And, here's some other things too (Didn't want to make a new topic for them):
What do you think?
I'm crushed.
I'm crushed.
Well, I've been messing around with my camera, and I'm getting a lot better at it
And, here's some other things too (Didn't want to make a new topic for them):
What do you think?
And, here's some other things too (Didn't want to make a new topic for them):
What do you think?
You're getting kind of random. From what I can tell, these are just basic stock images with no real reason other than being "stock". If that's the case they should be treated as such. You're using angles, which in this case doesn't really help the photographs. You also used rather harsh lighting on some images like the key. If the blur in the cell phone pic was photoshopped, I recommend removing that as well. Don't take this the wrong way. They're decent stocks and all; I'm just describing what I see to help point out things you may not have seen. Kind of a photographer to photographer kind of thing. You are getting better, and I expect to see more.
They are for my photography class.. I was supposed to take simplistic pictures. My life isn't very exciting, I don't catch pictures of really neato things, so I just set things up and shoot them.
The blur in the razr image was from my camera, It's a lens setting used to add focus. I thought they looked rather nice, kinda commercial like.
Well, I do have a couple of nice nature shots... I guess I'll post them in a minute.
Edit-
Here they are:
Not all photos have to have a point do they? I'm not trying to sound indecent or anything, but some photos can just be for the sake of being nice to look at. I dunno.
The blur in the razr image was from my camera, It's a lens setting used to add focus. I thought they looked rather nice, kinda commercial like.
Well, I do have a couple of nice nature shots... I guess I'll post them in a minute.
Edit-
Here they are:
Not all photos have to have a point do they? I'm not trying to sound indecent or anything, but some photos can just be for the sake of being nice to look at. I dunno.
There is an art to simplicity, yes.
However, your pictures of the objects are exactly like how SHOUTrvb put them, they're basically stock images. If you want to move beyond this, make something interesting in the picture. This is a picture of a can, however, as you can see it's an extreme macro, probably something your camera can't do, but I hope you get my gist. (EDIT: read the comments there too, and you can see why people like it, etc. I'd also recommend just browsing the photography section of that site too, or any site really, I just happened to be looking at that site when I saw this post. But just look around at what people have done and that'll help you come up with ideas about what is interesting, and what's just a random stock image that can go good in a clothes magazine.)
As for the blur, is that a very small(large) aperture? You say camera setting, but is that what it is? If so, for things like the key you'll want to raise it(shrink) it to get more of the key in focus. Then again half of that problem, I think, is because you're not using a macro lens and it's just too darn close to the camera.
As for the nature pictures, the first one is what I would expect from a beginner photographer, an attempt to make a clever picture, but in reality it's just a boring moon through a boring branch. The second is out of focus. The third is probably my favorite out of all your pictures.
What ISO are you shooting at? The images are really grainy. Try to put it as low as you can. All these shots are still life, so shutter speed shouldn't be an issue, just use a tripod if necessary.
However, your pictures of the objects are exactly like how SHOUTrvb put them, they're basically stock images. If you want to move beyond this, make something interesting in the picture. This is a picture of a can, however, as you can see it's an extreme macro, probably something your camera can't do, but I hope you get my gist. (EDIT: read the comments there too, and you can see why people like it, etc. I'd also recommend just browsing the photography section of that site too, or any site really, I just happened to be looking at that site when I saw this post. But just look around at what people have done and that'll help you come up with ideas about what is interesting, and what's just a random stock image that can go good in a clothes magazine.)
As for the blur, is that a very small(large) aperture? You say camera setting, but is that what it is? If so, for things like the key you'll want to raise it(shrink) it to get more of the key in focus. Then again half of that problem, I think, is because you're not using a macro lens and it's just too darn close to the camera.
As for the nature pictures, the first one is what I would expect from a beginner photographer, an attempt to make a clever picture, but in reality it's just a boring moon through a boring branch. The second is out of focus. The third is probably my favorite out of all your pictures.
What ISO are you shooting at? The images are really grainy. Try to put it as low as you can. All these shots are still life, so shutter speed shouldn't be an issue, just use a tripod if necessary.
Thanks for the help KirkKirk wrote:There is an art to simplicity, yes.
However, your pictures of the objects are exactly like how SHOUTrvb put them, they're basically stock images. If you want to move beyond this, make something interesting in the picture. This is a picture of a can, however, as you can see it's an extreme macro, probably something your camera can't do, but I hope you get my gist. (EDIT: read the comments there too, and you can see why people like it, etc. I'd also recommend just browsing the photography section of that site too, or any site really, I just happened to be looking at that site when I saw this post. But just look around at what people have done and that'll help you come up with ideas about what is interesting, and what's just a random stock image that can go good in a clothes magazine.)
As for the blur, is that a very small(large) aperture? You say camera setting, but is that what it is? If so, for things like the key you'll want to raise it(shrink) it to get more of the key in focus. Then again half of that problem, I think, is because you're not using a macro lens and it's just too darn close to the camera.
As for the nature pictures, the first one is what I would expect from a beginner photographer, an attempt to make a clever picture, but in reality it's just a boring moon through a boring branch. The second is out of focus. The third is probably my favorite out of all your pictures.
What ISO are you shooting at? The images are really grainy. Try to put it as low as you can. All these shots are still life, so shutter speed shouldn't be an issue, just use a tripod if necessary.
That shot with the moon I realize was mediocre at best. I just wanted to try out some framing, heh.Oh, and the setting I was using for the focus/blur were the basic lens settings like Normal, Wide Adapter, Telephoto 1 & 2, etc. I think I was either using Wide Adapter or Slide Copy Adapter.
Anyways, I'll try to check those out. My photography teacher skims over all my shots, so I never know what to do with them.
As for the ISO, I get confused with that.. Is it 400 for inside and 100 for outside? Or the other way around? Or... something entirely different?
ISO is simply the sensitivity to light. As you raise the ISO on the camera, the sensors become more sensitive to light, making the camera able to take pictures in lower-light situations. The downside is that when you increase the ISO, grain becomes more and more apparent. Sometimes you can accept this sort of thing (sometimes you want it :/) , sometimes it's simply unavoidable. For example, night time photography when you can't use a flash or long shutter speeds, such as some sporting events, plays, and that sort of thing. A moving object at night = pain in the ass because the only thing you really can do is have a high ISO. A flash doesn't help here because it takes away from the dark feel to it (like blowing out candles at a birthday party, i can't stress how boring it is when a flash is used)JK-47 wrote:As for the ISO, I get confused with that.. Is it 400 for inside and 100 for outside? Or the other way around? Or... something entirely different?
Generally speaking though, I use ISO 100, mainly because A: I seriously hate grain, B: I haven't gotten into night photography that much, though I intend to, and C: Almost 90% of the stuff I do is still, therefore I can increase the shutter speed to annoyingly high amounts, though like B, I intend to do more and more motion photography (I'm working with my old Yearbook teacher to get some pictures from football games for him, for when that school's team is up here, therefore none of the yearbook staff is here, but I am. I could care less about my own schools yearbook/photography classes
)-
RaVNzCRoFT
- Posts: 6208
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:05 pm
- Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
|
|
'Cause I'm a photo noob :pRaVNzCRoFT wrote:You're aiming for an abstract style of photography, but you're just ending up with photos of random objects that don't have meaning. I don't think you entirely understand the concept.
But really, I dunno what kind of style I was aiming for here, I just thought it looked cool, heh.
