  Like i said, look at the sky vs the reflection of the sky.  I've tried compensating with manual settings but only had little success.  Playing with the exposure hasn't solved this.  Taking the lighting sensor off auto helps but there's always a tradeoff; taking the above shot with lighting preset to 'day light' gives the sky definition but drastically darkens the trees in the midground, and selecting the lighting preset for 'cloudy' looks almost exactly like the pic above, but with less blurring of the treetops.  When i take the ISO off auto it seems i usually blur it without the camera braced on something (i don't have a tripod).

 

So i'm guessing to resolve this it takes a combination of those 3 settings: exposure, lighting preset, and ISO.  My question to you is what should i try when attempting to fix this?  (and i know the easy answer is: buy a better camera.  Believe me, if i had the money, i would).  Thanks for any help.

 

The issue you are having is that your camera is having difficulty capturing what your eyes see.  Human eyes have a tremendous amount of dynamic range, which is all of the information between the highlights (bright areas) and shadows (dark areas) of whatever scene you are looking it.  Many digital cameras have issues with this.  You said you don't have the money for a new camera, but you might keep any camera with a Sony sensor (Sony itself, Pentax, or Nikon cameras) because the latest Sony imaging sensors do quite well in high contrast lighting such as this.

 

You said you're shooting in full auto.  Your camera is probably using matrix metering, which means it meters the light from the entirety of the frame and balances your exposure based on that.  This is why you are getting blown highlights (the sky just above the trees appears a sharp white with no detail whatsoever).   ISO is the sensitivity of your sensor to light.  By turning off auto ISO, your camera probably defaults to a low ISO setting and stays there (which can be changed by the user).  Lower ISO means the camera needs longer time to expose the image because it is less sensitive to light.  You're getting blurred images because even if your camera has Image Stabilization, it cannot keep up with such a slow exposure time.  Having the camera still on solid surface or tripod makes sharp images at lower ISOs.

 

To fix your problem, I'd say your best bet is to shoot two exposures and perform a technique called exposure blending.  You'll need a tripod (which can be had for cheap) or any sort of steady surface.  If you don't have one, you can do it handheld, but it'll be difficult.  Brace your elbows firmly against the sides of your body's mid-section and crouch down for added stability in handheld shooting.

 

You said you can change the exposure on your camera - I'm assuming that includes the ability to under or over expose your images.  Set the camera on a steady surface and keep it in place.  Take one image that's overexposed, and one underexposed, and make sure that that both of them have identical framing - meaning, the content included in each image is placed in the exact same spot.  The only difference in the two should be in exposure.  Your camera might have a bracketing option, which makes it automatically take two or more images of different exposure.  Check your user manual to see if you have it.

 

In the underexposed image, the sky should be detailed and have good contrast.  In the overexposed image, the ground should look good, but the sky not so much.

 

Download GIMP or a similar software for image editing.  Create a new file, and load both images (the one that is underexposed, and the one that is overexposed).  Make a separate layer for each image and place one on top of the other, it doesn't matter which.  Create a layer mask for the top layer.  Then, paint in the layer mask depending on which image is on top.  If your underexposed image is on top, paint the ground area and the image on bottom, the overexposed one, should start to show up  If your overexposed image is the top layer, paint the sky to get it back.

 

Your end result should be a single image, where both the sky and the ground look well defined and there is no significant loss of detail anywhere.

 

I included an image that I exposure blended many months ago as my first attempt.  Notice how they sky and ground both have detail - the only area that's blown out is where the sun is, because, well, it's the sun

 

 

The buildings are dark as well, but that was a personal preference.  It might look a bit blurry because the exposures weren't aligned 1:1...which is why alignment is especially important! 

 

I can elaborate anything or answer further questions, if need be.  Otherwise, happy shooting.

[blunder 1,080]

Thanks Jazz, that helps a lot.

 

You said you're shooting in full auto

 

Sometimes.  For that image i was.  Usually i manually set the lighting preset because auto doesn't always get it right, but yes i usually keep the exposure +/- and ISO on auto.

 

exposure blending

 

Looks like i need to get a tripod (and try the ISO settings again too).   I have such unsteady hands...

I've heard of photographers taking two shots of the same thing and blending them, but i didn't know what they were doing, that makes sense.  I've played with the exposure before but i've never thought of blending 2 in PS.  I've done quite a bit of layering work in photoshop making maps for the STEX, so i'm familiar with the process.

 

Sometimes it's not too bad, like this picture the sky bloom is tolerable i think (there was a fair amount of white haze in the sky that day), especially since im no pro:

 

 

But sometimes it just floors me.  Here's one i took camping this summer:

Mountain?  What mountain?  And what sky, for that matter?

