http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photoshop-El...9836405&sr=8-1
Do learn the diffeance between RAW files and jpeg, then consider shooting RAW
As a complete beginner and having the camera for just 2 days I used it on auto for the exposure and manual for the focusing. One step at a time, I'm still working out what all the buttons and settings mean, so it'll be a bit longer before I can start playing with the ISO/Shutter speed etc.
I'm also trying to find my way around Photoshop Elements and using a Mac, a lot of brain ache! (I like a challenge) Any explanations and tips about basics are greatly appreciated though.
![]()
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photoshop-El...9836405&sr=8-1
Do learn the diffeance between RAW files and jpeg, then consider shooting RAW
Go in to the park and take several shots of the same subject, at different ISO values, then do the same indoors and see if you can see any difference
Picture quality will deteriorate at higher ISO values, but only you can tell if the deterioration is acceptable
Higher ISO values will allow higher shutter speeds (less camera shake ) and smaller apertures, greater depth of field, and allow you to shoot indoors with out flash
Golden rule: take lots and lots of photogaphs, you no longer have to worry about the cost of film ,
Some simple exposure tips:
ISO makes the sensor more or less sensitive to light. Higher ISO = more sensitive, but also more "noisy" with a haze of artifacts over the image. Each time ISO doubles, sensitivity to light also doubles - this equates to one "stop" of light.
Aperture (f-stop) is how much light comes through the lens. f/4 is a larger aperture that lets in more light than f/16. Each "stop" represents twice (or half) the amount of light, e.g. going from f/1.4 to f/2.0 is one "stop" with the amount of light coming through the lens halving. As the aperture grows larger, the depth of field decreases.
Shutter Speed is how long light is allowed to come through the lens. Each time the shutter speed halves, (e.g. 1/15 of a sec -> 1/30 of a sec), half has much light comes in because the exposure time is halved. This equates to one "stop" of light.
The balance between these three exposure settings are the basic tools in your artistic palette.As an "artist" you must decide what's most important in your image: image "cleanliness" or lack of noise (in which case, setting a low ISO will be important), how much of the image is in focus (in which case, aperture will need to be smaller to maximise depth of field), or how "frozen" or motion-blurred the subject must appear (a shorter shutter speed for freezing action, a longer shutter speed for blurring it).
In good light, you can pretty much pick and choose any combination of these artistic elements. In poor light, however, some elements must be sacrificed to preserve others, e.g. increasing the ISO so you can maintain a smaller aperture and fast shutter speed.
Hope this helps a little![]()
IMO one shouldn't get too hung up about the 'rules' of photography.
If you like the end result, that all that matters.
Yes, the WB, ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed are all very important but IMO there's no ultimately 'correct' way.
Sometimes by altering something like the WB (white balance) to an incorrect (by text book terms) setting, it can give the picture a completely different mood or feeling, which might not look completely 'real' but helps to produce a picture that maybe more dynamic or thought provoking, simply because it makes one see it 'differently'
I think you have to question yourself for each circumstance - do you want the photo to look 'real' or 'arty'? (I'm going though my arty phase at the moment... its a great excuse to do everything wrong and get away with it
)
Photography is a bit like dancing, there are some people who know absolutely everything there is to know about the subject, they're like walking text books of 'what to buy' and 'how to do it' but when it comes down to it.. do their end results appeal to us?
I'm not saying knowledge is not a good thing. As you know, I'm trying very hard to learn everything I can myself. But try not to let the technicalities bog you down, as it can take the fun out of it! And end up stifling your creativity, rather than enhancing it.
An example of the kind of photo I particularly hate, is the old 'school photo'Everything is 'correct' and the photographer obviously has the best camera and a whole studio set up but 99% of them are absolutely horrid!
![]()
Last edited by Lory; 3rd-December-2009 at 01:05 PM.
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE![]()
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
Absolutely - there is no "correct" way to take a photograph; Some of my favourite work has been taken through blurry, dirty car windows, is over or under exposed, or blurred from camera or subject movement! "Artistic" photography tries to express a feeling rather than capture a pristine record.
However, understanding your camera's settings -particularly exposure basics - will allow you to purposefully set up many of these "artistic" effects, rather than just hoping for happy accidents.
Have fun!![]()
Try some of the following sites to open your eyes to the possibilities out there
www.zarias.com
www.scottkelby.com
strobist.blogspot.com
www.yervant.com
and do play with iso speeds aperture and shutter speeds so you understand
what is possible
there is a gadget on every camera that most amateurs never use
its called the viewfinder
if you look through this before pressing the button the shot will have a much better chance of being good![]()
On the other hand, on the likes of Cruella's new camera, unless they've substantially changed the design from the previous version, one doesn't have much choice. The screen cannot show the view through the lens - hence use of the viewfinder is required, not optional. Personally, I prefer it that way.
That's what our office camera is and I was playing about with it this afternoon - liked it - I currently have no idea what most of the functions do but I was able to play about with different focus and light settings (photographing tinsel and computers!)
As to the viewfinder - I prefer a viewfinder, even when there is a screen - it just feels a better way to see what you are taking a picture of.
The light in my office was rubbish, so the backgrounds are too yellow for my liking but I'm still pretty pleased with the (non auto) experiment.(Especially as I had to eat the sweets first)
Last edited by Cruella; 14th-May-2011 at 04:55 PM.
For most digital P&S cameras that's not the case. The viewfinder is just a straight pass through and isn't showing what the lens is seeing (in terms of the zoom settings or what it is focused on). Looking through the screen gives you a much better view of what the camera is about to take a shot of.
The newer Cannon models have Live View which lifts the mirror and sets the screen to display an image of what the lens shows (I'm certain that Nikon and others have the same thing in their DSLRs), it slows down the shutter though and becomes a much bigger drain on batteries. I don't use it myself though there have been a few times where I'm lining up a shot resting the camera against an object where I find looking into the viewfinder is a pain so then I could see it being helpful.
When you use a viewfinder, you usually have the camera on contact with your face, and also tend to have your arms tucked in closer to your body. This gives a more stable platform, reducing camera shake. This is still important, even with image stabilisation.
When I use a viewfinder, I seem to concentrate more on the subject. However when I use a camera with a screen, I find that I worry more about the composition of the whole photo. I don't really know why.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks