Reading mode: Light Dark

Istanbul

Go to last post
vin 13

vin 13

Senior Member
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
68
Location
IE
Hi.

These are a few shots from my recent visit to Istanbul. I was stupid enough to let my 1Ds2 fall out of my bag onto a concrete floor 3 days before the trip, so these are shot with a 5D/20D.









The full gallery (28 images) is at
http://vincentmccormack.zenfolio.com/p265624316/

Thanks for looking

Cheers

Vin
 
Nice. I like the subject matter.
--
'We shall not cease from exploration
And yet the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.' T.S. Eliot
 
perhaps you don't have many comments on this thread, because most people are thinking what I'm about to say ..... your pictures look like snap shots.

I don't see how you've taken advantage of an SLR in any of these pics. Lighting, depth of field, exposure, sharpness ..... all look very standard and probably shot in "auto" mode.

If you did use an SLR, did you play with Av ? Tv ? Long exposures ? Night shots ? Candid shots using telephotos ? If you did none of the above, I don't mean to be harsh, but why not just use a point and shoot camera ?
 
You are right but for the wrong reasons. Lighting, exposure and sharpness are not advantages of an slr, and depth of field is not the issue.

Composition is the key to improving on these photos. The first picture is a nice GV (general view), but the rest could be improved. For example the last photo, it could have been a really nice photo of someone fishing, with the billboard filling the background with all those fish on it, that would have been a good photo. Simplify the composition and have a focal point, a 'reason' for the photo. The turnstyle has nothing going on in it, the guy smoking may have made a nice portrait but here he isnt really doing anything and has just been papped off.
mcmm said:
perhaps you don't have many comments on this thread, because most
people are thinking what I'm about to say ..... your pictures look
like snap shots.

I don't see how you've taken advantage of an SLR in any of these
pics. Lighting, depth of field, exposure, sharpness ..... all look
very standard and probably shot in "auto" mode.

If you did use an SLR, did you play with Av ? Tv ? Long exposures ?
Night shots ? Candid shots using telephotos ? If you did none of
the above, I don't mean to be harsh, but why not just use a point and
shoot camera ?
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for detailed criticism, I appreciate it, cheers.
matphotos said:
You are right but for the wrong reasons. Lighting, exposure and
sharpness are not advantages of an slr, and depth of field is not the
issue.

Composition is the key to improving on these photos. The first
picture is a nice GV (general view), but the rest could be improved.
For example the last photo, it could have been a really nice photo of
someone fishing, with the billboard filling the background with all
those fish on it, that would have been a good photo. Simplify the
composition and have a focal point, a 'reason' for the photo. The
turnstyle has nothing going on in it, the guy smoking may have made a
nice portrait but here he isnt really doing anything and has just
been papped off.
Click to expand...
 
I have no problem with criticism, I welcome it. I'm not upset that you don't like the photos. I thank you for posting your opinion. However I feel compelled to comment on the points you've made.
mcmm said:
perhaps you don't have many comments on this thread, because most
people are thinking what I'm about to say ..... your pictures look
like snap shots.

I don't see how you've taken advantage of an SLR in any of these
pics. Lighting, depth of field, exposure, sharpness ..... all look
very standard and probably shot in "auto" mode.
Click to expand...
Lighting? - It was overcast, I can't control the weather!

Depth of field? - For example, the shot of the guy is shot at f4, with a 70-200f4. I wanted shallow DOF, That's as shallow as it gets with that lens.
Exposure? - What's wrong with the exposure?

Sharpness? - Most of these are shot at high ISO and converted to B&W, because I wanted a gritty look, as I felt it was apt considering how grey and cold it was. Obviously that has an effect on sharpness. I don't see that any of them are lacking in sharpness so much as to make them bad photos.
mcmm said:
If you did use an SLR, did you play with Av ? TV ? Long exposures ?
Night shots ? Candid shots using telephotos ? If you did none of
the above, I don't mean to be harsh, but why not just use a point and
shoot camera ?
Click to expand...
I always use TV, AV or manual.
There are night shots in the gallery, I didn't embed any in the thread.
As I've already pointed out, I used a telephoto for the pic of the guy.

