It's very difficult to make a 16.7X zoom lens for an APS-C camera have great IQ at the extreme FLs.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
My worst photographs ... Is it me or this location? How would you compose?
- Thread starter bizmord
- Start date
-
- Tags
- olympus air a01
Pixel Pooper
Senior Member
English is full of foreign words, I say the more the merrier. We do already have blur but there are different kinds of blur, bokeh refers to out of focus blur only.
Time will tell, and we don't get to decide what it means to everybody else, but what I disagree with are the arbitrary rules about how the word bokeh can be used. I often read that you can't use the word bokeh without an adjective, or you can only talk about the quality of bokeh but not it's existence like it's some kind of sacred word. This is just strange to me, and I can't think of any other word with similar rules. If I can describe bokeh with an adjective, then I can also talk about it's existence without making a judgement on it's quality.
I do, but it seems to have softened since you said: "it MUST be preceded by an adjective. There is no such thing as just "bokeh"!"
Last edited:
Pixel Pooper
Senior Member
Yes, 85mm f/1.8 will blur the background more than 220mm f/5.6 and the the bokeh from the prime lens should look better as well.
Pixel Pooper
Senior Member
My 35mm f/1.8 is my most used lens. It's no bokeh monster, but it blurs the background enough for subject isolation while still showing a bit of context. If you want bokeh even a 50mm f/1.8 is much better but the longer focal length makes it less versatile for me.
I DO have a soft side.I do, but it seems to have softened since you said: "it MUST be preceded by an adjective. There is no such thing as just "bokeh"!"
My style is to bluntly over-generalize before getting to nuances.
I had to use a blunt technique with my billy goat, who refused to listen and obey. I found that swinging a big stick got his attention. Sadly, he still didn't always obey. He is no longer around. But I diverge...
BTW, your point about their being other kinds of "blur" is a good one. Although it's a tiny bit long, your suggested solution is good: Simply call it "OoF blur" or something like that. I prefer that to having "bokeh" mean simply the fact of OoF blur. But I don't always get everything I want... :-(
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
There are many issues with these pictures, but I'll address just one. Your shots have large expanses of boring sidewalk. It seems you are taking these pictures from a standing position. Your subjects - sitting or squatting Mom, child, birds - are all much closer to the ground. So you are pointing the camera downwards. This increases the portion of the frame showing sidewalk. Get the camera down to the level of your subjects and point the camera parallel to the sidewalk. This will reduce the portion of the frame devoted to concrete.
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
I see that you're using a Sony. I'm not familiar with the Sony 35mm f/1.8 you're using but it's almost certainly better with respect to rendering of out-of-focus areas than the 35mm f/1.8G DX Nikkor that the OP has; that has fairly distressing bokeh.
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
Good point. Note that this is much easier (at least for old people) with a mirrorless camera that has a tilting screen. It's sort of like using a waist level finder on a TLR (as once used by currently old people). With an eye-level finder we have to grovel in the dirt.
Live view on a DSLR tends not to work as well because of slow autofocus.
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
Perhaps it is a lifetime of doing things "easier" that makes it more difficult for some old people to take photographs close to the ground with a dSLR. If one is used to the exertion, perhaps lighter camera gear and tilty screens are less necessary. I'm in my seventh decade, with bad knees and bad hips, yet since I continue to use my dSLR gear, from appropriate heights, it doesn't seem much of a bother to me.
There are other equipment-based approaches that can help too. Rubber knee pads or a $20 folding camp stool are less expensive solutions than a new body and set of lenses.
Guidenet
Forum Pro
So you're lucky. Not all of us are in the same situation. I'm in the middle of my sixth decade and yet I've suffered an extensive stroke in 2013 and in no way can get low to the ground. My power wheelchair won't tilt that way. Prior to this, I could lie on the ground for hours in my blind, looking for elusive birds and wildlife. I hiked and kayaked. It has nothing to do with a lifetime of doing things easier. I find that somewhat presumptuous and a little offensive, quite honestly.
Below is the kind of blurry I am OK with, though looking at it now, I would want to separate the subject even more from the background and because I had to step back so far away from her, bokeh was just OK. Will the 50mm 1.8 on a DX camera do better or worse in terms of bokeh?
tedolf
Forum Pro
It's you.....I can never get good composition out of the bay spot where I go with my wife and child to feed the birds. From what type of focus (continues or single) to 1 focus point VS auto 39, to what kind of composition ... I am completely confused.
How would you go about taking shots here. We had some great video, when you throw bread in the air, these birds grab them in the air, but then what do I focus on? How ? what's the technique?
thanks
I actually like this one.
and the location if you don't know how to make it work for you.
Busy backgrounds generally make bad photo's (unless you know how to manage/avoid them). Look at the setting and particularly the background. All those railings, all those cars, etc. Obviously they are going to compete for attention unless you think ahead about how to make them emphasize your subject.
Let's see how you did. In the first photo, you took one of the horizontal railings and made them come out of your wife's ears! We call this a "false attachment" and it is a bad thing. In the second photo your kid is trying to power lift the car behind her (busy background) and again there is a pole growing out of your wife's head! The bird by itself in the third photo isn't too bad but you have a leading line in the background that isn't leading to the subject. In the last photo you cut one of the birds in half-always disturbing when you cut living things in half.
So, it would appear that you know little if anything about composition, which is the foundation of pretty much any graphic art. I would suggest that you put down the camera and pick up a book and do some reading about composition. Also, a trip to the art museum might be in order. Go to the Renaissance section. If you can't or won't do that, look up the following phrases: Rule of Thirds, Leading Lines, False Attachments, Negative Space, Dept of Field, Depth Expansion/Contraction.
Once you understand what those things are and how to use them you will be ready to pick up the camera again.
