Digital Photography Composition 101

Darren writes "With the 'Rise of the Digital Camera' I suspect we will also see the 'Rise of the Dodgy Digital Photo'. As digital cameras get in the hands of more and more snap happy photographers there will be more and more average images cluttering the PC's of the world. Already there must be millions of self portraits taken at arms length (complete with double chins), countless pictures of Aunt Mildred (cut off at the knees) and just as many out of focus shots of everyday objects in the living rooms of new digital camera owners too lazy to move from the couch. Its time to learn how to take good digital images before its too late! Digital Photography Composition Tips aims to teach the world a few basic guidelines for improving digital photographer's skills everywhere."

Comments

Choosing the camera is important

[Joceyln Parfitt]

I found that buying a camera with a rotatable LCD screen helps immensely when you try to pictures from impossible angles. Also if you know next to nothing about photography or you just need to take pictures 'at the moment' without setting your camera up (like on a crowded japanese train), I suggest getting the Olympus 5060 which is really brilliant at adapting the settings to fit your picture (and it does it in < 50ms).


Props to the GNAA.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[ka9dgx]

Even better is the swivel design of the old Nikon Coolpix 995. You can get really close to macro subjects, and still avoid shadows. Its handy to have a viewing tube (cardboard, tape, rubber bands) to keep the sun off the viewfinder, though.

--Mike--

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Glonoinha]

Want to have a picture portfolio that is almost as good as most professionals : there is only one rule.

Glonoinha's #1 Rule of Photography.
Throw away (delete) 9 out of every 10 pictures.

Want one good picture? Take 10 pictures and pick the best one. Professionals take several hundred pictures in several settings just to get half a dozen really great shots worth publishing in a magazine. Most of the time excellent photos aren't about being good, they are about getting lucky.

Let me pick the best picture out of 20 I take on my crappy 1 megapixel Kodak and I will put it up against any camera (even the really awesome expensive ones) if you only take one picture with that camera.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Major_Small]

Most of the time excellent photos aren't about being good, they are about getting lucky.

I have to disagree here, while I agree that you'll only submit/print/etc. on average about 2-3 out of a roll of 24 exposure, skill is the determining factor. not only in composing the picture and getting the lighting right, but in the darkroom as well... especially in B&W photography...

Let me pick the best picture out of 20 I take on my crappy 1 megapixel Kodak and I will put it up against any camera (even the really awesome expensive ones) if you only take one picture with that camera.

working in a camera store, I have to disagree strongly here... take your challenge, if I'm using a Nikon D70, I can guarantee my 1 picture will look better than yours... especially if we're printing 5x7,6x8,10x8, or 10x15... the higher-end cameras can even be printed at sizes up to 20x30...

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[gfxguy]

Well, now you're arguing resolution. If all the images get scaled to, at most, 1k on the longest axis, you'd lose your edge by using the nicer camera. I don't think anyone is going to argue that your D70 is a better camera that is going to take better pictures under the right circumstances.

But if you are talking about composition and getting just the right light and so forth, I'd agree with you - I don't think the "real" professionals throw away that many images. I'd call people that do that pseudo professionals, sophmoric professionals.

A good professional is going to know how to set the exposure, ISO values, etc., to get the right picture. I, on the other hand, try just about every different setting trying to find the right one.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[afidel]

Reminds me of watching a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit special. The photographer that got the cover used a bag of disposable 35mm point and click camera's. It was all about proportion, shading, framing, and other aspects of composition combined with getting lucky with the photons that happened to be hitting the film at the moment he pressed the button.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found my Canon Powershot A80 to be good for this too. Actually, I've found this camera to be a very good all-around camera. Good enough for me until I can buy a digital rebel (and hack it).

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[daviddennis]

It's not necessarily resolution, though - the quality of the camera itself makes a huge difference. If you compare a throwaway camera with my Canon EOS D30, and you scale both images down to 640x480 (the throwaway's maximum resolution), you're still going to see higher quality on the D30 thanks to the quality optics and image sensor.

Whether luck is a big factor depends on the image. If I'm shooting a moving subject, I might be able to get a more striking image out of my Canon XL1, which shoots at 30 frames per second, by picking the right frame out of thousands. This is true even though image quality of my XL1 is far inferior to the D30 due to low resolution and heavy compression inherent in the MiniDV format.

But when I'm shooting a landscape, where motion isn't as much of a factor, I should be able to make most of my images count unless I'm experimenting with exposure, and the additional resolution counts hugely; XL1 landscapes are pretty much blobs, while there is a wealth of fine detail using the D30.

I find that unless I make grave technical errors (out of focus, terrible exposure, etc) I wind up wanting to keep most of my pictures, and I take thousands of digital images a year.

D

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[gfxguy]

I can't argue with you... I bought $25 cameras for my kids, and the lense and pictures are horrible (you get what you pay for, I guess). They are 640x480 and absolutely suck.

But if you have a camera that can do 4x (1280x960), then scale it down, then by Nyquist's theory it should be more than enough resolution. Doing that is certainly going to be better than 640x480 native resolution.

Still, I agree with you - a good camera will have other settings, too. I just agreed for different reasons. Like you said, if you do it right you have more pictures you want to keep than you want to discard. I think professionals do that. When I had my wedding pictures, virtually everyone one was a keeper... he didn't take more than a few of each shot, and presented virtually all of them to us to decide. They were basically all good.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Glonoinha]

Lets take my crappy Kodak DC210+ and your Nikon D70 to the beach on a particularly active day (full of model quality bikini babes.) You get to push the button one time, I get to fill my 64M card with as many pictures as it will hold. I'd put my best picture from that trip up against the one shot you take, and be willing to bet money on the outcome.

Luckily life doesn't have those restrictions - throw a nice fat 512M card in your D70, click off frames until the battery dies and at the end of the day you are going to have a lot of pictures. Cull the herd, delete the crappy ones, delete the ones that are merely 'good' and you end up with the best 12 or so pictures you took. Statistically speaking even a newbie is going to accidently take a good picture every once in a while - understand and apply those odds and you will end up with an album of great pictures.

Only taking one picture per setting is a throwback to regular cameras and rolls of film that held 12 or 24 pictures (or if you were rich, a mega 36 pictures.) If 24 pictures was going to document a full day at Disneyland you needed to be frugal, take one shot of this and one shot of that. With current hardware you can literally take a picture every 15 seconds for eight solid hours (one megapixel jpegs at 256kB per, 512M card.) Throw in one of those 4G compactflash microdrives and you can mash the button once every two seconds for eight solid hours (battery needs to be considered here.)

I do agree with the 'hold the camera steady' part though. Figure that one out and the quality of your pictures goes up in a hurry.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[speleo]

I can't believe I'm replying to this, but, well, this is a stupid way to work at taking pictures.

Heck, if you want to work this way just buy a video camera and yank the good frames out as stills.

Yes, lots of pros work this way but for different reasons; most can take a perfectly acceptable, well composed and sharp single picture when the need arises.

The key skill in photography isn't taking a bunch of pictures and throwing away 90% of them -- it's resisting to urge to push the shutter button when you know the resulting picture will suck.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Digital11]

...the higher-end cameras can even be printed at sizes up to 20x30...

Hehe, yea, the only prob with that is the costs you get into of framing a pic that big... Sheesh.

I got a Canon Digital Rebel a few months ago and had this shot printed at 20x30 on canvas by photoaccess.com. Seeing that I had never printed a 20x30 shot before, I was rather shocked when I went into the local framing store to discover that a decent frame would cost at least $200, and most of the nicer looking ones at $350+.

I just ended up building a frame to stretch the canvas around and hanging it bare. Still looks nice though.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Glonoinha]

You are correct, as a second generation of photographer evolves from my first generation of newbie clickers.

