Rachel's River, a struggle to photograph there. An edited experimental blog!

[Rachel Foster]

This thread is Rachel's work in getting a fine picture made representing a fast moving small river that has captured her attention. This is interesting since here is someone motivated but inexperienced who is bold enough to share her personal struggle to get made what she sees and feels.

This is brave since all her naive failures will be public. However, this is a good learning process for us all because there are no wedding clients waiting for pictures or parents wanting their kids soccer shots on time. Here we have to go from vision, motivation, intent, struggle to define that intent to an image and learn how to frame it at what angle, position (hence perspective) and time of day and how long to keep the shutter open to get the water blurred or not!

In the end, this image yanked from a scene to a brain and worked to get it to be expressed in a final 2 dimensional image and satisfying is the Arc of Intent in my way of thinking. After all, the camera does not make the picture, unless it's a capture of an extraordinary goal save or an assassination, where the news is the defining quality. All we do is extract from what we see and create an expression based on that subject. It is not what we see. It's what our mind might see.

So here lets deal with making a great image of the river. Asher





Sometimes, I get a photo or series of photos that should have been great but aren't. This last series was of a local river where it flows serenely, looking like glass, and then tumbles over rocks. The water suddenly exhibits power and energy. It should be powerful but it's not and I can't pinpoint what's wrong.

What do you do when you're faced with that?

[Annie James]

For fear of sounding patronising, and you most probably already know this, but a camera only sees in two dimensions, it sees with one eye as opposed to our two, it takes a lot of practice to learn how to see the way your camera will see, I suppose a simplistic way to exemplify would be to close one eye and look at the scene in front of you. To try and interpret water, you might like to experiment with your shutter speeds until you are happy with the result and you feel it has portrayed your message in the final image.

Annie

[Rachel Foster]

Ok, that's a good idea. I've been taking a Socratic approach (i.e., What do these have in common?) but maybe that's premature.

Also, I want to repeat that my real question here is HOW to figure it out rather than linked to a specific photo.

Now, I know this photo doesn't cut it. How would I go about figuring out why?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Nature/smallfordiscussion.jpg

Regarding any of MY photos: No one ever need feel s/he has to "beat around the bush." My skin is thick and if I post it, I want the truth. My feelings won't be hurt, trust me.

[Annie James]

Rachel, on first impression the image is out of focus, this is the first thing that hits me, do you use a tripod? The reason I ask is the waterfall looks like your shutter speed was slow, if this wasnt intentional, then if your camera was handheld, it would be almost impossible to get this sharp and in focus. the exposure, especially on the still part of the water is lovely, you have caught the reflection of the rocks and the grass very nicely. The angle you took the image at doesnt help the overal image, personally I would invest in a pair of wellington boots and get yourself in the water where possible. The grass is distracting as there isnt enough of it for context, it would have been better to have had 'just' the water and no bank. I think possibly the lens you use inhibits you, and if you werent using a tripod, then it would be worth getting in the habit of using one. I shall hand this over to someone else, I think the more diverse advice you receive the better informed choices you can make.

Annie

[Rachel Foster]

I did use a tripod but hand shake is an issue with me. That may seriously inhibit my growth I fear.

I did want the flowing aspect of the water, but it may come out as simply distracting. And I was wondering where to crop.

So, did you look at it and just ask "What's wrong?" Or is there a systematic checklist?

[Annie James]

Absolutely not, had it been in my eyes a perfect picture ( baring in mind that perfect is highly subjective) I would have questioned you as why you thought it was wrong to begin with! For me initially without having to lookfor something, the main issue was focus, secondary to that was composition. I'm a great believer that a Photograph doesnt have to be technical if pictorially it 'works' one can ignore OOF and exposure if the content engages, I feel you came very close to pictorial had it not been for the 'bit' of grass at the side, the best part of the pictiure for me, is the still water where you captured the reflections of the grass. Had you concentrated on the still water as the main subject, you could have ommited the grass totally and instead caught it all in the reflection. Its a shame about the camera shake issue, maybe you could try a monopod? Sounds silly but some people find a tripod quite prohibiting, but find a monopod more liberating, also for places that are rocky and uneven, just having one 'pole' to balance on the ground, makes life a lot easier, and might combat hand shake?

Annie

[ron_hiner]

Sometimes, I get a photo or series of photos that should have been great but aren't.

Whew, I'm glad that's never happened to me! ;-)

I like my pictures to be ABOUT something... there should one thing that dominates the image. In a portrait, that something is most often the subject's eyes, at least the way I shoot them. There are a million exceptions to this of course, but I think your sample has too many elements, and nothing dominates. It's busy -- and my eye doens't know where to go.

Landscapes are hard to do well... because the subject is often no single object and the sum of all the objects is what is interesting. One landscape photographers secret to counter this is to get the image technically perfect, then make HUGE prints.

The other big secret is to be on station with your tripod set and everything ready for your shot at 1/2 before sunrise. Just like butter and/or sugar will make just about anything taste good, a sunrise will make just about anything look good.


I did use a tripod but hand shake is an issue with me. That may seriously inhibit my growth I fear.

I did want the flowing aspect of the water, but it may come out as simply distracting. And I was wondering where to crop.

So, did you look at it and just ask "What's wrong?" Or is there a systematic checklist?

If there was a checklist, it wouldn't be an art would it?

As for hand shake, check to see if your camera has a self timer or something that will delay the release of the shutter by a couple seconds - so you can get your hands off. or use a cable remote or a remote trigger of some kind.

The only thing that will inhibit your growth is to stop asking and stop experimenting and to stop exploring. Hand shake won't do that.

Ron

[Rachel Foster]

"As for hand shake, check to see if your camera has a self timer or something that will delay the release of the shutter by a couple seconds - so you can get your hands off. or use a cable remote or a remote trigger of some kind."

Oh, damned good idea! Excellent! (Happy dance here).

Yes, too busy was one thing I thought (Annie hit on that too). What I wanted to capture was the stillness and the movement juxtaposed. So, perhaps the answer is when it doesn't work, just start cropping in as many ways as one can think of; same with saturation, contrast, etc. If it still doesn't work, throw it out and chalk it up as a learning experience?

[Rachel Foster]

I went back to the river and reshot. The primary reason I shot today is that the weather is changing fast and quite soon it will be too cold (for me....I'm a wimp). So, rather than risk having to wait til May or so (I told you I'm a wimp!) I shot.

Annie, I took your advice. I don't have Wellingtons, but I went into the river, barefoot. My preliminary impression is that today's results are better. Now to go study them. And photoshop them!

If anyone wants to peek (don't want to clutter up the thread by posting), they're here

http://s183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Nature

[Kathy Rappaport]

A few works about camera shake. Faster shutter speeds are helpful - which means you have to have a smaller lens opening. Also shorter focal lengths help because you can then shoot a bit slower in the shutter speed. Flash will freeze any motion too - not that you want it for landscape, but, that is something to add to the equasion. Image Stabilization is on some of the L quality lenses but then you are paying for that. So mastering that, you can also avoid needing a tripod, which is not always preferred.

Rachel, I noted you were shooting in Shutter Priority mode (I looked at the exif data). Is that why you were using that? One very helpful way I learned was to put my camera on automatic and see what the camera wanted to shoot at and then I'd flip to manual mode and modify the settings to my liking. It was a great learning tool for me. P mode will do the same but this was before I understood what P Mode was (It was during my film days too - maybe there was no P mode)

[Jeff O'Neil]

Rachel,

I'm not a pro shooter either and I have felt the way you've described after looking at my results.

What I've found helpful is try and recall what exactly was it that captured my eye?

Often it has not been the subject itself but the combination of many things. The balance of light and shadow, the stillness, the activity. There was something about that scene that promoted me to grab the camera. However I've often not captured what I saw.

I found trying to keep the intended focus of that moment clear in my mind helps to find a way to capture what my eyes are seeing. Your posted image is fine, but you sound like it's not telling the story you wanted it to.

I've felt that way many times about my own work. Now I really try and concentrate on my initial reaction. I find it helps the creative juices to begin flowing. (Often it takes 2 or 3 bracketed shots combined in layers for it to reveal)

Hope that makes sense as I think I understand your initially posting.

Jeff

[Marian Howell]

i can see why you might like this - i do too! the water swirls are enthralling.
but...might i suggest cropping the rocks out (off top and off right). the detail is blown out on them and they distract. i think the image would be much stronger without them.
and you don't have to go outside to crop...you can crop all winter if you want :)

[Johnny_Johnson]

Hi Rachel,

Have a look at the website referenced below. It gives a number of recommendations for composing landscape paintings but most can be equally applied to photography. The problem with the white rocks in your previous shot is covered in example #9.

Some will probably say that rules like these are too restricting and I agree to some extent. But, they can assist with developing your vision until you free comfortable with trying for your own style.

http://photoinf.com/General/Johannes_Vloothuis/landscape_composition_rules.html

Later,
Johnny

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

Photography is not "zoom in", "crop, crop". Photography is to find a subject that compels you and then use that to manufacture an image in which your vision of the matter is embedded. Since you have not yet learned to define your vision and its imperatives, how can you crop? So let's put aside that for the moment. One needs a cake before you can cut out a chunk!

Just get a book or a fishing rod or a chair and look at the river. Take in a wider view. If the swirls interest you, they may be photographed tighty but you can examine it on your screen from a wide picture. So, I'd take some wide angle shots print them and study the pics or else post them. If you send it by http://www.yousend it.com to me, I can select an image and we can just work on onlt that and see what the patterns are. That way we can be beside you!

Let's work then on one wide image as a start, get feedback ideas for you to measure against your intent. Then you must return repeatedly to retake the picture each time, framing and exposing to fit your clearer ideas.

Asher

"We don't capture what we see, we make an image of what we might show."

[Don Lashier]

Rachel, it really helps to "see the shot" in the wild rather than in front of the computer. Nevertheless, experimenting with cropping can help you to acquire the talent. For some reason, at first anyway, it's not as easy to see the shot (composition) thru the viewfinder as opposed to on the screen.

Alternate crop of your shot. Not anything great but note that:
- it provides depth - front (left) to back detail
- contrast of plant detail vs soft reflection (would be more apparant in larger size)
- eliminates the distracting shadow area in the upper right
- provides some subtle framing on the left and right
- overall balance is much more pleasing - note that on the original your eye goes all over the place and doesn't know where to settle and can't pull things together, and the right half of the image is largely "blah" contributing little if anything.

http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/rriver.jpg

- DL

[Asher Kelman]

Don,

I like your ability to see this portion of the view so well. Maybe Rachel can provide this one file then in full size!....and here it is. You can download a fair sized jpg file here (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=056845D855A53B76).

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

Ah, you went to the other side! I went for the close up in the upper right.

I see now with yours, you used the "rivers should have an s-shape or at least curve principle. Am going to study it more.

[Rachel Foster]

Asher I shot it with as wide an angle as I could (got it to 3.5 I think). I had to go downriver to get the camera to go to that angle. I'm sure there are very easy ways to do it but I've not figured it out yet. I've had my "axe" (musicians call their instruments axes...) for a week and I'm still learning it.

This is what I have...what did you want? I don't think this is it.

Also, I'm not sure what size is appropriate for this.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Nature/sunriv2070.jpg

[Rachel Foster]

OK, a new concern. The more I look at this shot, the more I like it. Research has shown that mere familiarity increases liking. How does one keep one's critical ability free from the familiarity effect? Likely a question for a new thread, but I wanted to get it down before I get distracted. It relates to the original question of how do you know what's wrong with a photo, especially when "noise" like the familiarity effect enters the equation.

[Aaron Strasburg]

I'm a long way from an expert myself, but there are some technical challenges with this photo to deal with first. There are things I like about this image, but I'm struggling with it as is.

The EXIF data says it was taken at 30mm, which on your Rebel XTi is very close to "normal" so it's not very wide. Did you buy the kit lens? That 18-55 won't win any awards (mine is very soft in the lower left corner) but it does go reasonably wide. When you said you "got it to 3.5" I think you were referring to aperture, not focal length. The shorter the focal length the wider the angle of view (on the same camera).

Next, it seems this was shot in aperture priority (where I do at least 80% of my shooting), but only stopped down to f/4. Since this was bright daylight you had a shutter speed of 1/1250 and had lots of room to stop down without resorting to a tripod. Even f/11 would have been plenty fast for handheld and would have helped sharpness front to back. The smaller the aperture (the bigger the f-stop, numerically) the deeper the depth of field.

The fact that this was shot in the middle of the day creates challenges with the range of brightness, from the darkest shadows to the sky and highlights on the water. Early morning or late evening, near sunrise/sunset would make this easier. Alternatively I've played with a crop removing the bridge so the sky isn't an issue and then I can let the highlights in the water go just a little. This may not be what you were thinking, but it's one possibility:
http://www.pbase.com/ats1911/image/85711586.jpg
It doesn't solve the problem of the blurry plants in the foreground, but the dynamic range isn't quite so big so there would be more room to brighten it all up a bit.

Aaron

[Aaron Strasburg]

The EXIF data says you were shooting in Av, which is where I spend most of my time. That's not the problem. Photography is a combination of art and science (I'm better at the science part...). If you're happy with the image but it's technically imperfect that, in my opinion, is a much simpler problem to solve than tack sharp images of drivel.

What lenses do you have? It's easiest to see depth of field (DOF) changing with a longer focal length, but you can work even with 30mm. Using aperture priority (Av) mode, line up a shot along a wall or something like that. Focus near the middle distance, then switch to manual focus so it doesn't change during this experiment. Alternatively you could set up a little still life at a relatively short distance from the camera then a longer distance to the background.

Start with the largest aperature (smallest f-stop, probably around f/4) and take a shot. Assuming you have the camera set up for 1/3 stop increments click up 3 times to go one stop smaller (if you started at f/4 now you'd be at f/5.6). Take another pic. Rinse and repeat up to the smallest aperture your lens can do. Now download those to your computer and study how the DOF changes as you increase the f-stop.

Since most grand landscape photos require everything from front to back to be in focus you'll often be working at f/8 - f/11. You probably don't want to go higher than that with your camera as something called diffraction starts to hurt sharpness everywhere. The good news is the smaller sensors we have (I have a 20D, which is very similar to your Rebel XTi) actually help when we want more DOF.

You'll get there. This is all mechanical. Like I said, much easier than the artistics stuff....

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks. I'm going to go back to the most basic levels and make sure I understand what I'm doing. I was looking on the net and there is a DVD made to explain how to use the Rebel as well as books and an online course. So, I don't feel quite as stupid. But I'm going back to Camera Kindergarden. I've already printed http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2444

Next I'm going to dig out Photography for Dummies and work my way up to Photography for Almost-Dummies. The next time I shoot the river it's going to be done right.

Oh the lens: It came with an 18-55. I'll soon know what that is, too.

Time Ms. Ignorant hit the books.

[Aaron Strasburg]

There are lots of books, lots of web resources. I've got a book called Mastering Digital SLR Photography by David D. Busch that seems pretty good. It's generic to all DSLRs, but that's not really a problem. Almost any photography howto book, aimed at digital or not, will cover what you're looking for.

The lens you have is the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. That means it has a focal length of 18mm at its widest to 55mm at its longest, which covers wideangle through normal and on into short telephoto. Not at all a bad range for general walk around photography. Not worth a hoot for shooting birds and such, but it's quite a useful range for many things. My biggest complaint with this lens is actually focusing, as there's so much slop that it's very difficult to manually focus, which also makes using filters tougher. But that won't stop you from taking beautiful pictures, it just makes it a little trickier.

The 3.5-5.6 range means the maximum aperture varies as you zoom. This is common on consumer-level lenses, but it generally doesn't hurt unless you're in really low light and it definitely makes for cheaper and lighter lenses.

Read books, take a photo class, whatever works. If you can teach stats you'll get this quickly.

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks...that made a lot of sense.

Yes, I have been trying to skate on the technical aspect. Big mistake...and one I shouldn't have made. If I'm going to be serious about this, I have to do it right. That mistake is about to be corrected or I will hang up my Rebel and go back to shooting snapshots.

I'll be back with new river pics when I've gotten some study under my belt.

Asher introduced this thread with "This is brave since all her naive failures will be public. However, this is a good learning process for us all. . . ." Failure number 1: Cheating on learning the technical stuff.

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel,

I'm happy! You went back, the pictures arn'nt bad and you are still breathing :)

Use a tripod and set the camera to AV, ISO 400 and f8 and put the timer on and press the shutter button and let the camera do its thing. All you have to do is focus on something with high contrast and keep shooting.

ISO 400 is fast enough and noise free enough to get your pictures in daylight.

f 8.0 means you are using the sweet part of the lens and its difficult not to have what you want in focus.

Av means when you set the aperture to f 8.0 the camera will respect your decision and now only change the shutter speed to allow just the right amount of light for the small f 8.0 hole!

Tripod: overcomes issues of blur due to camera shake! That happens when you get an AARP card or a bottle of the good stuff!

You can go to classes when you have good pictures. Then you'll find out how to make better choices.

However, courses are only allowed after you have struggled with this project so the explanations will become meaningful to you. Anyway courses are for gaps between projects and for sorting out what you couldn't figure out by first trying. You now have enough knowledge to take great pics.

So as the little lady said (before her plane crashed) "Brush yourself off and try again!"

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

Made me laugh.

I was using a tripod....oops! Maybe my tripod needs some Mirapex, huh?

This failure is the best thing that could have happened to me. I learned a real lesson. And I now know what aperture, shutter speed and ISO are all about. (Don't know why the camera needs three different ways to control how much light comes in, but I'll know that soon enough.)

Even cooler is that I got some water in motion pics...my daughter was tossing rocks and I got water frozen in mid-air.

I'll be back to the river but after I master a few more technical concepts.

(There really IS a photographer hiding inside me somewhere!!)

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

Using the tripod, I hope you are also using the timer or a remote/cable release. There is no point in setting it on a tripod, then prodding the button ;-). I take it the tripod is as stable a stable thing, not blowing in the wind. If you hang a weight from the centre of the tripod, it will become more stable. (A carrier bag with a couple of rocks will do)

wrt the tv/av setting. It is easily nudged, and it is not too clear what lines up with what on the dial, due to other markings on the camera body. You need to check, if it is not apparent when you change the settings (you will get familiar with the camera).

If it is easy to get to the river, then I would suggest you set the camera up, and take shots at various settings of speed, aperture and iso, set the lens to manual focus, and focus on the rock in the centre image. Use just the centre focus point, on, say, the rh edge of the rock. You need a high contrast boundary for the focus indicator to work. Be methodical!!. set iso at 100, then vary av, in, say, 2 f stops from wide open to tight. Then set iso to 400, and repeat. Repeat for the higher iso ranges. You do not need to look through the viewfinder. The process will be quite quick, if you use a cable release, a bit slower if on the timer. Go way beyond the ranges you would expect to use. I would guess 50 or so shots required.

When you get home, Use irfanview to more quickly see which ones you prefer, wrt your ideas of depth of field, water texture, etc.. Ignore composition, colour and other aspects, then load those into photoshop to make your final decision. Try and decide _why_ you prefer them. You can see how the shutter speed alters the cream effect of moving water, how aperture effects the depth of field, how there may be a trade off with iso value. Learn the settings that are associated with that effect. Write them down. (Hopefully you keep a notebook of all this - you know one of those paper based things, and a pencil.) Go back the next day, repeat, but with more images around the chosen settings. If you can't go back, then use your back yard. You need to get some discipline into what you do.

If you are not doing as I say in the first paragraph re camera stability, etc., then you are wasting everyone's time.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Diane Fields]

Rachel, you can shoot without a remote. Just use the timer which will separate your hand from the camera's shutter button--not as quick as the remote, but it works for the same purpose more or less.

I live in a relatively rural area also--or at least not near a town that carries most any camera equipment I want--I buy almost entirely from the web. But--you are equipped well enough for now if you have a tripod, the timer on your camera---and the time to do the experiments Ray suggested.

Diane

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, that's right! I have the timed release function. I've even experimented with that setting some.

A systematic, methodical approach is very consistent with my training (social sciences research). I like it, as well as Asher's suggestions on the portrait lighting assignment.

I just want to repeat that I know I have a lot to learn, that in fact I had my point and shoot for three years before I bothered to learn anything more than disable flash. I fully intend to "earn my stripes" and am not expecting a magic bullet or anyone to do it for me. I am well aware that photography requires study and work and am committed to doing just that.

[Rachel Foster]

Diane: Yes, the XTI does have metering mode (evaluative, partial, and center-weighted average). Thank you for the tip. It's on my list.

Ray, today's shoot:
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/river%20sweet%20spot%20iwth%20iso%20400%20and%20ti mer/forray.jpg


Asher, the exif data says
F/4
exposure time 1/4000 sec.
iso speed 400
exposure bias 0 step
Program mode Aperture priority
White balance Auto
EXIF version 0221.

[Rachel Foster]

Rachel, I noted you were shooting in Shutter Priority mode (I looked at the exif data). Is that why you were using that? One very helpful way I learned was to put my camera on automatic and see what the camera wanted to shoot at and then I'd flip to manual mode and modify the settings to my liking. It was a great learning tool for me. P mode will do the same but this was before I understood what P Mode was (It was during my film days too - maybe there was no P mode)

I'll be shooting in P mode from now on (for a bit anyway til I move to the next step).


The EXIF data says it was taken at 30mm, which on your Rebel XTi is very close to "normal" so it's not very wide. Did you buy the kit lens? That 18-55 won't win any awards (mine is very soft in the lower left corner) but it does go reasonably wide. When you said you "got it to 3.5" I think you were referring to aperture, not focal length. The shorter the focal length the wider the angle of view (on the same camera).

Yes, that's the lens I'm using.

Next, it seems this was shot in aperture priority (where I do at least 80% of my shooting), but only stopped down to f/4. Since this was bright daylight you had a shutter speed of 1/1250 and had lots of room to stop down without resorting to a tripod. Even f/11 would have been plenty fast for handheld and would have helped sharpness front to back. The smaller the aperture (the bigger the f-stop, numerically) the deeper the depth of field.

Switching to P mode for now

Aaron

(Note: Red comments inserted by me.)

So, if I want to lose the blurry foreground, I need to close up my aperture and lengthen the focus. (The Rebel For Dummmies DVD said close up the aperture and it lengthens the focal ... focus. I'm not 100% sure I've got it straight but I will.)

[Rachel Foster]

Hi Rachel,

Using the tripod, I hope you are also using the timer or a remote/cable release. There is no point in setting it on a tripod, then prodding the button ;-). I take it the tripod is as stable a stable thing, not blowing in the wind. If you hang a weight from the centre of the tripod, it will become more stable. (A carrier bag with a couple of rocks will do)

Rachel: Tripod has an addition of a bag of rocks now. Today I drove 45 minutes to a camera store and picked up the remote.

If it is easy to get to the river, then I would suggest you set the camera up, and take shots at various settings of speed, aperture and iso, set the lens to manual focus, and focus on the rock in the centre image. Use just the centre focus point, on, say, the rh edge of the rock. You need a high contrast boundary for the focus indicator to work. Be methodical!!. set iso at 100, then vary av, in, say, 2 f stops from wide open to tight. Then set iso to 400, and repeat. Repeat for the higher iso ranges. You do not need to look through the viewfinder. The process will be quite quick, if you use a cable release, a bit slower if on the timer. Go way beyond the ranges you would expect to use. I would guess 50 or so shots required.
Ray

I think I'm taking a break from the river (unfortunate mishap occurred during yesterday's shoot) but when I return it will be with a very methodological approach and notes taken. That's one thing I've not done well: make notes.

And...I now know my aperture from my ISO.

[Rachel Foster]

I think I can claim improvement. I'm attaching two photos from today's river shoot. They are not the same place as previous river shots. However, the issue has become learning to use my camera to get crisp, focused shots. These are unedited and not presented for content or composition; rather, crispness and clarity are the focus...as it were.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Portfolio/Portfolio%20River/3210115b.jpg

I zoomed in on this one an unbelievable degree and it's still reasonably crisp!


http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/assignment/IMG_2883.jpg

Special thanks to those who have helped me with this.

[Greg Rogers]

Noteable improvement, Rachel. Well done!
-Greg

[Rachel Foster]

I have a canon rebel xti that came with this lens: 18-55mm.

What's the cheapest lens I can get that will allow me to get this shot?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ponderables/b41a1f89.jpg

I was so disappointed I did not have the right equipment.

[ron_hiner]

Rachel -- what shot are you trying to get? How is this shot diferent than the one you wanted?

Ron

[Duke Beattie]

If you look at the EXIF data for this shot------------------------
Orientation of image: 1
File change date and time: 2007:09:22 09:14:34
Image input equipment manufacturer: Canon
Image input equipment model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Exposure time: 0.002
F number: 5.6
Exposure program: 6
ISO speed rating: 400
Shutter speed: 8.96579
Aperture: 4.97086
Exposure bias: 0
Metering mode: 5
Flash: 16
Lens focal length: 55
Focal plane X resolution: 3210.95
Focal plane Y resolution: 3230.24
Focal plane resolution unit: 2
Custom rendered: 0
Exposure mode: 0
White balance: 0
Scene capture type: 0

Notice the focal length of the lens... 55mm... you have it..... assuming that you would want to duplicate this shot..

[Asher Kelman]

I have a canon rebel xti that came with this lens: 18-55mm.

What's the cheapest lens I can get that will allow me to get this shot?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ponderables/b41a1f89.jpg

I was so disappointed I did not have the right equipment.

Hi Rachel,

The question you ask has many intepretations.

I'd like to do this with a better lens, one that is designed for such a scene, but I want to reproduce this same scene to a finer manner. The answer, 55mm is then correct and an EF Canon 60mm 2.5 Macro ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-GREY/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html) would be perfect. It's quality is impresssive and its not expensive. IMHO, this may be the best single Canon lens to own. It can be used for portraits too with your camera giving an angle of view similar to a 96mm portrait lens, which would be outstanding. For $230 brand new, you can't go wrong! If you want to go a tad wide, or are short on cash, think of the 50 1.8. For $80 you can steal the 50mm 1.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html), which despite being a plastic bodied lens, is perfectly fine for all your portrait and group pictures, you just zoom with your feet. Just 4-5 steps either way is all you need!


I'd like to redo the picture, isolating that bird! Well you could have zoomed in further to 85mm and the bird would have come much closer and you'd have been fairly happy.

To do better than that quailty, for almost for $100 more than the EF 60mm Macro, I'd get the EF 85 mm f1.4 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html), a remarkable bargain with which again you can do landacape with a small angle of view and portraits. In the latter case, if you use it just stopped down to a smaller aperture, but still pretty wide open, say just f2.0 or 2.8, you will have an attractive softening of the background that is out of focus (OOF) and the eye will feast on your subject.

I really want just the bird! In this case, there EF lenses which if the L series of lenses didn't exist people would praise and obsess about. I'm sure that any competent photographer can make perfect images and earn a living with EF lenses.


Here's some ideas:A used 100-300 zoom Telephoto EF lens. No stibilization but you'll use a tripod anyway at that length since you might be concenred about hand shake! $199 is not too bad!That's available at B&H, here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productList&A=buyUsed&Q=12059). Better still, I'd get this lens if you can afford it. This is thev 70-200 f 4.0L IS. One of the best lenses ever. It is often avaialble used for $450-550.

Now I come to my own reaction:


I like the picture

The bird has context,

It looks like nature not a picture in a catalog

It's relaxing

Congrats

What on earth do you not like about it?


Asher

BTW, Do you happen to know the name of that bird? When doe it arrive?

[Kathy Rappaport]

I have a 50 2.5 macro - it's why I bought the Canon 5d - full frame. But on the Rebel it's equal to the 75 on the efs. I tend to like focal lengths of 35 (on crop bodies) or less or 150mm or longer. Just my personal taste.

When I started out with film, I shot with the 50 2.5 macro mostly or the 75-300 4.5 once in a while. Now I tend more toward the 24 end of my 24-70 or 24-105 or I use the 70-200 on the longer ends. It's really all about the style your taking!

[Cem_Usakligil]

..... This is thev 70-200 f 4.0L IS. One of the best lenses ever. It is often avaialble used for $450-550...
Hi Asher,

Once again, you have given great advice. I think the "IS" version of 70-200 is more expensive and since it is a new lens it is not that often available used. I guess you were referring to the EF 70-200 F4L without the IS, correct?

Cheers,

[Nicolas Claris]

Bonjour Rachel
as usual Asher gave you some very good recomendations… to dig!

I use to shoot from 12 to 500mm… from almost any point of view, each focal can be used, only your intent (or the lens you have in your bag;-) will drive you to choose one or another…

But suppose you're stuck with what you have… compose with it (in all meanings).

In this way, your image has a lot to reveal! I just did some PS adjustment (highlight and shadow, midtone sharpening) and put the horizontal… horizontal (line of water/trees), Yes, I know Asher, I'm maniac with horizon, but if boats are designed to heal, our brain (in such images) likes to have it on its real/due position. And some cloning to fill the empty parts made by the rotation:

http://mnclaris.free.fr/forum/b41a1f89_NC.jpg

What did bring these contrats and colors in PS? this:

http://mnclaris.free.fr/forum/Highlight-shadow.jpg

[Rachel Foster]

Those are very helpful responses.

