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.
What makes a great picture?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A useful article which explains what a sensor itself is and the relationship to pixels:
www.whatdigitalcamera.com
Another article, somewhat less technical, also explains why sensor size is important and a Canon camera model is the one chosen for the photograph illustrating the section about the 1/2.3 size sensor!
www.techradar.com
From the article:
Canon PowerShot SX70 HS. Image Credit: Canon/TechRadar.
Dimensions: approx. 6.3 x 4.7mm
This is the smallest sensor that's commonly used in cameras today, and is typically found in budget compacts. They usually offer between 16-24MP.
These used to be common across these types of cameras, but the gradual shift in focus by manufacturers towards enthusiast cameras with larger sensors means they aren't as common in new cameras.
Their size allows manufacturers to make very compact cameras with long lenses, such as superzoom compacts like the Panasonic ZS70 / TZ90 and Canon PowerShot SX730 HS. They're also found inside DSLR-style superzoom compacts such as the Canon PowerShot SX70 HS. Using a larger sensor in such cameras would necessitate a larger, heavier and more expensive lens.
For general snapshots taken in good lighting conditions, cameras using these sensors may deliver perfectly acceptable results, but otherwise they can struggle to hold on to highlight detail and may produce images with a grainy, noisy texture.
Digital camera sensors explained - What Digital Camera
Every digital camera has at its heart a solid-state device which, like film, captures the light coming in through the lens to form an image. This device, called a sensor
Another article, somewhat less technical, also explains why sensor size is important and a Canon camera model is the one chosen for the photograph illustrating the section about the 1/2.3 size sensor!
Sensor sizes explained: what you need to know
Confused by sensor size? We explain all you need to know
From the article:
1/2.3-inch
Canon PowerShot SX70 HS. Image Credit: Canon/TechRadar.
Dimensions: approx. 6.3 x 4.7mm
This is the smallest sensor that's commonly used in cameras today, and is typically found in budget compacts. They usually offer between 16-24MP.
These used to be common across these types of cameras, but the gradual shift in focus by manufacturers towards enthusiast cameras with larger sensors means they aren't as common in new cameras.
Their size allows manufacturers to make very compact cameras with long lenses, such as superzoom compacts like the Panasonic ZS70 / TZ90 and Canon PowerShot SX730 HS. They're also found inside DSLR-style superzoom compacts such as the Canon PowerShot SX70 HS. Using a larger sensor in such cameras would necessitate a larger, heavier and more expensive lens.
For general snapshots taken in good lighting conditions, cameras using these sensors may deliver perfectly acceptable results, but otherwise they can struggle to hold on to highlight detail and may produce images with a grainy, noisy texture.
Last edited:
Every sensor - the film replacement, as AFB says - has limitations. No one said your sensor isn’t good. It does have limitations. Your camera, like anyone’s, is capable of certain types of shots within the range of sensor limitations, lens limitations, and the photographer using the tool.
Very roughly speaking, the sensor (“digital film”) collects the light in photosites and circuitry digitizes these to build the image file your camera generates. Larger sensors can collect more light than smaller ones. You have a much smaller sensor than the (as you would put it) “professional cameras”. You will be challenged more with things like dynamic range, noise in low light and other sensor centric things. You will have other limitations with the speed of your lens. This goes with the territory of your camera. As OldMacsForMe points out, you have to know those limitations and understand them to get optimal use out of your camera. These things may not matter to you as you are happy with your photos.
Not germane to the sensor discussion, in my opinion. Others have commented that the composition, white balance, exposure and colors all had challenges in what you titled “ what makes a great photo”, where you referenced your frog photo. I’m not sure that was all sensor related.
I think you’ll see a number of frog pictures I’ve posted in this thread. Your camera has a limitation in its image quality because of its sensor size. You think it’s a great camera and takes great images (after all you write the same thing over and over). Good for you.
Wildlife images are amongst the hardest to get as animals (and birds!) are unpredictable and move. That’s why wildlife photographers need the best quality cameras, fastest glass and good skills compared to many other types of photography. You’re always going to struggle with your kit. Especially if you reduce its capabilities by limiting the file sizes.
actually, i'm curious. how hard was it to get that frog photo? what made it difficult? what would have made it easier?
I've said before here, and this is purely me, but one of the things I enjoy about nearly every photo I share is not so much the photo itself, but how it came to be. I can't resist writing a narrative to go along with every one of them.
