yay, photography! (thumbnails or links only, pls.)

[Ballard]

Can someone explain the rule of thirds as applied to portraits? It's a bit harder to judge creative compositional elements on the human face and even more so when it comes to the body.

[Be My Head]

The goal of portrait should be to capture someone's personality and mannerisms, if it's a full or partial body shot and not a close up you would use the rule of thirds the same way you would any way.

Also, I'll give you the advice I was given which was "Force the flash, take the picture outside on a clear sunny day, zoom in with an optical lens, stand far back, and make sure to have your camera's portrait mode on.

Also, your pictures look pretty out of focus, I'm not sure if there's an auto focus? Or if you can set it to a reasonable distance when you take pictures?

[Ballard]

I'm shooting with a Canon Rebel XSi. Most of these were taken with a 50mm f/1.8 lens.

They're out of focus because a) the auto-focus on Canon lenses has a mind of it's own, and b) I was too worried about exposing properly (these were taken in a dark concert venue on a backlit stage that was flooded in orange glow from an overhead light- pretty awful lighting conditions) to use manual focus.

The lens I was using is prime so I didn't have the option of standing far back and zooming in.

I guess I was taking what I can get with these. I'll post some daylight pictures for comparison when I take some.

[Vern LaVey]

Yes, i know its very original to post pics of one's cats  online, but they're just... so... cute...
Really bad quality cell phone pics took my me and my wife, Donna, of our Evil Thunder Racing Team. They make me smile though.

Dink: Furry Goddess of Evil    (Heard a noise in bathtub, found that playing in the water.)


Loki: Big Loveable Pussy


Tessa: Their Hellspawn.

(I know they're not thumbnails, but they're fairly small and im not sure how to do that. If someone has a problem with them being here (other than their shit quality) I'll take them down)

[Ballard]

Loki is a great name for a cat but a terrible name for a dog.

[Be My Head]

My cat is annoyingly difficult to take a picture of, the little bugger won't stay still and has jet black fur : (

Anyway

[elcapitan]

The goal of portrait should be to capture someone's personality and mannerisms, if it's a full or partial body shot and not a close up you would use the rule of thirds the same way you would any way.

I'm going to go and draw up some guides that might help you apply the rule of thirds to portraits. Might take me a day or two, but I'll try. The important thing is not to use it when you think it looks dodgy.

Also, I'll give you the advice I was given which was "Force the flash, take the picture outside on a clear sunny day, zoom in with an optical lens, stand far back, and make sure to have your camera's portrait mode on.

Umm. I don't necessarily agree with this. There's nothing actually wrong with most of it, it's just not really conducive to taking good portraits. Here's why I think so, arranged in terms of your points:

1) "Force the flash". I think what you're trying to say here is "Use fill flash." This can be a good idea, provided you use it well. In almost all natural-lighting portraits, you can only pull this off if you can really drill down the flash's TTL reading manually, say to two or three EVs below the default. Why? Because otherwise you get the same horribly washed-out, pasty look that you can get from a point-and-shoot with the flash on. Also, if you're using an on-camera flash, you may want to think twice about using it to fill, since they have a nasty habit of producing a rabbit-in-headlights effect. If you have access to an off-camera flash (or a reflector, etc.) then yes, fill-flash is a great thing and will help out heaps.

2) "Take the picture outside on a clear, sunny day." Well yes, this can be a nice setting for a portrait, if you're sufficiently able to control the subject and the lighting conditions. Problem is, most of the time, you won't be. If you shoot in the middle of the day, you must be careful of a phenomenon known as "raccoon eyes" - shadows falling across the subject's eyes from their eyebrows. (On the other hand, sunset is my favourite time for candid portraiture, since you more-or-less lose this problem and get some gorgeous texturing on faces.)

My real issue with your statement is that portraits can be taken ANYWHERE if you can get the light right (and often, crucially, the white balance). In a dark room with a single overhead fluoro without using a flash - difficult, but not impossible. The trick is learning to take your conditions and get a photo from them. Again, off-camera flashes will help out immeasurably here.

3) "Zoom in with an optical lens." I assume you use optical as opposed to digital here, which should be blindingly obvious to begin with - the vast majority of DSLRs don't even have digital zooms for a very good reason, i.e. they're shit. Even getting past that, zooming in has some good points and many bad points. Let's list them:

Good:
 - Because you're more distant from the subject, they may be more candid in their actions, allowing you to get a more natural shot.
 - Fine-tuning your zoom allows you more control over the composure. (This is a pretty big plus.)
 - That's pretty much it.