I wanted just the bird. The overall photo I find has no real focal point. It strikes me as busy and blah.

We were at the local part (where the river is) and it was in the morning. My husband said "Oh, look! A heron!" I know it's not a parakeet so I'll buy heron. S/he slowly picked its way across the river in very majestic, measured steps.

On a shoot a couple of weeks ago, I saw some ducks (I think) posturing and doing duck things. I couldn't zoom in close enough to get the shot I wanted.

Thanks.

Edited to add: The water reflections in particular seem to muddy the scene, not letting the eye settle.

[Kathy Rappaport]

I love those reflections. They give context to the Heron's surroundings. Personally, I like the photo as is but I do understand the depth and wanting to be closer. That could happeen with or without a longer (telephoto) lens. When I go out to shoot frequently I will take one lens. And then the opportunity comes up where I needed wider or longer. Sometimes you can zoom with your feet (walk closer to the subject or into the scene). Sometimes you have to zoom in by cropping in post processing.

One other thing that was an exercise for a class I took. We had to use one focal length for the entire class. (Finding your photographic voice with Carlan Tapp at the Santa Fe Workshops). I used the 50 2.5. Made us find our images. No two people had the same thing. But it was about style.

[Will Thompson]

What's the cheapest lens I can get that will allow me to get this shot?

Try the EF 300mm f4 L IS and add a 1.4 or 2.0 tele-converter if needed.

Or in the same price range but more versatile / slightly less sharp the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS.

[Jeff O'Neil]

Rachel..I know what you're looking for..just the damn bird!

me too!

Sooo...the lens I have for this is an inexpensive canon 75-300mm. It has image stabilization for my creaky hands and it's not massively heavy.

The previous posters are correct when they mention the 70-200IS either the F2.8 or F4.0 models and the other canon "white" lenses. They are expensive, heavy and perhaps overkill for the moment. I picked up the 75-300 right after I purchased my Rebel a few years ago. It was my Long telephoto lens for a number of years and I still use the lens from time to time. No huge investment and nothing unwieldy to carry about when I was trying to concentrate on about 56 things every time I took a shot! Sigma makes the same focal distance of 70-300 but no stabilization for less money than the Canon.

I like to get in tight on the animal as well. It's fun!

Google the lens and see what you think.

Jeff

[Asher Kelman]

Yes, Jeff,

I really feared Rachel was after the "damn bird"!

I actually like the natural scene with the bird in context. Only thing I'd prefer is more height, to complete the trees.

This is a quiet little sanctuary for wildlife and a miracle that it is not totally paved in concrete, like the Los Angleles river!!! UGH!!

I suspect if one ventured a little fiurther there would be something ugly but, let's enjoy this. The bird alone is fine too. I just like the delusion that it has somewhere to live!

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

I grew about a mile from the Los Angeles "River." I know what you mean.

[Rachel Foster]

I finally got a shot of the river I like at first look. I'm sure I'll find things to improve, and this is from a different place, but the river "a la Rachel:"

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Portfolio/Portfolio%20River/9ab33fce.jpg

[Charles L Webster]

Rachel,

There are some inexpensive, fairly good lenses in the 70-200/70-300 range. Tamron makes a decent 70-300 as does Sigma (stay away from the "non-APO" version).

Inexpensive long lenses are generally not good quality and you will soon "out grow" a poor quality lens. It doesn't help to isolate the bird, if it's not sharp.

The Canon 70-200 f/4.0L USM is a good sharp lens at a very reasonable price ($600). It isn't very fast, and doesn't have IS, but those things add a lot to the price.

Try cropping the picture to isolate the bird. Is it sharp enough for your purposes?

If you are only showing your work on the web and on screen, a crop to that picture should be adequate.

<Chas>

[Rachel Foster]

Some members of the forum are aware I've been struggling to master the basics. I've had an especially difficult time getting focused shots with the new Canon Rebel. I shot about 160 frames this afternoon at the river. The only deleted photos are of children. The dreck is there, untouched.

I think I'm making progress and wanted to share that my experimentation along with the tips and advice I've gotten here are paying off. I have left the dreck for the purpose of "tellin it like it is."

http://s183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ha%20ha%20ha%20ha%20haaaaaaaa/

[Rachel Foster]

edited...attempting to add image correctlyhttp://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ha%20ha%20ha%20ha%20haaaaaaaa/7be81922.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,


You must decide what of the pictures you take are not worth keeping and delete them. You can't waste brain space twice! Only keep a sibling of an image you need when that might help repair something. Otherwise delete everything!

Just follow the DAM book. Buy it. Peter Krogh is the author.

The idea is to use iview media pro or even iphoto bridge, Lightroom or whatever to grade your pictures.

After deleting duds, give 1 in 4 at the most one *. Those are the ones you consider you might work on.

From that pick a small fraction that you choose to spend time on now and give two stars ** . Dont worry about any more stars. To get to images worthy of 2 stars would be excellent. Now these are the pictures you should show.

So of 500 pics you take right now, discard 100 to 400 depending on your guts and honesty. Of that remaining say 100 choose the 25 best, then of that maybe 1-4. That's what you should show.

Now if you are the sort of person that waits, watches, paces, draws, has a glass of wine, then takes 4 pictures, they all might be fine, but that's a long way off for either my work or your!

So pick the 4 best and let's see them! :)

Cheers,

Asher



Warning: anyone who posts in this experimental "blog-thread" please note that after a while non-substantial posts will have to go so that the thread remains worthwhile for others later on. This does not applyv to the rest of the forum. Remember that OPF does not delete P{rofessional posts. Here, this is a test bed for a new idea!

[Rachel Foster]

Oh I really had no intention of anyone doing anything but taking a quick glance and seeing they are in focus.

These photos were "Learning how to use my camera" photos. "Take this shot in P mode, set the shutter. Now, take same in TV and see how it's different. Now what's it look like in AV?" etc.

I actually got most in reasonable focus and was pleased. I haven't looked at any for artistic value. These were, again, just to learn the Rebel. I've been doing this for a couple of weeks and I'm beginning to know before I shoot which mode I'm going to get the effect I'm after in. Or "most likely" to get it, anyway.

P.S. ALL WERE HANDHELD! Ha!

P.P.S. Remember, I'm taking baby steps. Operating the camera before trying to shoot "art." Systematic approach and all. :) Getting focus and learning to operate the camera has been a challenge for me and -- for me -- is a huge step forward.

[Rachel Foster]

Of those I took this afternoon down at the river, this one consistently draws my eye. It's totally unmanipulated, not even cropped. (I imagine there may be some suggestions there!) To me, it looks startling clear, although I confess I don't notice blurring well (could be the progressive lenses I wear...I never seem to be looking through the precise place; I actually edit better with naked eye).

This was taken without tripod! It was overcast and in the late afternoon, so I had kicked the iso up to 800. I was shooting in P mode for this one. I boosted the shutter speed to 1/320 and the aperture set itself at 14. The exif data says the metering mode was matrix and I've not yet learned what that is. I also have not gotten to histograms yet. If I have a couple more shoots with good crisp images, histograms are next.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ha%20ha%20ha%20ha%20haaaaaaaa/thafternoon009.jpg

I suspect the attribute that lures me in is the bright leaves against the dark background. The few leaves that are turning just happened to catch the sun.

Again, today's shoot was primarily aimed at conquering focus issues.

[Asher Kelman]

I'd like to see a 900 pixel wide version.

This is more fascinating. The excercise is focus. What were you trying to focus on BTW?

I do like the image somewhat against my will, because it has no compositional components I like or admire! So this has nothing to do with learning anything. Perhaps it's the most weird placement of the pale leaves in the dark b.g. with some gentler light filtering through the leaves that gets me.

Whether or not it's really going to be a good one to work on keep this to look at again.

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

I'm having the same problem. I'm drawn to it but I don't know why. Compositionally, it's rather average. Perhaps it is the "startle" effect?

I don't know why it uploaded so small. I tried to upload it again, and once more came out small. I'll shoot it to you via yousendit.com.


As an aside, does anyone know if this is a poisonous spider? I've been shooting its web and it occurred to me to check. It is larger than it looks. (Found the answer: orb weaver spider, low toxicity, can grow more than an inch in length.)

[Rachel Foster]

Oversight: I neglected to answer the question regarding focus. I was drawn by the light on the leaf and focused on that. I have two more shots, each successively closer.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ha%20ha%20ha%20ha%20haaaaaaaa/thafternoon010.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ha%20ha%20ha%20ha%20haaaaaaaa/thafternoon011.jpg

but I prefer the more distant shot.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Some members of the forum are aware I've been struggling to master the basics.

Not to add even more to your to-do list, but these tips (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=39&pq-locale=en_US) may be of help.

Bart

[Rachel Foster]

Thank you!

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, regarding the leaf photo, I think I've worked out what my response to it is. I think it's pretty, to me it's charming, but it's not art. Does that make sense?

But it is in focus...I think!

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, regarding the leaf photo, I think I've worked out what my response to it is. I think it's pretty, to me it's charming, but it's not art. Does that make sense?

But it is in focus...I think!

Rachel,

Just after the war as a toddler, I remember a riddle from the Romanian peasants, hungry for feeding their faimlies. "What's the recipé for an omelette?"

The answer?

"First, steal an egg!"

Here you are hungry to make something great. However, we are just in the basic survival stage:

we can skip choosing a subject,

we can skip focus

we cannt skip the light!

So the key here is to just get exposure right! That is stealing the egg!

