PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions to improve



shadowraider00x
12-04-2008, 06:25 AM
Hi there,

I m relatively a newbie to the art of photography. All I have been doin till now is click whenever I get a chance to. I like holding the camera with me most of the time when I m on a tour and to take pictures of things that I find appealing. Apart from this, I m noway related to photography by profession. I recently bought a DSLR cam (Canon EOS 400D) out of interest and curiosity and have been meddling with it for the past 4-5 months or so. In this time, I had the chance to travel places and I shot some photos during this time. I recently came to know about this term called "Stock Photography". I tried googlin it but I still stand confused about what that is. Anyways, I tried submitting the following ten photographs, to one of the sites which promised money for good photos (I thought I ll give it a shot). Anyways, all photos were rejected and some of the fotos were said to contain "noise". Although it sucks to face rejection, I do want to learn where I went wrong in these fotos and how I can take better pictures next time. Any helpful suggestions are welcome.

Here is the link to my album
http://s435.photobucket.com/albums/qq80/shadowraider00x/Photo%20Shoot/

Thanks in advance
Vikram

kgosden
12-04-2008, 09:27 AM
Vikram,

Without originals and EXIF camera data it is hard to give you any feedback regarding noise. What looks like noise in the posted images could be due to resizing and JPG compression. It would be good to know what ISO you were using as that is the leading cause of most image noise.

Stock images tend to fall into a variety of types. Many are just strong graphic compositions, often with usable space for text to be superimposed. Others are very dramatic pictures of well know features or landmarks. Stock images are the source pictures used in many ads, presentations and accompanying articles. Many are sold in sets like a group of 'typical office scenes' or 'Southwest desert images'. The internet has been driving a number of micro-stock services where graphic designers can buy single images often at medium resolution for use in small projects.

Beowulff
12-05-2008, 08:26 AM
Checking the images' EXIF, I notice that you've used ISO1600 in most shots. Any particular reason?

You need to be opening up your aperture more and knocking down the ISOs a bit. Even a dSLR is gonna be showing noise at ISO1600, particularly in shadow areas. For stock work, you should be using a tripod if possible, and also shooting RAW.

With your 'park with two trees and table' shot, if you check out your histogram, you'll notice that your settings (1/200s, 10, ISO1600) have given you a sort of "flat", washed out look, and the histogram shows nothing at the dark end which can indicate a lack of contrast, or flatness. There's no "true" blacks in the image at all, which would give it more bite.

As a general comment on the whole set, and I don't wanna disillusion you, but not one of those images will appeal to a library. Any stock library will already have about... let's guess here... half a million shots just like these.

It's a very hard nut to crack actually selling stock images, particularly with the advent of digital cameras.

Still; there's no harm in keeping on keeping on.

Good luck. :)

shadowraider00x
12-05-2008, 09:14 AM
First of all, thank you for posting out your honest opinion. I appreciate it. Secondly, I noticed that you as well as the gentleman above have requested for EXIF details. I m sorry but I m unfamiliar with that term. How can I obtain this. I do agree with when you say that most of the shots were taken with ISO 1600. I am getting to know and learn more about shutter and aperture speed day by day and when I actually took these fotos, I had no clue. I simply set it to 1600 and "P" mode so that the camera does not have to decrease the shutter speed incase of insufficient light, which might result in a blurred image.

Nowadays, I am using the "M" mode along with varying shutter and aperture speed according to the light available when I m taking a foto. I make sure tat the EC is either 0 or slightly above 0, but still less than 1. Is this a right way to go about it?

A couple of questions, now that this is starting to get even more interesting for me:

1) The pic in the park with two benches - You mention something about "histogram". How can I see this? From what you are sayin, I am assuming its a 2D graph. Should I refer this histogram for every pic I shoot to make sure its ok. How should the graph look for a good, plenty of contrast pic?

2) Assuming that I m at the same location, is there a different camera settting that you can suggest, that can make the pic look better from your perspective? How do you go about figuring this out?

3) I notice that sometimes the light is not sufficient enough in some places, so I either have to decrease shutter speed or increase aperture opening. But I can open the aperture only upto a certain extent and from then on, I m forced to decrease the shutter speed. This results in camera shake, since I m findind it hard to hold the camera for a couple of seconds( for example, 0.3",0.4" and so on.) Is there a better way to shoot pics? Am i missing something here?

