Flyer, your photos at http://photographybydaniel.weebly.com range from good amateur to embarrassingly bad, with most of them being so-so. The two photos in your last post are quite nice.
Instead of a photo-by-photo, point-by-point critique, here are some links from 500px for comparison:
People
Nature
ETA: I have no connection with 500px.
I’ve found that the best camera to have is the one you can carry everywhere and not miss a shot. I’ve had expensive Nikon DLSR’s and missed many a shot because they were sitting in the car because I didn’t feel like lugging the bag around or they weren’t allowed in the venue due to the length of the lens. My go to camera these day is the Samsung Galaxy 2 because it is the same footprint as a cell phone (only thicker), a decent 21X optical zoom and has androids apps that let me edit the pictures in real time. I can also post to Facebook, email, instant message and add titles /comments to the pictures from the camera. It’s perfect for 98% of the shots I take. It takes great close ups (bees on flowers) and I’ve even captured fast action sports (from center field I got a guy getting hit by a ball at the plate and the ball was clearly visible!).
I sold the Nikon and my friends never noticed, they still comment on how great my pictures are. Maybe that’s because most people just take pictures with their cell phones anymore. Still if I were a more serious hobbyist I’d take back my Nikon, it was pretty nice but not really necessary for what I do.
There is a saying: the best camera is the one you have on you. I don’t like lugging my dSLRs around, either. For compact cameras, I would want one of those Fuji X-series (or something similar), but I really don’t need to have another camera in my collection. I end up just taking my Nikon D750 with a 24-70mm if I want to take some snaps, but it is another thing to lug around and, much of the time, I don’t bother. That said, when I’m out photo hunting, that’s the camera and lens combination I go with. Maybe I’ll bring out the 80-200mm if I’m feeling particularly motivated.
Yeah. I have a Pentax K-3 and I use either of my two pancake lenses with it if I want a setup that’s relatively small and easy to carry around. I usually carry it with me everywhere.
How is an overhead sun flexible? Whichever direction you face, it’s overhead.
OK, the first one looks nice, but you achieved it by getting out of the sun. The 2nd one seems to be an example of the “raccoon eye” effect that pulykamell mentioned as being a problem with mid-day sun - I don’t think a shadow around the eyes is flattering.
Sure, but it’s even better if you have a good camera on you. I’m just an avid amateur but I never leave home without one of my good compact cameras (Sony RX100m3 and Ricoh GR).
I agree with the posts saying the magic hour isn’t a myth.
I don’t even bother taking pics during most of the day for that reason - unless times dictate.
It isn’t even close - yes you can get good pics - if you have massive cover or ways of diffusing the light, but you will almost always be able to do better around sunset.
While it isn’t clear cut - cause they are including pics from inside and outside - you can see the effect even here:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
That link has lots of good info for aspiring photographers.
I use the M43 Olympus system and am very happy with it. I had a Panasonic micro 4/3 and liked that too.
You can get great pics with most cameras for certain types of situations. But to be able to capture low light, fast capture, flexibility, bokeh, focusing flexibility - an interchange type system will serve you well.
Not quite. Have you seen golden hour portraits?
This is probably a limit of your camera’s metering and whether or not you are shooting in manual. There’s lots of sun flare type portraitsthat do exactly what you are saying isn’t possible.
I’m sure you have clients and others who agree with you. Maybe they have bad taste.
One trick with that, though, is that in the Cheap Camera series they often (at least in the few I’ve seen) arrange the shoot to match the camera’s capabilities.
The usual overly-broad advice is that you aren’t paying for artistry, you’re paying for versatility. A medium-sensor camera with a few interchangeable, decent-speed lenses can take high quality photos in a ton of situations. A smartphone or most point-and-shoots can really only take high quality photos in a more narrow range of lighting and location.
One of my close friends is on that series. As any pro would tell you, you work around the limitations of your camera and know what it can and cannot do, and tailor your shots and subjects to match the performance. The types of photos I take with an iPhone are usually very different than the types of photos I take with a dSLR. Any photographer worth his salt should be able to work within the boundaries of suboptimal equipment, but the types of photographs they can take with it will be much more limited. It’s actually quite a fun little challenge.
That’s exactly what I mean when I describe “ethereal” portraits. Backlighting provides nice rim light on your subject and produces a soft, airy effect. It’s a beautiful form of lighting and it only works well if the sun is at a relatively low angle in the sky. That type of lighting gives you many more options than overhead lighting. You can shoot with the sun as a key light, as a backlight, silhouettes with a rich, saturated background, put the couple in the shade and add additional lighting to balance with a crosslight that makes a dramatic backdrop, etc.
