my pics

cecilwinthorpe

hey guys im kinda new to photography but these are just a few pics that i've taken. http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2130028596

any comments on them are more than welcome positive or negative.

cheers

cecilwinthorpe

anyone at all want to comment??

Ponster

"You Must Sign In to View This Album"

I guess people don't want to sign up !

Gilgamesh

Ponster wrote:

"You Must Sign In to View This Album"

I guess people don't want to sign up !

I agree

post the pics here if you want comments on them, just a suggestion

cecilwinthorpe

oops sorry didnt realise you had to sign up sorry!












i know some of them have the date and time at the bottom which is annoying but apart from that what do people think?

cecilwinthorpe

anybody?? Im just tryin to see if im goin in the right direction so any opinions at all are welcome!

*adele*

i think theyre really good,colour and light wise
whats the 5th one down of?

K!LL!@N

Everyone takes pics of the sky, i've done it myself, at some point and most don't do it justice.
These ones are in that category i'm afraid.
It's just a sky, perhaps if you had something interesting silouhetted against the sky it would better.

I can't make up my mind about the dog one.
I think your camera is letting you down on this one.
There's just not enough detail in the photo.

The one with the wooden rail and the trees, seems kind of pointless.
What exactly were you going for in this shot?
What are you trying to draw our attention to?

The one with the singer, i like.
Were you going for that effect?

Don't know what to make of the one with the two guys.
Were they on a water slide or something?
It's just too blurred and not in a good way.

The band under the lights, is nice.
Nice colours.

Not sure what you were trying to do with the shot of the eyes.
Stuffed toy, or something?

I think i like the box of lights most.
If i had one criticism of it, i'd have liked the shot to have been balanced.
I'm not mad about the tilting of the box.
But that could be fixed with cropping.

The shot of the speakers, again seems rather pointless.
Maybe if we knew what you were going for with the shot?
There's not enough detail in the photo for a macro shot like this.

Anyway, keep trying and don't be afraid to post up more pics.

Killian

DotOrg

none of them impress me very much at all. the glass jar with the lights is semi-interesting but i wouldn't be intrigued enough to be bothered to look for any more of your photos, sorry.

cecilwinthorpe

*adele* wrote:

i think theyre really good,colour and light wise
whats the 5th one down of?

thank you. the fifth one is Dido when she played in marley park during the summer.

K!LL!@N wrote:

Everyone takes pics of the sky, i've done it myself, at some point and most don't do it justice.
These ones are in that category i'm afraid.
It's just a sky, perhaps if you had something interesting silouhetted against the sky it would better.

ok fair point. any suggestions as to what i could have silohetted?

K!LL!@N wrote:

I can't make up my mind about the dog one.
I think your camera is letting you down on this one.
There's just not enough detail in the photo.

How is my camera letting me down? What other detail could i have in the pic?

K!LL!@N wrote:

The one with the wooden rail and the trees, seems kind of pointless.
What exactly were you going for in this shot?
What are you trying to draw our attention to?

It was actually snowing that day and i was trying to catch the snow but you cant see it in the pic but i still liked it anyway.

K!LL!@N wrote:

The one with the singer, i like.
Were you going for that effect?

Nope that one was pure accident. it was night time and the flash takes slightly longer so it caught her as she was moving

K!LL!@N wrote:

Don't know what to make of the one with the two guys.
Were they on a water slide or something?
It's just too blurred and not in a good way.

yeah they had just come off the end of a water slide. again any suggestions as to how to improve this?

K!LL!@N wrote:

The band under the lights, is nice.
Nice colours.

thank you i like that one myself.

K!LL!@N wrote:

Not sure what you were trying to do with the shot of the eyes.
Stuffed toy, or something?

yeah its actually a spongebob cushion. again i was just messing around with the camera in my room.

K!LL!@N wrote:

I think i like the box of lights most.
If i had one criticism of it, i'd have liked the shot to have been balanced.
I'm not mad about the tilting of the box.
But that could be fixed with cropping.

the tilting just happened to be the way i took it. it wasnt intentionally like that. i havent altered any of these pics cos i wasnt to get peoples opinions on the originals but i will fix it later.

K!LL!@N wrote:

The shot of the speakers, again seems rather pointless.
Maybe if we knew what you were going for with the shot?
There's not enough detail in the photo for a macro shot like this.

again it was just me messing around with the camera and the zoom. i had only just got my camera then.


thanks a million for all your comments they really help. Im very new to photography so its great to see where im going wrong and where im going right so please keep the comments coming if you have any more. thank you.