Bad:
 - Because you're zoomed, you're more prone to camera shake. For portraits, you want crispness above all else (you can add a vaseline-lens effect in post-production, but unless you're really sure that's what you're shooting, you do not want it through the lens). Many low-end zoom lenses lose available aperture as they get more zoomed in; my Nikkor 18-135mm, for example, starts at f/3.5 at 18mm but goes to f/5.6 at 135mm, which is absolutely useless for anything that moves. If you're using a low-end DSLR, you may not be able to go higher than, say, ISO 400 before you start getting unacceptable noise. You want a shutter speed no slower than 1/125 to get consistently crisp portraits with any zoom higher than, say, 50mm on a non-full-frame sensor. The constraints are NOT conducive to taking nice portraits - believe me, I've tried.
 - Another aspect of the falloff of available aperture with zoom is the loss of a tight depth of field, which is generally highly desirable for portraits.
 - Most cheap zoom lenses have optimal optical clarity between about 25mm and 50mm. The more you zoom after that, the more prone you are to things like chromatic aberration, clarity falloff, barrel distortion, etc. These can be corrected in post-production to some extent, but why bother if you don't have to have them to begin with?
 - The more zoomed you are, the tighter your perspective. It's a matter of choice, but in my experience, people prefer portraits that have a wider perspective (up to a point - portraits taken at 11mm can look really cool, but more often they can look really munted).
 - Did I mention the camera shake thing? It's an absolute show-stopper, even with the vibration-resistance tech in the newer lenses.

4) "Stand far back". Again, you have the benefit of not getting in the persons space, which can be good if you're taking a candid or action portrait. But otherwise, why? Stand where you want if it makes the portrait look good. And, of course, the further back you stand, the more you'll have to zoom in, which leads to all my points above.

5) "Make sure you have your camera's portrait mode on." Alternatively, you could, I don't know, maybe learn how to use your camera. If you have a DSLR and you're only shooting on the automatic modes, you wasted your money - you could get similar results with a good point and shoot. Learn how to use the aperture-priority mode, the shutter-speed-priority mode, the program mode, and (most of all) the manual mode. Learn how to read histograms. If you just trust the metering in your camera, you'll get a few nice exposures, a lot of average exposures, and a fair whack of terrible exposures too.

Also, your pictures look pretty out of focus, I'm not sure if there's an auto focus? Or if you can set it to a reasonable distance when you take pictures?

This is a fair point. If you have any recent combination of DSLR and lens, auto-focus should work out fine. (If it's a prime 50mm, the autofocus should be nails-fast, too.)

Low-light conditions can make life really hard, though, since autofocus relies on light. Most, if not all DSLRs have a little lamp that will light up to help the autofocus do it's thing - make sure this is turned on (you may want to be careful with this at gigs, though, since some musicians get really pissy about having lights shone in their eyes while they're playing). Alternatively, you can try pointing the camera directly at a light source roughly the same distance from your camera's focal plane as the subject, focusing on that by pushing the shutter down halfway, and then recomposing the shot around the subject before fully pressing the shutter. This can work well in some conditions; in others, it won't work at all. Experimentation!

Which leads me to one tip for portraits: focus for the eyes. As above, you can get this with autofocus by simply pointing the little reticule in the middle of the viewfinder at the subject's eyes, holding down the shutter halfway to get the focus, recomposing the shot without moving your finger, and then taking the photo.

[Harun]

These are all pictures I took while I was riding my bike - none were taking standing still.

I was going about 40mph when I took this one. 


I was going a little bit slower when I took these:



Looking down at a 15% grade. Took this over my shoulder. 

[Ballard]

Shots from the recent Newmindspace Pillowfight in New York.

                               

                               

                               

[öde]

Bottom-right, bottom-left, and middle-right are pretty amazing.

[Ballard]

Thank you!

Buxton Outreach Coalition Benefit Concert featuring the lovely SHAPES w/ Viva Mayday, Datura

                                                               

                                                               

                                                               



                                               

[ViolentDove]

Hey thread. I am thinking of getting a camera with my stimulus package, specifically trying to get a second-hand canon EOS 40D body for $900 or less, and buying lenses new. I'm a journalism student, and will mostly be learning to use it for freelancing (online and newspapers) and assignments. I'm mainly thinking canon because people I know use canon, so I'd be able to borrow specific gear from them if I needed to. Is this a good idea? Does anyone read this thread?

[Ballard]

Occasionally people read this thread.

I got a Canon for much the same reason, as well as because I poked around some Nikons and didn't really like the way they felt. The other brands with consumer-grade DSLRs currently on the market (Olympus, Sony's new Alpha series) are laughable.

Are you starting completely from scratch as a photographer? If you are, I suggest getting a Canon EOS Rebel XSi (they might go by EOS 450D in Australia) brand new and treating yourself to an extra lens. You simply won't need the extra features on the 40D for long enough to justify getting it.