If she liked it, I guess that’s all that matters. But since you posted it here, it is open for comment. There is a lot of contrast between light and shadow on her face, and it looks like there is a big honkin’ shadow of a leaf right on her forehead. There is a shiny spot on her right jaw that I might guess was from a reflector or fill flash but more likely bouncing off her white shirt. And the choice of white means the shirt ends up having a lot of its texture washed out and the collar is a total burnout. Glaring highlight on the upper part of her belly. I don’t do portraits but I find the pose unflattering. Comes off looking like a grab shot.
But if she liked it, I guess that’s all that matters.
:smack:
:rolleyes:
A lot of those pictures are nice in a purely artistic sense, but they make horrible, horrible portraits. The backlighting washes out the features, and makes faces hard to see. And unless you’re really lucky, part of the picture will be overexposed. I bet 99% of people would be tremendously disappointed if their money got them something like these.
From the above links–
http://www.mannersphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/backlight-portrait-golden-hour.jpg
http://www.daveandcharlotte.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Engagement-Pictures-Sun-Flare02.jpg
http://www.hope-photo.com/data/web/blog/beckymac/Maryville-Portrait-Photography-Becky-Mac81.jpg
If you people think that lens flare and overexposure make good portraits, you’re nuts, plain and simple.
If I ever posted something like that on my website (and I probably wouldn’t), I would make crystal-clear that it was something that the client wanted–so that people wouldn’t think that I was a poor photographer.
Okey dokey…
I suppose what people find visually pleasing is a matter of opinion.
I think if your point was to say that a P&S can produce “good enough” photos that hasn’t landed. I looked through what you had posted and while there is clearly effort I would classify most as snapshots. The lighting is flat, details are not aharp, composition is off, and dof is not separating subjects.
I’ve worked in photography on limited occasions to pay for gear but mostly I just take pics of my kids. So virtually all my photo subjects are candid shots of family. Having equipment that is more versatile, and in some cases more forgiving is very valuable. For years I shot with a T1i (500D) before I upgraded to a 5d3 and I appreciate what the difference allows me to do.
I still snap pics with my phone but that’s mostly just to get a picture or a snapshot. If I want something that I’d look at more than once I’ll be using my dSLR.
You know, I don’t want to post my resume here or get into a dick-measuring contest, but here’s an abbreviated list of my credentials that entitle me to an opinion on these matters. I’m made my living in photography or photography dependent businesses my whole adult life, some 25+ years now. I’ve been a photographer, a scanner operator, a retoucher. I’ve worked with hundreds of highly regarded photographers and probably hired dozens. For many years, I managed the reproduction for one of the largest photography companies on the planet and had unfettered access to their archive of millions of classic photos. I’ve probably commissioned close to a million dollars of commercial photography even though that’s never been my actual job. I currently manage a large team handling the web content for one of the most well known, image-conscious brands in the world and as part of that I see nearly all of their photography, product and lifestyle, before my team adapts and manipulates it for use online and in apps. I know a little bit about photography.
And man, you are way off in understanding what’s in demand these days and how to judge photography as art. In my opinion.
I don’t agree. I’ve always been partial to this band photo that Zack Arias displays in his portfolio. Portraits aren’t just about reproducing the facial features of the subject; they’re also about capturing the subject’s personality, their essence, as it were. That photo does a fantastic job even though (because?) you can’t really make out their faces.
Or, you know, what he just said.
He’s a fantastic photographer. Also, ya know, it’s not like you only deliver the backlit photos. Sophisticated clients generally want to see a number of looks. Like how are these photos not gorgeous? Nice expressions, great atmosphere, beautiful hair light, nice foreground-background separation through low depth of field and rim lighting. Textbook solid portraiture.
When I moved down to California, I sold or gave away all of my pro gear, mostly because I am stupid. I like the discipline that only having my iPhone enforces, but I miss DOF. And my Crown Graphic. I had the cleanest, most pristine late 40s Pacemaker that anyone had seen in decades. That was fun, but you’d go broke now shooting 4x5 for fun.
*not my photo and not of my specific camera, but you get the idea.
I’ve flirted with the idea of incorporating 4x5 into my work but, man, it takes time and is a bit a pain in the ass to set up. If I went back to shooting film, it would be large format as you can get such fine control of your focal plane and perspective correction. Sure, you can get a lot of that with a good tilt/shift lens, but something about that giant negative (or positive) sings.
Anyhow, that’s one of the biggest problems I have with point-and-shoots and phone cameras. You just can’t get the same shallow depth of field, and I tend to shoot very shallow with portraits (f/2.8 or shallower for single subjects.) Sure, you can digitally zoom with your phone, but once you get to the point where the image is shallow enough, the quality of the image is junk. There’s apps that will fake it for you, but most of the time it looks obviously fake to me, and the effect is more like a radial or graduated linear blur. When I go out to take portraits of my daughter, I whip out my 85 f/1.4 or 70-200 f/2.8. You couldn’t take a photo like this, for instance with an iPhone or most (if not all) point and shoots.