You will know not to push the button because the picture will suck. You will make good decisions because of wisdom.
Wisdom comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad decisions.
Bad decisions are 9 of the 10 pictures you take before you have the wisdom not to push the button.

We are talking about two different classes of picture clickers. Spend a few months taking a hundred pictures a week, understand why the good ones look good (and the sucky ones suck) and soon enough we graduate to the skilled guy you describe. Until then, my way will give better results, mostly on accident.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[angle_slam]

And the corollary, even if you don't delete the crappy pictures, DON'T post the crappy pictures on the web.

I've never understood why a web guide featuring pictures taken on a digicam has blurry pictures. Preview the picture. If it is blurry, take it again. There's no excuse not to.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[wunderhorn1]

Have you ever watched a professional photographer? They just snap away, rapid fire. Guess how many of those get published...

Granted, they're not as likely to be throwing away pictures because of amateur mistakes, but the axiom is still true: the best way to take good photos is to take many photos.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[AmericanInKiev]

This really is crap.

Sure - there is an element of lucj and timing - and sure - you can raise your odds by playing more hands.

But good pictures are more often than not - less than accidental.

You can for example - go somewhere no-one has gone - or everyone wants to be - and take a picture - almost any picture will be important in that case.

But if joe photobug wakes up and says - I want to take a great picture - he will get closer much sooner if he understands what makes pictures work.

Pictures are a 2D of a 3d reality - this requires tricks to convey depth.

first a big piece of glass say 6" across is great.

next proper shadows

next proper highlights - generally over the shoulder - or the rear of the subject.

And just because the focus sensor is in the middle - doesn't mean the head goes there - learn about focus holding (half shutter).

and watch the edges - don't cut off things accidentally. keep hands intact, avoid limbs wandering off the frame - bring the hands back in.

One Master told me generally show one ear and one hand.

For skinny faces - use soft light - for fat faces - use more directional light.

Use soft focus filter for everything.

use an incandenscent backlight for blondes - gives a warm richness to hair - use blue filtered backlight for dark hair - neutral highlights.

etc . . .

These are for people generally - but these is much already learned for other kinds of photography.

The only case that really benefits from random overshooting is action sports and wedding candids.

AIK

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Myglaren]

Not always the case. I have worked with photographers that would take 100+ shots of a fairly simple subject and have only mediocre results. On the other hand, I was proud to work with another photographer that more often than not would take ONE SHOT only, and come back with spectacular photo's. I remember particularly on one occasion he was asked to take some nautical photos - ship setting out on it's maiden voyage and not returning for over a year, by the shipbuilder's who's staff photog was in hospital. This guy borrowed my Hasselblad, first time he'd used it but this was a RUSH. Took one film and no lightmeter or other accessories, from a hired helicopter he took 10 shots on the 12 shot film roll. All perfectly exposed, in difficult conditions, all perfect shots. Whole thing took 2 hours, studio - location - studio. The man was an absolute genius.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to have a picture portfolio that is almost as good as most professionals : there is only one rule.

Glonoinha's #1 Rule of Photography.
Throw away (delete) 9 out of every 10 pictures.

Damn. There goes another key professional secret into the public domain.

Seriously, the fraction does improve as you get better, but you have to be good if you want to be able to keep 1 out of 10.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Anonymous Coward]

--Want one good picture? Take 10 pictures and pick the best one. Professionals take several hundred pictures in several settings just to get half a dozen really great shots worth publishing in a magazine. Most of the time excellent photos aren't about being good, they are about getting lucky.--

This is sort of true for some types of photography. I'm a professional photographer who shoots on medium format and I have to be more efficient than one in ten usable shots! I usually shoot multiple angles and compositions to offer more images, not because only a few turn out. Of course, consumer mileage may vary etc etc.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Doctor O]

This is one really nice photo, indeed. I should look into getting a Digital Rebel, too - tell me, can I use the lenses from my Canon AE-1 (standard analog gear)?

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[carlos_benj]

If your way gave "better" results then there would be no need for the skilled guy. Some people can take a multitude of pictures and all of them will be bad. No matter how technically accurate your pictures are, that doesn't make them "good". There is a lot to be said for composition and sometimes the resultant image doesn't accurately convey the scene but is still a good picture.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Choosing the camera is somewhat irrelevant. I can take one thought out photo with a PoS camera (either film or digital) and get better photos than half the idiots snapping away with digital and tossing the worst nineteen of those twenty crappy images. The first rule anyone should follow when taking photos is to think about your subject and think about what you want to the results to be. Equipment makes little difference until you're a professional but not as much as the price tags would suggest. After all, it's not the camera that makes a photo good...it's the subject and composition. Composition, composition, composition.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[stuktongue]

I've read this sub-thread with some interest and have to add one potentially off-topic comment. I believe that professional photographers do, indeed, have relatively low "keeper" ratios (depending on subject as the other poster alludes to). I think it is quite possible that the wedding photographer you mention had a high keeper ratio because (1) wedding photography is generally more routine than say sports photography or glamour photography, and (2) because wedding photography is highly competitive with very low profit margin. Basically, the cost of film and processing cuts into profits, so less is more. Wedding photography is probably not the ideal benchmark to use to judge professional photography in general.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[stuktongue]

Much of what you say has merit, but I would like to offer up one other idea.

Despite rumors to the contrary, film photography is still very much alive and well, particularly in domains where digital cameras don't excel, such as low-light and high frame rate. I don't wish to ignite a film vs. digital flame war, but I'll point out that manual cameras such as Leicas are also highly-revered in high-end photographic circles, and I'm not talking about photo-snobs here. An often cited advantage of the manual camera is that, in a way, it forces the photographer to work on composition, lighting choices, lens selection, etc., much more than might be the case with an automatic, do-everything-for-you type camera. Once a photographer leaves the ranks of the point-and-shoot crowd, it is usually these preparatory steps that yield the best photographs, rather than the more trial-and-error approach you suggest.

Just a thought.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Digital11]

Thanks. =)

You can use ANY Canon EF or EF-S lense.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[ahoehn]

Professionals take several hundred pictures in several settings just to get half a dozen really great shots worth publishing in a magazine.

Not True. I've worked with a few professional photographers, loaded film for them, held lights, etc... and the few who did just snap off hundreds of frames to get that one good picture didn't really know how to use their cameras. The ones who really knew what they were doing took time to compose a picture, and than only took a few shots.

Fashion photography is an exception, but for the most part - good photographers don't take hundreds of shots just to get one good one.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[jay2003]

Let me pick the best picture out of 20 I take on my crappy 1 megapixel Kodak and I will put it up against any camera (even the really awesome expensive ones) if you only take one picture with that camera.

This is such a bogus statement. Most fine art photographers use large format view cameras where setting up one shot can take an hour and the good ones get amazing results. These photographers do not take hundreds of pictures to get a half dozen. It would take too long and be too expensive.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post doesn't make ANY sense at all retard. What the hell is "lucj"? Fucking shitskull just kill yourself imbecile.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Glonoinha]

I didn't say 'most fine art photographers'. I said 'you'. And point I was trying to get across was that regardless of your relative skill, the quality of the one picture you display is going to go up dramatically if you take several pictures of the same subject and pick the best one to display.

I grant that landscape pictures are going to vary a lot less over the course of a few minutes, and that a lot of things (exposure, color, etc.) can be enhanced or 'made the best' in the lab if you are developing and printing your own pix from film - but Joe User is only going to take so many sunset pix and he is going to do it with whatever camera he happens to own. Joe user doesn't have large format view cameras, and he doesn't spend an hour prepping to take one shot.

I will tweak the statement just a touch, just to reinforce my point. Let me fill my CompactFlash with pictures from my crappy Kodak DC210+ on the kind of stuff that Joe User takes pictures of on a regular basis, and I will put the best one up against a single picture taken with the best camera that a common Best Buy/Circuit City customer actually went out and spent his own money on for personal use.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Major_Small]

They just snap away, rapid fire.

true, but think about this: their subject is in front of a back/foreground, and the lighting has been set up already... in that case, the road crew comes in and takes hours to set everything up (if it's not already set up) and then the photographer comes in...

