Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Some Photos, Please be kind

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 2:15:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ok please be kind. I've only had my Digital Rebel for 2 weeks and its the
first SLR I've had since my Olympus OM1 many, many years ago.

I still have a lot to learn and long way to go to meet the standards of
some photos I've seen posted here, but here are a few of my first photos.
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/faces
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/buildings

--

Rob

More about : photos kind

Anonymous
December 16, 2004 3:41:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> writes:

> I still have a lot to learn and long way to go to meet the standards of
> some photos I've seen posted here, but here are a few of my first photos.

On the race gallery, they're snapshots except for the tires. (You didn't
ask that they be viewed, of course.) I think the tires are an interesting
shot, but I think they're overexposed. I took the liberty of messing with
your photo in Graphic Converter. Take a look at
http://www.civex.com/tires.jpg
and compare. I couldn't bring back the blown out highlights, but I got some
of the blackness back in the tires. This is an issue when photographing
black or white objects -- meters see things in 18% grey, and that's what
they'll look like in the resultant image if you don't make the correction
in your exposure. I'll take the modified file down in a day or two.

On the faces, my question for you is, what is the purpose of each
portrait. The choir, for example, shows a considerable number of the
singers looking to my right. Hence, my own gaze is directed there, but what
do I find that attracts their attention and my own? I know that's probably
the shoulder, arm, and hand of the director, right? But what's the purpose
of having that person cut off, when that's the apparent subject of the
portrait of the choir? Picture 032 is apparently not in focus, and you
needed to have either a very light fill flash or a reflector to fill in the
shaded area of her face. However, she is very clearly the subject of the
image, directing her gaze at the viewer. Her eyes are in the top third of
the frame, and her body is in the left third (at least the light-colored
shirt is, giving it the weight of her body). I think the photo is
well-balanced in composition. She needs some styling (:->), and you needed
to have gotten the focus sharp, and I think you'd have a nice picture.

The other faces strike me as snapshots. If you're going to have someone
peering off the frame, I'd suggest that either what they're looking at be
included or that the viewer have some hint to inject his or her own
feelings -- a person lost in contemplation, for example, peering into the
past or future or whatever. These images appear to have people who are
reading a book that's just off-frame. You almost capture the reverie in
Reflections, but the, uh, reflections distract way too much. The orange
shirt is a problem, as are the legs and chairs. This is the one face
you didn't close in on and crop, and it's the one you should have.

In buildings, picture 77 is another lost subject. Is it really the building
or is it really the trees? The building is too white and too convoluted in
shape to give me the opportunity to enjoy the spaces and negative spaces of
the bare limbs. I'm just not sure what the purpose is. I think 76 is
fine. Having the arch slope away makes it more pronounced. While the top
rectangular shapes are even across the top, the ledge below the window
bows, which is a distraction from a 'formal composition' point of view. I
don't have a feel for the distortion introduced to digital images by an
18mm lens, but that would have caused the bowing of that ledge on 35mm
film. Not much that you could do, I suppose. Someone else has mentioned to
rule of thirds (there's also the golden mean). If you have the opportunity,
I'd suggest going back to that building and taking another dozen or so
images with variations on where in the thirds you put things.

I like the stairway best. I like the golden colors, and I think the
exposure is nailed. The two distractions are the tilting column and the cut
off bottom step. Look at this photo with the composition in mind, and
compare it to 76. The stairs are off center to the left, the newel is
slightly off to the right from center, the rails lead the eye from the
bright foreground into the darkening and finally black background. None of
the architectural details is dead center in the photo. Contrast this with
photo 76, where we have a vertical line bisecting the photo and the
horizontal bisection of the window panes, and the dead centering of the
center window. I think the composition of 76 works, but only because of its
formality.

