The example I use as to why auto-exposure is unreliable is that most manufacturers have auto-exposure adjust to produce 18% grey (there's some variance in manufacturers). So if you take a picture of a white wall, the camera will expose it as 18% grey. If you take a picture of a black wall, the camera will expose it as 18% grey. As the photographer, it's up to you to decide if you wanted the wall to be black, or show fine differences in shade, you can't do both well at the same time.
Photography for geeks
121–130 of 150 posts
Re: Photography for geeks
#122Good advice and good writing. But the title is misleading: this is photography for aspiring photographers, not esp. geeks. I was expecting more geeky things. For example, I have recently been toying with making a kind of photobooth / selfies machine for parties by connecting a DSLR with a Raspberry Pi; people take pictures of themselves with a remote (the excellent Yongnuo RF-603 which is radio, not infrared); the Pi…
I think I'd have to recreate it from scratch if I had to do it again because I have no idea now.
Re: Photography for geeks
#123Best pictures of the article: the first four. Why are they the best: their composition is interesting with great use of vertical lines, background colors and well positioned windows. First line of the core of the article: "It is said that composition is the most important aspect of a photograph. I disagree." Well, let's agree to disagree then.
Those are the best photos because he took all the other photos for demonstration purposes.
I'm intentionally provocative with this comment in that I don't entirely disagree with the article. Contrary to what's stated, I do think that composition is everything. Still, I also think that lighting is a part of composition.
Re: Photography for geeks
#124Just sharing: If you want to learn photography, buy yourself a film camera and read those two books. Ansel Adams: The Camera https://amzn.to/3gMyCa5 The Negative https://amzn.to/3U88fsN The rest is just practice.:)
Re: Photography for geeks
#125Re: Photography for geeks
#126But the thing is, none of these technical things are essential.
Like a lot of people here (me included, but I am actively trying to get rid of it) the author has an engineering mindset, that was built (I am just guessing here) through years and years of engineering work.
And it is really cool and may give an advantage in some professions (and sometimes in life overall), but it is not the best approach to photography or in any other arty topic where one could not objectively measure pleasure and value, and where aesthetic perception is the main definition of something being excellent and desirable.
People often forget that photography is still mostly an art form. And in art, the most important aspect is provoking some kind of emotional response (folks mostly pursue pleasant ones, but it is not limited to that).
To understand lenses, focuses, and shutter speed how much time does one need? A couple of days? Weeks?
It is objectively easy to learn the rule of thirds, focal points, white balance, etc. But which white balance makes beautiful images? Which calculations would make your friends adore their faces in the photo? I have no answer to that, do you?
Should images be dark, moody, and sharp like Roger Dickens's cinematography to be likable? Or dark, blurry, and saturated like Wong Kar-wai movies? Or they should be bright, light, and symmetrical like Wes Anderson's fairytales?? Or grainy and geometrically precise like Henri Cartier-Bresson's works? Or maybe images need to be provocative, erotically charged black-and-white photos, fashionable and borderline pornographic like Helmut Newton's works?
There are a lot of cases then some person with a developed sense of beauty creates unimaginably stunning photography by using a smartphone build-in camera, but even more cases when someone with a pricey a-la Hasselblad, titan tripod, cinema-level lenses, 5-point professional lighting, and a long list of detailed photogear videoreviews making the most boring and forgettable images possible.
Feelings > Any technical aspect, rules, or calculations
I am not saying that knowing your tools is not important at all, but it definitely less important than the internet wants it to be. For example, I know a Magnum agency photographer who takes all his photos with any digital SLR in auto mode (p-mode). And he adores Instagram.
So for any person who wants to start into photography (but not photography-related technology), I suggest watching a lot of photo books and cinematographically superior movies (all by critically acclaimed authors), visiting classical art museums, and for all costs avoiding any online photography communities.
And you should take as many photos as possible every day. Not only on vacations or holidays but just as a visual diary with colors that you found beautiful, unusual patterns that you start to see around, and unexpected shapes that things around us are forming.
Aesthetic goes first. It should be like a tingling feeling on the tips of your fingers when you see something interesting. Then from it go lighting, composition, and color. And these three are codependent.
You need to start seeing light, feeling colors, and thinking in shapes. Need to develop your sense of beauty and your watchfulness/visual awareness/contemplation (sorry, I don't know how to translate this properly).
One cannot create beautiful photography if one does not know what beauty is.
Re: Photography for geeks
#127This is very well done for a new-to-photography audience. Will be sharing around to people who say all their things look like snapshots, what's up with that. Great use of examples, except for one: kid on bridge. > At the same time, it must be said that color and tone can be what separates a mediocre photograph from a memorable one. To illustrate, let's look at the potential evolution of this vacation shot deliberatel…
In the mid-2000s, HDR was all about jacking up local contrast, giving you that unique look of gritty skin and halos cropping up all over the place. I'm talking stuff like this: https://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/20... Less obnoxious tone mapping that compresses shadows and highlights is a more modern trend, I'd say post-2012. It's basically done by every cell phone today when shooting a high-co…
Yeah, it's a problem. I shoot iPhone in RAW to back that off, or Halide RAW if it really ticks me off.
// Disclosure:
Like most everyone, my top community ranked Flickr photos were heavily HDR'd, such as this one that hit #1 on Explore on 2006-08-17: https://live.staticflickr.com/60/216486412_0e3542fb85_k.jpg
At the time, I produced some top ranked HDRs out of annoyance, like, oh, use tone map plugin? Automatic upvotes! Called it the "Flickr craze" and polled on comparison between:
HDR tool: https://live.staticflickr.com/91/212613394_c1db0694ad_k.jpg
Hand balanced: https://live.staticflickr.com/88/213584770_8175d4ec45_k.jpg
When compared side by size, the community preferred the hand mapped version, which hit #7 on Explore.
Re: Photography for geeks
#128Somewhat related but if anyone is looking to get into photography Fuji is putting out digital cameras that emulate their film stocks. The results are pretty incredible. Also they have manual dials on the top so you're not trying to program a computer to use it. It's like driving a manual transmission vs an automatic.
They are indeed very fun! Highly recommend either of the two.
Re: Photography for geeks
#129Good advice and good writing. But the title is misleading: this is photography for aspiring photographers, not esp. geeks. I was expecting more geeky things. For example, I have recently been toying with making a kind of photobooth / selfies machine for parties by connecting a DSLR with a Raspberry Pi; people take pictures of themselves with a remote (the excellent Yongnuo RF-603 which is radio, not infrared); the Pi…
Around 2012 I was asked to make a photo booth for a friend's wedding. I ended up managing to rig an old-fashioned doorbell to an Arduino to give me a 3-second countdown, attached to a DSLR for the photo, an eye-fi card for the wireless connectivity because I think the camera didn't have on-board WiFi, and an iPad attached outside the both that always showed the last photo and let you scroll back. I think I'd have to…
Having gphoto monitor the camera constantly (my first attempt) is not a good solution, because if for whatever reason the connection to the camera is lost, gphoto just dies.
In my current setup, gphoto downloads new files at regular intervals (via cron), puts them in a directory on the pi, which is then rsynced to a server. This is very resilient: it survives rebooting the pi, turning the camera off or on, etc., with zero intervention. All it needs is a network connection to the Pi (wifi or ethernet) and nothing else. No app, no phone nearby, no bluetooth, no nothing ;-)
I use an old Pi 3 for this that's plenty fast; it would probably work on a zero (but I've never been able to buy one) or other single boards. Ideally it could be put in a small box that could be mounted on the flash shoe and that would also act as a remote...
Re: Photography for geeks
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you underexpose too severely, the JPEG compression will eat up all the detail in the shadows.
Pretty much any serious camera, and I think even serious camera-phones these days, will optionally record the image as RAW data rather than encoding as jpeg. That you want to shoot RAW is pretty much covered in day 1 of intro to digital photography. The only exception to the rule is when you need super-fast frame capture rate, and the bandwidth to storage of much larger RAW files interferes. This is typical of folks…