Finally, can I ask you what you would have done differently in relation to Exposure etc. Not the subject matter or composition.
 
--
Didier

We don't inherit Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. Antoine de St Exupery.
 
I think they are the strong points of your Istanbul story.
Less is more, sometimes...
in photoediting too :)

Regards
Maciek 'Matthew'
 
These are the points i mentioned in my other reply. I wouldnt take any notice of them, most people here are just thinking of the gear not the pictures. Most good pictures come from how you compose the frame not what you did in the camera.

They need TLC, Timing, Lighting and Composition (lighting may just mean a correct exposure). Also, Tv and Av are, of course, 'auto modes' and i use them all the time. If you are making correct exposures don't worry too much about your method, worry more about your composition, and above all have fun, after all thats what its supposed to be about. Its good to see you are out taking pictures, seems to be rare around here!
vin 13 said:
vin 13 said:
perhaps you don't have many comments on this thread, because most
people are thinking what I'm about to say ..... your pictures look
like snap shots.

I don't see how you've taken advantage of an SLR in any of these
pics. Lighting, depth of field, exposure, sharpness ..... all look
very standard and probably shot in "auto" mode.
Click to expand...
Lighting? - It was overcast, I can't control the weather!
Depth of field? - For example, the shot of the guy is shot at f4,
with a 70-200f4. I wanted shallow DOF, That's as shallow as it gets
with that lens.
Exposure? - What's wrong with the exposure?
Sharpness? - Most of these are shot at high ISO and converted to B&W,
because I wanted a gritty look, as I felt it was apt considering how
grey and cold it was. Obviously that has an effect on sharpness. I
don't see that any of them are lacking in sharpness so much as to
make them bad photos.
vin 13 said:
If you did use an SLR, did you play with Av ? TV ? Long exposures ?
Night shots ? Candid shots using telephotos ? If you did none of
the above, I don't mean to be harsh, but why not just use a point and
shoot camera ?
Click to expand...
I always use TV, AV or manual.
There are night shots in the gallery, I didn't embed any in the thread.
As I've already pointed out, I used a telephoto for the pic of the guy.

Finally, can I ask you what you would have done differently in
relation to Exposure etc. Not the subject matter or composition.
Click to expand...
 
Converting a shot to B&W does not make it art. In some circumstances, for particular shots, B&W can work better than colour. What was it about these shots that you thought needed it?

vin 13 wrote:
...
vin 13 said:
Lighting? - It was overcast, I can't control the weather!
Click to expand...
No, but you can change the type of shots you take. If the lighting doesn't suit, then shoot another way or shoot something else.
vin 13 said:
Depth of field? - For example, the shot of the guy is shot at f4,
with a 70-200f4. I wanted shallow DOF, That's as shallow as it gets
with that lens.
Click to expand...
DoF is a function of distance, focal length and aperture. If you'd moved closer then you'd have less DoF. You had all the control you needed, IF you'd thought more about it.
vin 13 said:
Exposure? - What's wrong with the exposure?
Click to expand...
Well, you've tended to under-expose the subject in favour of the overcast clouds.
vin 13 said:
Sharpness? - Most of these are shot at high ISO and converted to B&W,
because I wanted a gritty look, as I felt it was apt considering how
grey and cold it was. Obviously that has an effect on sharpness.
Click to expand...
By the time you've down-rez'd them to web size you shouldn't be able to tell that they were high ISO, and it doesn't prevent you from sharpening them. Shifting WB towards blue can make the shot look colder.
 
