Photography advice: What am I doing wrong?

[Martinjmpr]

Looking at other people's photos here (and elsewhere) makes me wonder just what I'm doing wrong.

Not sure exactly what it is but it seems like all my photos come out looking "washed out" and boring. Here's an example of what I mean:

Alpine Loop, CO

New Reveille Mine, NV

Abandoned fire engine, Gold Point, NV

That last pic in particular seems really washed out and lacking in the vividness of the actual site.

I mean, I realize that if there's not a lot of contrast in the scene, there's not going to be a lot on the picture, but for some reason others seem to get much better pics of the same scenery. I understand that I sometimes "shoot from the hip" without proper composition, framing, etc, but beyond that, is there anything I can be doing with my digital cameras? Like most people, I guess, I typically use the "automatic" setting which leaves all the shutter speed, aperture, etc, up to the camera.

So, any tips or tricks as to which settings I should be using? I have two cameras, a "point and shoot" type with a pretty good zoom (Fuji S1800) and a pocket camera, a Nikon Coolpix AW100 waterproof.

Or, are those of you with these eye-catching pictures manipulating them afterwards with software?

 

[Zorro]

Shooting from the hip and P&S camera, there's your combo.

You can overcome the camera limitations to some degree, it will actually be a fantastic learning process.

Start with lighting. I am aware that most picture taken between 11am and 3pm (roughly) will just be washed out and crap (to me). There are some exceptions, but you don't want harsh midday sunlight.

Composition, rule of thirds. All 3 pictures look like they would've benefited from more careful composition.

Camera settings ... looks like that 3rd one has some crappy auto-HDR (or dynamic range) effect applied to it -blue sky, gray clouds, yet you can see in the shade under the metal roof ...-. If it's not something you can disable, throw that camera into a fire.

Once you're familiar with lighting and composition, you can think about upgrading cameras. And that's another can of worms.

 

[DiploStrat]

Pending the replies of those who are much, much better than I, consider these comments. First of all, great, or even good composition is much harder to achieve than technical mastery of your camera. I would argue that this is especially true in the case of landscapes where a lot has been done before. My son in law (shameless plug) can see and take pictures where I see nothing and take snapshots. http://www.michaelneilodonnell.com There are several other great landscape photographers on this site. Consider their comments when they chime in.

In the interim, for some news you can use:

• Check out a book or two from your library. NatGeo, Lonely Planet, and others have basic guides to travel photography
• Mix it up, consciously shoot, landscapes, cars, and people. All are different skills.
• Since I am not that good, I shoot stories or series. But you can also try for money or beauty shots, that is, pictures that stand alone without others for context.
• Learn about the rule of thirds; always a good place to start, even if you choose to ignore it.
• Learn about depth of field - do you want everything in focus? Possibly not.
• Learn a little about post processing. Ansel Adams manipulated the spit out of his pictures; you can too. There are simple ways to make a sky, for example more dramatic.

Finally, really look at photos you like; try to see what makes you like them. Shoot a lot; try out all of the settings on your camera. Take a course; many are very inexpensive.

Want to laugh at me? Start here: http://www.pbase.com/diplostrat

I will now sit down and let the pro's answer.

 

[Chazz Layne]

Or, are those of you with these eye-catching pictures manipulating them afterwards with software?

I'd venture a guess that this is true more often than not. A lot of it is in control and composition, but much is done in post. Some of the "purists" may disagree, but Photoshop (or other) is as essential a part of digital photography as the darkroom was to film photography. Here's the same set of photos after a very quick run through the PS gauntlet:

View attachment 204947 View attachment 204948 View attachment 204949

Tools used for the above were curves, levels, a little unsharp mask, and in the case of the mine photo, a little color balance to bring it back in line (a camera's auto white balance has a hard time getting the blue right in such conditions). I'm sure even more could be pulled out of them with a little more time, especially if the person who shot the photo were doing the editing (first-hand memory goes a long way during edit).

 

[photoman]

No easy answer here. That is for sure. I am not familiar with either of your cameras but if you have the ability to shoot manual or aperture priority you should start there. It will give you more control over the camera and how the shot turns out. If you do not have these options than you are going to be stuck with auto or preset scenes. You can still take decent picture but it will come down to lighting, composition, and editing.

Lighting: this is probably the most important aspect to learn. Light makes an image, crappy light = crappy image. Easiest times to get good light is sunrise and sunset but understanding light will also allow you you to shoot throughout the day and even at night. Of the three images you posted the first one has the best light. It is soft with good color and allows for the shot to be edited. The other two were taken at midday. This is evident by the lack of color in the sky, harsh contrast of light on the objects, and the shadows.

Gear: better gear will allow you to get better images but only if you know how to use the gear and understand things like light and composition. Good gear is expensive so be patient in making the jump to dslr. For those that are looking to make the jump I always suggest picking up a used or entry level body and using the bulk of the expense for quality lenses. It is a far better investment and results are immediate.


Software: All the good or great images you see have been put through some form of editing. Some people keep things very basic, some use specific programs like the dreaded HDR programs, and others spend hours blending multiple images and layers upon layers of masks, adjustments, and filters. You can search photoshop tutorial on Youtube to get an idea of how much work goes into some of the images you see online.

Getting Better: read books, watch tutorials, join photo forums, join local photo groups, and shoot, shoot, shoot.

Keep learning, shooting, and posting.

 

[Martinjmpr]

I'd venture a guess that this is true more often than not. A lot of it is in control and composition, but much is done in post. Some of the "purists" may disagree, but Photoshop (or other) is as essential a part of digital photography as the darkroom was to film photography. Here's the same set of photos after a very quick run through the PS gauntlet:

View attachment 204947 View attachment 204948 View attachment 204949

Tools used for the above were curves, levels, a little unsharp mask, and in the case of the mine photo, a little color balance to bring it back in line (a camera's auto white balance has a hard time getting the blue right in such conditions). I'm sure even more could be pulled out of them with a little more time, especially if the person who shot the photo were doing the editing (first-hand memory goes a long way during edit).

Hmmm..yes, I like what you did, especially with the Alpine Loop photo (those who have been on the Alpine Loop can confirm it's one of those things like the Grand Canyon that you can't really capture in a photograph.)

At this point I'm more interested in trying to take better pics with the cameras I have rather than looking at equipment. My skills are at such a level that IMO it would be a waste of money for me to invest in a lot of high $$ equipment before I really learn to get the most out of what I have now.

Thanks again for all the tips!

 

[Lost Canadian]

Lighting: this is probably the most important aspect to learn.

^This! By far the most important factor in a good image.

Case in point, my dog laying on the ground isn't exactly intriguing to anyone other than myself... add interesting light and a normally boring image suddenly finds life.

 

[nwoods]

At this point I'm more interested in trying to take better pics with the cameras I have rather than looking at equipment. My skills are at such a level that IMO it would be a waste of money for me to invest in a lot of high $$ equipment before I really learn to get the most out of what I have now.

I am only a casual amateur. I do not make money of my photos (though I've tried), and of the thousands of images that I shoot, I only end up with a few that I like, so take my advice with a grain of salt!

Angle. Sometimes you need to play around with perspective to get a more visually engaging shot. I am going to paste in a photo of a mine shaft headframe that I took that is a little bit similar to yours, but from a totally different perspective. I don't think my image is particularly good, in fact, I've never linked to this image before, but it suffices as a good example I think:

Here is another couple examples of alternate angles from what you might normally see:

People: Scenes with people always have way more impact and interest than without. If I look at the stats of my SmugMug page, photos with someone in it ALWAYS rank higher in number of views than others without. For example, this photo has 3x more views than one of my absolute favorite shot of all the jeeps going through puddles simultaneously, despite both being in the same gallery. As proof, I'll bet you even lingered a bit longer on the image of the guy in the mirror above than you did on the arguably better photo of my truck on the salt flats of Soda Lake.

Hosting! I am convinced that Photobucket has the worst image compression alogrymth's on the internet. They can take a stellar image full of color, contrast, and vividness and just flatten it to a gray blurry shadow of itself. Flickr is much better in preserving image quality than Photobucket and paid services like SmugMug actually allow you to tweak and enhance the screen displayed image a bit (custom sharpening on the fly). Where you host your image definitely has an impact on how it looks.

 

[nwoods]

My son in law (shameless plug) can see and take pictures where I see nothing and take snapshots. http://www.michaelneilodonnell.com

Wow! You're son in law is a terrific photographer and certainly knows how to capture the light!

 

[DiploStrat]

Wow! You're son in law is a terrific photographer and certainly knows how to capture the light!

Translation:

• Every photo trip starts well before sunrise. (And often ends after sunset.)
• He is wedded to his tripod.
• No exposure is less than a minute long.
• When in doubt, go wide.

Me, I like to sleep in, am too lazy to carry a tripod, and shoot more tele. And it shows!

He was visiting over the New Year and dragged me out into the cold.

At 20F with a 40 mph wind, it was a great day to stress test the Webasto!

 

[Viggen]

Rule of Thirds

Oh, and histogram if your camera has that capability.

 

[vicali]

Great tips so far, I'll throw in the things that have helped me;

Light and Composition make the photo- these are things that are tough to edit in ps.. everyone started somewhere and I find different people have different styles.

You have to learn what works and what doesn't.. taking notes while you take shots really helped me to figure out what was happening and why. If you take 12 shots of that firetruck above- all with different settings and composition- then sit down to edit them a week later how are you going to know what worked without notes?

At first my ps time was used to check levels, boost contrast, and bump saturation. Once you get comfy with those you can start looking at adding some subtle filters to help direct the viewer. Dont overdo it and always keep your original shots for comparison at the end..

Take lots of photos, and don't forget to have fun out there.

 

[pappawheely]

Old skiing advice that works for a better composition as well. Bend zee knees, five dollars please.

 

[stioc]

I recently bought this book for my gf to go along with her Cannon S95 (point and shoot with full manual mode): http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081740502X

I thumbed through it and it's a good engaging book- I'm easily bored with pages and pages of plain text.

 

[Rattler]

I bought my Canon T2i last July and I am definitely a newb. I know my composition needs work. When all I used was a point-and-shoot, I rarely got great results. I have asked a lot of questions since I bought my DLSR. I am lucky to have met Pat/Every Miles A Memory and bug him on occasion. He pointed me in the direction of Scott Kelby's books, http://www.amazon.com/Kelbys-Digita...F8&qid=1389329852&sr=8-1&keywords=scott+kelby and they have been very helpful. Another pro concert photographer I met at a venue we go to taught me a lot about shooting concerts too. His biggies were "Shoot in RAW and get Lightroom". As someone above stated, post production is a big key. Take a look through the photos that were trying out for the 2014 ExPo calendar. I could easily pick out which ones got it and which ones didn't.

I must be doing something right. A friend of mine is the photographer for a pretty nice area magazine and asked me to be an intern a little bit ago.