The Photography Thread

[Alastair]

OH YEAH - Strap a 1DMkIII to that and you've got a photographic machine gun right there, blaooow!

[Ginger Tosser]

Think with the current twitchy trigger finger police we currently have that would be a dangerous product to use.

[toythatkills]

I'm sure this has been covered but I couldn't find much with a search.

I want to take some still life/macro photos indoors, but with the natural light being so poor everything is coming out blurry and/or grainy. It doesn't help that my camera isn't the best, but it'll do!

Can anyone recommend any lights (ideally in lamp form) I can use that won't make everything look discoloured/weird. I'm not liking the effect the flash has.

[PeteJ]

You can buy small light boxes which are ideal for Macro photography, I think they are about £30 for the smallest one. I think warehouse express and 7dayshop stock them (you will need to look around on the sites, I can't remember what they are called!).
If you search this whole thread there is a discussion on a similar thing, some folks have built their own, can't remember who though

[Alastair]

Love it Pete, very good. From the wedding work I assume.

As for lights. I have a halogen torch/lamp that works well and also a work lamp (same as a security light but on a stand) that also works well. You'll be needing to learn about white balance though really to make the most of lighting setups.

[PeteJ]

Thanks, yeah from a wedding I did yesterday. Last one for the year so now I can relax on the weekends and maybe get back into the casual photography which I much prefer (I don't mind wedding photography but it there is quite a lot of expectation, which is hard when you are only doing something as a hobby).

Yesterday was the first time properly using my 24-105 L and 580ex and I certainly saw the benefits. I could do with a decent telephoto now (probably a 70-200 f/4 IS) and a better boddy (5d or 40d) but both will have to wait until late next year.

Has anyone got any shots of the trees this year? They seem very colourful this year, really beautiful.

[Ginger Tosser]

First bit of snow for winter (in Birmingham anyway)

[PeteJ]

I like how you grabbed the camera before pulling in the washing

[Ginger Tosser]

Sod the washing! It's been out for a couple of days anyway.

[funkydan]

First batch of photos from some bands I photographed on Friday night. This is Cyrano:









And I know this next one is a little grainy, but I like that and I just love what's going on in it - I also decided to give it a bit of a tint:

[Alastair]

They look a bit flat to me tbh Dan sorry, like the 3rd but would suggest learning a better B&W conversion if you can.

30D plus grip arrived today, so happy. Seems really strange shooting with a grip on though and I was still reaching for the normal shutter button instead of the one on the grip when shooting portrait.

Another from when I was in Hastings a week ago.

Click for Flickr page.

It was taken for the RLLMUK comp where you're not allowed to look at what you're shooting and I think it actually benefits from the 'jaunty' angle. Surprised myself with how central the vanishing point is though!

[vanpeebles]

Its a nice shot that, very distopian. I can just imagine the bloke off Clockwork Orange giving someone a proper kicking there.

[funkydan]

They look a bit flat to me tbh Dan sorry, like the 3rd but would suggest learning a better B&W conversion if you can.

No conversion necessary as the original shots were taken in b+w. The lights were terrible that night - flashing intermittently, with only an occasional yellow/white light appearing for a second which was the only light suitably bright enough to take a shot. Did have to use the flash a few sometimes but I hate photographing bands with a flash.

As for the flat comment Al, I presume you mean that they are perhaps uninspiring shots of the group that don't light a fire in your nether regions? I guess I've known the band for a few years and although the music is good, they are not a particularly animated band. But I was still pleased with results, especially because of the ****ty lighting making it so difficult to shoot.

I think you and I are quite different in our approach to photography. Whereas I think you would be happy with one good shot out of 200, for me it needs to be more than that - about 30 in fact (especially with my band photos) - maybe I just have a lower quality threshold! I'm still an amateur and have an awful lot to learn and appreciate your honest comments, however I may not always agree with you

I like your 'I'm not looking shot' - it makes me feel like I'm on a ferry! Love the VP!

[Alastair]

No conversion necessary as the original shots were taken in b+w.
...
As for the flat comment Al, I presume you mean that they are perhaps uninspiring shots of the group that don't light a fire in your nether regions?
...
I think you and I are quite different in our approach to photography. Whereas I think you would be happy with one good shot out of 200, for me it needs to be more than that - about 30 in fact (especially with my band photos) - maybe I just have a lower quality threshold! I'm still an amateur and have an awful lot to learn and appreciate your honest comments, however I may not always agree with you

No no no, the flat comment relates to the B&W, nothing to do with the effort the guys put in as they seem to be going for it. See how in yours there is no white? Almost all of the tones that aren't black are some sort of shade of grey. This is something that Gareth C pointed out to me about a B&W conversion I'd done and after I understood it it was a revelation to my B&W shooting.

B&W is the area that digital really falls down compared to film, when shooting B&W in camera you just don't get any white (maybe because it thinks true white is overexposed?), same happens when you desaturate the image in PS. To get good black and white results I always shoot in colour and then go through a B&W conversion for each image to get the best look (to me that is - totally subjective). If you're happy with the results, and I think you are, then who am I to try to make you do it otherwise, that's the most important thing after all, to please yourself.

Re the keepers comment, NO. If I shoot a event I want at least 60% keepers (good shots), fair enough I may only upload a couple to Flickr that are the cream of the crop and I do get a fuzzy feeling about that one amazing shot. The difference between us I guess is that I may be hapy with 1 GREAT shot out of an entire event but if I took 200 I'd want at least 110+ that were usable and printable. I'm struggling to word that so it doesn't sound like some sort of defensive tirade!!

Did you get in the paper yet by the way?

And Thanks about my shot
Vanpeebles - I had to look up distopian

[PeteJ]

Number of 'winning' shots to number taken is not something I worry about. I may take ten shots of the same thing to make sure one comes out (with weddings for example, you always get one person with their eyes shut...). That would mean I only had a 10% success rate, but that's how I planned the shot.

During a wedding day (before, during, getting drunk) I take approximately 600 shots and I keep roughly 250. A lot of them are casual shots that have no artistic or photographic merit, but do help capture the moment and are good for the families involved.

I used to get bothered about my 'success rate' being quite poor, but it's just part of the game.