Google golden mean and rule of thirds. They're _guides_ and may be ignored,
but if there's a reason for ignoring them, breaking the rules works
better.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 4:06:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> writes:

> Ok please be kind. I've only had my Digital Rebel for 2 weeks and its the
> first SLR I've had since my Olympus OM1 many, many years ago.
>
> I still have a lot to learn and long way to go to meet the standards of
> some photos I've seen posted here, but here are a few of my first photos.
> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/faces
> http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/buildings

I like the staircase photo generally; but cutting off the bottom half
of the bottom step at the left bothers me, and I think maybe more work
to make everything rectilinear is called for. Some of that work in
photoshop (or Picture Window Pro; it's much easier there) rather than
when shooting. So, I think you should have lowered the camera
position about 3-4 inches at the time of shooting.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Related resources
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:29:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:15:26 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ok please be kind.

No point people being kind, you won't hear half the stuff you need to.

> I've only had my Digital Rebel for 2 weeks and its the
>first SLR I've had since my Olympus OM1 many, many years ago.
>
>I still have a lot to learn and long way to go to meet the standards of
>some photos I've seen posted here, but here are a few of my first photos.
>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/faces

All boring except two:

Choir - Suffers camerashake / blurry. You cant use a 300mm zoom and a
1/80sec shutter speed unless you can get your heart to stop beating.
Either use a faster shutter or get the choir to stop singing and use a
tripod. It's an interesting picture because of the shapes,colors,
lighting & crop but is technically bad.

075 (Two blonde girls in red tops). Blurry again, and the composition
is missing something - the foreground girl was cropped too much at her
chin. Nice colors, nice idea, just cropped bad and the positioning is
slightly off. 70mm at 1/30th - you broke the shutter speed rule again.

This was very not interesting, but worth a mention:

032 - (Blurry girl with shaded face looking at camera). 55mm at 1/30th
still too slow and WTF is up with 1600ASA? You needed reflectors and a
fill-flash to show her face, and a much faster shutter speed to stop
the shake.

>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/buildings

Not my cup of tea, but none of these suffered the problems above. You
know why? - Yep, shutter speed vs focal length.

#77 (Building obscured by trees) 55mm with 1/125th - great. But a very
boring scene.

#76 (Window) 18mm with 1/100th - great. Buildings don't do it for me.

#59 (Staircase) 1/2sec with a tripod/static support - great. Just add
a girl, a nude or sleeping cat (nude girl, not a nude cat) onto that
staircase, crop-off the left wall and you've got a decent picture.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 9:29:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q8k3s0ppeptr8vvvh6on6h5vo8lpc38f1h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:15:26 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Ok please be kind.
>
> No point people being kind, you won't hear half the stuff you need to.
>
>> I've only had my Digital Rebel for 2 weeks and its the
>>first SLR I've had since my Olympus OM1 many, many years ago.
>>
>>I still have a lot to learn and long way to go to meet the standards of
>>some photos I've seen posted here, but here are a few of my first photos.
>>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/faces
>
> All boring except two:
>
> Choir - Suffers camerashake / blurry. You cant use a 300mm zoom and a
> 1/80sec shutter speed unless you can get your heart to stop beating.
> Either use a faster shutter or get the choir to stop singing and use a
> tripod. It's an interesting picture because of the shapes,colors,
> lighting & crop but is technically bad.
>
> 075 (Two blonde girls in red tops). Blurry again, and the composition
> is missing something - the foreground girl was cropped too much at her
> chin. Nice colors, nice idea, just cropped bad and the positioning is
> slightly off. 70mm at 1/30th - you broke the shutter speed rule again.
>
> This was very not interesting, but worth a mention:
>
> 032 - (Blurry girl with shaded face looking at camera). 55mm at 1/30th
> still too slow and WTF is up with 1600ASA? You needed reflectors and a
> fill-flash to show her face, and a much faster shutter speed to stop
> the shake.
>
>>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/buildings
>
> Not my cup of tea, but none of these suffered the problems above. You
> know why? - Yep, shutter speed vs focal length.
>
> #77 (Building obscured by trees) 55mm with 1/125th - great. But a very
> boring scene.
>
> #76 (Window) 18mm with 1/100th - great. Buildings don't do it for me.
>
> #59 (Staircase) 1/2sec with a tripod/static support - great. Just add
> a girl, a nude or sleeping cat (nude girl, not a nude cat) onto that
> staircase, crop-off the left wall and you've got a decent picture.
>


First let me say thanks. When I said kind I didn't mean "don't comment".