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

I agree mechanics and basics are priority number one. And I think focus is primary. But I think part of learning how to focus is learning what to point the camera at -- so one is focusing on the right things. I've learned that the object of focus affects what aperture, shutter speed and iso are needed. In studying spider webs, I've found manual focus is a must, for example.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that keeping in mind the object of focus, and the why it's chosen as object of focus, is important. Granted, it's not the first or even second priority. The Gestalt psychologists said the problem has to be considered in terms of its entirety. That doesn't mean one tries to learn everything at once; on the contrary, manageable bites must be selected. But they have to be kept in context and their relationship to the whole considered.

Now to the question of light: I was drawn to the lighting in this photo. Is it lacking somehow?

Side note: I've also learned that the experienced, knowledgeable photographer and the novice speak different languages but think they are the same. I wonder if I'm completely misunderstanding again?

[Asher Kelman]

The cchecken and egg order of the photographers subject and lighting let's put aside. I say that one starts with lighting as a dogma since without that there is nothing coming into the camera.

The idea, the first instance is to know how the controls work to get the correct exposure. So one must master the basic knoweldge that a given amount of light sufficient to get and image with a range of shading requires a suitable combination of


Film/Sensor sensitivity
size of the shutter aperture
time shutter will be open to allow light to reach film/sensor


One needs to be totally familiar with decreasing one factor and making up for it with a change in another to make up for the particular change.

So find a reference on that and let us know you know it.

My reference to light was because in the picture of the several leaves against a dark background of poorly lit branches and leaves and some sky, there is insufficient light distributed in the image to allow exploration. Forget apart art, for the moment. I really don't care that the subject happens to be interesting. The issue is that here we have not yet gotten the light we want.

Wehen you shoot with your studio lights you can distribute the flux so the exposure of the subject is sufficient for a recording an image but also interesting.

When doing your river shots, you still have the requiremnt to have sufficent and interesting light, no matter where you choose to point your camera.

At this time when you took the picture of the light rust colored leaves, there were no light beams coming throught the trees playing on the entire scene and then highlighting the leaves you like.

So while you have some light, it's not sufficient really and not particularly interesting.

Now one can solve this somewhat by taking zones in the picture and lightening then with different patterns as if it was done right. Yes, it can be done, sourt of and might even be nice. However it wont be great. Why not?

We all have had our senses educated by great shots of in woods with light filtered through trees as the sun rises with mist still hugging the ground. We have seen the long shadows outlining streaks of light drawing over everyting, awaking the stark beauty of that morning.

So we cannot just pop into the woods any time we want, point at a bright leaf and expect to get anything special. How can we, there's no light anywhere else!

Now if you have to take pictures at the time, then you can be very sacriligious and do what macro photographers do when they don't fear heaven! They use flash!!

Those perfect pictures of spider webs and ants herding aphids are generally the products of careful stage managing, hopefully without crushing native plants or other damage.

I'd not start the hard way by you, yourself trying to light the woods properly. Rather choose a well lit subject or come back when it is well lit!

For my best photography I don't have a camera, just scout and come up with a plan and then come back with the right lens at the right time.

So in your choice area, by your river, when I say, "The subject is not important and it doesnt have to be in focus!", I really mean it. First we hunt the light (unless you shoot macro and bring your own). Then we hunt for the real subject and we work out how the subject and light will be best recorded.

Since you do like the leaf, I'd try to go there early in the morning and study what happens. Bring your family and a picnic perhaps and just see where the light goes and look at your watch and make notes.

The nice thing is that you don't need to bribe or pay for a model! No lights to lug around. But one does have to shop for light!

Then you'll find your subject!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

The "chicken versus the egg" order of the photographers subject and lighting let's put aside!

I say that "One starts with lighting!" as a dogma since without that there is nothing coming into the camera.

One step back first.

The idea, the first instance is to know how the controls work to get the correct exposure. So one must master the basic knoweldge that a given amount of light sufficient to get and image with a range of shading requires a suitable combination of


Film/Sensor sensitivity
size of the shutter aperture
time shutter will be open to allow light to reach film/sensor


One needs to be totally familiar with decreasing one factor and making up for it with a change in another to make up for the particular change.

So find a reference on that and let us know you know it. Don't bother to go further without mastering this as you will have no way of controlling what you do.

So when you find the best reference for this. Add that in your next post for others who'll follow your footsteps and read this as a requirement, LOL :)

We start with lighting was because in your picture, just several leaves are kit against a dark uninteresting background. There's insufficient light distributed in the image to allow exploration. Let's put aside ideas of art, for the moment. I really don't care that the subject happens to have potential. The issue is that here we have not yet gotten the light we want!

When you shoot indoors with your studio lights you can distribute the the exposure over and around your subject to make it both sufficient for the particular camera setting (of ISO, shutter aperture and shutter speed) and make it, unique, interesting and compelling.

When doing your river shots, you still have the same requirements, no matter where you choose to point your camera! It's far easier when you do it right since you don't have to mess around with gear!

But what did you do when you took that picture? You saw the bright rust colored leaves! Then you took the picture! However, there were no long light beams coming throught the trees playing on the entire scene and then highlighting the leaves you like.

So while you have some light, it's not the light.

Now one can solve this somewhat in an editing program like photoshop. Take zones in the picture and lightening then with different patterns as if it was done right. Yes, it can be done, sort of and might even be nice. However it wont be great. Why not?

We are too educated and spoiled rotten, that's what we are up against. I say "Good enough!" Isn't!"

We all have had our senses educated by great shots of in woods with light filtered through trees as the sun rises, mist still hugging the ground. Long shadows wrap streaks of light drawing over everyting, awaking beauty.

So we cannot just pop into the woods any time we want, point at a bright leaf and expect to get anything special. How can we if there's no light anywhere else?

Even if the leaves are lit, angled light creates dimension and reveal texture which wil make your leaves real.

Now if you must take pictures at the time, then you can be very sacriligious and do what macro photographers do when they don't fear heaven! They use flash!!

Those perfect pictures of spider webs and ants herding aphids are generally the products of careful stage managing, hopefully without crushing native plants or other damage.

I'd not start the hard way, trying to light the woods properly. Rather choose a well lit subject or come back when it is well lit!

For my ambitious photography I don't have a camera, just scout and come up with a plan and then come back with the right lens at the right time.

So in your choice area, by your river, when I say, "The subject is not important and it doesn't have to be in focus!", I really mean it. First we hunt the light (unless you shoot macro and bring your own). Then we hunt for the real subject and we work out how the subject and light will be best recorded.

Since you do like the leaf, I'd try to go there early in the morning and study what happens. Bring your family and a picnic perhaps and just see where the light goes and look at your watch and make notes.

The nice thing is that you don't need to bribe or pay for a model! No lights to lug around. But one does have to shop for light!

Then you'll find your subject! Even then, the light will inform you how and from which position and time you will trip the shuttter.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

The "chicken versus the egg" order of the photographers subject and lighting let's put aside!

I say that "One starts with lighting!" as a dogma since without that there is nothing coming into the camera.

One step back first.

First know backwards how the controls work to get the correct exposure.Master the basic knoweldge that light sufficient to get an image with a range of shading requires a particular combination of


Film/Sensor sensitivity

size of the shutter aperture

time shutter will be open to allow light to reach film/sensor


Know how to decrease or increase one factor and make up for it with a change in another to end up with the same effective exposure of your film or generation of a good image file!

So you yourself search out a reference on that and let us know you know it. Don't bother to go further without mastering this as you will have no way of controlling what you do. Add that reference in your next post for others who'll follow!

Now back to your picture of the leaves against a whole dark ill-defined scene in the woods! We start with lighting was because in your picture, that's the key issue! Several uniformly lit leaves are seen against a dark uninteresting background. There's insufficient light distributed in the image to allow exploration. Further, the light on the leaves is in itself, not interesting. Let's put aside ideas of art, for the moment. I really don't care that the subject happens to have potential. The issue is that here we have not yet gotten the light we want!

When you shoot indoors with your studio lights you can distribute the the exposure over and around your subject to make it both sufficient for the particular camera setting (of ISO, shutter aperture and shutter speed) and make it, unique, interesting and compelling.

When doing your river shots, you still have the same requirements, no matter where you choose to point your camera! It's far easier when you do it right!

But what did you do when you took that picture? You saw the bright rust-colored leaves! Then you took the picture! However, there were no long light beams coming throught the trees playing on the entire scene and then highlighting the leaves you like.

So while you have some light, it's not the light!

Now one can solve this somewhat in an editing program like photoshop. Take zones in the picture and lighten with different patterns as if it was done right at the time of capture. Yes, it can be done, sort of and might even be "nice". However, even if you are great at photoshop, it wont be great. Why not? We all have had our senses educated by great shots of in woods with light filtered through trees as the sun rises, mist still hugging the ground. Long shadows wrap streaks of light, drawing over everyting, awaking beauty! So we cannot just "pop into the woods" any time we want, point at a bright leaf and expect to get anything special! How can we if there's no light?

Even if the leaves are lit, angled light creates dimension and reveals texture which will make your leaves real.

Now if you must take pictures at the time, then you can be very sacriligious and do what macro photographers do when they don't fear heaven! They use flash!!

Those perfect pictures of spider webs and ants herding aphids are generally the products of careful stage managing, hopefully without crushing native plants or other damage.

I'd not start the hard way, trying to light the woods properly. Rather choose a well lit subject or come back when it is well lit!

For my ambitious photography I don't have a camera, just scout and come up with a plan and then come back with the right lens at the right time.

So in your choice area, by your river, when I say, "The subject is not important and it doesn't have to be in focus!", I really mean it. First we hunt the light (unless you shoot macro and bring your own). Then we hunt for the real subject and we work out how the subject and light will be best recorded.

Since you do like the leaf, I'd try to go there early in the morning and study what happens. Bring your family and a picnic perhaps and just see where the light goes and look at your watch and make notes. The same happens in the evening and then the light is golden too!

The nice thing is that you don't need to bribe or pay for a model! No lights to lug around. But one does have to shop for light!

Then find your subject! The light will inform you how and from which position and time you will trip the shuttter.

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

Got it!

