Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

Yes.

24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, and 200mm are some pretty common prime lens focal lengths. I usually assume those are primes if I see those focal lengths, except for 24mm (which could also possibly be from a 24-70mm lens) or 200mm (which could also be from a 70-200mm lens).

 

[Ether_Snake]

Yay I figured it right!

Thanks

 

[vapor]

This is what I don't get it. I've seen demonstrations of how this is done - I follow the instructions (just hold the shutter down once the viewfinder confirms focus) and I tilt the camera down by like 20 degrees. Ugh. I'll eventually figure it out

Meus, tilting like that that might be contributing to the soft look, especially around their feet.

The in-focus area is a volume; your depth of field is a starting and ending distance away from the lens that you expect to be in focus and sharp (assuming good technique). By tilting the camera, you're shifting that volume so it doesn't start / finish in the same place from top to bottom of the real world.

If you're shooting at a really wide aperture, and tilting a fair bit, the original focal point is going to potentially fall out of the volume as well.

Here's a quick and dirty image to show what I'm talking about... dont laugh, I can't draw

http://i.imgur.com/7Kb6FaN (ugh, made the image way too big for the page...doh. link instead.)


This is made worse by using the focus points at the edge of the frame. They're moving in space more than the center point.

You could try squatting down instead of tilting. But really, any camera movement after focusing is going to make it harder.

The other advice about studying a DoF calculator etc. is really good as well. But if you're using a wide aperture and moving the camera at all after focusing, you're going to need to compensate...

 

[Salaadin]

Reading this thread and I think its helping me piece together some things.

I got a camera last year (t3i with kit lens) and tried to get into photography but my pictures were always pretty underwhelming and it left me feeling discouraged so I started shooting less and less. I feel like I understand the basic concepts of ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc but taking that knowledge and applying it to an actual picture is easier said than done.

I went to NYCC last week and spent the whole time taking pictures and it rekindled my interest. I just need to keep it up, get out there, and shoot.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Reading this thread and I think its helping me piece together some things.

I got a camera last year (t3i with kit lens) and tried to get into photography but my pictures were always pretty underwhelming and it left me feeling discouraged so I started shooting less and less. I feel like I understand the basic concepts of ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc but taking that knowledge and applying it to an actual picture is easier said than done.

I went to NYCC last week and spent the whole time taking pictures and it rekindled my interest. I just need to keep it up, get out there, and shoot.

Technical skills are just one aspect. Having a good eye for composition is important as well and somewhat harder to learn and master. Just keep shooting and don't get discouraged. It's all worth it for that one shot that makes you sit up straight and go, "Wow!" After that it's like a drug. You'll want that "Wow!" every time.

 

[phisheep]

Reading this thread and I think its helping me piece together some things.

I got a camera last year (t3i with kit lens) and tried to get into photography but my pictures were always pretty underwhelming and it left me feeling discouraged so I started shooting less and less. I feel like I understand the basic concepts of ISO, shutter speed, aperture, etc but taking that knowledge and applying it to an actual picture is easier said than done.

I went to NYCC last week and spent the whole time taking pictures and it rekindled my interest. I just need to keep it up, get out there, and shoot.

That's the thing to do!

Same thing happened to me until I spent a weekend in Cardiff with nothing to do bar take pictures of things. Made a huge difference to me. Not that very many of the pictures were any good you understand, but that in the end I could tell which ones were and which weren't and could sort of understand why.

 

[Salaadin]

One problem that I seem to consistently have is that nearly all of my photos taken outside on an overcast day result in some weird haze being cast across the entire picture.
Heres a semi recent example of what I mean HERE

So washed out and colorless. Ive tried messing with various settings and whatnot but I cant ever seem to get rid of that washed out look unless take the sky out of the picture altogether.

 

[vapor]

One problem that I seem to consistently have is that nearly all of my photos taken outside on an overcast day result in some weird haze being cast across the entire picture.
Heres a semi recent example of what I mean HERE

So washed out and colorless. Ive tried messing with various settings and whatnot but I cant ever seem to get rid of that washed out look unless take the sky out of the picture altogether.

