Jump to content

Photo Examples of Good Rule or Technique Application, Help for the New Contributor


Recommended Posts

Phil,

Excellent post and information. 

I often ask myself, is the "best" lens really necessary, especially when the comparison is between a "prime" lens and a telephoto lens.  If You only shoot in a studio or you tend to consistently shoot the same thing, a "prime" lens is going to produce the sharpest (best) image at it's focal length and is a logical choice.  However, if your interests are "all over the place" (like mine), the "inferior" telephoto lens is an essential tool and really is the only choice, IMO.

If your personality demands it and your wallet can stand it, by all means, buy the best but ,as Phil says, determine your interests before you buy.   

Thanks for explaining "When Gear Matters".  Your posts are always a great help and interest to the "new contributor" and this one is no exception.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 410
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Most of us that have been here a while have done our share of critiquing the portfolios of our many newcomers, often a bit more harshly than we intended or possibly should have.  While I realize

After 13 pages, I have no idea if it came up already or not, but just to be sure, sometimes it is good to ignore typical composition rules and leave some space for the buyer for copy or  cropping.

My apologies to those of you who are getting tired of seeing this thread but in reviewing my portfolio images I noticed how often I have used an "S" curve in the composition of my images.  While I lik

Posted Images

8 hours ago, cpaulfell said:

I am not going to go through them all but here are 4 as examples...

 

  • Good examples - and confirms that the Sunny f16 Rule is very useful.
  • All images were exposed  at 100 ISO, f8, 1/400 sec = Sunny f16 rule.
  • Any weakness in the images was due to my adjustments in Lightroom - not  the Sunny f16 rule.
  • Thank you very much for your critique - in the future I will pay more attention to the sliders in  Lightrooms develop module.

:)

===========================

 

Sunny f16 Rule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

When gear matters...

Don't rush straight out to buy the most expensive camera or lens you can get for microstock, because - at $.25 per download - you are going to be working a very long time to make that return back on your gear investment.  And that is when gear matters the most! 

This is what I used to carry: Full frame Canon 6D, Canon 24-70, Canon 70-200, Sigma Sport 150-600. Weighs 5.7kg with and investment of $7,556.

Now I carry: Sony Rx10IV with a built in Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* f/2.4-4 Zoom Lens 24-600mm lens and can shoot at 24fps. Shoots 4K video and fantastic slow motion. Weighs 1.01kg and costs $1,598. I supplement my photography with my Iphone. The last nearly 200 photos uploaded to my port and the last 61 videos was shot using this combination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cpaulfell said:

This is what I used to carry: Full frame Canon 6D, Canon 24-70, Canon 70-200, Sigma Sport 150-600. Weighs 5.7kg with and investment of $7,556.

Now I carry: Sony Rx10IV with a built in Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* f/2.4-4 Zoom Lens 24-600mm lens and can shoot at 24fps. Shoots 4K video and fantastic slow motion. Weighs 1.01kg and costs $1,598. I supplement my photography with my Iphone. The last nearly 200 photos uploaded to my port and the last 61 videos was shot using this combination.

Excellent work, Paul!  I'm at a bit of a crossroads myself.  Every time I go out to shoot now, I have a harder time picking up my Canon and Nikons.  The Sonys are just so much smaller and lighter.  I'm getting close to selling all my DSLRs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ancient "sunny 16" is a hangover from manual exposure.  Never was, never is.  It was a guesstimate to make it "about near enough" to develop.  Fortunately today techniques and gear have moved on to the point you can get far more accurate exposures with less effort.

And despite the claims certainly can't overcome dynamic range limitations or the need for bracketing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such great discussions on this thread... Especially about Sunny 16 rule which one of the first rules I've learned about photography. And @Phil Lowe's post about gear is such valuable information! I used to have my eyes on many type of different lenses but recently my thoughts about them completely changed since I started questioning my purpose with them. Being conscious about the gear and their purposes is letting me focus on photography instead of daydreaming about acquiring more, which is consumerism actually want from us. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, KeremGogus said:

Such great discussions on this thread... Especially about Sunny 16 rule which one of the first rules I've learned about photography. And @Phil Lowe's post about gear is such valuable information! I used to have my eyes on many type of different lenses but recently my thoughts about them completely changed since I started questioning my purpose with them. Being conscious about the gear and their purposes is letting me focus on photography instead of daydreaming about acquiring more, which is consumerism actually want from us. 

to quote Steve:

 