Yes, I see what you mean. Lighting fascinates me and is what drew me into photography, actually, I was attempting to photograph my husband's guitars and found the lighting a bear as there were horrible reflections and glare on it. I kept at it til I got something I liked with the lighting and actually think my very best work is the guitars with lighting. I moved onto flowers, again playing with lighting and then the portraits. The lighting is where it is...getting the shadows on the face just so.

The river photographs have taught me a great deal about changing iso and aperture and shutter speed depending on exactly what object/item in the scene I want in focus. That very difficulty you spoke of -- lighting the woods -- has forced this.

In fact, I've finally stumbled across another way to manipulate the Rebel and figured out how using "menu" within various modes actually work. Going to "picture style" within a mode allows a variety of different effects.

(And....learning all of this "technical" stuff is getting to be fun! A little bit, anyway.)

P.S. I've been bringing the children and supplying them with point-and-shoots. My seven-year-old is coming close to getting better shots than me....gulp.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

So you are having tememdous fun with your beloved Canon camera! That a wonderful social tool, almost as good as a great pair of puppies! This pays off in spadefulls.

Here however, we are doing something more difficult. My view is far stricter than others to friends learningg real photography. One must know these things

1. What the aperture changes do and what the numbers 1.4, 2.8, 5.6, 8, 11 etc mean to
light coming in the camera: the light coming in halves with each stop increase!

2. How the shutter speed can be used to keep the quaintity of light the same.

3. How, instead, or in combination the ISO could be upped from say 200 to 400.

Tell me you have found what to read. Please post your reference. That shows we are on track. I am bound not to give you everything. As we don't want to be a school just help show paths that we have like in our own journeys.

By posting the references for the next person, you will justify this experiemntal thread for the next traveler!

Then we'll deal with the reasons for choosing apertures, the hazard and benefits. I'd like you to buy one lens. The 50 1.4. It is inexpensive and will bring you to a new level of work.

This one lens will provide a means of getting the principles that will guide you for all creative work you will tackle. If you cannot afford it, even a used Canon 1.8 will be pretty perfect too!

Asher

So from now on, P, creative menu choices are for fun. Av is for work. Use nothing else yet. That allows you to change the aperture for one of the reasons you read about and have the shutter speed follow. Afterwards you'll go to M which will give you reall understanding.

[Rachel Foster]

I've been using mostly P, switching to TV when I can't get P shutter fast enough. AV I'm not using much, and I've played with A-Dep to see how it is different. I've been shooting same thing in different modes to compare, and find I tend to always go back to P.

My reading has been items that seem relevant and pertinent to what I'm currently looking for. Other than Photography for Dummies, it's not something I've kept records of. Forays to a bookstore for better books will have to wait as the nearest decent bookstore is an hour's drive. I could order on line but I prefer to actually go hands on before I select.

I'll post again when I get to another level.

Please know that I'm not asking for lessons. A few questions here and there with a few 30 second responses is more than enough for me. Otherwise, self-study is how I'm proceeding.

Someday, Asher, someday............I will surprise all of you. Someday.

[Rachel Foster]

Regarding the lens: very kind of you Asher, but I think maybe I am not ready for another lens. Still getting my baby steps down.

This thread began with my attempts to capture the mirror-like quality of the water. Today I got a little closer. I post this not for critique or to show that I "have it," but only to show I'm edging toward capturing that quality my eye sees but the camera has yet to reproduce. Please do not anyone feel like you must spend any time at all on this photo. Also, I do know it's not yet "there."

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Portfolio/Portfolio%20River/a1d9e1e6.jpg

[Rachel Foster]

duplicated

[Rachel Foster]

Image will not cooperate!

[Rachel Foster]

struggling with uploading image.....I tried to redo previous image smaller.

[Rachel Foster]

but I'm reading, shooting, and fiddling. In the meantime, I got this. It's not what I want..yet. I want a clearer, closer shot, perhaps with the setting sun in the background. Mom Nature has yet to find the right time to allow that to happen, though.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Portfolio/Portfolio%20Nature/97baf6d6.jpg


Asher, regarding the leaf photo: You nailed the problem and solution nicely. I knew it needed something -- something significant -- but not what. I've got an entirely new understanding now of composition. For example, Edward Bussa's (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4174) spider web is ideal. It has all the elements I've been searching for.

Regarding the basics...I'm getting it nailed, slowly but surely.

In the meantime...I'm alive!

[Rachel Foster]

The shot of the river I've been seeking is proving elusive. In the meantime, the search has provided practice and a noticeable improvement in my handling of the camera.

Spending a weekend visiting friends, I wandered to the back of the hotel and found an untended spot of vegetation that consisted primarily of weeds. One weed in particular struck my fancy.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Portfolio/Portfolio%20Flowers/8e7baeef.jpg

[janet Smith]

Hi Rachel

Well done, really nice to see your progression, have you tried applying a little sharpening to this one?

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel,

Congrats!

This is a super subject and you have made a good picture. I hope you have many more! This is something to contemplate and make sure you have all of it to have a complete picture.

I'll copy that to Macro as well!

Asher

[Andrew Stannard]

Hi Rachel,

I've been following your work on that elusive river, and your images that you have taken.

To me this is definitely the best you have presented so far! It's an image that my eyes enjoyed exploring. A small amount of sharpening could really make this image come to life. I've taken the liberty of doing the following....... I'm sure others could do a better job of the sharpening, but it is a start.

http://www.astannard.com/opf/rachel_foster_pussy_willow.jpg


If you would like it removed then please feel free to say! This was just a small amount of the unsharp mask filter in photoshop, and a automated action for the frame.


Regards,

[Duke Beattie]

The shot of the river I've been seeking is proving elusive.
You realize you may take forever to the the exact shot you want of your river.. :-)
And not because of skill.
In the mean time this is a nice shot. A little post processing is all it needs. As was said, sharpen and on my screen the center white portion could use a little toning down. It has plenty of detail in it so it's fine. Maybe it's just my screen..... I notice that the one that Andrew did is a little darker in the middle.. He may have done something else......

[Rachel Foster]

Andrew, it's lovely! Just lovely.

Now this might surprise some, given my complaining and frustration with photoshop, but I've been pecking away at it. I've made great strides with magnetic lasso and am having a great deal of fun with it.

Thanks, Asher. I've been working hard. My path may be circuitous, but it's steady and I will get there. I know where I want to go, and I know it requires a great deal of hard work. I want to do the work, actually, because otherwise the mastery won't mean much. How much do we value that which comes easily compared to that for which we work? I'm also easing up on myself, remembering to have fun. I'm back on track with my approach to photography and it's immensely rewarding now.

I want to shoot well, but it's the journey, not the destination, to quote a tired old aphorism. (Aphorism?)

Once again, thanks to all who have watched my journey (short as it's been thus far).

[Greg Rogers]

Rachel, I must agree with the others. This is your best image yet! Thanks for posting! Good for you!

One of the things that is tough, and I've been there, is thinking that an image (let's say a jpeg for now) straight out of the camera) should be "perfect".

Oh, did I fight this battle. Good for you for your change of mind (no...attitude would be better put) about post-processing, be it PS or the editor of your choice. Oh, could I tell you stories!

I wonder what Ansel would have to say about all of this electronic post-processing were he still with us? My best guess is he'd be glad to be away from the chemicals and being able to work in light! (Maybe??)

Email me your orig if you feel like it. Not sure I can improve, but perhaps I could lend a couple of simple PS steps and /or tips. Maybe not, but I like a challenge! Andrew did a great job, not sure I can improve, but it might be fun trying.

-Greg

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel,

I appreciate that you have focussed on this project. This shows. It takes a huge amount of discipline not to be distracted. Posting high quality makes the tread beautiful and worthwhile!

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

The lessons I've learned are paying off bigtime....even I can see improvement.

[Rachel Foster]

I went back to the river today for first snowfall. I am posting this in the spirit of the blog, attempting to show two things: 1) the progression (or lack of?) of the learning, and 2) the river in different seasons.

I had great difficulty getting shots due to the extreme cold.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/leaves2.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/firstsnow301.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/snowriver.jpg

And just for fun, on the way home...

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/snow041.jpg

[Rachel Foster]

A shot I took a couple of months ago I've recently come back to:

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/monetgreen2.jpg

[Rachel Foster]

I took a real hard fall on the ice when I was at the river just now. In fact, I think I may need to get x rays to see if I fractured my lower spine (the area on which I sit!). It hurt badly enough when I went down I worried I would need to call 911. I snapped a few quick pics, though, and the Rebel seems to be working ok, so 911 wasn't required. So far...haven't downloaded anything yet. Tripod it was on is broken, though.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

You are not a mountain goat! You cannot hop from rock to rock, at least I cannot. Kids do though. Maybe that's why they are called kids!

It sounds like you may have bruised or fractured your coccyx. I'd get a checkup anyway!

We all wish you better. Ask your doctor what anti-inflammatory meds he might want you on.

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

I fear you may be right. I'm off to the Ready Care when the hubby gets home, I think.

I really tickled myself, though, because my first, second, and third thoughts were about the camera!

[Jeff O'Neil]

I took a real hard fall on the ice when I was at the river just now. In fact, I think I may need to get x rays to see if I fractured my lower spine (the area on which I sit!). It hurt badly enough when I went down I worried I would need to call 911. I snapped a few quick pics, though, and the Rebel seems to be working ok, so 911 wasn't required. So far...haven't downloaded anything yet. Tripod it was on is broken, though.

Hope you are feeling better Rachel. Ice can be brutal. My dad took a tumble a few years ago whilst walking the dog. I picked him up a pair of YakTrax. Wonderful add on to any shoe or boot. Available practically everywhere easy to put on and inexpensive. Dad's now on his third pair and won't go out in the winter without them!