I have some photos that took a LOT of work to come into being. Maybe it required patience for just the light I was looking for, maybe it required me packing my gear a good distance, or driving along a backroad either hunting for it or stumbling across it, or maybe it was just being at the right place at the right time to get what I did. Maybe too it's the boring photos(that I don't think I've shared here) that I think would have had the potential to have been great the day I was photographing a lock and dam and kept getting hassled by a rent-a-cop who wouldn't tell me to leave(even though I kept asking him if my being there was a problem) but also wouldn't leave me alone so I could just get the photos I'd hoped to get.
All of that stuff makes this fun and enjoyable FOR ME(even the rent-a-cop is a good story in hindsight-wish I'd gotten his name as I now have clarification in writing that what I was doing was 100% okay).
A long drive or dealing with annoying people or even trying to get to a remote location or deal with difficult lighting does not make a great photo. A great photo stands on its own, although it's great too if there's a good story with it. I don't personally find Ansel Adam's Moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico to be a particularly interesting photo TO ME, but I love the story behind it including the happenstance of it, the scurry to get it framed and exposed, and then the technical challenges in printing it that probably were a result of all of the above.
I have some photos that took a LOT of work to come into being. Maybe it required patience for just the light I was looking for, maybe it required me packing my gear a good distance, or driving along a backroad either hunting for it or stumbling across it, or maybe it was just being at the right place at the right time to get what I did. Maybe too it's the boring photos(that I don't think I've shared here) that I think would have had the potential to have been great the day I was photographing a lock and dam and kept getting hassled by a rent-a-cop who wouldn't tell me to leave(even though I kept asking him if my being there was a problem) but also wouldn't leave me alone so I could just get the photos I'd hoped to get.
All of that stuff makes this fun and enjoyable FOR ME(even the rent-a-cop is a good story in hindsight-wish I'd gotten his name as I now have clarification in writing that what I was doing was 100% okay).
A long drive or dealing with annoying people or even trying to get to a remote location or deal with difficult lighting does not make a great photo. A great photo stands on its own, although it's great too if there's a good story with it. I don't personally find Ansel Adam's Moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico to be a particularly interesting photo TO ME, but I love the story behind it including the happenstance of it, the scurry to get it framed and exposed, and then the technical challenges in printing it that probably were a result of all of the above.
your camera is probably the best one for you, and i think everyone here is happy you are pleased with your frog on a personal level.
but on a technical level, afb’s photo is better in every way.
beginners rarely can see the flaws in their own photos. it’s part of the growth process.
Last edited:
Great! Go practice like we all do and continue learning to use it. Use the great advice you’ve been given here and create some wonderful frog images. @Apple fanboy ’s frog images are stunning. Do you have any frog images you’ve taken that you think others would agree are as fantastic? Would you care to share them? I love great wildlife images.
That’s your opinion which your entitled to. We all see things differently. I know which I prefer.
Do you think it’s worth updating your signature to say “my camera is a great camera?”
You say it so often I’m not sure if your trying to convince us or yourself!
I would really encourage you to divorce yourself from your like of your own photo and look at both of them critically.
Several things stick out to me about AFB's photos. For one, he has nailed the focus on them with enough DOF that the frog is fully in focus and sharp, but still well separated from the background. He also has lit them such that you can clearly see all the detail, but nothing is lost and there aren't glaring blown out areas from light reflection. The lighting works with it to give the colors a lot of "pop." His photos have an almost 3-D look to them, and they draw me in to look closer. Combining some of the above, look at the red eyes in one of his photos-I feel like they are staring right at me!
Your photo, in comparison, shows a frog in its habitat(swimming through a pond/stream/whatever it is). It's a great starting point-even though it's not isolated from the background like AFB's, the full view of its habitat and motion does work. I like that we can see it both above and below the water. There are some deficiencies, though, and these have been mentioned. The back being blown out is a big distraction, as it kills detail. Also, the frog just isn't as sharp as AFB's photos. I won't speculate as to whether that's missed focus, diffraction from trying to keep everything in focus, a weakness in the camera/lens, or something else but it's there. Also, as mentioned, even though the setting is a good start, it's cropped and framed tightly enough that visually it's hard to follow. In AFB's photos, I feel like the frog is going to jump out of the screen, and on yours I don't really know where it's going.
So, again, I'd encourage you to take a step back and really look at your photos next to his.
I have taken better frog pics in the past with my old Powershot. In that event the frog posed for the picture. This is rare with a frog.
It's interesting. I have been taking photos for over 60 years, and started to get serious around 55 years ago. Even so I seldom take an image that I would consider absolutely perfect. Seeing the flaws in our own work allows us to progress. Failing to see them prevents us from getting any better.