4) What are the advantages of shooting in RAW mode? and how did you get to know that I shot most of my pics in ISO 1600? (just curious since I ve made no mention of it anywhere)


Thanks in advance for your time and patience,
Vikram

TheWengler
12-05-2008, 10:18 AM
I noticed that you as well as the gentleman above have requested for EXIF details. I m sorry but I m unfamiliar with that term. How can I obtain this.

EXIF is shooting data. It includes a lot of things but the important stuff is aperture, shutter speed, ISO and sometimes focal length. For PC, right click a jpeg and select properties>summary>advanced. You can also get the info through a photo editor.


Nowadays, I am using the "M" mode along with varying shutter and aperture speed according to the light available when I m taking a foto. I make sure tat the EC is either 0 or slightly above 0, but still less than 1. Is this a right way to go about it?

I don't think you can use exposure compensation in M mode. At least you can't on my camera.


2) Assuming that I m at the same location, is there a different camera settting that you can suggest, that can make the pic look better from your perspective? How do you go about figuring this out?

I think it's the light that's the problem in that picture. Mixed light (sun and shade) is causing dark shady spots and overexposed sunny spots.


3) I notice that sometimes the light is not sufficient enough in some places, so I either have to decrease shutter speed or increase aperture opening. But I can open the aperture only upto a certain extent and from then on, I m forced to decrease the shutter speed. This results in camera shake, since I m findind it hard to hold the camera for a couple of seconds( for example, 0.3",0.4" and so on.) Is there a better way to shoot pics? Am i missing something here?

Tripod, tripod, tripod.


4) What are the advantages of shooting in RAW mode? and how did you get to know that I shot most of my pics in ISO 1600? (just curious since I ve made no mention of it anywhere)

You can alter certain settings on your computer later like white balance.

Beowulff
12-06-2008, 08:42 AM
TheWengler has already covered your questions pretty well especially his comment about "tripod, tripod, tripod"! :D

EXIF stands for Exchangeable Image File Format. Exif is a variation of JPEG, used by digital cameras to record extra interchange information to image files as they are taken. Details such as -stops, shutter speed, ISO, flash, lens focal length, etc are embedded within the image data itself, so that with the correct "reader", you can extract, or read, that data.

This can be really helpful down the track if you need to compare differing images of the same subject(s) with each other (at the settings you or the camera chose at the time) or simply if you've forgotten what settings you used to capture that once-in-a-lifetime sunset.

I know exactly what settings (or metadata) you used for your pics because I checked out their EXIFs using this extraction program, which you can download free by clicking HERE (http://www.photome.de/).

A set of tutorials I often recommend to folks here is CambridgeInColour, which you can also download free from HERE (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm).

And as for RAW, (kinda like a digital version of a film negative) Wiki is your friend... check it out HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format).




Hope this helps. :)

shadowraider00x
12-06-2008, 09:34 PM
Will do sir....thanks to all of you guys....will get back to you when I have more questions....merry christmas

tim11
12-10-2008, 05:28 PM
Noise isn't obvious in such small images. But I don't see anything special that make me want to buy them; sorry for being blunt. Nowadays, anyone can get a camera and any photo that sells has to stand out for some reason.
You can also borrow photography magazines from local library, check out photo albums and notice some photos that stand out and how they are composed; etc. Observe the techniques and the likes.

Miami_Sunset
01-04-2009, 10:47 AM
if iso will give you noise why do DSLR come with ISO's up to 3200 & even more.. when would this come in handy ?

TheWengler
01-04-2009, 11:14 AM
if iso will give you noise why do DSLR come with ISO's up to 3200 & even more.. when would this come in handy ?

On some of the newer cameras ISO 3200 is usable. Mine has has it, but it's unusable. They probably just added it in to make the spec sheet look better. You want to raise the ISO in low light situations. It helps when you need to increase the shutter speed without changing the depth of field or increasing the depth of field (read aperture) without slowing your shutter speed.

AlexMonro
01-08-2009, 03:54 AM
if iso will give you noise why do DSLR come with ISO's up to 3200 & even more.. when would this come in handy ?

Sometimes a sh*tty noisy pic is better than no pic at all.