It looks like the exposure is blowing out. Do you have a live view with a histogram? Your histogram probably has a huge spike on the right hand side - if you dial in some -EV you'll see it move down towards a more balanced spread, which will expose it properly.

I usually use spot metering to try to control my exposure, but it's tough in some scenes. The histogram is your best bet.

If you only have it available when reviewing your images, you'll just have to shoot more and dial it in gradually.

 

[ErnieMcCracken]

One problem that I seem to consistently have is that nearly all of my photos taken outside on an overcast day result in some weird haze being cast across the entire picture.
Heres a semi recent example of what I mean HERE

So washed out and colorless. Ive tried messing with various settings and whatnot but I cant ever seem to get rid of that washed out look unless take the sky out of the picture altogether.

EXIF data shows shot in manual at f/22 1/15sec? Try aperture priority and f/8. Dial in some EV comp from there if needed. Just a starting point. Play around with the settings but understand the impact of what you are changing will have.

For some good introductory reading check out these:
www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Edition-Photographs/dp/0817439390

www.amazon.com/Scott-Kelbys-Digital-Photography-Boxed/dp/0321839951

 

[luoapp]

One problem that I seem to consistently have is that nearly all of my photos taken outside on an overcast day result in some weird haze being cast across the entire picture.
Heres a semi recent example of what I mean HERE

So washed out and colorless. Ive tried messing with various settings and whatnot but I cant ever seem to get rid of that washed out look unless take the sky out of the picture altogether.

Time: 12:11:30. Simply avoid to shot at high noon. You need proper equipment.

 

[Rentahamster]

One problem that I seem to consistently have is that nearly all of my photos taken outside on an overcast day result in some weird haze being cast across the entire picture.
Heres a semi recent example of what I mean HERE

So washed out and colorless. Ive tried messing with various settings and whatnot but I cant ever seem to get rid of that washed out look unless take the sky out of the picture altogether.

Don't use manual mode if you're not sure how to control it well enough. Start in P mode, then go to A, and then switch to manual if you want.

Your aperture is way too narrow, and your shutter speed is too low. Go to P mode, (or Aperture mode and set an aperture of around 5.6 to 8) set the metering to the entire scene, and take a pic. If it's too dark, increase the EV value setting. If it's too light, do the opposite.

Your picture looks "hazy" because

1. it's overexposed

2. the narrow aperture is causing blurring due to diffraction

3. the low shutter speed probably caused some camera shake blur.

 

[Vanillalite]

Old but figured I'd post it anyways

 

[Ether_Snake]

Brettison: thanks that's useful

So basically, if I want to take photos of a landscape, let's say at sunrise when there might not be much light yet, with deep DOF, and I don't have a tripod I have to:

1- Use a small aperture (high number) to have everything in focus
2- Set a short exposure time
3- Use a high ISO

All notions of high/small being relative of course.

Yet ideally, for such a scenario, I would be better off with a tripod to do as follows:

1- Use a small aperture (everything in focus)
2- Longer exposure time
3- Low ISO

This way I significantly reduce the presence of noise?

I say this because I notice that this photographer, Kilian Schoenberger, is pretty much always using long exposure times. I'm guessing because he wants to shoot at low ISO, and uses a tripod as a result. It also makes a lot of the images more painterly I guess, especially when shadows from moving branches/leaves are cast against surfaces or when moving water is present.

Otherwise, if one did not particularly want the long exposure effect for the water/shadows, the #1 approach would be ok, meaning no tripod but possibly more noise (which might not be that noticeable anyway at high resolution)?

 

[mrkgoo]

Brettison: thanks that's useful

So basically, if I want to take photos of a landscape, let's say at sunrise when there might not be much light yet, with deep DOF, and I don't have a tripod I have to:

1- Use a small aperture (high number) to have everything in focus
2- Set a short exposure time
3- Use a high ISO

All notions of high/small being relative of course.