The ones you referred as blurry etc were all taken in a theater in very low
light with out a flash hence the 1600asa. And no I didn't have the tripod
my wife did. The choir pic was take from the back of the theater with my
arm propped up against the wall. All things considers, not a bag pic IMHO.

Interesting comment on the "two" girls. That is actually only one girl and
she's sitting in front of a full height mirror. After looking at that pic I
think it would have been better if the reflection was in focus and she was
not but its too late now. That may have addressed the cropping issue you
addressed.

The other picture are just fun pics of the kids. Mostly to learn and
experiment with the camera. I certainly don't think they are great shots
but I liked them for what they are.

On the building pics. Well I guess its all in what you like. I personally
like building and architectural photos. Where I agree a cat would make the
stair pic interesting but it's not really what I was going for. The shape,
lines and color is what intrigued me. Maybe I'll use Photoshop and add a
cat. ;-)

Again most of these are just shots of opportunity while learning the new
camera.

--

Rob
December 16, 2004 9:48:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:q8k3s0ppeptr8vvvh6on6h5vo8lpc38f1h@4ax.com:
>>http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/buildings
> #76 (Window) 18mm with 1/100th - great. Buildings don't do it for me.
>
> #59 (Staircase) 1/2sec with a tripod/static support - great. Just add

I find the distortion distracting. The first one has mild distortion that
is easy to fix in photoshop. In the 2nd shot, the camera back wasn't
plumb. I think the wall on the left could be a good part of the
composition if it was vertical. There is some barrel distortion in this
one too.

My favorite is at www.pbase.com/rkircher/racing -- "Got Tires?" I like
photos of repetitive things. I think it might have been stronger if it
could have been shot closer and lower. The last column with 4 tires,
mostly parts, in the upper right bugs me though. Just for fun I copied it
into photoshop and darkened it up with the curves tool, making the
sidewalls vanish into the shadows. I might like it better that way.

Bob
December 16, 2004 9:55:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:Xns95C18D1EA9EF7j123w123x123
@216.77.188.18:

> making the
> sidewalls vanish into the shadows.

the tread, not the sidewalls!

bob
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 10:31:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:07:08 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Interesting comment on the "two" girls. That is actually only one girl and
>she's sitting in front of a full height mirror.

Duh! - I thought it was strange they looked similar. What put me off
was her hair is set differently on each side of her head.

So, those are your legs in the background...

Imagine taking two or three steps to your left, keeping her face
almost where it was before in the frame, but more to the right. I
think it would be computationally more attractive because her
reflection wouldn't be above her any more, it would be above and to
the left, and we'd be able to see her face. ..zooming out a little so
as not to crop the hair so much and you shouldn't be afraid of
breasts, even if she is just a young girl.

> After looking at that pic I
>think it would have been better if the reflection was in focus and she was
>not but its too late now. That may have addressed the cropping issue you
>addressed.

That was another option that did occur to me, had I been there, I
would have taken both. Focussing on the reflection introduces two
problems:

1) It would bring your legs into sharper focus... and they probably
aren't much to look at :-)

2) Leading lines rule: The main subject would now be in the top left,
looking left away from the rest of the picture. Not as pleasing to the
eye as having the subject on the right being primary and looking into
the center of the picture/towards the secondary subject. You made the
right choice.