In my photography class, I used my girlfriend as a model, and got 4 good shots out of a roll of 25 exposures. my instructor commended me on my achievement, and said that most professional photographers only get ~2 good shots in a roll... you can't forget that your subject won't always be in a good pose...

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Major_Small]

you can get a basic frame (nothing too spiffy, just a small black border, no glass) for ~$10 US where I work...

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[instarx]

Most of the time excellent photos aren't about being good, they are about getting lucky.

You are clearly at Stage 1 of picture taking. I was there once and thought as you do that getting a good image is is more a matter of quantity than quality. I suspect that 99% of all those pictures you call excellent are really snapshots professionals would throw away.

Stage 2 is where you will learn to start visualizing your photos before taking the pic to cut down on all those really bad throw-aways.

Stage 3 is where you will start to realize what an excellent photograph is and you will start using your tools intelligently to maximize the chance of getting one. You will "see" your photo before you trigger the shutter.

I now use medium format which precludes all that random picture-taking that even 35mm cameras allow, and there is one thing I know - excellent photos have very little to do with quantity of film processed.

I will agree with one idea you have - that an bad photographer who can take 500 frames will likely have a better "best" photo than a bad photographer who can take only one frame. But I do not agree that the bad photographer will have even one image close to the quality of what a talented pro will get with his one image.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Zog The Undeniable]

That's poor practice, made possible by 35mm film/motordrives/someone else paying for the film and processing. Most landscape photographers using 5 x 4 cameras will be lucky to get more than one shot at a scene. Even medium format forces a more considered approach.

Digital's most negative contribution to photography, apart from the rapid obsolescence of the equipment (and the related fact that perfectly nice images from a few years ago can never be printed big enough), is that it encourages an even more scattergun approach than 35mm film. When Cartier-Bresson, who actually did use 35mm, talked of the "decisive moment", he didn't mean firing off 36 frames and hoping the decisive moment was somewhere in there. So many shots are unrepeatable and you have to get it right first time.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[AmericanInKiev]

its luck in slovenian (if you haven't been you won't get the joke.)

In fact - its just a missed key.

When Slashdot gets that (Edit your post) function that will happen less.

AIK

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[ACPosterChild]

Yeah, I agree.

I think when he said 'better picture' he was talking about getting an interesting shot, rather than actual picture quality.

If someone is forced to enlarge one "interesting" but low-pixel shot vs a "boring" film shot, they're probably going to go with the film or decide they don't want anything :)
I suppose a dinky wallet print might be the best trade-off in that case...

Training...

[solaufein]

Ah, training for the masses that none will probabley ever use. (FP?)

Re:Training...

[Total_Wimp]

I know plenty of people with 12+ years of English "training" that still have trouble composing a sentence. I don't see why photography would be any different. It's not that I think we shouldn't try; we just need to be realistic about the outcome.

TW

Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

More *in focus* voyeur pics. Keep tuned in.

that's gruesome

[blue_adept]

I don't want to see any pics of Aunt Mildred cut off at the knees!

Re:that's gruesome

[SnappingTurtle]

Darn, you beat me to that comment.

Re:that's gruesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I do. I got straight A's five years in a row and Jesus never brought me a pony. Aunt Mildred's a damned dirty liar.

Re:that's gruesome

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Did you dig through the pile of shit she gave you? There had to have been a pony in there somewhere.

Re:that's gruesome

[VivianC]

You've never been stuck in a no passing zone behind aunt Mildred!

Re:that's gruesome

[sdo1]

Too late. I think she was on The Sopranos last night.

-S

Good ideas

[RedShoeRider]

Not a bad list of suggestions (coming from an old-school film shooter). One that I didn't see, though: RTFM.

Then read it again.

It's amazing how much better you can make your shots come out just by knowing what you camera can do to help you out of tough spots!

Re:Good ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, some of the suggestions kind of reinforced the standard plain image thing. From the article:

Examples are an overhanging tree branch, a window frame, a door, arches, a fence, rows of trees, etc.

Replace "Examples" with "Cliches" and they've got a point. You need more than just a good framing job to make an image interesting - you need good overall composition (which yes, can be helped by good framing), subject, lighting, etc.

Re:Good ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

NO! I WILL NOT RTFM! I won't have to if the camera is well designed.

Re:Good ideas

[malfunct]

You failed to read the last article "How to Break The Rules" which gives hints as to why and how to go against the standard guildlines.

Re:Good ideas

[gfxguy]

I agree. One other thing, though, is practice - which is great with a digital camera. I'll take the same picture over and over with different settings. The exif information in the images tells me which settings worked the best when I go to review on the computer.

I've had horrible problems with low light photography with the digital camera. The flash is fine when you can use it, but often the subjects are greater than 12 feet or so away, and the flash becomes useless... the camera takes a fast picture, though, and it's not blurry, but it's dark because it thinks "hey, he's using the flash". After some practice I can use the manual settings to compensate. Most people by a mid range camera like mine, though, and just leave it on auto when there's so much more they can accomplish.

Hell, I had the camera six months before I figured out how to use the macro setting, and now that I have I've got some beautiful flower pictures.

Re:Good ideas

[Alan]

I'm sure you're joking and trying to be funny, but unless you know a lot about photography and camera technology, reading the manual and learning what each of the functions the camera does will help move you beyond snapshots and into pictures that can be great.

For example, do you know the difference between spot, center weighted, and evaluative metering? Do you know which situations demand one or the other? Maybe you do, but maybe you don't, but if you read the manual chances are you'll have a better idea than if you just put everything on "green" and snap away.

Re:Good ideas

[Tackhead]

> You failed to read the last article "How to Break The Rules" which gives hints as to why and how to go against the standard guildlines.

Sometimes you don't have the choice. For instance, if you're indoors, you often have only two options:

1) Turn off the flash. Hold the camera as steady as you can to avoid blur (and take 10 shots between heartbeats), or if it's an action shot, pray that you can build a makeshift tripod in the 2 seconds you have before the shot goes away.

2) Turn on the flash. Get a weirdly-exposed picture (fine, I can live with that), but also get outrageous graininess in the background because the camera decided to go to ISO400 as a "favor". Thanks for nothing :)

Yes, you can fix some of this with postprocessing in software, but it's a PITA to have to do so in the first place.

Re:Good ideas

[iabervon]

I always try without the flash, because pictures with the flash never seem to look right. That may be because most of the places I've taken pictures has complicated lighting which affects the picture I want to get. The trick is to hold the camera against a solid surface like a door frame. Of course, being accustomed to holding the camera steady is great for cases where the flash doesn't work.

Re:Good ideas

[Matey-O]

Often the pictures don't look right because the the white balance is set for natural (or fluorescent or incandescent) lighting when the flash throws a light with different characteristics.

Re:Good ideas

[gfxguy]

Well, that's one thing... I bring the tripod with me now. My famous case is my son's martial arts class. I go to all the classes, but I take pictures at the belt promotions.

The problem is that you don't want to use the flash during the test. If you are close enough, the flash often causes strange shadows in the background, too. The flourescent lights are not bright enough, and cause strange lighting to occur when I use the manual settings with a fast exposure. I've just got my starter set of filters, though, including a flourescent light filter, but I haven't had a change to try it out.

The polarizing filter is just too cool, though. We were watching a class through glass and a simple twist of the filter gets rid of all the reflections. Very neat. Still, even less light comes in when you use it.

The tripod is really just mandatory inside. The other problem is I don't have a remote, so even pushing the button on the camera can cause problems if you're not careful. I'd like to jury-rig something, as no remote is available for my camera.