For reference, all the pictures I've posted in this thread (in the last few pages) were taken with an XSi and various EF lenses, primarily the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II.

[ViolentDove]

Are you starting completely from scratch as a photographer? If you are, I suggest getting a Canon EOS Rebel XSi (they might go by EOS 450D in Australia) brand new and treating yourself to an extra lens. You simply won't need the extra features on the 40D for long enough to justify getting it.

Yeah, I've actually used the 400D a little bit (I think it's the 450D's predecessor?). As I said, I'm a journalism student (and actually currently working for a magazine, though I don't do any photography) so if I'm going to be spending this much money I'd like to get something that will be decent for freelance stories, and capable of taking newspaper/online quality shots later on when I learn how to use it better.

 

[Jeans]

In that case, I'd say go for the 40D. I am really pleased with mine.

That said: I see a lot of people who spend a lot of money on the camera body, and not enough on the lenses, which is often what really matters. What sort of lenses are you planning on acquiring?

[ViolentDove]

Not too sure on the lenses, yet!

Probably a 50 mm lens for doing lower light gig shots and such, and some kind of zoomy lens as well... I don't know, I'm open to suggestions.

[Jeans]

A 50mm is a very good idea, having a large aperture in low-light conditions is invaluable. For a tele lens I would recommend the Canon EF 70-300mm f 4-5.6 IS USM. It's a bit pricey, but it's a very good lens, and none of the other camera producers that I know of have anything in the same price bracket that gives you a lens of equal quality.

[Avec]

Taken on a generic myspace camera.

[Be My Head]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i293/Jarlaxle_56/cooltown.jpg
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i293/Jarlaxle_56/skyvimy.jpg
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i293/Jarlaxle_56/manwall.jpg
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i293/Jarlaxle_56/strasbourg.jpg
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i293/Jarlaxle_56/peopleeagleseye.jpg

[Ballard]

Aww Strasbourg! So cute.

[Liz]

So one day I looked out my window and saw this:



So I took pictures!

[Ballard]

That sky is some straight up HDR shit.

[Vern LaVey]

So one day I looked out my window and saw this:



So I took pictures!

Love the juxtaposition between the color of the sky and the colors of the streetlights. Might stretch this to make it my wallpaper for the day if you dont mind?

[Jeans]

She probably won't sue you for using her image as a wallpaper.

[Vern LaVey]

Its the "probably" that scares me lol. Seriously, I cycle thru wallpapers like crazy but I love that pic. I don't know why really but something about it is pure awesome. If it didn't take away so much from the pic being blown up I'd keep it up for ages.

[Liz]

Dude, if you want it for your wallpaper so much I can send you the original. PM your e-mail address if you want the bigger size.

[Vern LaVey]

Wow, thanks very much for that! It looks even better @ 2816 x 2112.

[MonkeyBrains]

Hey! First of all, I've just read the entire thread and I must say that most of the pictures that were posted here are really amazing! It has motivated me to sign up as well and share my pictures with you guys.




Both are taken with a Canon EOS 1000F





And the last 2 were taken with my loyal little fisheye camera.

[Avec]

I've never understood what's so appealing about fisheye lenses, I used to skateboard but that's the only situation where I saw it fit.

[Vern LaVey]

Well, there's always Puff Daddy videos...

[Ballard]

Honestly a lot of fisheye lenses are misused or mislabeled. Many are just super wide-angle lenses that produce a slight "fisheye" effect at the sides of the image.

The common sense rules of photography and composition still apply. If your subject matter is boring or composition poor, your image won't be interesting, funky lens or not.

That's the issue I have with most fisheye photography.

[ibrahimdelil]

uh, hi.

i visited my buddy in some other city, and we got to walk a little in the forest nearby. it was fun ^_^

     

[Jeans]

Those are gorgeous! Where does your friend live?

[ibrahimdelil]

thanks  he lives in kırklareli (turkey). but the forest is actually 5-6 miles away from his house.

[pwhodges]

You've seen lots of photos of my life in the Photo Thread.  But I enjoy photography as an arty occupation from time to time, as well.  Here is an unashamed dump of photos, all taken in 2002 shortly after I got my first digital camera (a Minolta Dimage D7).  Enjoy!

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

large  medium 

[Babpacih]

cool pics!
heres some that i have....








http://s380.photobucket.com/albums/oo243/babpacih/photoport/
if you check out the other albums under my name on there its every pic ive taken since i got a digital camera in college. i think its over 6000 now.

[Ballard]

Paul, those pictures have a lovely grainy quality to them that is usually tell-tale of older film cameras. How did that happen?

Babpacih, I really like that Bic shot.

[pwhodges]

I don't make that effect deliberately; I guess it's just the way it is with that camera and my processing workflow.