Yet ideally, for such a scenario, I would be better off with a tripod to do as follows:

1- Use a small aperture (everything in focus)
2- Longer exposure time
3- Low ISO

This way I significantly reduce the presence of noise?

I say this because I notice that this photographer, Kilian Schoenberger, is pretty much always using long exposure times. I'm guessing because he wants to shoot at low ISO, and uses a tripod as a result. It also makes a lot of the images more painterly I guess, especially when shadows from moving branches/leaves are cast against surfaces or when moving water is present.

Otherwise, if one did not particularly want the long exposure effect for the water/shadows, the #1 approach would be ok, meaning no tripod but possibly more noise (which might not be that noticeable anyway at high resolution)?

Short version I like to use is:

All three aspects can be changed to affect exposure brighter or darker. The units of exposure are 'stops' and refer to doubling or halving brightness.

Each factor has additional reasons why you would want to use those to affect exposure as opposed to others:

Aperture: depth of field
Shutter speed: motion
ISO: noise/grain

Other additional aspects to photography that aren't about exposure:

Focal length and distance for affecting perspective and composition.

Lighting direction and softness.



And tons more but the above is the most basic stuff you probably want to know in and out to control your photography.

 

[Ether_Snake]

D'oh, by exposure time I meant shutter speed.

 

[Maklershed]

So I've been motivated by this thread to break the camera out and do some fall photography while the leaves are colorful only to find blackness in my view finder. And when I look at the front of the down into the lens its black .. I think the aperture isn't opening. Anyone experience that. Is there an easy way to fix that? Or is my camera boned?

 

[vapor]

Ether, yeah, basically.

Something to keep in mind though, really small apertures aren't always necessary. There's a concept of hyperfocal distance; once you are at, say, f/8, everything from about 3m away is going to be in focus on an APS-C camera with a 24mm lens. So if your closest subject is more than 3m away, stick to f/8 and adjust your shutter / iso accordingly.

There's a ton of dof calculators out there, so figure out for your lens / subject distance accordingly.

If you use a really small aperture, you can run into diffraction limits for your lens; the quality of the image drops. Similarly most lenses are a little bit soft when wide open. That's why you dont want to just go f/22 and shoot away.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Yeah I don't think I'd need to go higher than f11 at most, which usually appears to be f8 or f11 for daytime. But good to know about f8+ usually putting everything in focus past 3m.

I need to practice more, but I hate doing so in my city. Not comfortable doing it Plus, the place is not very interesting to my eye.

 

[mrkgoo]

Yeah I don't think I'd need to go higher than f11 at most, which usually appears to be f8 or f11 for daytime. But good to know about f8+ usually putting everything in focus past 3m.

I need to practice more, but I hate doing so in my city. Not comfortable doing it Plus, the place is not very interesting to my eye.

Make it interesting with your photography

Every place and thing can be beautiful if you think about your image.

 

[EviLore]

Yeah I don't think I'd need to go higher than f11 at most, which usually appears to be f8 or f11 for daytime. But good to know about f8+ usually putting everything in focus past 3m.

I need to practice more, but I hate doing so in my city. Not comfortable doing it Plus, the place is not very interesting to my eye.

Keep in mind that every lens + sensor combination has a sweet spot range for sharpness (usually not at either the wide open aperture or beyond f8). Smaller apertures increase diffraction and can soften your results past a certain point. Without knowing the specifics of your gear, generally don't go beyond f8 unless you need to.

Article on diffraction: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml

 

[vapor]

Yeah it does matter which lens you're on... like I say 3m is for a 24mm. It goes up the longer the lens is.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I have a zoom lens, 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6

One thing I seem unable to do is have a blurry background, with things close only in focus, let alone getting that bokeh effect: http://www.flickr.com/photos/megane_wakui/9166980928/

Am I supposed to see the effect in the view finder? For some reason nothing changes in the viewfinder when I change the aperture (other than warnings), if I'm using manual focus. If I use auto-focus then I can see the DOF change on its own. But in manual focus, I don't see a difference in the view finder. What is close will be blurrier if I use a wide aperture, but I can never get what is far to be blurry.