Re:Good ideas

[morcheeba]

I've got a coolpix 5400. I chose nikon for a digital camera because all my film equipment is nikon, and, more specifically, I can use my SB-25 -- it's a serious flash* and because it's about 150% of the size of the coolpix, it looks totally funny when mounted. But, it is bright (138 ft at 35mm setting, ISO100) and is less prone to redeye (because it's so far away from the lens), so I'm pleased with the combo.

My only complaint is that nikon doesn't do a good job of communicating with the flash, which is why I bought it (argh!). My n90 will tell the flash the zoom setting and it will adjust the light ouput angle accordingly; the 5400 is far more advanced, but the combo doesn't do that. I guess it's a marketing thing to sell newer flashes or pro cameras.

(*as serious as nikon gets; pros tend to use third-party flashes that are larger, don't overheat with constant use, and recycle faster)

Re:Good ideas

[Brian Dennehy]

Yeah, I never use flash. The built-in flash on my camera is crappy anyway, and pictures just don't look natural with it. I've found it helps to set up my digital camera (Canon A75) to take a picture 2 seconds after I hit the button to take the shot. This prevents jitter from just hitting the button.

Re:Good ideas

[RetroGeek]

I'd like to jury-rig something

Set the timer to 1 sec, press the button, and the camera has 1 sec to "steady".

Re:Good ideas

[jridley]

I've had horrible problems with low light photography with the digital camera.

You need a camera with a higher ISO setting, or a more powerful flash. I was shooting at ISO 3200 over the weekend, and got some great results. (Canon digital EOS w/hacked firmware - a bit noisy but very good results anyway).

Re:Good ideas

[gfxguy]

My mid-range camera, while having a lot of manual settings, does not have an ISO setting. Are there really that many digital non-slr cameras that do?

Re:Good ideas

[AmericanInKiev]

Your florescent light problem is interesting.

A proper exposure under florescent light (with an added bounce flash of course) - involves filtering the florescent light at the lens.

This however throws off your strobe color - so you need to filter the strobe to match the florescents.

This means a magenta filter on your camera and a green filter on your strobe.

(Point your strobe into the ceiling with a postcard proped up behind it)

That's the professional route.

Good luck - if you ever decide to make money at that - let me know Ben(et)yonan(+)net

AIK

Re:Good ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I use flash outdoors, sometimes indoors. Try it both ways. Set your white balance correctly. The neat thing about digital - you can delete your mistakes. And practice, practice, practice.

Re:Good ideas

[jovlinger]

I thought all digicams did, appart from the low-end or super-compact.

Re:Good ideas

[jridley]

Yet more proof that the moderators are nuts. How in the HECK is this a troll?

Re:Good ideas

[jridley]

I have had 4 digital cameras now. All but the first one, years ago, have ISO settings. I'm not sure I've seen one recently that doesn't have them.

Re:Good ideas

[carlos_benj]

Get a weirdly-exposed picture (fine, I can live with that), but also get outrageous graininess in the background because the camera decided to go to ISO400 as a "favor". Thanks for nothing...

Get a camera that allows you more lattitude with regard to what it can make decisions on and what it can't. I've got mine set for 100ISO all the time (unless I want to change it).

Re:Good ideas

[carlos_benj]

I've just got my starter set of filters, though, including a flourescent light filter, but I haven't had a change to try it out.

White balance should correct for that without a filter. ...even pushing the button on the camera can cause problems if you're not careful.

Try pushing the button halfway down until all the auto-stuff locks in and then finish with a slow squeeze of the button (just like shooting with firearms) rather than a quick punch of the button to grab the action.

Another problem is that people use the screen on the back of the camera and hold it out in front of them rather than bracing it against their face and their arms braced against their body.

Re:Good ideas

[ncc74656]

My mid-range camera, while having a lot of manual settings, does not have an ISO setting. Are there really that many digital non-slr cameras that do?

The sample size I can present is only one, but the Nikon Coolpix 995 offers speed settings from 100 to 800 (IIRC), as well as an automatic setting.

Re:Good ideas

[malfunct]

You could do what I did with my camera (if yours lets you, I had a Canon G3 and a G1 before that).

First manually set your focus and aperature to the hyperfocal (get rid of wasted time with autofocus and its pretty much what you want for indoor shooting anyway).

And second, take some test shots with flash and decide what ISO and flash setting was best (I think I could do flash compensation, I never played with that) and set those manually. While you are at it lock the white balance.

Lastly take all the pictures you want without the delay of all the "auto" features and know in advance that the camera is going to do more or less the right thing in the environment you are in.

Re:Good ideas

[plover]

I bought a cheap tiny tripod I keep in my camera bag for those occasions. It's a Q-POD mini, and was about $20. Folded up, it's literally less than half the size of my palm pilot (9 x 3 x 1cm, or 3.5 x 1.5 x .75in), weighs about as much as the pilot, and I always have it with the camera. It has an adjustable tilting head and telescoping legs that let me get it level on uneven surfaces like rocks, car hoods, etc.

My only complaint (very minor) is that it has a coin-slot on the screw that attaches to the bottom of the camera, instead of a knurled thumb screw. I know there wasn't space for a whole big knob, but it takes longer to attach to the camera than I'd like.

Re:Good ideas

[gfxguy]

I have a Fuji Finepix 3800, it was almost $400 a year ago (now it's way under $300). It's got a lot of nice manual features, including a lense adapter (I've got 3x and a .5 lense adapters, with the camera having 6X optical zoom), exposure and aperture settings, settings for different lighting conditions...

Just no ISO setting. Playing with the exposure and aperture settings can usually compensate somewhat for low lighting, but I personally need a lot more work in that area.

Re:Good ideas

[jridley]

Well, if you have an exposure compensation control, you can fake it a bit. If your camera's default ISO is 100, and you have a +/- 2 stop exposure correction control, you can fake ISO 400 by using the -2 stop setting, then "push" the exposure in the computer afterwards.

This is *basically* what the cameras are doing internally anyway, though usually there's some anti-noise algorithms that are run at higher ISO settings. Some people even shoot RAW mode so they can use aftermarket noise reduction filters, which can be even better.

Re:Good ideas

[gfxguy]

Ray Bradbury had keen insight.

Re:Good ideas

[iabervon]

Actually, I think the camera I use corrects the white-balance (it obviously knows that it is using the flash). White things come out white; the problem is that white things don't look that white in my actual house, because we use a lot of bounce lighting off colored surfaces.

Re:Good ideas

[iabervon]

I've had pretty good results for martial arts testing with just taking dark shots and lightening them in the gimp afterwards. Sure, they don't come out as well as ones with better illumination, but it's as good a shot as you're likely to get under the conditions. Don't know about flourescents in particular, though; this was under sodium lights, I think, although there weren't very many of them for the space.

but i'm lazy....

[Mz6]

For those keeping track at home, there was a similar article about this same type of this, but for camera phones instead.

I have to say though... Sometimes I am not out to get the perfect shot with my digital camera. Therefore, my laziness sets in and I will not take the time to get the right settings on the camera, pick the right place for myself and subjects, and throw out the rule of thirds. However, when trying to make awe-inspriing pictures these are all very important tips to take heed of. However, the disclaimer on all of these tips is there are always an exception and a picture might look better if you don't follow that particular rule.

Re:but i'm lazy....

[Didion Sprague]

There's also the Holga -- sorta like an analog version of the camera phone. All plastic camera, a single aperture, uses 120 film. It's low-tech, but sometimes low-tech is good -- especially because it forces you to concentrate on the composition as opposed to all the bells and whistles.

Some cool sites:

www.toycamera.com
http://www.digitalsucks.com
http://www.eyecaramba.com
http://www.metaincognita.com (Disclaimer: this is some of my own stuff)

Beware, though: the Holga is controversial. People don't like it because the photos tend to look similar. I'll agree with that. They're similar -- but sometimes they're pretty interesting.

Re:but i'm lazy....

[Fjord]

Thanks, this seemed like it had been up before, but I couldn't find the earlier article.

I agree, the digital pictures aren't really about the quality, it's about the memories. I like to go through my albums, just to be reminded of the good times I've had with people. It doesn't matter if the subject isn't perfectly centered. Hell, I have a series of pictures that have my foot in them on purpose (I hold my leg up, and it appears at the bottom, like a puppet. It's a series of pictures chronicalling the "Travelling Foot").

Sometimes you shouldn't be serious about taking pictures.

Re:but i'm lazy....

[Gorgeous Si]

Sometimes I am not out to get the perfect shot with my digital camera. Therefore, my laziness sets in and I will not take the time to get the right settings on the camera, pick the right place for myself and subjects, and throw out the rule of thirds. But as with anything, practicing these simple things makes it second nature when you take any photo - after a while you'll look at snapshots you took without thinking, but realize that the composition isn't as haphazard as you'd expect!

Re:but i'm lazy....

[ichimunki]

Sometimes you shouldn't be serious about taking pictures.

There's also no reason to have a drive full of crummy snapshots if a few minor improvements will make them a lot more fun to look at. That doesn't mean you have to turn every picture into some huge event, of course, but I find it takes just as long to take a good picture as a bad picture once you learn to take a good picture.

Re:but i'm lazy....

[Anonymous Coward]

this is off topic, but, since you appear to be in lomography (or atleast cameras of the sort), check out lomo.box.sk, a new lomo site. It has good photo gallery that users can submit to (holga/lc-a/actionsampler etc.) as well as good forums. It isn't my site, just a lomo addict that vists offten ;-) CoolMoDee

Re:but i'm lazy....

[k.ovaska]

Who said you shouldn't have your leg in the photo? Rule #1: there are no rules. Also, it's good to have a series rather than mere single photos; single photos have to be really great to be interesting on their own, but a selection of photos on a common theme is usually more interesting.

I don't have leg shots but do have quite a few shadow shots (my shadow showing in the picture). They say the shadow of the photographer shouldn't be visible... bah. Of course, it all depends on the situation.

The quality of a photo is how well it serves its purpose. Memory shots are of good quality if they bring back the memories. "Art" or creative photos have different criteria: they usually should be enjoyed by other people than the photographer and his friends.

Digital Photography Composition?

[JamesD_UK]

These aren't tips specifically for Digital Photography, the basics of photographic composition are the same regardless of whether you are using digital or traditional media and these tips are no different to tips you'd find anywhere else for beginning photographers. How are these tips news?

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[Potor]

Agreed. I don't understand why this is on /. at all. Digital cameras are not new; bad photography is not new; and these rules are not new.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[Mz6]

Why does it have to be new to be on /.?

While I already knew most of these rules, it's good to get the information out to those that might not know these simple tricks. Since most of us here probably own/have owned a digital camera at one time, we can more than likely relate to it. Although, I would rather see something like this posted to like CNN or the NYT for a bigger reader base (read, non-techies) so that more people to take better pictures.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[Zareste]

Clearly none of it's news. The writer just wants some attention. Kind of a lame way to get it, really.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[geoffspear]

Yes, it's very lame for someone with a website to answer a reader's question asking for tips on composition. He should have just told them that good composition has been around for a long time and he should piss off or go to art school or something. Right.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[phasm42]

It's a good guide since a lot more people are taking a lot of pictures where they wouldn't have done so before. One aspect that you may be missing is that with digital cameras, you're free to take a LOT of pictures and experiment and throw away the crap ones, while not spending a fortune on developing film. It kinda reminds me of how long-distance phone calls used to be a big deal, but now I don't even think about it on my cell phone because the cost barrier has been eliminated. When digital cameras were first becoming available as cheap consumer products, I bought one because I'd be able to store my photos on my computer, and I woulnd't have to get them developed. It had crummy resolution (480x360), but it got me hooked. My current camera is 4MP. The ability for your average home user to be able to take a lot of photos and not having to worry about making every picture count due to development costs is really a big advantage. I'm not saying film is going out -- film still has its own advantages which can be debated elsewhere, but for someone interested in photography, or just plain taking pictures for fun (I fit in this category), digital cameras are great. And tips like these are a good guide to all the people new to photography who wouldn't have been taking pictures if it weren't for digital cameras.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[jred]

Some of the rules were news to me, a non-film using, newby digital camera photographer. Sure, my pics are just for me & my family, but I'd still like them to be decent.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[JamesD_UK]

I wasn't trying to belittle the usefulness of the tips, they're all great! :-) It's just that I was expecting a little more from an article on the front page proclaiming itself to be a guide to compositio for digital photography.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[Zareste]

Looks like I was modded by whoever wrote the article. The score might have been someone else's fault but, let's face it, anyone else would have put more than three neurons of thought into scoring. This doesn't help the credibility of the article at all.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[drinkypoo]

Why does it have to be new to be on /.?

Because otherwise, to paraphrase a zillion slashdot pundits before me, it should be "Olds for Nerds. Stuff that mattered." This ain't news by any stretch.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[Zareste]

Heh, now they made it off-subject. Is this great or what? It wasn't flaimbait because everyone else could clearly see the article is useless, and if you think talking about the given topic makes something 'off-topic' then I may as well not bother posting this because you've got preschool in a few minutes.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[Moofie]

Hmm.

The /. headline says "Digital Photography Composition 101". And the site calls it "Digital Photography Composition Tips". And you thought it was going to be The Be All End All Guide to Photography, why exactly?

On a related topic..

[iantri]

Can anyone reccomend a good book on digital photography?

Most of the books I have found assume you are already a film photographer and only cover the difference between film and digital; the books about film photography are not always entirely relevant to digital photography. The books about digital photography seem to assume you can't even take an autofocused picture with flash without help -- that's about as far as they seem to cover.

I'm looking for something that explains what all the complicated settings on my digital camera (regarding white balance, metering, aperature, and so on) mean and do.

Any suggestions?

Re:On a related topic..

[Mz6]

I'm not sure that I can recommend a book persay. However, I have found it very useful to just take a few hours to head over to B&N or Borders. Sit down with a few book selections and read. If you find one very useful for what you want, buy it. Otherwise a quick read should answer all your questions.

Re:On a related topic..

[malfunct]

Get a book on film photography and read that. The basics are the same, digital cameras with any complexity mimic the film camera analogs very closely. Of course after you have read the books on film photography the books that tell you how digital cameras differ will make much more sense.

I also recommend browsing around the web starting at a good Digital Camera site. I managed to find some great info on shooting with digital cameras by doing this.

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you already have the book. It's called the manual!

Re:On a related topic..

[gfxguy]

Unfortunately my mid-range digital camera does not have ISO settings, which it seems are quite valuable for manual settings. That's unfortunate, because it's sometimes hard to figure out what to do in low light, especially.

I'd love a digital SLR, but that's a lot of scratch.

Here is a really cool site that let's you virtually try out different settings: CamerasInteractive.

Pretty neat stuff.

Re:On a related topic..

[Mz6]

Yeah.. and the manual only shows you how to change the settings. Wow.. so I can change all of these nifty settings, but I still have no idea what they all do. And how does changing 1 affect the other? That's why you would need a book on this type fot hing to explain what each of these "features" do.

Re:On a related topic..

[ralphb]

If you have a Nikon, Sony, or Canon digital camera, you can't beat the eBooks at this site. The author, Peter Inova, walks through all the fundaments of photography technique with specific reference to the specific features of your camera. It's the best $50 accessory I ever got for my Nikon 4500.

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

persay

AAUUAAUUAUUGGHH
*dies*

(Lame filter encountered. Post aborted!)

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone reccomend a good book on digital photography?

As someone else mentioned get some basic books on photography. Head to the library and get them ALL.

Look at the pictures, don't read the books with crappy pictures.

My local libray is starting to get a ton of photo books with 'digital' in the tile (like Digital Nature Photography) which seem just like any film-based book I've read with an extra chapter or two on memory cards, white balance, etc and fair bit of "digital RuLEz! Film SuX" propaganda. If you ignore the propaganda some are really good books.

A few good books worth buying are:

• National Geographic Photography Field Guide (There is also a small "sequel" to this one that discusses digital exclusively)
• Understanding Exposure: by Peterson (hasn't been updated for the digital age that I know of... but will help you learn how to use aperture and shutter settings creatively)
• Learning to See Creatively : by Peterson (second edition he talks a bit about digital)
• Anything by John Shaw

To learn your camera and digital specific stuff check out sites like photo.net, read your manual, pracitce.

Re:On a related topic..

[bobbozzo]

Can anyone reccomend a good book on digital photography?

I spent a few minutes recently looking through O'Reilly's Digital Photography Hacks... it has sections on white balance, etc.

BTW, if you have a camera that can shoot RAW format, you can do white balance totally in software, without having to worry about it at all while shooting.

Re:On a related topic..

[Tibor the Hun]

Michael Freeman has some nice books. You can check them out here.
What I like about his digital photography series (light and lighting, nature and landscapes, portraits, and close-ups) is that he provides lots of nice colorful examples.
Those work nice for me because I try to emulate them and generally end up with nicer pics than if I didn't know where to start shooting from.
Metering and aperture are the same basics from film days and those are the things you have to learn by experience. (Much like typing, you can't expect to understand how the whole photo-graphy works unless you understand aperture and shutter).

To understand white balance, take a picture of an object inside, under fluorescent lighting, and then take the picture of the same object outside in direct sun, and compare the two.
The one taken inside will have a yellow tone to it, which you wouldn't notice without comparing because our brains compensate for color differences.
Camera's white balance can usually filter out negative (or sometimes desired) effects of various color sources (fluorescent, tungsten, direct sunlight, bright background etc.).

I don't know as much about photography as some folks on /. but here is my advice:
take lots of pictures, and often.
You'll get better at composition, and will start seeing the photos in your head. That's one advantage of digital over film. It doesn't cost anything to shoot 150 pics in one day, and pick out 5-15 satisfactory ones.

Re:On a related topic..

[reboot246]

Not a book, but I've found it to be very helpful - dpreview has forums covering most digital cameras. You can ask questions or search for topics you're interested in. Also, if you read the in-depth review of your camera on the same site, the complicated settings are usually explained in detail.

dpreview forums

Re:On a related topic..

[2Wrongs]

This book really took me up a couple of notches: Photoshop CS Artistry I don't think it's for the complete beginner, but I got a lot out of it.

Re:On a related topic..

[Daniel Rutter]

Can anyone reccomend a good book on digital photography?

Yes :-).

Re:On a related topic..

[Max Threshold]

Manuals tell you what all the buttons and dials are. They don't tell you when or why you would want to use them.

Re:On a related topic..

[RedBear]

The books about digital photography seem to assume you can't even take an autofocused picture with flash without help

Heh. I think a lot of people do have a problem doing even that, at least until they grasp the fact that they have to press the shutter down halfway and wait for the camera to focus before taking the picture.

I can recommend a good book that I've been borrowing from the local library for the past few weeks: Rick Sammon's Complete Guide to Digital Photography: 107 Lessons on Taking, Making, Editing, Storing, Printing, and Sharing Better Digital Images. It is chock full of excellent examples of everything you're looking for. The printing is high quality so you can actually see the differences in pictures when he's showing what different settings will do. Every example has accompanying explanations so you know how and why he changed something to improve his pictures. There are lots of fun exploratory ideas throughout the book.

It's really one of the best digital photography books I've seen, and would serve as an excellent introductory book for anyone just getting into digital photography, or someone transitioning from film photography, or for anyone who's been at it for a while and wants to get better. There's also a lot of hands-on and very well explained Photoshop projects for enhancing or playing with your digital images.

This book is so fun and informative that I'm thinking of actually buying it, and I can't remember the last time I payed money for a book that wasn't work-related instead of just checking out websites (which I still do, of course, and there are some damn good photography websites out there). The cover price is $60 but as you can see it's available on Amazon for around $30. I feel it will be a good investment.

I've seen a few posters here who seem to think this stuff has all been done before with film, but there are some definite differences between film and digital that you will want to understand. For one thing the dynamic range of digital sensors doesn't come close to film yet, which makes photographing high-contrast scenes difficult (scenes where there are both really bright things and dark things in the picture). In turn, film never came close to the dynamic range of the human retina. There will be many cases where you will be disappointed if you aren't aware of this potential problem and know how to compensate for it. Even if you understood the problem with film, digital will have new gotchas.

There are also issues with file formats (RAW, TIFF, or JPEG?). Each choice will slightly (or strongly) affect the resulting photos. If you actually want to get into this stuff beyond point-and-shoot, it is helpful to have an understanding of how all the "old" film rules translate into the digital camera world, including how the affect of different lenses will be different due to the size of the sensor in the camera compared to the size of "standard" 35mm film. Etcetera.

I mentioned there are some good websites, so I should probably throw in a few here:

Some EXCELLENT in-depth technical articles here. I like the ones that explain why digital SLRs are better even though most only have 3MP sensors (hint: the sensors are bigger so each pixel can gather more light, meaning more signal and less noise than in a consumer chip and thus cleaner pictures and greater ISO ranges). I was stumped by that for a good long while. Couldn't understand why a 3MP DSLR could command 4-12 times the price of my 3MP compact. Lenses are important, sure, but the most important thing in digital cameras is the characteristics of the sensor.
The learning section at DPReview. Good technical and non-technical stuff here.

Re:On a related topic..

[bs_02_06_02]

What are you using in your post-processing? Photoshop? What camera? You might find a users' group for your camera, and ask them. I'm betting you are using point & shoot? Understanding white balance is a tough one. Until you know what you're doing, you really rely on the automatic settings of the camera. When you know what you're doing, you'll be wanting a better camera with more options. Color management is probably one of the least understood aspects of digital photography. Here are 2 links that will help you. http://www.drycreekphoto.com/ http://www.aim-dtp.net/index.htm Lastly, here's a book (I bought it too) that will help you a lot if you're a Photoshop 7 or CS user. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0240 519426/qid=1086665041/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-97812 95-9436769?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Re:On a related topic..

[cowbutt]

I quite like John Garrett's "Guide to Photography" - ISBN 9-780751-348699. It's aimed at film photography, but IMHO, there's enough similarity between a film camera and a good digital camera (i.e. one with manual and semi-automatic modes) that I find it useful. About the only film photography things that are less applicable to digital are aperture settings (digital generally only goes to about f/8.0 or so) and slower "film speed" (digital commonly only goes to ISO400, maybe 800 or 1600 - film goes higher, and can be "pushed" for artistic effect).

The other book I'm relying on at the moment is the full user manual (I have an Olympus C-750, which ships with a basic printed manual, but the full manual is supplied as a PDF on the Windows software CD).

--

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great....I go on a trip of a lifetime to Africa. I see 50+ lions, hippos galore, giraffe, elephant, rhino, wildebeast and everything else under the sun. I take 1,100 digital photos.

I arrive back at work on Monday, and Slashdot gives me the info I needed.

Grrrrr...

Re:Great...

[jamiethehutt]

wildebeast

No big, most people here see lots of Gnu every day!

Re:Great...

[justinstreufert]

Dude, the info was out there on the 'net before you started your trip. You just had to go look for it!

It's funny that we rely on a "news" service like Slashdot to provide this sort of time-independent information. If you get a sudden pain in your chest, do you turn on the TV and wait 'til they run a story on heart attacks to find out more? ;)

Justin

And this is news, because ... ?

[pmhudepo]

I'm probably overly negative here, but why exactly is this "Stuff that matters"? Surely there must be more interesting things out there, like, say, ehmmm, about iTMS pending European launch?

After all, bad snapshots have been around for ages and will be around for many more ages.

Re:And this is news, because ... ?

[Phurd Phlegm]

I'm probably overly negative here, but why exactly is this "Stuff that matters"? Surely there must be more interesting things out there, like, say, ehmmm, about iTMS pending European launch?

After all, bad snapshots have been around for ages and will be around for many more ages.

Poorly-maintained computers have been around for (comparitive) ages, too.

Nerds, like normal mortals, have interests that range more widely than how to liquid-cool their overclocked cell phones. "What matters" is more about a focus on excellence than a focus on a small segment of technology, at least to me. I'd like to be able to take an excellent picture, just like I'd like to brew an excellent cup of coffee and make a excellent triple-gainer from the nine meter board.

The picture I might have a pretty good shot at.

Re:And this is news, because ... ?

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I'm with you. I worry more about the death of decent grammar and spelling because of the 'net than the future abundance of crappy digital photos.

Maybe it's just me.

Re:And this is news, because ... ?

[plover]

Dude! How'd you mount your liquid-cooling thermal transfer block to your phone's CPU? I rigged up this thing with duct tape and paper clips, but I had to use far more Arctic Silver than I should have...

...and I probably should have posted this anonymously, but "what the hell"!

85,000+ photos and going

[ka9dgx]

It's a great set of tips. The best thing about digital is that you can afford to make mistakes, and the cost of practice has gone to zero. The key is to take pictures, look at them, then take more. If you commit yourself to taking 10 pictures a day, you'll start to notice things, and develop an eye for it.

I store mine in folders by date, in c:\photos\yyyy\yyyymmdd\DSCNxxxx.jpg, and it works very well for me.

--Mike--

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[Alan]

I used to do this as well, but went to this: /yyyy-mm-dd some description/image description.jpg

I found that after I'd aquired a few thousand images it became pretty hard to find that picture of the leg of my couch with just looking through directories. At least with looking at a list with files like: /2004-05-05 cats, flowers, around work/flower 2.jpg
it's a bit easier to find. I'd love to use a tool like photoshop album (doesn't support the naming conventions I like), jasc paint shop album (no RAW support) or others (some too simple, some overly complex), but I just haven't found one that fits with everything I'm looking for.

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[TuringTest]

Try Photofinder, from the HCI Lab in the University of Maryland. It's experimental software, not commercial, but I've found that it have some very interesting ideas on storing and retrieving a big collection.

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[pla]

I store mine in folders by date, in c:\photos\yyyy\yyyymmdd\DSCNxxxx.jpg, and it works very well for me.

I did that, until I started wondering what the hell I had taken a picture of just a few weeks later.

I now use a location-based directory tree (country/state/placename/*.jpg), with the files themselves in the format "YYYYMMDD-some_sort_of_description.jpg".

I find this works just as well organizationally (if you need to sort them by date later, you still can), while conveying quite a lot more information to someone not residing inside my skull (or just myself, after I've forgotten the details).

Of course, I have a few too many descriptions like "an interesting rock/cloud/tree/graffiti" to make that mean much anymore, but at least "aunt mildred getting sloshed at cousin phil's wedding" still conveys some meaning. :-)

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[angle_slam]

That's how I organize folders to. I use Downloader 1.5, made by Breeze Systems and it automatically puts the files in the appropriate directory according to the date the pictures were taken. Unfortunately, I can't find that software on their site anymore. It was free (beer) and very useful. I only see the non-free Downloader Pro on their site now.

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[dr_canak]

Or check out Imatch:

http://www.photools.com/

For the non-computer savy, its a bear and a bit much to really understand and use. But if you're fairly tech savy, its remarkably powerful. The manual is a good 300+ pages as the program has its own powerful scripting language for image managment. It is not made for digital editing. It's really made to handle 100,000's of images and t at $49.95 (or whatever it is), as an image mangagement tool, I'd be surprised to find one more powerful at the price point.

Plus its got a great support forum over at Yahoo where the programmer answers questions on an almost daily basis.

hth,
jeff

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[msheppard]

For those looking for the photofinder and other U Maryland software, look here:
http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/photos/

M@

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[rgmoore]

I now use a location-based directory tree (country/state/placename/*.jpg), with the files themselves in the format "YYYYMMDD-some_sort_of_description.jpg".

That sounds reasonable, but it seems to me that it might get kind of painful when you start taking lots of pictures. For instance, I took about 400 pictures of this year's Rose Parade (I would have taken more except for camera speed and storage space limitations), plus about 200 more pictures of the street festivities the night before. It seems to me that giving a descriptive label to each of those photos would have been way more effort that it was worth.

What I do instead is to group pictures first by the year when they were taken- this keeps the 2004 Rose Parade pictures separate from the 2003 pictures- and then by topic or picture taking session. Whithin each subfolder, I use a free-form subdirectory structure to break things up into as many nested categories as necessary. So if I go on a driving trip across the country, I can have one major folder called "Driving_Vacation" and subfolders for each place I stopped or thing I did. If I stopped at the Grand Canyon, the "Grand_Canyon" subfolder would have further subfolders for every observation point where I stopped to take pictures. By that point, the pictures are generally well enough broken down by topic that there's no need for further descriptions, and the sorting process is usually pretty fast because consecutive pictures are frequently of the same thing.

The best part for me is that I also have a (homebrewed) program that will create a HTML-based catalog of all of the files. It recursively descends through the directory structure, and creates an index page for each directory with thumbnails linking to all of its subdirectories and the photos it contains. Each individual full-sized photo is on its own page, with links that let you page through the pictures instead of needing to go back to the thumbnail page and open each separately. Every page also has a link back to all of its parent directories. It's a quite convenient structure that lets me get to the pictures I'm interested in very quickly.

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[Max Threshold]

Try the PhotoDirector software from Ritz. It retails for $29.95, but (undocumented feature) you can also get it by having a roll of film scanned or your memory card burned to a CD.

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[trs998]

I'm stashing mine on a fileserver (soon to be backed up/raided Real Soon Now)

they appear on any computer in my house under /pics and either have read-only access (as guest) or read-write access when logged in.

the sorting system is something like category/sub-cat/item such as, say /pics/Events/NotCon 2004
or /pics/Holidays/Pembrokeshire Summer 2003

Theres 6.8 Gig, 6989 photos.
Most of these photos only have sentimental value. Who else is interested in my (sister/parents/Friend) (standing near some item/falling off surfboard/on top on hill/in house)?

I would estimate others would be interested in about 100 of these photos. These are photos of such things as rare plants under 2cm macro focus and other "odd" photos.

I keep meaning to add a photo section to my website, but the web server's down at the moment (sitting next to be patiently waiting for me to have time to configure bind actually)

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[WNight]

I use /yyyy/yyyy-mm-dd - Description/Description - ImageNumber.jpg

The image number is important if you post the photos anywhere. You can quickly find the one someone mentions even if you've retitled it over the years.

It also means you can dump photos from a few dates, usually of a similar subject, into one directory (/FlowerPics, for instance) without two Flower 02.jpg pictures colliding.

As for the photos themselves, I was thinking of storing keywords in the exif info and writing a perl script to throw all the index info into a database so I can start pulling out all similar photos even if their name isn't all-inclusive.

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[Alan]

Hey dude!

