Becoming a better photographer and having more fun

[compuwar]

There are ways to get nice bokeh without shelling out an arm and a leg, but it requires some particular situations.

Get close to your subject
Select the widest aperture you can
have a lot of empty space between your subject and the background.

I've gotten pretty good shots like this with my P&S

Oh, I just read you have a lens covering the 200mm range. The longer the zoom, the more bokeh you'll get since your DOF is narrower (I could be mistaken here). A large aperture (f2.8 for example) at 200mm will isolate your subject from the background and make it pop.

While that's a good way to get subject to background separation, my understanding of the word Bokeh is that it expresses the look of the out of focus areas, not just the fact that they're out of focus. Hence the tie to the number of aperture blades and their edges- it's a lens design issue, plain and simple, as phuong pointed out.

Please see:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

 

[dllavaneras]

While that's a good way to get subject to background separation, my understanding of the word Bokeh is that it expresses the look of the out of focus areas, not just the fact that they're out of focus. Hence the tie to the number of aperture blades and their edges- it's a lens design issue, plain and simple, as phuong pointed out.

I know, Bokeh is the quality of the OOF parts of the pic. Which is why I gave the explanation on my image taken with a 6 blade lens. More blades = more pleasing to see Still, I've gotten some great bokeh with my 6-blade lens at 5.6 using what I mentioned before. It's all about knowing what your equipment can do and how to do it (heck, 25,000 pics later and I'm still learning!)

 

[Padaung]

Hi, along with a few others here, my main advice is practice, practice, practice. And enjoy yourself along the way...
I've been a professional photographer all my working life (10yrs now) and was a very keen photographer for most of my teenage years - I can happily say I am still learning new things. Keeps the job interesting as they say!
Photography has a lot of technical elements (exposure, timing, photoshop/darkroom printing, lighting, composition, colour): become proficient in these and getting the results you want will be a lot easier.
Know what you wish to convey with your photographs. Other posts have mentioned trying to get a message into your photos - a feeling of intimacy and tenderness between a mother and her new baby for example. The sublime beauty of a landscape. A sense of drama in an action photo etc. This is where knowing your technical stuff really helps as this can help convey your message in choice of lens, exposure, lighting and so forth. But the message then adds the extra bit of 'zing' that will help make the photo stand out from the crowd.
Photoshop is a wonderful tool and is one which I feel is there to be embraced. One word of caution; although a lot of things can be fixed with it, it is often quicker and easier to get things right as much possible in the camera first!
Someone else mentioned studying all forms of art, and I agree with this. What works compositionally is the same be it an oil painting, pencil sketch or a photo. Play with lines of sight (not necessarily actual lines - it can be a look between two people) to keep the eye moving around the photo and the viewer interested, but then using the composition to keep the eye within the frame. There are some rules on composition and they do generally work well, but there is never any harm in pushing the boundaries...
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/c...ectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG6301
Notice how lines at the corners bring the eye back into the frame - the line of the field, the dog looking up at the owner, the clouds and tree bringing us back in at the top. Then the eye, once back in the middle is drawn back to the blue of the ladies' dress and back to our main subjects again.
A couple of points on portraiture: we instinctively look at the eyes of the subject first and then we pay attention to the subject's expression. Pay heed to these two points and you can often get away with murder 'technically'!

Having read over this I apologise for going on for so long - I think I may have got carried away. Anyway, I hope this has been of some help (I could probably continue for a fair while longer) and that you continue to enjoy your photography for a long while to come.

 

[dllavaneras]

Having read over this I apologise for going on for so long - I think I may have got carried away.

Don't Any advice is always well appreciated, more so if it comes from a pro as yourself. Do you have a gallery of some sort?

 

[Grimace]

the best lens you can buy to learn on (and keep loving forever) is a 50mm f/1.8

You'll get to move your feet to learn framing and since it is a fast lens, you can play around with depth of field and bokeh.