Here's the link. http://yaktrax.com/products.aspx

Jeff

[Ray West]

But if the yaktrax are not enough, maybe something from this guy can give some extra protection ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3CzYw5-qdA&NR=1

Best wishes,

Ray

[Rachel Foster]

Yup, that ought to do it!

Thanks all. The camera is fine! HA!

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, earlier in this thread you recommended a 60mm2.5 macro lens. Is this a decent general purpose lens?

[Rachel Foster]

Still miles to go, but I'm getting closer to capturing the image I'm striving to get.




http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/053-1.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Asher, earlier in this thread you recommended a 60mm2.5 macro lens. Is this a decent general purpose lens?

The lens I love is the ED 50 2.5 Macro which is a sharp lens with great color and excellent for portraits as well as general photography. It is, I believe optically better than the 50 1.4. However, the focus motor is terribly slow compared to the 50 1/4 or the 50 1.8.

The 60mm Macro is for the small sensor cameras such as the Rebel and 10/20/40D and has great reports but I don't know how fast it focuses.

For just Macro work at least 100mm - 150mm is where you should be looking.

Still miles to go, but I'm getting closer to capturing the image I'm striving to get.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/053-1.jpg

This image of the river concerns me Rachel, as I cannot fathom the compositional elements that might it compelling. I could be "missing" what's special and that is not some humor or sarcasm at all. I really am open to instruction and sharing of personal points of view. However, at this stage, I see some of your pictures miss on the following needs that come to my mind.

Image Needs:

1. An immediate impression that what we are seeing is something unique that has some independence from the rest of the myriad of possibilities in the universe.

2. The image seems to be complete.

3. Sufficient is there to provide context or exclude context so that a particular set of experiences can be reinvoked.

5. Lighting illuminates the subject field such that form, texture, color, dimension and mood is optimized into a unity that is compelling.

4. Position and perspective and timing: chosen to place the camera view to align, position, arrange and distribute components with reference to each other and the external world and illuminated such that,at the time of pressing the shutter release, everything will be fused together in that instant of photographic exposure and make a latent image that has the potential to be brought to life in the "darkroom", digital or classic.

5. The picture invites and draws one in to ponder and or marvel ask questions, or some other significant reaction showing that it has impacted the human world.

6. The image has an identity and in the best cases, one wants to stay longer, leaves with reluctance or revisit.

My suggestions. You must go back to exactly this place. I would like to experience a complete "something" in your picture of water going over the rocks.

For a start, maybe anchor the picture with the whole length of the grass. That provides something solid complete and known from which to explore everything else. Seeing the grass cut off at the base, might be something philosophically you have designed (again not sarcastic) and I will stand corrected. However, I do believe you are trying to project top us your experience by the river to which you have a particular bond.

I believe that opening up your breadth of sampling of what you see might help so that we get immediately comfortable before we are given surprises. Again, not a rule, but here, I think, would work better.

The oblique angle of the edge of the smooth water to the rocks is potentially a powerful feature, but why is it not extended? Is that all there was in length? The reflections in the water also have embedded richness but we only see the edges of this beauty.

When taking such a picture, explore first without a lens, just a rectangle cut in a sheet of cardboard or a hand held viewer moviemakers use. Just move around the object of your desire, like a hunter stalking prey, getting into the best position for the kill. Pressing the button does not make the picture. The preparation does.

1. Choice of subject

2. What is needed and then add 15% more

3. What must be excluded but without damaging the esthetic imperatives of #1

4. What events require timing (shadows, birds passing, clouds arriving, sun rising or setting, people leaving, man and child arriving wind settling down and so forth.

5. Composition- what shapes, lines, patterns, contrasts, symmetries, asymmetries, textures and colors might draw the eye to explore to points of interest and elicit reactions in the viewer that something before them is interesting, inviting or compelling.

Just moving to the right, angling the camera to the left and going back a few feet might have provided us with a breathtaking experience of this small sample of your river. Even then, attention in post processing to bring out the textures of the rocks and the mirror quality of the water would be needed.

This is hard work, I know. However, transmitting one's vision with the packed values and thrills is worth the struggle!

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

That is very helpful, Asher! Cropping is a major area of weakness for me and I've not yet discovered exactly how to attack it.

I'll look at it carefully.

[Asher Kelman]

That is very helpful, Asher! Cropping is a major area of weakness for me and I've not yet discovered exactly how to attack it.

I'll look at it carefully.

Rachel, you are not the only one that has troubles here.

Part of this is a balance that sense that works when matching gloves and shoes to a suit or an extension to an impressive building. When complete, it must have a unity that respects different components and then creates a sense of wholeness.

The greatest part of photography is the scouting and choice of the camera's point of observation. Then add to the framing you think is essential. Back home, study what you have and look to see if it is what you wanted. If not go back and do it over.

Then go to art galleries and museums and browse books so that one can know how others have solved this particular subject.

Can you recognize when an extension is built on to an iconic building and it is simply wonderful or else a disaster?

If so, you are on to a good start. Walk around and ask why a garden works or how badly a tree is trimmed? Look at everything from advertising to peoples furniture choices and great art.

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

That is very helpful, Asher! Cropping is a major area of weakness for me and I've not yet discovered exactly how to attack it.

I'll look at it carefully.

Bonjour Rachel.

take your time when you shoot, frame well and you won't need to crop later and therefore save good resolution for printing.
Hold your vision while you have your camera in hand, use your camera as an extension of your brain, and beleive me, you'll save a lot of time spent in front of your computer…

imho

[Asher Kelman]

Well, Nicolas,

Of course you are totally correct and this way does work especially for task-driven photography where you know very well what you are going to be paid for and your mind has pretty well planned the sort of matter you might choose to focus on.

Here however, Rachel is still learning what balances an image and how tension and harmony can coexist and much more. This you already know so framing just gathers together all that you know for sure is worthwhile.

For some work, serendipity gives us surprises. We discover things and relationships we did not realize were present. In this case, sitting in front of the computer screen, if one is really open to new experience and not responding to a client or workflow pressure, there might be additional beauty and passionate tension that were not apparent before.

It's this part of photography where I have difficulty in understanding since we don't know what it is that makes parts of images compelling when we did not recognize this before. Maybe it is that we are less bombarded by outside stimuli and able to hyper-concentrate on less. Undeniably, these are two entirely different approaches. They are not, however mutually exclusive.

Even in the framed image there will likely be small components which are, in themselves compelling. If isolated by cropping, these become offspring of the mother work and can have independent meaning and worth.

We just need to be open to this. However, at a risk! Without discipline, a working photographer might get distracted and clients are not that forgiving as they too have deadlines!

For art, however, reframing at the computer is perfectly fine and a creative choice.

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

Mais non Asher!

the intent is from the beginning!
It's not a question of dogmatism, it's the question of what to achieve!

If you want to arrive to point B you need to have a point A to start from.

The intent is not 'coming' while looking at a computer screen, otherwise it is a salvage, not an intent.

The combo body/lens aperture/speed light/nolight will give certain results for a certain framing.

Shoot wider and crop you won't get the same result as a closer original framing.

Shooting wide to crop later is betting for luck.

If cropping were a good way to make photograph, everyone would shoot 10mm wide and crop.

I am pretty sure that it is a much faster learning curve to try to get the right image (the one you want) when you have your eye in the eyepiece, moving, turning around, getting up or down around the subject and suddenly you know you get it.

This has nothing to do with advertising or artistic picture (for my own sake I don't see any difference for my work).

Sometimes I admit I get lucky, in a picture I may find another one so you get 2 pics in the same file!

Sometimes also I do crop to fine tune or to level an horizon, but the aim is in the original framing.

So back to teaching someone, I would eventualy say you should have framed it wider/higher/shorter etc. I would not say you should have cropped it.

Subbtle? that's all photography is about…

[Rachel Foster]

I'm mulling over these points. Will think on them a while.

[Rachel Foster]

I can say that when it comes to fashion, I'm dynamite! (Said in all modesty.....:) .)

[Asher Kelman]

The intent is not 'coming' while looking at a computer screen, otherwise it is a salvage, not an intent.......

Shooting wide to crop later is betting for luck...............

If cropping were a good way to make photograph, everyone would shoot 10mm wide and crop.


For most photography, one needs to have a clearly defined intent, position and frame accordingly, use your specific workflow and voila, you have completed your "arc of intent." For other less formal artistic work one is being open to experience and delaying the formation and hardening of one's particular intent. One arrives at a location and breathes in the air, looks around as feels this is the place for creativity!

However, from any tested shooting position, one might be thrilled but still unsettled with what one sees. Still you just love it and so take a series of pictures. Your only intent at that point is to bring this richness home like returning with flowers or shells and driftwood. Somehow you know that within all this there lies some essence that has resonated with you and needs to be explored. So one examines the photographs on the screen. Yes, there's a man on crutches in a doorway and that tree has blossoms that I was not able to see because of the light. That little girl had a teddy bear and one of it's eye's are missing and she is sewing on a red button!

This exploration can be rich, wonderful and rewarding or else disappointing.

Here the creative intent has not as yet been defined but may emerge as a result of closely experiencing the scene without other distraction in the universe. Yes, this may sound like artistic sacrilege, a cover up for lack of talent or some combination and sometimes that might be what is happening. However, I don't think so. Exploring by sampling is a valid way of photographing around us. Sometimes this delivers a picture that's worthwhile or else creates the germ of a new idea that we had perviously not recognized. So now we can go back and reshoot this with well-formulated idea. So the intent now is defined and the photography becomes formal again.

I have thought a lot about this and Nicolas, my good friend, we have to accommodate and respect this unique method of exploring and experimenting.

To do this one needs an open mind. So for the inexperienced, even taking a formal picture, with a clear intent and purpose, I see no reason not to add an extra margin. With a zoom lens that is a simple matter and the perspective does not change one iota! I see more problems with shots being too tight than other issues ruining a potentially impressive picture.