  "I was hoping this thread would not digress into a typical forum "discussion" of "who is the most correct".  The goal was to "help the new contributor".  Could we limit the comments to those that will advance that goal?  I would appreciate it, as would the new contributor reading this. Thanks!    "

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jean-francois.me said:

to quote Steve:

 

  "I was hoping this thread would not digress into a typical forum "discussion" of "who is the most correct".  The goal was to "help the new contributor".  Could we limit the comments to those that will advance that goal?  I would appreciate it, as would the new contributor reading this. Thanks!    "

I'm just curious: did you have a problem with what Kerem wrote, or did you not have anything of substance to add to the conversation yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerem,

You're absolutely right, IMO.  Acquiring more gear is not the best "road" (probably not even a good one) to make yourself a better photographer.  Your latest image might be sharper (after buying that new lens) but if you don't know, understand and apply compositional rules, etc. and properly expose the image, no one will even notice (how sharp it is).  

Learn how to use the gear you already own and when you realize how and why a new piece of equipment will make your images better, then consider buying it, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

I'm just curious: did you have a problem with what Kerem wrote, or did you not have anything of substance to add to the conversation yourself?

and there you go again:

 

"was hoping this thread would not digress into a typical forum "discussion" of "who is the most correct".  The goal was to "help the new contributor".  Could we limit the comments to those that will advance that goal?  I would appreciate it, as would the new contributor reading this. Thanks!    "

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jean-francois.me said:

and there you go again:

 

"was hoping this thread would not digress into a typical forum "discussion" of "who is the most correct".  The goal was to "help the new contributor".  Could we limit the comments to those that will advance that goal?  I would appreciate it, as would the new contributor reading this. Thanks!    "

OK.  So it's the latter.  Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

I think this is a decent example of "rules are meant to be broken".

In this image, the dog lying on the doorstep would typically be the main focus so, of course, you put it in the intersection between the gridlines of the "rule of thirds".

But, if you are trying to portray exclusion or something which is unnoticed, excluded and not cared for then you put it outside of that typical focus point. The door and door framing is central and attention grabbing, the dog is on the edge. Having it noticeable but not necessarily attention grabbing adds to the image rather than taking away.

stock-photo-a-street-dog-rests-outside-o

Chris,

 

this door shouldn't follow the rule of thirds because it's a symmetric door. The image should  follow the rules of symmetry. The dog is the subject to bring an optical tension to the image. So concerning the layout the image is correct. But the bow on top is in the cut. And the picture tilts a little to the right side, which bothers me a bit. Just my personal opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Leonard Whistler said:

The Sunny f16 Rule is effortless. Set it, and forget it.

:)

 

8 hours ago, Ricoh Mirai User Club said:

Great advice for the new contributor who’s not concerned about making any money or submitting correctly exposed images; others should probably use internal light meters and experimentation.

 

Not true.

Using the Sunny f16 Rule will produce correctly exposed images. Light meters and experimentation will most likely lead back to an exposure equal to the Sunny f16 Rule. There will be some exceptions, but not many.

Looks like the Sunny f16 Rule is a trending topic.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

I think this is a decent example of "rules are meant to be broken".

In this image, the dog lying on the doorstep would typically be the main focus so, of course, you put it in the intersection between the gridlines of the "rule of thirds".

But, if you are trying to portray exclusion or something which is unnoticed, excluded and not cared for then you put it outside of that typical focus point. The door and door framing is central and attention grabbing, the dog is on the edge. Having it noticeable but not necessarily attention grabbing adds to the image rather than taking away.

stock-photo-a-street-dog-rests-outside-o

any reasons why you elected to cut the frame at top? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, chris kolaczan said:

Yeah. Basically because framing works in two dimensions. Add some to the top and you need to add to the sides as well. Wasn't ideal but sometimes you have to do what you can with what you've got.

This brings up another good rule. Cutting off parts of the subject, even if they are just framing elements can be extremely distracting to the point that that is all people notice.

it was interesting,  because my eye went from light bulb to the cut frame, enough that i actually missed the dog at first.  so i wondered if that was part of the effect 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

 I'm sort of tempted to clone in a "fake" edge on top but I'm not sure it it worth the effort.

 

Done quickly so the edge is wonky, but not sure if it adds much to have the top of the doorway. In general, I wouldn't like to cut off the top like in the original, but I think the original focuses more on the dog so it also works. Nice photo by the way (and if we're not allowed to fiddle with a photo like this, let me know please...)

ddd.thumb.jpg.580611dbe9f73c627a2ba28bb2ed6f88.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...