Honestly, it's the best $75 you can spend.

 

[wmmk]

the best lens you can buy to learn on (and keep loving forever) is a 50mm f/1.8

You'll get to move your feet to learn framing and since it is a fast lens, you can play around with depth of field and bokeh.

Honestly, it's the best $75 you can spend.

Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't have a 50mm f/1.8. We do have a 50mm f/1.4, which seems to have some of the best bokeh you can buy, but is around $200 on the street. I can't afford that. Any tips for finding good deals on out of production lenses? I know Pentax used to make a 50mm f/1.7, which was really nice. I just can't find one anywhere.

 

[dllavaneras]

Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't have a 50mm f/1.8. We do have a 50mm f/1.4, which seems to have some of the best bokeh you can buy, but is around $200 on the street. I can't afford that.

Ouch. Good luck trying to find a good lens in that price range. When you move up to DSLR, be prepared to own lenses that are more expensive than your camera body Most lenses will be in the $400-900 range, with the more specialized lenses often costing 1000-1500 bucks.

I'm talking from my Canon experience, but searching on Amazon for a bit led me to pretty much the same conclusion for Pentax.

 

[wmmk]

Ouch. Good luck trying to find a good lens in that price range. When you move up to DSLR, be prepared to own lenses that are more expensive than your camera body Most lenses will be in the $400-900 range, with the more specialized lenses often costing 1000-1500 bucks.

I'm talking from my Canon experience, but searching on Amazon for a bit led me to pretty much the same conclusion for Pentax.

True. I don't mind if it's something specialized like Pentax's 31mm f/1.8 limited, which costs $1500. And I'll be completely willing to pay that when I actually have that money in my pocket. In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

 

[Grimace]

True. I don't mind if it's something specialized like Pentax's 31mm f/1.8 limited, which costs $1500. And I'll be completely willing to pay that when I actually have that money in my pocket. In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

It shouldn't, but sometimes it does. Availability and price are definite benefits of the most popular brands.

I was once in the same boat. When I realized that I was serious (that photography wasn't some passing fancy) - I sucked it up, sold my gear for a little bit of a loss and invested in Canon. 'Best move I ever made - it's just more universal, and to me, that was important.

You don't have to jump ship, it's just something to throw out there in case these frustrations keep coming up. Also, it might help you easily borrow a few lenses at your internship. I don't think the Chicago Tribune photogs use Pentax.

 

[dllavaneras]

In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

It shouldn't, it true... and only the f1.8 costs less than 100 bucks. The f1.4 will set you back about $300.

I'm ready to sell a kidney when I get a DSLR to afford all the lenses. Any takers?

 

[wmmk]

It shouldn't, it true... and only the f1.8 costs less than 100 bucks. The f1.4 will set you back about $300.

I'm ready to sell a kidney when I get a DSLR to afford all the lenses. Any takers?

ah, I see. If only the old f1.7s were easier to find!

 

[compuwar]

In the mean time, lenses like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, which cost less than $100 with the canon system, shouldn't cost that much more just because I'm using a slightly less popular camera system, should they?

I'd bet in terms of lens sales it's nowhere near "slightly less popular." High volume sales give you a serious competitive advantage pricing-wise, as your production costs are spread over a larger number of units until you saturate the production capacity. The camera stores I frequent probably sell more Canon and Nikon lenses in a day than they do Pentax lenses in a month. The last time I personally saw someone even browsing Pentax lenses, it was used lenses for a Pentax 67 (my favorite Pentax ever, too bad mine broke) about six months ago.

 

[dllavaneras]

I'd bet in terms of lens sales it's nowhere near "slightly less popular."

True. When you were buying your Pentax you probably did some research and found that there's a smaller lens selection, and that they're more expensive sometimes.

Still, I think that as Pentax moves into the DSLR market and gets a larger customer base, more and cheaper lenses will come. Maybe even at PMA next month