Whilst I am on about rules:

Rule of thirds: Try and keep the main subjects away from the center of
the image. (I paraphrased that too much, look it up if you don't
already know it). My compositional suggestion above would meet that
rule completely, as both heads would be on intersecting thirds.

And remind yourself of the 'One over the focal length' rule for
shutter speeds too (google it)

Composition tips:
http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/viewtechnique.cfm?...
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/composition_th...

(There are probably better ones...)

>The other picture are just fun pics of the kids. Mostly to learn and
>experiment with the camera. I certainly don't think they are great shots
>but I liked them for what they are.

They'd hit the ole recycle bin in my workflow, but I have no emotional
attachment with the subjects in these photos.

>On the building pics. Well I guess its all in what you like. I personally
>like building and architectural photos. Where I agree a cat would make the
>stair pic interesting but it's not really what I was going for. The shape,
>lines and color is what intrigued me. Maybe I'll use Photoshop and add a
>cat. ;-)

Unless you are a king at Photoshop, I don't think that's a good idea.
Have you tried cropping the left wall, what do you think?

>Again most of these are just shots of opportunity while learning the new
>camera.

Understood.

--
Owamanga!
December 16, 2004 10:53:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:egn3s01roa0gen38a687vva7122dlp1o14@4ax.com:

> Imagine taking two or three steps to your left, keeping her face
> almost where it was before in the frame, but more to the right. I
> think it would be computationally more attractive because her
> reflection wouldn't be above her any more, it would be above and to
> the left, and we'd be able to see her face. ..zooming out a little so
> as not to crop the hair so much

I would have probably moved as you suggest, and also lower, putting her
reflection in the same horizontal plane. But that would have probably
brought the window into the frame, introducing a new "problem."

I find the glare from the floor distracting, particularly the transition
between the top of her head and the floor. Moving slightly left would
have eliminated that, as well.

One more thing that moving to the left would have done is put the shooter
behind the chair!

Bob
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:31:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:53:52 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:egn3s01roa0gen38a687vva7122dlp1o14@4ax.com:
>
>> Imagine taking two or three steps to your left, keeping her face
>> almost where it was before in the frame, but more to the right. I
>> think it would be computationally more attractive because her
>> reflection wouldn't be above her any more, it would be above and to
>> the left, and we'd be able to see her face. ..zooming out a little so
>> as not to crop the hair so much
>
>I would have probably moved as you suggest, and also lower, putting her
>reflection in the same horizontal plane. But that would have probably
>brought the window into the frame, introducing a new "problem."

Strangely enough, that would have been my third composition attempt,
but I am guessing that when I looked at the pics afterwards, I would
have preferred them not to be on the same line. BTW, the spell checker
put 'computationally' above when I meant 'compositionally' (it's not
in the dictionary, I must have made it up).

>I find the glare from the floor distracting, particularly the transition
>between the top of her head and the floor. Moving slightly left would
>have eliminated that, as well.

Yep.

>One more thing that moving to the left would have done is put the shooter
>behind the chair!

Good idea.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:31:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tpr3s0tdctu39i20312vkagv74gtrda7l5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:53:52 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:egn3s01roa0gen38a687vva7122dlp1o14@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Imagine taking two or three steps to your left, keeping her face
>>> almost where it was before in the frame, but more to the right. I
>>> think it would be computationally more attractive because her
>>> reflection wouldn't be above her any more, it would be above and to
>>> the left, and we'd be able to see her face. ..zooming out a little so
>>> as not to crop the hair so much
>>
>>I would have probably moved as you suggest, and also lower, putting her
>>reflection in the same horizontal plane. But that would have probably
>>brought the window into the frame, introducing a new "problem."
>
> Strangely enough, that would have been my third composition attempt,
> but I am guessing that when I looked at the pics afterwards, I would
> have preferred them not to be on the same line. BTW, the spell checker
> put 'computationally' above when I meant 'compositionally' (it's not
> in the dictionary, I must have made it up).
>

