Let me know what you think of them!
All taken with a Canon EOS 400D (or XTi as most people call them)
All taken with a Canon EOS 400D (or XTi as most people call them)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Opinions on my photos?
- Thread starter Chris14
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Without being able to figure out what it is, I find the first image to be quite interesting and the most compelling. Shapes. Contrast. Composition.
The dog image would have appealed to me more if I felt there was a greater range of values-- a truer black, truer whites, and more varied grays. Also, the false-attachment (to the rock?) is really visually distracting for me.
The dog image would have appealed to me more if I felt there was a greater range of values-- a truer black, truer whites, and more varied grays. Also, the false-attachment (to the rock?) is really visually distracting for me.
I like your photos but I am not very good at picking up on all this photographic stuff, however I'll give it a shot.
Oh and I think the first one looks like a glass.
I have to reiterate what has been said about the dog in relation to the rock, it's a good photo, but the rock distracts.
The sparkler/firework makes for an interesting image. And the shot of Tongaporutu, with Mount Taranaki in the background is great.
Oh and I think the first one looks like a glass.
I have to reiterate what has been said about the dog in relation to the rock, it's a good photo, but the rock distracts.
The sparkler/firework makes for an interesting image. And the shot of Tongaporutu, with Mount Taranaki in the background is great.
damn, i'm jealous of you. i want that cam to take all those kinds of shots. The quality is amazing!
What lenses did you use for them?
What lenses did you use for them?
The first shot is good, centering actually works here.
The dog doesn't work because of the rock and the fact that it's centered (you need to give it some space to run in to on the right.) I'd also like to see some fill flash to bring out the dog's eye, .
The third shot is ok, though the dead space on the right really doesn't do much for the composition other than make sure it's not dead center.
The last shot is too bland for me, no real point of interest and the horizon is dead center. If the horizon had been moved down more, or perhaps even up more it'd be a much more compelling image. It also might work as a panorama. It's a shame, the colors are really nice and the small bit of cloud comes very close to offsetting the mountain.
That's my two cents.
Pretty much exactly what I was going to say, for each of the photos. The first one is quite good, third and fourth are a bit meh. #2 would be really good if the rock wasn't there, and if he wasn't centred.
ALT
thanks
Thanks for the feeback!
I will upload a new version of the dog pic... I agree about the rock, but she was moving pretty quick!
and BTW, the first is a photo of a glass of cranberry juice
PS. All I have is the Kit Lens (18-55)
Thanks for the feeback!
I will upload a new version of the dog pic... I agree about the rock, but she was moving pretty quick!
and BTW, the first is a photo of a glass of cranberry juice
PS. All I have is the Kit Lens (18-55)
Thanks for the feeback!
I will upload a new version of the dog pic... I agree about the rock, but she was moving pretty quick!
and BTW, the first is a photo of a glass of cranberry juice
PS. All I have is the Kit Lens (18-55)
Go buy the f/1.8 50mm. It's reeeally cheap and pictures taken with this are 1000 times better than the kit lens(which I also own myself). The 50mm is a prime and not everybody likes that. But for the price, it's almost impossible to get better glass
actually, don't go buy the 50/1.8.
it's a fine lens if you don't have any lenses to begin with. The kit lens isn't as good at 50mm as the 50/1.8 is, obviously, but until you have some more experience with composition, etc, I wouldn't necessarily spend more money on equipment.
As your skills and you "eye" improve, you'll be able to figure out what sort of photos you want to take more often than others. You might not really need the 50/1.8 even though it is a good, straightforward, simple lens.
You might want to get a good wide-angle lens instead. or a portrait lens. The optical quality of the 18-55 is actually pretty good as long as the lens doesn't get beat up too badly. It's plastic and flimsy, but optically not too bad. The only real problem with it optically is that it's only F3.5 on the wide end and 5.6 on the tele end. But for example, none of those photos would have turned out better with the 50/1.8, in fact a couple of them wouldn't have been possible. The dog photo would have turned out better, probably. And besides, it isn't like the 1.8 (mark III version, that is) is a sturdy lens. I waited around and got the 50/1.4, which costs more, but is also built like an L-series lens. It's as "solid" as my 70-200L. (but not nearly as heavy!)