spt_gb said:
Converting a shot to B&W does not make it art. In some circumstances,
for particular shots, B&W can work better than colour. What was it
about these shots that you thought needed it?
Click to expand...
I don't do this often, I stick to colour most of the time. On this occasion It was so cold, damp, miserable and grey, people on the street all looked as cold as I felt. I decided that B&W reflected the mood of my visit more than colour. I made that decision there and then before the first photo, if I had a film camera I would have loaded B&W film. Even though I have the colour information in the RAW files, I wasn't tempted to change my mind.
spt_gb said:
spt_gb said:
Lighting? - It was overcast, I can't control the weather!
Click to expand...
No, but you can change the type of shots you take. If the lighting
doesn't suit, then shoot another way or shoot something else.
Click to expand...
shooting another way or something else doesn't change the light, that's a different issue, but I acknowledge it.
spt_gb said:
spt_gb said:
Depth of field? - For example, the shot of the guy is shot at f4,
with a 70-200f4. I wanted shallow DOF, That's as shallow as it gets
with that lens.
Click to expand...
DoF is a function of distance, focal length and aperture. If you'd
moved closer then you'd have less DoF. You had all the control you
needed, IF you'd thought more about it.
Click to expand...
I know that, however, in this example, there would have been no photo if I'd thought more about it!
spt_gb said:
spt_gb said:
Exposure? - What's wrong with the exposure?
Click to expand...
Well, you've tended to under-expose the subject in favour of the
overcast clouds.
Click to expand...
I disagree, but it's good to get another opinion, thanks!
spt_gb said:
spt_gb said:
Sharpness? - Most of these are shot at high ISO and converted to B&W,
because I wanted a gritty look, as I felt it was apt considering how
grey and cold it was. Obviously that has an effect on sharpness.
Click to expand...
By the time you've down-rez'd them to web size you shouldn't be able
to tell that they were high ISO, and it doesn't prevent you from
sharpening them. Shifting WB towards blue can make the shot look
colder.
Click to expand...
I haven't down-rez'd them, I've uploaded full size images, which I sharpened as I saw fit. Zenfolio generates the smaller files automatically. I'm not using that as an excuse though. Besides I wanted them to look a bit grainy and grey as opposed to cool.

Anyhow thanks again for your comments!
 
spt_gb said:
vin 13 wrote:
...
spt_gb said:
Lighting? - It was overcast, I can't control the weather!
Click to expand...
No, but you can change the type of shots you take. If the lighting
doesn't suit, then shoot another way or shoot something else.
spt_gb said:
Depth of field? - For example, the shot of the guy is shot at f4,
with a 70-200f4. I wanted shallow DOF, That's as shallow as it gets
with that lens.
Click to expand...
DoF is a function of distance, focal length and aperture. If you'd
moved closer then you'd have less DoF. You had all the control you
needed, IF you'd thought more about it.
Click to expand...
You need to forget DoF in this photo, changing it will not dramatically improve it, so don't waste your time worrying if you could have got nearer. The mans facial expression is what will make the photo, so maybe wait for a more interesting look on his face.
spt_gb said:
spt_gb said:
Exposure? - What's wrong with the exposure?
Click to expand...
Well, you've tended to under-expose the subject in favour of the
overcast clouds.
Click to expand...
Again another red-herring. Its impossibel to tell online as all monitors are different, the exposure is close enough - so worry more about the photos composition.
spt_gb said:
spt_gb said:
Sharpness? - Most of these are shot at high ISO and converted to B&W,
because I wanted a gritty look, as I felt it was apt considering how
grey and cold it was. Obviously that has an effect on sharpness.
Click to expand...
By the time you've down-rez'd them to web size you shouldn't be able
to tell that they were high ISO, and it doesn't prevent you from
sharpening them. Shifting WB towards blue can make the shot look
colder.
Click to expand...
Again, they seem sharp enough but you cant tell at this resolution anyway, so if you are happy thats good enough.

Free yourself from all the technical restraints and concentrate on the composition that fills the frame. A sharp photo with a shallow DoF and perfect exposure may still be a terrible photo, and a great photo may have none of those attributes - so there is no need to worry too much about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top