Funny thing we're talking about a 15 year old, I was lucky to get her to sit
still for the shot I got. ;-)

All the suggestion are great and I'll try to keep them in mind as I
progress.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:31:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
> "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tpr3s0tdctu39i20312vkagv74gtrda7l5@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:53:52 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:egn3s01roa0gen38a687vva7122dlp1o14@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Imagine taking two or three steps to your left, keeping her face
>>>> almost where it was before in the frame, but more to the right. I
>>>> think it would be computationally more attractive because her
>>>> reflection wouldn't be above her any more, it would be above and to
>>>> the left, and we'd be able to see her face. ..zooming out a little
>>>> so as not to crop the hair so much
>>>
>>> I would have probably moved as you suggest, and also lower, putting
>>> her reflection in the same horizontal plane. But that would have
>>> probably brought the window into the frame, introducing a new
>>> "problem."
>>
>> Strangely enough, that would have been my third composition attempt,
>> but I am guessing that when I looked at the pics afterwards, I would
>> have preferred them not to be on the same line. BTW, the spell
>> checker put 'computationally' above when I meant 'compositionally'
>> (it's not
>> in the dictionary, I must have made it up).
>>
>
> Funny thing we're talking about a 15 year old, I was lucky to get her
> to sit still for the shot I got. ;-)
>
> All the suggestion are great and I'll try to keep them in mind as I
> progress.

I have benefitted from this discussion, and appreciate the respondents'
measured, thoughtful responses. Thank youse.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:29:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3qy8fykmc3.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...
> "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I still have a lot to learn and long way to go to meet the standards of
>> some photos I've seen posted here, but here are a few of my first photos.
>
> On the race gallery, they're snapshots except for the tires. (You didn't
> ask that they be viewed, of course.) I think the tires are an interesting
> shot, but I think they're overexposed. I took the liberty of messing with
> your photo in Graphic Converter. Take a look at
> http://www.civex.com/tires.jpg
> and compare. I couldn't bring back the blown out highlights, but I got
> some
> of the blackness back in the tires. This is an issue when photographing
> black or white objects -- meters see things in 18% grey, and that's what
> they'll look like in the resultant image if you don't make the correction
> in your exposure. I'll take the modified file down in a day or two.

The photos in the Racing gallery were all done with a Point&Shoot and I used
it just that way. I didn't really pay to much attention to the camera
setting. Your fixed version does look good. I guess I'm going to have to
learn Photoshop too. ;-)


>
> On the faces, my question for you is, what is the purpose of each
> portrait. The choir, for example, shows a considerable number of the
> singers looking to my right. Hence, my own gaze is directed there, but
> what
> do I find that attracts their attention and my own? I know that's probably
> the shoulder, arm, and hand of the director, right? But what's the purpose
> of having that person cut off, when that's the apparent subject of the
> portrait of the choir? Picture 032 is apparently not in focus, and you
> needed to have either a very light fill flash or a reflector to fill in
> the
> shaded area of her face. However, she is very clearly the subject of the
> image, directing her gaze at the viewer. Her eyes are in the top third of
> the frame, and her body is in the left third (at least the light-colored
> shirt is, giving it the weight of her body). I think the photo is
> well-balanced in composition. She needs some styling (:->), and you needed
> to have gotten the focus sharp, and I think you'd have a nice picture.

As I said in other posts this was just a shot of opportunity in a very low
light situation. (theater during choir concert)

>
> The other faces strike me as snapshots. If you're going to have someone
> peering off the frame, I'd suggest that either what they're looking at be
> included or that the viewer have some hint to inject his or her own
> feelings -- a person lost in contemplation, for example, peering into the
> past or future or whatever. These images appear to have people who are
> reading a book that's just off-frame.

Agreed, the are exactly that... Snapshots mostly to play with camera
settings.