Ugh.  When i got home i tried salvaging it in PS.  Adding a contrast/brightness filter i got this:

 

So some background definition showed up, but that cloud behind the mountain is supposed to be white, and the sky is supposed to be blue.  It's so aggravating.  

 

I want to get this worked out soon because i'm hiking the Kendall Katwalk next month, and there's some killer views up there.  

Thanks again for your help, jazz.  

[__A 792]

[image]

Something I shot while in Melbourne last year.

That's a really nice shot of Polly Woodside!

[AkemiAzula 280]

An interesting square rigger.  Is she private or public?

The Polly Woodside, it's a ship on display on the south bank of the Yarra River where they've done a bit of renewal of an old port site. I was looking for a shot I took of Flinders Street station to compare it. Turns out it was lost.

 

"That's a really nice shot of Polly Woodside!"

 

Thanks. I didn't go up to the ship and take a good look as my time was limited (I was en route to Adelaide via night coach and walked to Mordialloc from the city that day). I thought it was a nice contrast shot. The old style ship amongst modern high rises and so forth. 

 

I get that lighting issue with my Samsung Galaxy's camera. I have yet to fully experiment with its controls though. Mind you this was quite a sunny day for London. The best pictures are taken on overcast days. On a good overcast day you can see the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth from Highdown Hill quite clearly.

[T Wrecks 10,210]

So some background definition showed up, but that cloud behind the mountain is supposed to be white, and the sky is supposed to be blue.  It's so aggravating.  

I guess the overall scene with the trees in the foreground was rather dark, so your camera took a long exposure to get enough definition into the foreground. However, this means that at the same time the sky became too bright (overexposed). Could it be that the sun was more in front of you than in your back, too? Sky will often turn white if the scene is backlit.

 

One thing you can do is make a series of exposures, ranging from underexposed by 2 apertures to overexposed. Then you can sort out which one is ok. If you underexpose, too little light may enter the camera, resulting in a longer exposure. This, in turn, may mean that you'll need a tripod to keep the camera steady.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yes, if you go to bracketing exposures, a tripod is need and a cable-release as well to make sure the camera is not moved between shots.

[__A 792]

I might be able to buy the camera tonight! Meanwhile, this was taken in Singapore. The Flyer is currently the tallest observatory wheel.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

 

Thanks. I didn't go up to the ship and take a good look as my time was limited (I was en route to Adelaide via night coach and walked to Mordialloc from the city that day). I thought it was a nice contrast shot. The old style ship amongst modern high rises and so forth. 

You walked to Mordialloc?!

[AkemiAzula 280]

Yes I did. I walked to Boronia from the cit

 

 

Thanks. I didn't go up to the ship and take a good look as my time was limited (I was en route to Adelaide via night coach and walked to Mordialloc from the city that day). I thought it was a nice contrast shot. The old style ship amongst modern high rises and so forth. 

You walked to Mordialloc?!

 

Yes. I also walked to Boronia on the return day. It took a few hours if I remember correctly. I only took one photo though (which I uploaded to here a while ago) as my camera was losing battery.

[__A 792]

Yes I did. I walked to Boronia from the cit

 

 

Thanks. I didn't go up to the ship and take a good look as my time was limited (I was en route to Adelaide via night coach and walked to Mordialloc from the city that day). I thought it was a nice contrast shot. The old style ship amongst modern high rises and so forth. 

You walked to Mordialloc?!

 

Yes. I also walked to Boronia on the return day. It took a few hours if I remember correctly. I only took one photo though (which I uploaded to here a while ago) as my camera was losing battery.

Damn, must've taken a lot of energy

 

So I got my camera and I'll be taking pics of Melbourne the whole day tomorrow. I've taken a couple shots of little things

 

 

 

 

EDIT: To all DSLR users, do you prefer using the viewfinder or the monitor?

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Yes. I also walked to Boronia on the return day. It took a few hours if I remember correctly. I only took one photo though (which I uploaded to here a while ago) as my camera was losing battery.

As someone who lives in that part of town, may I ask why? There's a perfectly good train station with services direct to the city.

 

[Jazzmaster 716]

 

 

So I got my camera and I'll be taking pics of Melbourne the whole day tomorrow. I've taken a couple shots of little things

 

[images

 

 

EDIT: To all DSLR users, do you prefer using the viewfinder or the monitor?

 

 

I prefer composing with the optical viewfinder myself.  It's my little window to the world, at least in theory - unfortunately my Nikon D5100 only shows 96% of the shot, but after fixing lens hiccups in post it doesn't really matter.  But really, I can't imagine going back to a live view screen (the "monitor" on the back of your camera).

 

Then again, one thing LV has that optical viewfinders don't is setting-specific preview feedback.  In other words, if you change a setting, it'll show you how the final image will be in live view.  The OVF doesn't do this.  There are electronic viewfinders on the recent "mirrorless" cameras like the Olympus OM-D and Fujifilm X100/s models.  One more advantage of the OVF, though, is that it significantly cuts down on battery life consumption.  Once you practice a certain amount, you can take several images without "chimping" (checking your shot right after you take it and then fixing mistakes).  This means shooting all day with no significant battery drain.

[__A 792]

Thanks for your feedback Jazz, I think my viewfinder also doesn't show the whole shot but I really love using it over the live view. Hope to get some good shots today

[Jazzmaster 716]

Thanks for your feedback Jazz, I think my viewfinder also doesn't show the whole shot but I really love using it over the live view. Hope to get some good shots today

 

Good luck.  Practicing a lot is worth it.  But of course, photography is whatever you want it to be.

 

When you've seen one you've seen them all, but I digress - a shot of the moon:

 

[AkemiAzula 280]

 

Yes. I also walked to Boronia on the return day. It took a few hours if I remember correctly. I only took one photo though (which I uploaded to here a while ago) as my camera was losing battery.

As someone who lives in that part of town, may I ask why? There's a perfectly good train station with services direct to the city.

 

 

Because I had nothing better to do that day. I took the train back in both instances. I was planning to walk to Frankston and Mount Dandenong but my coach left at about 6 pm and you have to be at the station an hour in advance etc. 

[dazza262 133]

 

Thanks for your feedback Jazz, I think my viewfinder also doesn't show the whole shot but I really love using it over the live view. Hope to get some good shots today

 

Good luck.  Practicing a lot is worth it.  But of course, photography is whatever you want it to be.

 

When you've seen one you've seen them all, but I digress - a shot of the moon:

 

 

 

Very nice. What sort of lens did you use for that shot?

 

Also _lazz, do you shoot in RAW?  I've just started to play around with it, and it takes a bit of getting used to.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

 

 

Yes. I also walked to Boronia on the return day. It took a few hours if I remember correctly. I only took one photo though (which I uploaded to here a while ago) as my camera was losing battery.

As someone who lives in that part of town, may I ask why? There's a perfectly good train station with services direct to the city.

 

 

Because I had nothing better to do that day. I took the train back in both instances. I was planning to walk to Frankston and Mount Dandenong but my coach left at about 6 pm and you have to be at the station an hour in advance etc. 

 

Hahah I work up there now!

[Bipin 3,403]

Reflections; both literal and figurative, in the City of Chicago:

 

 

Something a bit closer to home:

 

 

...and even a bit closer:

 

 

The effects on the latter two may seem a bit overdone, but they aid in painting them by really exposing the details. That ugly noise can be discarded of when it comes to painting. Yes, that's right, I'll be doing at least one of the two, most likely the utility pole first, as a representational painting.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I love that first pic of your Bipin. Great way to take a picture of a subject you don't want to point the camera directly at. Always a hard line to walk when showing human misery in photographs. On one side it can be an important social commentary. On the other it can be exploitative.

 

Is the second pic a reflection in water? looks like it.

[__A 792]

Definitely agree with you MilitantRadical. I think the second pic is just an effect?

 

So I'll post a few shots I took but I'll upload all of the ones I took on my Skydrive which might take a while (aus internet).

 

Southern Star (undergoing reconstruction)

 

Seafarers Bridge

 

Webb Bridge (Yarra's Edge side)

 

Somewhere along South Wharf

 

Skyline during sunset

 

Rainbow!

[Jazzmaster 716]

 

 

Very nice. What sort of lens did you use for that shot?

 

Also _lazz, do you shoot in RAW?  I've just started to play around with it, and it takes a bit of getting used to.

 

 

Thanks.  I used a 70-200mm lens.  My camera's imaging sensor is actually smaller than the 35mm frame, so I get a 1.5x crop factor.  As a result, the 70-200 actually becomes a 135-300.  It's a bit limited in use at such focal lengths but certainly a welcome addition to my lens family.

 

I do indeed shoot RAW.  I used to also have my camera churning out .jpegs, but I never used them and they were taking up precious card space so I ceased doing that.  It does take getting used to, and can be at first overwhelming.  Play around with sliders to see what you can achieve.  See if the software you use to edit RAW files can utilize presets.  Then you can just tweak from there rather than from scratch.

 

I walked around Tampa for a few hours this morning.  I feel that these two images are worth sharing.

 

 

[Haljackey 17,398]

I took this last night

 

Church At Night by haljackey, on Flickr