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, all. I'm off to do some more learning. I'll be back when I have made some observable improvement.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

I hope you can return to that very spot and use a wider lens to get more of that composition. The reflections in the water are very interesting veritcals and the mass of rocks and the oblique strcuture on the lower right (a bridge) provide bold geometry.

However that fdoregrounf plant is important and to my way of thinking it can be substantial as an anchoring point ot the whole image if we get the grasses right to the ground in perfect detail.

Then we want to go wider to get more of the sweep of the river. The upper bank would be great too perhaps. We'd have to see what's there.

It would be great to extend to the left the powerful grouping of round rocks that cut from left to upper right in a zig zag formation.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/2007_OPF_AK/Asher Kelman_2007/053-1RachelRiversketch copy.jpg
Sketch for Rachel's River

Let me know id this might be helpful.

Remember Monet returned month after month to the same spot to paint once more the same subject. Ansel Adams did the same with photography and then spent months or sessions over years to extract, manupulate and derive his final images in brutally technical darkroom work.

Serendipity helps with photography but so does persistence and planning! Then the pleasure is immense for everyone!

Happy shooting!

Asher

P.S. once the composition is decided on, then, perhaps, one might take several bracketed exposures to capture the reflections of the clouds in the still water too. :)

[Rachel Foster]

I'll be asking my photog instructor about some of these things.

In the meantime, I've requested a spot in a week long portrait seminar in June! Keep your fingers crossed for me....

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

Good luck on your trip to Europe! I hope you really enjoy Italy and you both come back with great memories and photographs. Keep us informed by occaisonal images.

Check the prices before you order, as a cup of coffee is the same as the price of an 8GB card unless you go to Montenegro or Transylvania!

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

I noticed! It ain't cheap!

[Rachel Foster]

I'm rather embarrassed....I just noticed than when I switched the photobucket account around I deleted half my images!

Apologies!

[Rachel Foster]

I don't know if anyone remembers my duck.....shadowed, other problems, etc. Well, I never got THAT duck...but I now have....a DUCK!

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/opf/092-1.jpg


It looks in focus on my laptop but I suppose there is the possibility it is not......whaddaya think?

[Asher Kelman]

I don't know if anyone remembers my duck.....shadowed, other problems, etc. Well, I never got THAT duck...but I now have....a DUCK!

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/opf/092-1.jpg


It looks in focus on my laptop but I suppose there is the possibility it is not......whaddaya think?

Hi Rachel,

Glad you are back to the water. Where is this? Is this your river once more. Glad you found another duck!

We need to get back to some basics. I for one would love to know who is your photography instructor. That way we all might get on the same page. The previous picture that I marked up had serious compositional issues that I thought you might address. You did say you were going to ask your instructor. I wonder whether perhaps my diagram was not clear to you so you just didn't know what on earth I was talking about.

Essentially, here's my view. One needs to address issues as they arise otherwise there is little point in going beyond "Wow!" and perhaps even "Was the water that grey?"

For that particular picture of the river with a diagonal line of rocks in the water, the composition was stunted by being to restricted or have nothing really of interest and strength to demand our attention.

1. The plant in the foreground was cut off. What's left has no particular attraction. Why is it there? I think you might have included it because it seemed to be needed. That may very well be true. If so, include enough of it so it becomes interesting. If the picture is large enough, then that one plant might anchor the picture.

2. The rocks are interesting but we see so few of them. If they are the subject, then maybe frame them in a compelling manner. I cannot see that yet. However, my guess is that they are not the subject but part of your total composition.

3. We don't see the other bank of the river. Was that too far, were there no features that could make the image more impressive?

4. The diagonal of the rocks might go further to the left. Is that the case. Could the picture be widened to take in more so they constitute a powerful element to make the picture work.

The picture as you have shown it is flat. Imagine a person with a flat affect. Not very entertaining. The picture must capture attention in order for us to have some interchange with it so we start to handle you own ideas through what you put into the photograph in your particular way.

O.K. Rachel, that now restates what I tried to express above. Now it would be kind for you to give back and let us know how these ideas jive with you and your instructor if he/she is still working with you. If it's Ben Lifson, I know he is unfortunately sick and so you may not be getting further help at this time from this wonderful man.

Kindest wishes.

Asher

P.S. if you provide the images I'll place them where you tell me by post number on the top right hand corner of each post.

[Rachel Foster]

Hi Asher. I took an intro photography class at a local community college. I don't think you can really call him my instructor as I was merely a member of a large class. I've gotten helpful feedback from some people on Photo.net, but other than that and the help I've gotten here, I guess you would have to say my errors are from my own attempts to fumble through the wilderness.

I did connect just this week with someone who has offered to work with me one on one. I PMd the name to you to see if you'd heard of him. After I did, I sat down with him and am convinced he can help me a great deal. I was hoping to work with Alain Briot (if he'd have me!) but finances prohibit that for now, anyway. I would like to "graduate" to one of Alain's workshops (the Navajo one is particularly appealing to me).

The purpose of this post was not to present a "good" image. It was more of an "Yippee! I finally corrected some of the previous problems." I'm still on baby steps and perhaps should remember that even though this is entry digital photography, people want more than simple (but to me significant progress).

My journey has required an intense amount of work. That's likely because I've tried to progress so very far in such a short time. It's wonderfully rewarding to me, but I need to remember it's not very interesting to others.

This image is nothing in the way of composition. It is more getting the focus, clarity, and being able to see the darn duck's eyes. I don't know if you remember, but focus has been a major challenge.

I have some images that I find compositionally pleasing, but do not want to clutter the forum up with multiple threads. Knowing what I'm about to say sounds arrogant, and taking as a given that I have a lot to learn, I am willing to say that someday....with a lot more work...someday I'm going to be good. Very good.

[Rachel Foster]

I'm concerned by your statement about Ben Lifson. It sounds quite serious. I'll remember him in my prayers and thoughts to the Creator.

[Rachel Foster]

Speaking of composition, I'm still pondering these. I think there may be enough interest inherent in the images, but I'm not certain that the "ooh! wildlife!" factor isn't clouding my judgment. If these weren't wildlife...would we find it pleasing in terms of composition?

That's just one of the issues I'm trying to understand.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/opf/e5-1.jpg

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/opf/gullgood.jpg

**Note....I'm still on my laptop so while I think they're in focus, I won't know til I get to my bigger screen.

[Asher Kelman]

Speaking of composition, I'm still pondering these. I think there may be enough interest inherent in the images, but I'm not certain that the "ooh! wildlife!" factor isn't clouding my judgment. If these weren't wildlife...would we find it pleasing in terms of composition?

That's just one of the issues I'm trying to understand.

Unless you are showing an assassination, a woman with a 3rd eye or a man emptying a Brink's armored truck with a set of tools from Sears Roebuck, composition does matter. In any of the other cases, you will get paid handsomely by some newspaper good or bad.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/opf/gullgood.jpg

**Note....I'm still on my laptop so while I think they're in focus, I won't know til I get to my bigger screen.

This image is in focus at least for the birds beak and the water droplets. You are at f11 and 1/400 sec and using a focal length of 250mm. You might try a faster shitter speed and use a higher ISO than 200. However, I'm not a bird photographer. Also a Better Beamer and flash would help you.

Did you process the image? I see you use Picassa. I know Photoshop. You can do the same in many programs but yours lack the steps I will describe. If Picassa has these capabilities, use them, saving sharpening until last after you are at the image size for delivery on the web, printing or what ever other purpose you have at that time. Each time you have another purpose, the image must be sharpened at that size and for that use.

Let's imagine you have Photoshop. I will give the instructions you can use even with Photoshop 7 in case you have that or can obtain it. Ideally you should have at a CS edition, 1, 2 or CS3. Still, all you need is in Photoshop 7 which you might be able to get legally with a license for little money at all.

Look at the levels histogram in Photoshop. I found that it is a curve in 18% grey with little data at the lower and upper thirds of the histogram. One cannot drag in the right hand limit marker much without whiting out the birds plumage. However you can pull that in a little. Also the lower end, the shadows can be punched up by dragging to the right the right hand slider so as to limit the amount of space with no data.

Now adding a curves layer in Photoshop, you can make a delicate S-shape and bring out a little more detail and presence. Finally select all the layers and paster the result. This can be wonderfully sharpened to make the beak stand out, define the head and then the water drops glisten brilliantly.

Use first say 300%, 0.4 pixels, and then use Edit sharpening in the Edit pulldown menu and switch to Luminosity and fade to 90% or to you taste. Then do another sharpening this time for local contrast and use say 10%, 20 pixels and again fade the sharpening in the luminosity choice.

http://opfora.com/2007_OPF_AK/Rachel_Foster/gullgood Rachel Foster_AK edited cropped.jpg
© Rachel Foster 2008 Edited, cropped and saved as level 6 jpg to conserve space!


I have not ever used Picassa. It may be better than Photoshop for some things, but your images are not as yet optimized as you present them.

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

That's wonderful, Asher!

I'm on my laptop and CS2 (along with Lightroom and Elements 6) are on my desktop at home.

WOW! That really perks it up, doesn't it?

[Rachel Foster]

I've printed out the instructions and will be going at it bit by bit to learn those photoshop steps. (I never know when to give up, it seems.)

In the meantime, I've gone back to the original river. This is the same section as the image Asher reproduced a few posts back, but shot just a wee bit down river. I've left it uncropped (and, in fact, straight out of the cam). What I was working on here was a larger composition leaving frame of reference and getting the water flow as well. Accordingly, I used a larger aperture and slower shutter speed (ISO 400, focal length 59, f/20, shutter speed 1/30). The lens is IS and it was handheld. I'm pleased with the water movement, but the brightness and contrast are a bit bold for my taste. I'm still pondering what's wrong with the image. As it is, it's a nice snapshot.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/opf/IMG_0406-1.jpg

(Edited to include the image! D'oh!)

Larger version here (http://s183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/opf/?action=edit&current=IMG_0406.jpg).