> You almost capture the reverie in
> Reflections, but the, uh, reflections distract way too much. The orange
> shirt is a problem, as are the legs and chairs. This is the one face
> you didn't close in on and crop, and it's the one you should have.
>

I've recropped this one to try to eliminate the distractions you talk about.
I think it looks better.

> In buildings, picture 77 is another lost subject. Is it really the
> building
> or is it really the trees? The building is too white and too convoluted in
> shape to give me the opportunity to enjoy the spaces and negative spaces
> of
> the bare limbs. I'm just not sure what the purpose is.

The way the sun lights up the top floor of the building is what intrigued me
here. Unfortunately the trees do detract from the image I was going for.

> I think 76 is
> fine. Having the arch slope away makes it more pronounced. While the top
> rectangular shapes are even across the top, the ledge below the window
> bows, which is a distraction from a 'formal composition' point of view. I
> don't have a feel for the distortion introduced to digital images by an
> 18mm lens, but that would have caused the bowing of that ledge on 35mm
> film. Not much that you could do, I suppose. Someone else has mentioned to
> rule of thirds (there's also the golden mean). If you have the
> opportunity,
> I'd suggest going back to that building and taking another dozen or so
> images with variations on where in the thirds you put things.
>
> I like the stairway best. I like the golden colors, and I think the
> exposure is nailed. The two distractions are the tilting column and the
> cut
> off bottom step. Look at this photo with the composition in mind, and
> compare it to 76. The stairs are off center to the left, the newel is
> slightly off to the right from center, the rails lead the eye from the
> bright foreground into the darkening and finally black background. None of
> the architectural details is dead center in the photo. Contrast this with
> photo 76, where we have a vertical line bisecting the photo and the
> horizontal bisection of the window panes, and the dead centering of the
> center window. I think the composition of 76 works, but only because of
> its
> formality.
>
> Google golden mean and rule of thirds. They're _guides_ and may be
> ignored,
> but if there's a reason for ignoring them, breaking the rules works
> better.

I do appreciate the comments and I'll look up the guidelines.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:09:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:29:53 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Choir - Suffers camerashake / blurry.

That photo doesn't look real to me. Those three yellow girls at the back are way
too big, and lit/exposed diffrently from the rest.

The lack of background detail makes it look fake too.

Looks like a bad photoshop experiment...

But then, if it were, you'd have removed the girl who seems to be picking her
nose, wouldn't you?

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:09:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Christopher Pollard" <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:cjm4s0pi1rjll2d0609htiekbqtlrucvds@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:29:53 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Choir - Suffers camerashake / blurry.
>
> That photo doesn't look real to me. Those three yellow girls at the back
> are way
> too big, and lit/exposed diffrently from the rest.
>
> The lack of background detail makes it look fake too.
>
> Looks like a bad photoshop experiment...
>
> But then, if it were, you'd have removed the girl who seems to be picking
> her
> nose, wouldn't you?
>


Umm not that is the real thing. The girl is very tall and of course they
are on raisers. The nose picker you are referring to is actually the
conductors hand in front of the girls face.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:31:35 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And remind yourself of the 'One over the focal length' rule for
>shutter speeds too (google it)

I'll save you the time...

The slowest shutter speed for handheld is the reciprocal of the focal length.
So at 300mm, use 1/300 or faster. For 80mm use 1/80 or faster


--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:19:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:09:49 +0800, Christopher Pollard
<xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:31:35 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And remind yourself of the 'One over the focal length' rule for
>>shutter speeds too (google it)
>
>I'll save you the time...
>
>The slowest shutter speed for handheld is the reciprocal of the focal length.
>So at 300mm, use 1/300 or faster. For 80mm use 1/80 or faster

But be careful, this is good general rule for a 4x6 print, it won't
stand up to you displaying a 6Mp image at full-res on your monitor
(effectively a 36" enlargement). For that, you'll need to be better
than 1 over the focal length.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 4:56:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:38:01 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Umm not that is the real thing. The girl is very tall and of course they
>are on raisers. The nose picker you are referring to is actually the
>conductors hand in front of the girls face.