 

[mrkgoo]

I have a zoom lens, 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6

One thing I seem unable to do is have a blurry background, with things close only in focus, let alone getting that bokeh effect: http://www.flickr.com/photos/megane_wakui/9166980928/

Am I supposed to see the effect in the view finder? For some reason nothing changes in the viewfinder when I change the aperture (other than warnings), if I'm using manual focus. If I use auto-focus then I can see the DOF change on its own. But in manual focus, I don't see a difference in the view finder. What is close will be blurrier if I use a wide aperture, but I can never get what is far to be blurry.

The aperture only changes at time of capture, so what you're seeing through the viewfinder is at the widest aperture only (this assists in brightness of the viewfinder and focus). Note, this doesn't matter on manual or auto focus. It's always at the widest. What you're probably seeing is just shifting focus (and any related DOF changes that goes with that).

Dues to the size of the optics, however, typically what you see in the viewfinder has an apparent depth of field slightly deeper than the image would be captured, maybe around 1-2 stops worth.

Note, you CAN preview the actual depth of field and close the aperture to what you have set by pressing the DOF preview button, on Canon dSLRS, it's typically a button neat the lens mount (don't press the lens unmount button by accident!)

 

[ErnieMcCracken]

I have a zoom lens, 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6

One thing I seem unable to do is have a blurry background, with things close only in focus, let alone getting that bokeh effect: http://www.flickr.com/photos/megane_wakui/9166980928/

Am I supposed to see the effect in the view finder? For some reason nothing changes in the viewfinder when I change the aperture (other than warnings), if I'm using manual focus. If I use auto-focus then I can see the DOF change on its own. But in manual focus, I don't see a difference in the view finder. What is close will be blurrier if I use a wide aperture, but I can never get what is far to be blurry.

Look at the EXIF data for some of the photos you enjoy. That one was shot at f/1.4. Extremely wide aperture and usually you'll need f/2.8 or wider for good night photography (if you're looking for sharpness and stopping action). Wider apertures give you that nice bokeh also, but not all wide lenses render bokeh the same.

Some intro reading:
http://photo.net/learn/basic-photo-tips/aperture-shutterspeed-iso/

 

[Salaadin]

Thanks for the tips and ideas, guys. I appreciate it

Do you have a live view with a histogram? Your histogram probably has a huge spike on the right hand side - if you dial in some -EV you'll see it move down towards a more balanced spread, which will expose it properly.

Yeah it has one. Its only available when shooting in Live View mode though and I dont use Live View. I can view it after that fact when reviewing shots so Ill most likely do that.

Don't use manual mode if you're not sure how to control it well enough. Start in P mode, then go to A, and then switch to manual if you want.

Your aperture is way too narrow, and your shutter speed is too low. Go to P mode, (or Aperture mode and set an aperture of around 5.6 to 8) set the metering to the entire scene, and take a pic. If it's too dark, increase the EV value setting. If it's too light, do the opposite.

Your picture looks "hazy" because

1. it's overexposed

2. the narrow aperture is causing blurring due to diffraction

3. the low shutter speed probably caused some camera shake blur.

I do like the control manual gives even though Im not really great at it yet. I honestly rarely touch the automatic modes on my camera because I feel like the results are inconsistent. And even though my results on manual are also inconsistent, at least its my fault and I can look back and know what I was going for, what I was thinking, and try and figure out what I did wrong.
That said, messing around on automatic probably isnt a bad idea either...at least until I get better at this.

 

[Rentahamster]

I have a zoom lens, 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6

One thing I seem unable to do is have a blurry background, with things close only in focus, let alone getting that bokeh effect: http://www.flickr.com/photos/megane_wakui/9166980928/

The pic you linked was probably shot at around 1.4, or some really wide aperture, giving an effect that is hard to reproduce with your current gear. Here are a few ways you can achieve the blurry background look you want.

1. Spend money to buy a wide max aperture prime lens. Your cheapest option is the 50mm 1.8 lens for about 100 bucks. IIRC your camera doesn't need to have AFS lenses for autofocus.