Happy Learning!
tEdolph
highspeedsync
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 273
- Reaction score
- 108
These look like family snapshots. Not bad, I've seen a lot worse.
However, it sounds like you want to create good pictures rather than take snapshots. Here is what to do differently.
1. Don't shoot anything until you find nice light and a pleasing scene. You can tell when a background is cluttered because you mention it, so find somewhere with no clutter. Maybe a nice wall for example, or a shop window, or the sea or a hedge. Compose your shot so you're happy with how the scene looks. Pay attention to lines, shapes, light and colour - basic composition 101.
2. Then ask your subjects to come over and play/feed the birds/whatever in front of the lens in the area you've chosen to photograph. I guarantee you'll have a much easier time getting good shots.
To get good photos you need to take control of the situation. Simply shooting stuff as it happens with no control will be a matter of chance if your photos compose good. More often than not, they won't. However, if you take control and plan it, you'll up the good percentage considerably.
However, it sounds like you want to create good pictures rather than take snapshots. Here is what to do differently.
1. Don't shoot anything until you find nice light and a pleasing scene. You can tell when a background is cluttered because you mention it, so find somewhere with no clutter. Maybe a nice wall for example, or a shop window, or the sea or a hedge. Compose your shot so you're happy with how the scene looks. Pay attention to lines, shapes, light and colour - basic composition 101.
2. Then ask your subjects to come over and play/feed the birds/whatever in front of the lens in the area you've chosen to photograph. I guarantee you'll have a much easier time getting good shots.
To get good photos you need to take control of the situation. Simply shooting stuff as it happens with no control will be a matter of chance if your photos compose good. More often than not, they won't. However, if you take control and plan it, you'll up the good percentage considerably.
Last edited:
Seconded. I'd also like to compliment the OP for being brave to share his very worst. I keep mine to myself (or just delete them).
tedolf
Forum Pro
Well not all wrong, just mostly.
A photographer can get good shots in just about any environment, any light. It just takes knowledge and creativity. Fence posts/railings make good props and leading lines. Busy backgrounds sometimes come with clear of puffy cloud skies so shooting up from a low position avoids them. Using selective focus can help, etc., etc.
The problem here is that the OP obviously doesn't know any "tricks of the trade".
He needs to invest some time in learning, that is all.
My fear is that by coming here he is going to get piecemeal advise when what he really needs is the equivalent of an art class.
tEdolph
I appreciate your feedback. Already read a few books on photography and have lots more to learn. Photos I attached to this thread are pretty bad on purpose. I was trying to show more of what the obstacles are. I usually do better in other places.It's you.....I can never get good composition out of the bay spot where I go with my wife and child to feed the birds. From what type of focus (continues or single) to 1 focus point VS auto 39, to what kind of composition ... I am completely confused.
How would you go about taking shots here. We had some great video, when you throw bread in the air, these birds grab them in the air, but then what do I focus on? How ? what's the technique?
thanks
I actually like this one.
and the location if you don't know how to make it work for you.
Busy backgrounds generally make bad photo's (unless you know how to manage/avoid them). Look at the setting and particularly the background. All those railings, all those cars, etc. Obviously they are going to compete for attention unless you think ahead about how to make them emphasize your subject.
Let's see how you did. In the first photo, you took one of the horizontal railings and made them come out of your wife's ears! We call this a "false attachment" and it is a bad thing. In the second photo your kid is trying to power lift the car behind her (busy background) and again there is a pole growing out of your wife's head! The bird by itself in the third photo isn't too bad but you have a leading line in the background that isn't leading to the subject. In the last photo you cut one of the birds in half-always disturbing when you cut living things in half.
So, it would appear that you know little if anything about composition, which is the foundation of pretty much any graphic art. I would suggest that you put down the camera and pick up a book and do some reading about composition. Also, a trip to the art museum might be in order. Go to the Renaissance section. If you can't or won't do that, look up the following phrases: Rule of Thirds, Leading Lines, False Attachments, Negative Space, Dept of Field, Depth Expansion/Contraction.
Once you understand what those things are and how to use them you will be ready to pick up the camera again.
Happy Learning!
tEdolph
See below.
I get what you're saying. Kinda difficult to compose my child and the birds
much easier with the wife.Like I said above, I on purpose showed some bad shots. Cutting birds in half is pretty bad, I know. My issue is with the location. On one side I have parked cars and on the other a blue railing that doesn't end. Over it there is water. In person, that place looks great but when I try taking photos, there are lots of issues.
These shot all have a subject that takes up no more than 10% of the photo. Makes it hard to see faces etc. enough to engage with the subject. As for the single shot of the pigeon, there is no good pigeon photo. No human interest, no beauty, nothing.
Hope you don't mind, but I think we learn better by seeing, so here's an example. I'm just an amateur but this is how I personally would do it. The first photo was the only one I felt I could fix in PP. I like the B&W bird too. The others, to my eye, just have too much distracting stuff, like all those cars on the street. Maybe a different angle for the photos could help.
Your original:
Here's my solution below. I like it better because it focuses on the subjects and gets rid of the extra 'empty' space. In addition to cropping, I brought down the highlights, lightened the shadows. If you don't do any PP yourself, you will need to adjust your exposures and framing in camera. You can also use flash, if your subjects are too much in shadow.
Hope this helps.
L
--
----------------------------------
Your original:
Here's my solution below. I like it better because it focuses on the subjects and gets rid of the extra 'empty' space. In addition to cropping, I brought down the highlights, lightened the shadows. If you don't do any PP yourself, you will need to adjust your exposures and framing in camera. You can also use flash, if your subjects are too much in shadow.
Hope this helps.
L
--
----------------------------------
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum