Photography tips

[Noexcuse4you]

:wall: :wall: :wall:

You're not understanding what I'm saying. He was already willing to spend that kind of money! The fact is, he could have gotten better equipment for the same amount of money. Did he say, "How can I improve my photos with the camera I already have?" NO! He flat out said, I need a new camera, my school is covering the cost. Then later he said, I spent a little over $1500 on all this gear. So, he already spent the money. Do you understand now? I wasn't telling him to go out and buy that gear, he already did!

 

[Draiman]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. He was already willing to spend that kind of money! The fact is, he could have gotten better equipment for the same amount of money. Did he say, "How can I improve my photos with the camera I already have?" NO! He flat out said, I need a new camera, my school is covering the cost. Then later he said, I spent a little over $1500 on all this gear. So, he already spent the money. Do you understand now? I wasn't telling him to go out and buy that gear, he already did!

What, then, was the point of saying this:

"Sorry, but telling a kid, "Hey in order to improve your photography, you need to go out and buy this, and this and this, and oh by the way all that will cost you $1500 or so" is NOT the right way to help someone."

You've just said that codykrr said right from the start that he wanted a new camera. Thus, did anyone actually tell him to go out to buy anything? No. They merely gave suggestions on what he should buy, since he had already decided to buy a new camera. You have just completed self-defeat in your posts.

 

[Noexcuse4you]

What, then, was the point of saying this:

"Sorry, but telling a kid, "Hey in order to improve your photography, you need to go out and buy this, and this and this, and oh by the way all that will cost you $1500 or so" is NOT the right way to help someone."

You've just said that the OP said right from the start that he wanted a new camera. Thus, did anyone actually tell him to go out to buy anything? No. You have just completed self-defeat in your posts.

Alright, enough. I'm done arguing. Click on the little link at the bottom of the thread that says "First". Read the original post and the few posts after it before cody asked his question...

My posts were not all directed towards cody; maybe I should have been a little more clear. My target audience was arachnoboard readers.

 

[codykrr]

well...first off...i did spend money to get a new camera!, but i did this for 2 reasons....1. the camera i had was old(2003) the pictures looked grainy to me, and didnt let me have the contrl i wanted out of a camera that i was going to try and make money and learn on. 2. yes im going to school but i never said that it would pay for the cAmera!....just the lenses flashes and accesorries....if you know anything about a fugi s5000...there isnt any "good" or quality gear for a 55mm...that cae from a fugi sales rep himself! yeah and buy he way im far from a kid....ive been grown for years, i know what i wat and how to get it, also i didnt get the D90 for one reason....it didnt come with any lenses and waS almost 1500 for just the camera, and as far as i know the only main diffrence between a d80 and d90 is th d90 does movies and the d80 doesnt...plus when i picked it up it imediatly felt "wrong" the d80 felt good, and seriously i was going to buy a canon in all honesty but none felt good in my hand....and i dont care about arguing i want to LEARN MORE, i know alot about my old camera...acually about all there is to know, i was sick of the vignetting it did when shooting macro, i was sick og grainy almost pixilated shot and the limit of size i could print...plain ad imple i know i could have done great pics with my old camera and i did, but i was simply READY for a new camera. you can ay i got ripped off all you want thats your opinion....today i called every camera shop in springfield missouri, and the place i got mine was cheaper on there warranty, camera price and had better service....this was not a "hey lets go drop some money to be cool" ad i know just because you get a good camera doesnt mean you a pro...or even good, but you can learn on a good platform and branch rom there to become a great photographer....since my first posts here i felt like i wastarget and made out as if i was dumb....but you know i feel great so please stop makingme feel like i wasted money just because you can prove a cheaper camera can take good pictures too, because i already knew that! so im my eyes unless you have a tip on photography for me or any other person who asks, then stop makin people feel shamed for what they want to know and want...its becming rediculous..seriously and im very surprized that the boards let this be on here.....so again......i will ask my lens say f5.6 is that the highest appeture it can go for this particular lens? also how to you know if a pic is over or underexposed...?