2. Go to 18mm and f3.5. Focus on something as close to you as possible. The background will be as blurry as you can get with that lens.

3. Go to 55mm and f5.6. Focus on something as close to you as possible. Same thing. Different look/perspective, though.

4. Use the panorama stacking technique where you shoot a whole bunch of pictures like a panorama, and then stitch them together in photoshop. This emulates a large sensor, which in turn causes a shallower depth of field. Google for the brenizer panorama technique or something, for some handy guides.

I do like the control manual gives even though Im not really great at it yet. I honestly rarely touch the automatic modes on my camera because I feel like the results are inconsistent. And even though my results on manual are also inconsistent, at least its my fault and I can look back and know what I was going for, what I was thinking, and try and figure out what I did wrong.
That said, messing around on automatic probably isnt a bad idea either...at least until I get better at this.

It's not a bad idea. If you go full bore on manual mode before you are ready for it, the frustration you experience and the mistakes you make might cancel out any learning you might experience. Sorta like taking too difficult a university course before you are ready for it.

Anyway, in regards to your last hazy pic - given the subject and the circumstances, there was hardly any reason why you should have been at f22. For a general rule of thumb, don't go past f8 or f11ish, and just adjust the shutter speed and ISO accordingly.

 

[vapor]

Thanks for the tips and ideas, guys. I appreciate it


...


That said, messing around on automatic probably isnt a bad idea either...at least until I get better at this.

If you want to keep going with full manual, make sure you make use of the exposure meter in your viewfinder. It's the little scale that looks something like -2...|...0...|...+2 : there's a bar that tells you where you're currently exposing, and you usually (to start with) want to hit 0 or just a little either side.

Also, dont go to f/22 Maybe try Aperture priority for a while; I often shoot with it unless the situation is really challenging. It means you can focus on 1 of the variables (aperture) while ignoring shutter and ISO.

 

[vapor]

1. Spend money to buy a wide max aperture prime lens. Your cheapest option is the 50mm 1.8 lens for about 100 bucks. IIRC your camera doesn't need to have AFS lenses for autofocus.

Totally this. Although, the 50/1.8 has nasty bokeh. It is a great value lens for discovering primes though. If you can afford it, the 50/1.4 is awesome - the build is much better, the bokeh way nicer.

Get ready to enjoy zooming with your feet

 

[de1irium]

If you want to keep going with full manual, make sure you make use of the exposure meter in your viewfinder. It's the little scale that looks something like -2...|...0...|...+2 : there's a bar that tells you where you're currently exposing, and you usually (to start with) want to hit 0 or just a little either side.

If all you're going to do in manual is chase the meter then you might as well stick to Av/Tv and exposure compensation. The point of shooting manual is that you know better than the meter. Learn to read your histogram and you'll never care about your meter again. (Until you learn how to spot meter, or can look around you and just know what your settings should be.)

Get ready to enjoy zooming with your feet

This is going to sound pedantic, but "zooming with your feet" is not zooming. Telling people to "zoom with their feet" glosses over a really important point of composition: moving around changes your perspective and the subject/background relation of your composition.

 

[vapor]

If all you're going to do in manual is chase the meter then you might as well stick to Av/Tv and exposure compensation. The point of shooting manual is that you know better than the meter

....

This is going to sound pedantic, but "zooming with your feet" is not zooming. Telling people to "zoom with their feet" glosses over a really important point of composition: moving around changes your perspective and the subject/background relation of your composition.

I totally agree, but without wanting to get too off track lets consider that this advice is aimed at someone shooting a daytime landscape at f/22 and 1/15s... this is why I said "to start with."

For the foot-zoom comment, sure, fair point. It's still a reality that you have to change your style by using a prime though. The rest follows.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Thanks for the tips Rentahmaster.

I see pictures from this guy http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesyeung/

All are shot at 135mm, I'm guessing he is basically zooming on people from afar? I'm confused by his lens choice for such photography. Seems to me like it's to take pictures without being noticed too much, and also to try to capture a lot of moments by standing in the same place until he gets one he likes, which makes sense I guess for such street photography. Is there an obvious reason to use a telephoto lens for this?