Benster

I remember when I got my first decent camera, I went out looking for pictures to take and came back with rolls of film on which every picture I considered was a work of art. I had spent the time taking it and I had a fairly good SLR therefore the pics were high quality, no mistake.

That was five years ago and since then I've (hopefully) learned another art, that of self-editing. On any given roll I might end up with 0 - 3 or 4 pretty good pictures, as I now exercise a more scrutinous eye when deciding if a picture is good enough to keep or show to others.

I think it's good that you are showing your pics here as if you get good ones there are plenty to tell you they're good, and if they're sh*te there's plenty to tell you that too...

I only like the abstract stage lighting pic fourth from the end, looks very eye-catching and colourful (but find out how to turn off that date thing).

B.

cecilwinthorpe

Benster or anyone elses for that matter do you know of any decent photograhy courses in south dublin?

rymus

ahh to have a decent slr camera... a digital one even.

and to have the money to piss away on it and some decent glass.

anyway, keep shooting & posting pics cecil, it's always nice to see peoples stuff.

cecilwinthorpe

rymus wrote:

anyway, keep shooting & posting pics cecil, it's always nice to see peoples stuff.

thank you will do!

Benster

Cecil...

Unfortunately I don't think Dublin is great for decent photography courses (although now I've said that I expect to be told otherwise )

By that I mean once you have done an introductory course in which end to look through a camera, in my own experience there is very little for all but those wishing to turn pro to continue photo eduation. There are a few degree-level courses run by various uni's and Griffith College does a two-year course that looks great in its breadth of coverage, but it costs over 2 grand.

I was lucky enough to do photography for a while at school, so I knew the basics. A short refresher in the form of a B+W photo course in the Gallery of Photography was well worthwhile to get back into again. But after that, there's very little. I'd love to be able to do a City & Guilds type of course in the evenings where face-to-face feedback can be given and projects set, but alas we don't have that here.

If anyone can correct me on the above, I'd be happy to hear it.

B.

cecilwinthorpe

Benster wrote:

A short refresher in the form of a B+W photo course in the Gallery of Photography was well worthwhile to get back into again.

would you recommend that course for a beginner? or do ya need to have done some type of course beforehand?

DotOrg

just throwing in my 2 cents

i belive I'm not too bad as a photographer and I've had some sucess in competitions, getting stuff published in national Irish newspapers and international magazines and I've never had a days lesson in my life.

Once you learn the basic technical skills which can be learnt from a huge number of basic books about SLR cameras, to me, it's all about simply getting out there and taking photos.

Go and look at other peoples photos and analyse them and critique them, watch films just for the cinematography, go to art galleries and study what makes a good composition, see how painters study lighting

i wish i'd done a photography degree when i went to college but more to learn the business end of photography but there's no substitute for just going out shooting...

Benster

DotOrg - I totally agree, practice is the best way to learn here. I suppose what I'd like for myself is someone who "knows" photography to give me feedback as to how I could improve, like I would get on a course.

Joining a club is one way, I suppose, but then, posting my pics here would be a good start too, eh? :rolleyes:

Cecil - the B+W course is more geared to developing and printing pics you have taken beforehand. They ask you to turn up with a roll of exposed film then you go through the stages of processing to end up with a print. There is a small bit on how cameras work (35mm not digital) at the start.

Benster

would you recommend that course for a beginner? or do ya need to have done some type of course beforehand?

Sorry, to answer your question - yes, it's a good course for complete beginners.

B

cecilwinthorpe

Benster wrote:

Sorry, to answer your question - yes, it's a good course for complete beginners.

B

hmm you just kinda told me two completely different answers to the same question

cecilwinthorpe

Benster wrote:

I'd love to be able to do a City & Guilds type of course in the evenings where face-to-face feedback can be given and projects set, but alas we don't have that here.

did a google search and found this http://www.rehab.ie/ntdi/artsmedia.htm theres a city and guilds course there if you scroll down a little

rymus

DotOrg wrote:

i wish i'd done a photography degree when i went to college

here here

cecilwinthorpe

how about this one? what do people think?

Thorbar

cecilwinthorpe wrote:

how about this one? what do people think?

Depends on what you were trying to do I guess, if you were trying to get a motion blur effect then I guess its ok but these are way more effective if you can have some part of the subject in focus. I'd suggest using a tripod or failing a shorter shutter speed.

I think the reason that the picture of your dog above didn't turn out is because the white balance is off. Check if you camera has a scene setting snow or allows you to autoset the whitebalance. Also you'd have to have used a very fast shutter speed to pick up the snow flakes.

I find the best way to learn about how your settings work on your camera is to take several shots of the same thing and try to remember which settings were on for each picture then review them.

cecilwinthorpe

Thorbar wrote:

I think the reason that the picture of your dog above didn't turn out is because the white balance is off. Check if you camera has a scene setting snow or allows you to autoset the whitebalance. Also you'd have to have used a very fast shutter speed to pick up the snow flakes.

ok i actually know nothing about photography at all but im realy eager to learn so what shutter speed should i have it on? how do i adjust the whitebalance?
i have a sony dsc-p73

DotOrg

read the manual to learn about how to set the white balance

concert photos need really good equipment to get really good photos. go out and do street photography, landscapes, portraits of strangers, friends, family. work on your sense of composition, use the viewfinder on the camera, not the lcd display, think about every aspect of what you're including and leaving out of each shot. take photos early in the morning and in the late evening sun, experiment with lightand how it affects mood and colour.

and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve
and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve
and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve
and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve
and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve
and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve
and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve
and take lots and lots of pictures, there's no other way to improve

Lydesia

Im sorry i dont like any of the pictures..especially if your going for artistic.

Join http://www.deviantart.com and sign up for an account, the crit there is quite good and should help you develop your style more.

I have a page there http://paulkun.deviantart.com if you wanna look at what i do

cecilwinthorpe

Lydesia wrote:

Im sorry i dont like any of the pictures..especially if your going for artistic.

Join http://www.deviantart.com and sign up for an account, the crit there is quite good and should help you develop your style more.

I have a page there http://paulkun.deviantart.com if you wanna look at what i do

thank you at least you're honest about it. i signed up to deviantart but im not really too sure how it all works to be honest i mean how do i upload pics there and stuff?? sorry im quite slow when it comes to stuff like this.

i like yr stuff by the way. some of it isnt really my kinda thing but most of it is really excellent. do you photoshop alot of yours or do you do as little to them as possible?

cecilwinthorpe

heres another pic for you guys to comment on

Metacortex

I think everyone is subbish when they first start. I cringe looking back at my first images now.
Im not beginning to have an on line gallery which im quite proud of and has just reached 5000 pageviews.
Just keep taking pics and eventually it will come together.

Zombrex

cecilwinthorpe, I am not sure but I think you might be kinda missing the point here about what makes a good photograph. You seem to be focusing on the technical side, the colours, blur effects etc, but are ignoring the fundamental first rule of photograph - “Why would someone else want to look at this." It is very easy at the start to simply take photos for yourself, but the problem with that is that you were there, you know that the photo is about because you have seen the live version. You know that there was snow that day you took the wood picture, you know it was, in real life, a spectacular view. The problem is we don't, and you just presented some trees with a bit in the back ground.

Each photo you take should express something to the viewer, whether that be technical or emotional. You seem to be just shooting pictures of things that kinda look interesting when you are observing them, but they just look like photos of random things when you present them. There is very little emotion in your shots, and as such they express very little emotion. Nothing that you have posted so far jumps out at people and makes them go "wow", they are just photos of things. And we don't need photos to simply see things. I have a speaker in front of me. You shot of the speak tells me nothing I can't see by just looking front of me.

I think you need to think more about what you are photographing and why you are photographing it. For example the concert shots are just portrait pictures of the people on stage. They aren't doing anything, we can't see where they are or who they are. They are just people with a black background. What does the photo tell us about the person, or the band? What does it tell us about the experience of being at the show? You were there, you know what it was like. We don't, you want to try and put us in the room with you. With something like a concert, which is loud and nosy and full of energy you want to try and get that emotional experience across in your photographs. Think back to classic concert photos, like the Clash smashing the guitar or the classic shots of the lead singer from behind with the massive crowd that have covered every band from the Beatles to the Darkness. Often shots like these depend a lot on the lens you are using. Wide angle lens can express the massive emotion of large numbers of people in a relatively small confined space. Often contrasting the lone figure of the lead singer on stage with the mass of unidentifiable people in the crowd can express the effectiveness of the bond between singer and audience (think U2 or Robbie Williams). Even more interesting is capturing a experience like that where the bond between singer and audience is not working. There are very few scenes that are as easy to capture emotion as a concert going badly wrong.

With you out door shots, you want to try and express a different sense of emotion, often one of awe at nature. Lenses, or how you position the shot are even more important outside than indoors. The majority of outdoor nature shots try to capture either extreme detail or vast landscapes. Your tree shot does neither of these things. The tree in the foreground is uninteresting as you are too close to make out any shape of the tree, it is just a mass of uninteresting green. The problem is that it blocks off most the background. There appears to be a lake or something and a small house in behind it, but we can't see exactly what it is. The problem here is that the photo has no focus. What is it a picture of? Are you shooting the tree? Are you shooting the lake? What effect are you trying to get with the photograph. As I mentioned above, you know the scene was beautiful, you were there, but you aren't expressing that in the photograph.

With outdoor shot you want to think about what you are trying to get the viewer to feel. Most of the time you want them to go “wow” as they are overwhelmed by the vastness of the scene they are seeing. Take for example the grand canon in the USA. Pictures of the grand canon can only attempt to portray the awe inspiring effect of the scene by getting in the entire vastness of it. Photographs of the grand canon will often be very wide angle to get a wide view, are be from far back looking down over the entire canon. No one takes a picture of a small bit of the canon wall zoomed in because you lose the sense of vastness that is the heart of the scene. The same is true of the sky. The entire point of the sky is that is overwhelming. The human mind cannot process the sky because it is too big. You want to try and express that in your photographs, but you aren't doing that with the ones you have here. You really need some form of wide angle lens to do this, or be at a very interesting position, possibly from the top of a building or crane. Simply shooting the sky with a normal 50mm lens loses all peripheral view effect of the sky. It is like photographing a side of the grand canon rock, you lose the effect you are trying to achieve.

The opposite is true of something like a forest, where a vast wide angle shot would just be a bunch of trees. Here you want to go the opposite, go for close up detail, or a single tree framed against the sky, or even detail in the moss or insects living in the tree. The point is before you even take out your camera you want to be thinking “what emotion is this picture supposed to invoke?” Think about why you believe the scene is special, think about the emotions you are feeling (awe, wonder, fascination) and then think about how you can express those emotions in the photograph.

To me the most promising shot is the one of the man falling over. Now don't get me wrong, it ain't a great shot. We don't know the context of the shot, who he is or why he is falling over. Possibly some background detail would have been better here, a wider lens to capture more of the peripheral detail, or the shot from a lower angle. Shots down are something are only interesting if the background either has a lot of detail (think city from the sky) or if you are completely ignoring the background. But the photo shows promise because you seem to capturing some of the emotional context of the event you are photographing. We can (just) make out a smile on the mans face, and can tell from the action in the shot how he is falling, in what appears to be a playful manner. If there was just a bit more detail in the shot, possibly who ever is directly beside them so you could capture their reactions as well, you would have a pretty good shot. When photographing actions such as this you want your photos to tell a story of what just happened. Photographs of someone doing something, and someone reacting to them doing it, tell a story a lot better than just the person doing something, because the reaction of the second person helps tell the story of the shot. From this shot we are not sure what happened, there is no context to frame the picture. The man is falling over but we don't know why or what is happening. A shot with another person in it, reacting to the event would help tell the story more.

The only thing I can say about the other photographs is that they are too boring. You need to think of the point of the photograph. What is happening in them? People know what a speaker looks like. You kinda had an interesting idea with the cables, but again it is not that interesting. It is very hard to present ordinary objects in a new and interesting light, and to be honest I wouldn't start off learning photography trying to do this. It is a lot easier to get a good photograph of an action event where something external to you is happening. You just shoot it, and if you frame it right (see paragraph above) the action takes care of the emotion of the photograph for you. Trying to express a feeling from just a “thing” is very hard to do. You have to present to the viewer something they would not see or notice ordinarily. That is very hard to do, and you need a keen eye yourself to spot a viewpoint that would be missed by everyone else.

Anyway, I hope some of that helped. As someone has already mentioned the greatest skill you will learn as a photographer is the throw out the vast majority of your shots. Being self critical and filtering your own work is very important. You want to view every shot not as yourself because you were there in the first place, you already have the emotion of the scene from being there, but as a person who has no idea what happened except for the photograph in front of them. If you feel the photograph doesn't express the emotion you want to express with it, then bin it because it is pointless. But keep at it, being self critical but also taking lots and lots of shots because you will learn from experience the best ways to get across the point/emotion/action you want to express with your photography.

cecilwinthorpe

wicknight can i see some of your work?