FWIW I also know my limits. My patience and my gear mean that any wildlife images I get are going to be mainly luck. I am also not the guy you want shooting your portrait or your wedding, nor would I do it if asked. I prefer viewing the rather stunning astronomical images that some post in these threads, to the investment in gear that would allow me to do the same.
Many threads ago my initial advice to the OP was to view every image in B&W, so he could develop a better sense of the lighting and composition that makes or breaks a photo. That advice still stands. As a general but not hard rule, if an image does not grab you in B&W, then it will also fail as a colour image.
Beyond that several have offered excellent advice in this thread. The camera is more than adequate to start learning the art and craft of photography, but the OP has to be willing to learn. Part of learning is listening to criticism then using it as a stepping stone to do it better the next time around.
The fact that an image is the best one could do at the time, does not have to mean that will always be the best they can do. However that choice is entirely up to each individual.
FWIW I also know my limits. My patience and my gear mean that any wildlife images I get are going to be mainly luck. I am also not the guy you want shooting your portrait or your wedding, nor would I do it if asked. I prefer viewing the rather stunning astronomical images that some post in these threads, to the investment in gear that would allow me to do the same.
Many threads ago my initial advice to the OP was to view every image in B&W, so he could develop a better sense of the lighting and composition that makes or breaks a photo. That advice still stands. As a general but not hard rule, if an image does not grab you in B&W, then it will also fail as a colour image.
Beyond that several have offered excellent advice in this thread. The camera is more than adequate to start learning the art and craft of photography, but the OP has to be willing to learn. Part of learning is listening to criticism then using it as a stepping stone to do it better the next time around.
The fact that an image is the best one could do at the time, does not have to mean that will always be the best they can do. However that choice is entirely up to each individual.
a good photographer can take a good photo of a subject whether it's "posing" or not. do you think wildlife photographers are asking bears and salmon and eagles to stop and pose??
Let me look at this from a bit of a different angle.
You started the thread asking "What makes a great picture."
I'm going to presume that you came into this with some idea of what you think makes a great picture since you posted one that you think is "great". There's nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact we should be proud of our own work.
You state, however, that you don't find other examples of the same subject posted in this thread as any better than yours.
Let me step back and ask you a couple of questions, and there are no right or wrong answers to this, but there are answers
1. What do YOU see in your picture that makes you think it's a "great picture?"
2. What weaknesses do you see in your picture that you think could make it better?
3. What strengths do you see in AFB's pictures that, despite being the same subject, are very different from yours, and therefore make you conclude they are "as good as" yours?
4. What weaknesses do you see in AFB's pictures that you think could make them better?
Questions 2 and 4 are especially important, as we need to not only look at the strengths and weakness of others' work, but despite the cliché we should be critical of our own work. We are our own worst critics(even though asking others for opinions is a very good thing because others have different perspectives we may not realize) and it is by your own reflection that you become a better photographer-or really better at anything.
If your answer to #2 is "I couldn't have done anything better", I would argue that you have no real interest in discussing the topic of what makes a picture great as you find your own work perfect. There's nothing wrong with being proud of your own work(you should be) but that doesn't mean it's perfect.
Lol. Excuse me Mr bear. Can you please move over here where the lighting is better for your portrait session. As agreed we will pay you with jars of honey!
There have been times when I've wanted Alfred to turn his head a little more to the right or the left, maybe tilt it up a bit.... LOL!!! One has to be very patient when shooting wildlife. Sometimes I've had to stand there and just wait while he preens himself so that I can later get him standing in a nice pose. Also it's annoying when shooting the birds in the lake and just as I'm about to get a really nice shot of one, another one intrudes partway in to the image, usually at an awkward angle.....! These guys just won't listen to the photographer!!
As a side note, with wildlife, I hate to say it's about the equipment but there are areas where better equipment makes things a lot easier. Minimal shutter lag so when they do turn "just right" or walk into just the right light or a combination thereof so you can say "Okay, now" and have the camera respond is worth A LOT.
Absolutely agree with you on that, Bunnspecial! The right gear does make a difference in shooting wildlife, including a tripod or monopod in many situations, the ability to shoot quickly in Continuous High with many frames per second, and of course usually a long lens, either a zoom or a prime, often with a teleconverter attached.. Knowing the habits of the wildlife is very useful as well, along with much, much patience. Some wildlife photographers will spend hours sitting in a "blind" waiting for just the right light, the right moment, to capture their elusive subjects.