 

[StopMakingSense]

Thanks for the tips Rentahmaster.

I see pictures from this guy http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesyeung/

All are shot at 135mm, I'm guessing he is basically zooming on people from afar? I'm confused by his lens choice for such photography. Seems to me like it's to take pictures without being noticed too much, and also to try to capture a lot of moments by standing in the same place until he gets one he likes, which makes sense I guess for such street photography. Is there an obvious reason to use a telephoto lens for this?

That, plus, a telephoto flattens the scene more. He also seems to be using the narrower depth of field of the telephoto quite a bit.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I see, makes sense. Thanks

 

[Rentahamster]

Thanks for the tips Rentahmaster.

I see pictures from this guy http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesyeung/

All are shot at 135mm, I'm guessing he is basically zooming on people from afar? I'm confused by his lens choice for such photography. Seems to me like it's to take pictures without being noticed too much, and also to try to capture a lot of moments by standing in the same place until he gets one he likes, which makes sense I guess for such street photography. Is there an obvious reason to use a telephoto lens for this?

No problem. He likes to capture people, and has a lot of close to semi close ups, so a long lens is good so you don't have to go too close and bother people.

He's probably using this lens: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000053HC5/?tag=neogaf0e-20

135mm is a popular portrait lens focal length. Nikon has a 135mm prime too.

It also helps to isolate the subject with the low DoF, and manage crappy backgrounds better. By that, I mean take something like this shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesyeung/8734436027/

Notice the background. It's just a small part of the overall environment. If he were using a wider lens, you'd see much more of the street, and that would give a different feel to the photo. The more you zoom in, the larger the background elements seem by comparison.

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

The one thing abuot shooting in manual, and trying to get your meter to be at 0, is that it's impossible if you're shooting outdoor.

Different objects or subjects in the background getting hit by different lighting means what you're pointing at can be 0, but other areas around it can be too bright or too dark.

this is what i have a hard time in trying to pick what lighting I want, especially in outdoor shooting with the sun still up.

Either your sky is too bright and your subject is good, or your sky is good and your subject is too dark

 

[NathanMcMahon]

No problem. He likes to capture people, and has a lot of close to semi close ups, so a long lens is good so you don't have to go too close and bother people.

He's probably using this lens: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000053HC5/?tag=neogaf0e-20

135mm is a popular portrait lens focal length. Nikon has a 135mm prime too.

It also helps to isolate the subject with the low DoF, and manage crappy backgrounds better. By that, I mean take something like this shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesyeung/8734436027/

Notice the background. It's just a small part of the overall environment. If he were using a wider lens, you'd see much more of the street, and that would give a different feel to the photo. The more you zoom in, the larger the background elements seem by comparison.

Based on his tags, he's using 135mm f/2. Great lens for seperation from target. Just an all around nice lens as well. His overall setup is nice as well.

 

[Rentahamster]

Based on his tags, he's using 135mm f/2.

But that's what I linked.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

But that's what I linked.

I know. That's why I was agreeing...

 

[Rentahamster]

Oh. The way I read it, it sounded like I linked the wrong lens and you were pointing out the right one.

Nebber mind

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Oh. The way I read it, it sounded like I linked the wrong lens and you were pointing out the right one.

Nebber mind

Nah, I just saw you said probably and checked the images tag and saw it definitely was. Good call though figuring it out by looking at the image.

 

[ronito]

Hey any good tutorials (possibly video ones) on indoor photography?

 

[Rentahamster]

Hey any good tutorials (possibly video ones) on indoor photography?

This is a pretty good tutorial about using your flash, which is very very applicable to indoor photography.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

 

[spineduke]

Are there any good free online resources about composition that go beyond the standard rule of thirds and golden ratio? I've never found anything than goes beyond these basic concepts.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Are there any good free online resources about composition that go beyond the standard rule of thirds and golden ratio? I've never found anything than goes beyond these basic concepts.