The D7 is a 5Mpx camera with a fairly small sensor, so a bit noisy.  However, unlike other users of the same Sony sensor, Minolta added very little processing in the camera - Sony themselves, by contrast, applied both sharpening of the luminance and exaggeration of the colours to make pictures more "vivid"*.  Minolta also preserved the full colour range of the sensor, using a colour space that is much wider than sRGB, and somewhat wider than Adobe's - this makes unprocessed pictures look dull when viewed by people/systems that are not colour-space aware.  The 7x zoom lens is superb, and the combination of lens and sensor gives no colour fringing at all, unlike many of the competing cameras.  However, the lens (like any fast wide-range zoom - it is the equivalent of 28-200 f/2.8-3.5) has a lot of distortion, including gull-wing distortion at the wide end. 

So my workflow starts by running PTLens to correct the distortion (this program has the characteristics of most lenses programmed in, and reads the EXIF data to adjust the parameters according to the focal length for each shot).  I then run an all-in-one enhancement program, DCE AutoEnhance, that changes the colour space to sRGB and then does a raft of other things (noise reduction, contrast adjustment, sharpening, et al) which can be enabled or disabled individually, and which can be adjusted to different degrees according to the EXIF data (mainly shutter speed, ISO setting, focal length, flash usage).  I have this set up so that I like what it does in 90% of cases, and I can treat any others individually if I want (using more sophisticated noise reduction, like Neat Image, for example).

So, now you know what I do, but it doesn't really tell you what makes that effect (a combination of low colour fringing and modest colour noise reduction is what it comes down to, I suppose).

* When Sony bought out Minolta's camera division and rebranded their SLRs as Sony alpha, they had the good sense to retain Minolta's trade-mark conservative level of processing rather than changing it to be like their other cameras.

[Harun]

holy panorama batman!

click for bigbig

[Llewellian]

Sundown Shot from last week.

http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww30/Llewellian/100_0258.jpg

One day, i will buy me a new Eos. A digital one ;o). Btw - this shot was done with the cheapest and outdated crappy-digi-cam Money can buy - i dont take my good cam with me on a ship when sailing. Saltwater and Saltdust aren´t exactly a cameras best friend.

     

[Harun]

<3 seasons

didn't really do much besides take the pictures and adjust exposure.

[Trevlordyte]

I don't know how to do thumb nails but here are a couple

[ibrahimdelil]

i live in europe and work in asia, so i get to take the old, signature "vapur"s (ferry) of istanbul across the bosphorus strait everyday. here are a few pics i took this morning.

[chowburger]

Trevlordyte, I just spent ages looking at your first photo! The mix of colours and (especially) textures is really wonderful.

[Drill King]

ATTN CAMERA GEEKS

I'm looking to make an investment into my first DLSR, I'll be on a budget for a long while so I'm looking for something that'll last me a while. Now I've been looking at the Nikon d60 and the d90 as well as the intro canon models.

I'm looking into doing more portrait work and will likely be working in dim lighting quite a bit. I'm not exactly completely new to cameras, but digital is a new frontier really.

I would REALLY appreciate your thoughts about what is best for value, durability, and the difference between them. And if any other suggestions pop up that'd be lovely too.

[ibrahimdelil]

a canon 450d and a canon 50mm f1.8 (or 50mm f1.4 if you could spare some more money) would serve your needs for a long while. i don't know much about nikons though, i chose a canon because they're are more common in my social circle so i can borrow stuff when i can't afford'em.

[Ballard]

That's one of the reasons I chose Canon as well. I trade lenses with friends all the time because we often shoot in groups or pairs. Also I just like the way EOS feels more than Nikon. Your camera needs to feel like an extension of your hands and be smooth and easy to use at a split second's notice. Nikon's interface seemed cluttered and confusing to me, though I'm sure others have it the other way around. It's strictly a matter of preference.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens! If you can find a Mark I, they are only $50 more expensive (they don't manufacture them or sell them retail anymore but you can pick up a new or mint one on eBay or craigslist easily) and even better. Distance scale, metal mount ring and generally better build quality.

The Canon 450D in North America goes by Canon Digital Rebel XSi (to avoid confusion). It's what I use and it's served me well!

[Trevlordyte]

Trevlordyte, I just spent ages looking at your first photo! The mix of colours and (especially) textures is really wonderful.

Thanks!

It gives me a strange feeling, but
in a good way.

[Trevlordyte]

[Jed]

I went fishing with Dollface, my brother and a couple of friends.

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt315/ReipasTytto/DSCF0628.jpg
This is my left side from the boat.

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt315/ReipasTytto/DSCF0620.jpg
In front of me, Dollface

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt315/ReipasTytto/DSCF0626.jpg
And my right side. ++ We caught some fish.