Make sure you're taking deliberate photos. With digital SLRs, it's easy to adopt a "just shoot a bunch of pictures and see which ones turn out good" mentality, and the ironic thing is that you might have spend the same amount of time with subject and a film camera and taken 3 photos, but all 3 turn out well, whereas you might not have anything worth mentioning from the digital "more is better" photo shoot.
Obviously, digital offers instant "feedback" and can be a great learning tool, as you can see a lot of what is going on with exposure and focus and depth of field and such as soon as you've taken a photo, and if you're not happy, you can sometimes just adjust and take the photo again.
Enjoy your camera. Experiment. Don't get too wrapped up in "process" and instead focus on the basics: composition, light, color, content, etc. Any schmo can learn how to manipulate stuff in Photoshop, for example (and yes, there's an art to it, but that's a different thing from photography), or go out and buy a 3000 dollar lens or two if they have the time and money, but that doesn't make them a good photographer. Some of the best photos ever taken were shot with a cheapo disposable camera and walmart film. Good luck and have fun!
it's a fine lens if you don't have any lenses to begin with. The kit lens isn't as good at 50mm as the 50/1.8 is, obviously, but until you have some more experience with composition, etc, I wouldn't necessarily spend more money on equipment.
As your skills and you "eye" improve, you'll be able to figure out what sort of photos you want to take more often than others. You might not really need the 50/1.8 even though it is a good, straightforward, simple lens.
You might want to get a good wide-angle lens instead. or a portrait lens. The optical quality of the 18-55 is actually pretty good as long as the lens doesn't get beat up too badly. It's plastic and flimsy, but optically not too bad. The only real problem with it optically is that it's only F3.5 on the wide end and 5.6 on the tele end. But for example, none of those photos would have turned out better with the 50/1.8, in fact a couple of them wouldn't have been possible. The dog photo would have turned out better, probably. And besides, it isn't like the 1.8 (mark III version, that is) is a sturdy lens. I waited around and got the 50/1.4, which costs more, but is also built like an L-series lens. It's as "solid" as my 70-200L. (but not nearly as heavy!)
Make sure you're taking deliberate photos. With digital SLRs, it's easy to adopt a "just shoot a bunch of pictures and see which ones turn out good" mentality, and the ironic thing is that you might have spend the same amount of time with subject and a film camera and taken 3 photos, but all 3 turn out well, whereas you might not have anything worth mentioning from the digital "more is better" photo shoot.
Obviously, digital offers instant "feedback" and can be a great learning tool, as you can see a lot of what is going on with exposure and focus and depth of field and such as soon as you've taken a photo, and if you're not happy, you can sometimes just adjust and take the photo again.
Enjoy your camera. Experiment. Don't get too wrapped up in "process" and instead focus on the basics: composition, light, color, content, etc. Any schmo can learn how to manipulate stuff in Photoshop, for example (and yes, there's an art to it, but that's a different thing from photography), or go out and buy a 3000 dollar lens or two if they have the time and money, but that doesn't make them a good photographer. Some of the best photos ever taken were shot with a cheapo disposable camera and walmart film. Good luck and have fun!
Really hate to ask....
but, it would be great to get the full exif data from the last picture. Has it been doctored in any way? I was in just about the MOST picturesque place on Earth ( Alaska ) and stayed up really late to get that picture, and my camera made it look like 12 noon. So it would be great to know how you did that.
but, it would be great to get the full exif data from the last picture. Has it been doctored in any way? I was in just about the MOST picturesque place on Earth ( Alaska ) and stayed up really late to get that picture, and my camera made it look like 12 noon. So it would be great to know how you did that.
That's because your camera meters and exposes for 18% gray. If you know a scene isn't averaged that brightly then either you need a camera that'll evaluate the scene differently, or you need to compensate either by dialing in exposure compensation, or setting the camera on manual and adjusting the exposure there. Histograms can be very useful for judging exposure if your camera provides them. Worst-case, bracket 2 stops each way and sort it out in post processing.
Understanding exposure, composition and lighting are the key differences between taking pictures and the art of photography.
but but.....he did it on "auto". Not fair.
Also, does that really say 2.5 seconds? Wouldn't the flash pop-up in auto mode? Or did you focus and then close it?
Also, does that really say 2.5 seconds? Wouldn't the flash pop-up in auto mode? Or did you focus and then close it?