 

[jharr]

Cody, f5.6 is probably the lowest (widest) aperture your lens will do. As far as exposure goes, look at the histogram. In fact adjust your lcd display to show the histogram overlaid on the image every time. Get used to seeing the histogram and learn what it is telling you. The horizontal axis is the brightness (for lack of a better word) of the pixels. The vertical axis is the relative number of pixels at that brightness. So if you have a big mountain of pixels on the left end of your histogram, you might be underexposed. Of course this depends on your subject. If you are shooting a dark scene, you might want most of your pixels on the low (left) end. If you have a sharp spike of pixels at teh far right of the histogram you are probably blasting the highlights and that is really hard to fix later. There is a lot of good info out there on histogram use. It is the best indicator (once you learn to use it) of your exposure.
Happy shooting!
J--

so again......i will ask my lens say f5.6 is that the highest appeture it can go for this particular lens? also how to you know if a pic is over or underexposed...?

 

[codykrr]

thanks....also here is that full body shot talken late. just go to my pic link below

 

[Godzirra]

i just ordered, flash diffuser for $4 - because i'm sick of overpowering flash

 

[Talkenlate04]

i just ordered, flash diffuser for $4 - because i'm sick of overpowering flash

I agree! Over powering flash really bites. Diffusers are the way to go. They make the lighting game a little less painful and a lot more fun.

 

[jharr]

Agreed. I have the same (or similar) diffuser as in your reflecto-pic. I haven't tried any others, but that one is da bomb!

I agree! Over powering flash really bites. Diffusers are the way to go. They make the lighting game a little less painful and a lot more fun.

 

[codykrr]

hey talkenlate.....is that the sb 800 flash....just curious.....because i found a steal of a deal on one brand new....for 180 bucks....!

 

[testdasi]

OMG! Ryan, you look like the younger version of Agent Gibbs in NCIS!

Anyway, can someone explains to me how diffuser improves flashes. For instance, how would a diffuser improves this pic?

I have been thinking of getting one but I have no idea how it would help.

 

[Talkenlate04]

The diffuser helps spread out the light. The flash by itself can send out a pretty harsh light that can easily cause over exposure in areas of a photo. This is a big deal when photographing people and in general, no one really wants harsh lighting like that. The diffuser directs the light all over and not just in one area "diffusing" the harsh lighting.

If I were to take a shot like I did above without the diffuser on you would get a ton of glare on the mirror from the flash and the rest of the room would not have been so bright because the flash is going almost straight out at whatever it is pointed at.

In the absence of a diffuser you just have to get good at bouncing that harsh light around until you reach a desired look. For instance if you were inside and wanted to get a picture of some friends tilting the flash all the way up to the roof or toward a wall might help because then the harsh light has to go up and bounce back down spreading it out more evenly. Its a tricky thing to get good at, I still mess with my method all the time but the diffuser makes things easier. Even in that picture I had to think about where I wanted to point the flash to give me some decent lighting.

You can also dial down the on board flash inside the camera so that the output is not so harsh, but that only gets you so far because sometimes you want a bright photo but not a harsh photo and you can't do that by dialing down the flash. (yet another time when the diffuser would come in handy)

Those are just a few examples, there are many other examples of when a diffuser would help out.

 

[Talkenlate04]

That is not even a good way to explain it because I lack a lot of the "technical" terms but I tried.
It is still an on going adventure.

 

[testdasi]

Thanks, that helped! I had problem taking pics as well when facing a reflective surface.

 

[jharr]

You will still have problems with a diffuser if you are shooting directly at a reflective surface. If you are using on-camera flash (with or without diffuser) you need to shoot at an angle to the glass. Alternately, if you have the capability, take the flash unit off of the camera. This can be done either with a cable, or some speedlight units can be triggered by the on-camera fill flash. In the latter case, the on-camera flash is not actuated when the shutter is open, so you don't get a reflection.

I don't have any T's here at work, but here is a pic of my reef tank. I am shooting this straight-on, but the flash is off to the left there. Granted it is too close and badly placed in the frame, but this is purely for illustration that I am not getting the big flash reflection from the glass. Hope this helps.

J--

Thanks, that helped! I had problem taking pics as well when facing a reflective surface.