This seems like a good start

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/04/12/10-rules-of-photo-composition-and-why-they-work/

 

[de1irium]

Are there any good free online resources about composition that go beyond the standard rule of thirds and golden ratio? I've never found anything than goes beyond these basic concepts.

There's not a lot out there because a whole lot of people assume that RoT (and occasionally the golden ratio) is the be-all end-all of composition. But if you look at classical works of art this is almost never the case ... yes, stuff often falls on thirds or in golden ratios but it's usually more coincidence than by design.

http://www.ipoxstudios.com/canon-of-design/

Tavis Leaf Glover is doing a "365" project where he basically tears down the rule of thirds (spoiler: there's really no such thing) and examines composition via classical design principles. It's going to seem really contrived at first, but the fact is that real, good composition is a lot more detailed than just laying stuff down on a 3x3 grid.

 

[spineduke]

There's not a lot out there because a whole lot of people assume that RoT (and occasionally the golden ratio) is the be-all end-all of composition. But if you look at classical works of art this is almost never the case ... yes, stuff often falls on thirds or in golden ratios but it's usually more coincidence than by design.

http://www.ipoxstudios.com/canon-of-design/

Tavis Leaf Glover is doing a "365" project where he basically tears down the rule of thirds (spoiler: there's really no such thing) and examines composition via classical design principles. It's going to seem really contrived at first, but the fact is that real, good composition is a lot more detailed than just laying stuff down on a 3x3 grid.

This is great, thank you - and I've felt the same, that the roots of developing your sense of composition go back to studying the classic works.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

There's not a lot out there because a whole lot of people assume that RoT (and occasionally the golden ratio) is the be-all end-all of composition. But if you look at classical works of art this is almost never the case ... yes, stuff often falls on thirds or in golden ratios but it's usually more coincidence than by design.

http://www.ipoxstudios.com/canon-of-design/

Tavis Leaf Glover is doing a "365" project where he basically tears down the rule of thirds (spoiler: there's really no such thing) and examines composition via classical design principles. It's going to seem really contrived at first, but the fact is that real, good composition is a lot more detailed than just laying stuff down on a 3x3 grid.

Thanks for this. Seems like it will be a fun journey

 

[Ether_Snake]

Ok I'm asking here (and thanks again Rentahamster for the post) because I get no replies in the camera equipment thread.

I want to buy a tripod, which I will be using when I travel next spring. I usually shoot at eye level, so I want something that at least works well at that height (I'm 5'8")., and I'm wondering if that means I should buy something that is short but reaches to that height with the center column fully extended?

I'm doing outdoors so there could sometimes be some wind. Basically I am not sure what aspects are most important considering the above: stability, weight, height, etc.

 

[Rentahamster]

Ok I'm asking here (and thanks again Rentahamster for the post) because I get no replies in the camera equipment thread.

I want to buy a tripod, which I will be using when I travel next spring. I usually shoot at eye level, so I want something that at least works well at that height (I'm 5'8")., and I'm wondering if that means I should buy something that is short but reaches to that height with the center column fully extended?

I'm doing outdoors so there could sometimes be some wind. Basically I am not sure what aspects are most important considering the above: stability, weight, height, etc.

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't bring tripods on travel trips because fuck me if I'm going to be lugging around that thing all over the place. I don't think the small utility a tripod brings would justify the inconvenience of carrying it around. Besides, most of the time you can work around the problem without using a tripod.

During the day, you can manage high enough shutter speeds. The only time you'd really need one is if you're doing long exposure low light pics a lot. Even then, what I did when I traveled was to place my camera on a chair/trashcan/hydrant/rock/whatever, and then angle it up using my phone and wallet. Do a 2second delay timer, and shoot away. If anything, I'd have probably brought a Gorilla Pod too.

So, unless you want to do a lot of selfies, or low light photos, then you don't really need a tripod.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I wanted to do low light photos, like take night time shots of the city, nature, etc.

I thought it might be possible to find something very portable:|