I'm not suggesting it's not real, I'm sure it is.
It just doesn't doesn't look real...

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:24:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:09:49 +0800, Christopher Pollard
> <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:

> >The slowest shutter speed for handheld is the reciprocal of the focal length.
> >So at 300mm, use 1/300 or faster. For 80mm use 1/80 or faster
>
> But be careful, this is good general rule for a 4x6 print, it won't
> stand up to you displaying a 6Mp image at full-res on your monitor
> (effectively a 36" enlargement). For that, you'll need to be better
> than 1 over the focal length.

And were you taking the significantly smaller resolution of most
monitors? Frankyl, it would be unusual to get 6mp on one.

You shoudl also be aware that different people can handhold different
amounts of different equipment with varying success on different days.

B>
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:24:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 20:24:34 +0800, Bruce Murphy <pack-news@rattus.net>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:09:49 +0800, Christopher Pollard
>> <xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> >The slowest shutter speed for handheld is the reciprocal of the focal length.
>> >So at 300mm, use 1/300 or faster. For 80mm use 1/80 or faster
>>
>> But be careful, this is good general rule for a 4x6 print, it won't
>> stand up to you displaying a 6Mp image at full-res on your monitor
>> (effectively a 36" enlargement). For that, you'll need to be better
>> than 1 over the focal length.
>
>And were you taking the significantly smaller resolution of most
>monitors? Frankyl, it would be unusual to get 6mp on one.

Apologies, 100% doesn't mean anything, I wasn't clear. I mean a
1-pixel in the image to 1-pixel on-the-screen ratio. The image is
approximately 3 screens wide by 2 screens high. It's huge and at that
'enlargement', you can only see 1/6th of the image at a time.

>You shoudl also be aware that different people can handhold different
>amounts of different equipment with varying success on different days.

Indeed, there is no 'rule' as such, they are guidelines. My personal
experience is that no matter what time of day, coffee/no coffee,
full-stomach/shaking starvation, calm/hurricane, no beer/beer hot-chik
or dead-cat I simply *CANT* beat a tripod.

Unfortunately, there are many situations where a tripod isn't
suitable.

--
Owamanga!
December 18, 2004 12:01:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bruce Murphy <pack-news@rattus.net> wrote in
news:m2brctcdtp.fsf@greybat.rattus.net:

> You shoudl also be aware that different people can handhold different
> amounts of different equipment with varying success on different days.
>

Indeed. My boss is a sharpshooter, and he can handhold a longer lens for a
longer time than I can. I saw him shoot around 1/4 second with a 300mm
lens. Sharp? Not really, but sharper than a lot of people get with 50mm
lenses at 1/30 sec.

If you know how to shoot, btw, the same exact skills work in photography.
Specifically, one shoots while exhaling, between heartbeats, while the
muscles are calm.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 1:14:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C2E027D8E7Ebobatcarolnet@216.196.97.142...
> Bruce Murphy <pack-news@rattus.net> wrote in
> news:m2brctcdtp.fsf@greybat.rattus.net:
>
>> You shoudl also be aware that different people can handhold different
>> amounts of different equipment with varying success on different days.
>>
>
> Indeed. My boss is a sharpshooter, and he can handhold a longer lens for a
> longer time than I can. I saw him shoot around 1/4 second with a 300mm
> lens. Sharp? Not really, but sharper than a lot of people get with 50mm
> lenses at 1/30 sec.
>
> If you know how to shoot, btw, the same exact skills work in photography.
> Specifically, one shoots while exhaling, between heartbeats, while the
> muscles are calm.
>


Now that's an excellent tip and being someone who does not how to shoot I'm
surprised I didn't make the connection but it makes perfectly good since.

--

Rob
!