I haven't had any problems with collisions, but honestly most of my images are still in the default IMGPXXXX.[raw|jpg] format, I only started renaming recently :) It also means that renaming is a bit harder, as instead of just hitting f2 or clicking (depending on the program you use) and typing a new name, you have to hit f2 arrow, backspace, and then type :(

I use Apache::Gallery on my site as just a raw and uncut access to my photos and have wanted to modify it to deal with jpeg comments to use for the description of the image, but a) haven't gotten around to it and b) haven't had time to find out if any programs that do image manipulation/organization write comments to the jpeg comments field, instead of their own database. It'd certainly be nice to have all the information in an image self contained though.

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[WNight]

Let me know what you find, I'll be checking for perl modules that do this fairly soon and I'll tell you if I find anything.

You should also consider naming your photos with a five-digit number (prepend a zero at first), or six. I'm already pushing 30k (11k with the 300D plus 18k with the G2) and anticipating 100k...

Re:85,000+ photos and going

[Alan]

Only 10,000 here :( I shall have to redouble my efforts!

More hi-tech digital photography

[GillBates0]

For those who haven't tried it yet:

HAVE YOUR PICTURE TAKEN THRU YOUR COMPUTER MONITOR !
Go to the Free Internet Photo From Your Monitor website
*Sit in front of your monitor.
*Look directly into the activated object.
*Click "Take Photo" - below with your cursor/mouse
*Don't forget to smile at the "camera."

Note: not affiliated to the website.

Re:More hi-tech digital photography

[jsgates]

Wow, amazingly accurate picture. I've never been able to get a self portrait that flattering with my camera.

Get ready for...

[fanfriggintastic]

the pr0n jokes.

Good techniques

[Nick of NSTime]

Will studying proper digital photography techniques get rid of my double chin?

Re:Good techniques

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it'll teach you to take pictures of stuff without your chins involved. =)

Re:Good techniques

[igaborf]

Will studying proper digital photography techniques get rid of my double chin?

No, but you'll be amazed at the artistry of the chin shots you make after reading this article.

The big problem with digital cameras ...

[pherris]

... is the "click to clunk" time. A new film camera with an autowinder that shoots multiple frames per second can be found for under $300 while the same thing in the digital world is at least $1k. I've lost too many shots waiting for my digital Nikon to cycle.

For fast action I still use my old Olympus OM-2 but most everything else is digital.

IMO digital cameras are almost better than film for most things but not quite yet.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[GillBates0]

My 5.0Mpxl Sony Cybershot (forgot exact model number) which cost around $300 has a 3 burst mode, which shoots 3 pictures with a single click.

My guess is that higher-end digital cameras under $1k offer more capable burst modes (5/10/15) not to mention movie-clip recording functionality. So the problem you mention is not an inherent feature of digital cameras. It's just a question of having the right firmware (cheaper) in place - the lens/focus hardware (expensive) isn't limited in that aspect, it's just a question of programming it to do what you want.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[pubjames]

Yep. This drives me nuts too. But it's better if you have a digital camera which you can manually focus, then it doesn't check the focusing is correct before taking the pic. Some cheap digital cameras allow this.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[malfunct]

The canon powershot G series (G1, G2, G3, G5, G6) all have decent burst modes that achieve multiple frames a second and they have an average price of around $500 (depending on which model you want). This requires you to anticipate the shots you want though. What always bothered me about my G1 and G3 was how long it took to shoot an unprepared (and non-focus locked) shot. Over a second for the camera to auto-focus and calculate white balance and exposure. You could get around this by locking focus and manually chosing white balance and exposure. Then it was about 2/3 a second to take the shot. Recovery time wasn't too hot either.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[gfxguy]

Similar... my Fuji FinePix can do 2 quick pictures.

The problem is that if you have an SLR, digital or otherwise, you can manually focus, then click when ready. With most digital cameras, you click, it takes a second to autofocus, then it takes the pictures. Sports shots just suck. Also, with my camera, you can't use the flash (for obvious reasons) when you use the 2 shot setting.

The camera can do movies, but they generally turn out quite dark, although I can use my video editing software to brighten them up a bit.

So the biggest drawbacks, IMO, are low light use and the click-to-shutter time.

I still love my camera, though.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[i.r.id10t]

My just-purchased Fuji S5000 takes 5 shots in just under a second on one of its settings... Great for pix of the baby eating, etc.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[frodo from middle ea]

The TOP of the line Digital SLRs, NIKON D2H and Canon 1D MK2, both have burst rates of 8 fps (frames per second) and a buffer size of about 40 JPEGs or 20 RAW Images.

Thats about 5 secs. of continuous shooting at 8 fps. for JPEG and about 2-3 Secs if RAW, Quite sufficient for all types of sports or action photography.

But they cost roughly > 4K, so you literally pay through your nose.

Currently I have the canon 10D, which is a nice general purpose Digital SLR, but hardly sufficient for Action photography.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[vingilot]

Try the nikon d70 very fast camera. Instant on and has a 3 frame buffer, by with a WA CF card the buffer is flush fairly quickly.

See:
http://dpreview.com
and click on camera for specs.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[rgmoore]

With most digital cameras, you click, it takes a second to autofocus, then it takes the pictures.

Most cameras, even cheap ones, can get around this using the poor man's focus lock. When you press the shutter button half way to autofocus the camera, it stays focused at that distance for as long as you hold the halfway position. Pushing the shutter the rest of the way will take the picture without a focus delay. That's obviously a poor solution to the problem, but it's certainly better than nothing.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[gfxguy]

Yes, and I've used that before... the problem is that, even mounted on a tripod, you are still make the camera move. It also sucks to get a lock and then have to hold it for who knows how long until your subject comes around to just the right spot.

I'd like to rig up a mechanical remote for my camera (no "real" remote available).

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[m.dillon]

I have a funny story about my attempt to take a picture with my old G2 of my buddy snowboarding down the hill towards me.

So here, he comes... looking good, I hold down the shutter button hoping to get a few shots off. I've taken into account the ~1 second lag.

But there is no click. Here he comes, heading right towards me... no click. no click. no click... he's past me. I drop my arm down in disgust (still holding my finger down on the shutter release), not one shot was taken!

Then I hear a click (the camera just took a shot of my feet!), and realize what happened. The camera had been unable to autofocus on the target moving towards me. It kept trying, and kept failing.

Of course the G2 is quite old by now. But it's still a funny story.

-Matt

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What stores are making you literally pay through your nose? I am fairly certain you can buy that Nikon online. How is the payment in such a case? Does someone from the online retailer come to your house and make sure the money is coming out of your nose? Please, englighten us all.

Oh, by the way - you're stupid and LITERALLY don't know what the word "literal" means.

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[Anonymous Coward]

a nikon f3 with a 250 exposure back can take all 250 exposures sequentially at 6frames per second... When will a digital camera be able to do something like that? maybe a digital bolex would be the next big thing, you could even use the same c-mount lenses

Re:The big problem with digital cameras ...

[Art_Vandelai]

Exactly - I discovered this with my G2 on a trip out west, saw a moose grazing on the side of the road, so I slow down the car, took out the camera, removed the lens, turned it on and took a picture. 2 seconds after I press the shutter, the moose is high-tailing it for the bush, and I end up with a nice photo of a tree.

Digital cameras suck badly for taking shots that are only there for a split second. If you're doing any wildlife photography, you need either a dSLR or film.

No story here, move along now...

[doctor negative]

So is the something specifcally different about composing digital pix as opposed to film? As far as I know, bad photography has been around for at least 50 years or so. The real problem is that looking at someone else's family vacation snapshots is pretty boring now matter how well taken they are.

So...

[Keighvin]

All this does it talk about regular rules of composition and put "Digital" in front of it to some how expand the applicability. The digital portion never begins to enter into consideration in the discussion.

There are some differing rules for working digitally; not many of them take place at the camera though (and most there are with regards of which of your camera's features *not* to use).

It's a known fact

[spidergoat2]

People with spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on technology like PC's, cameras, software, etc., but won't spend $15 on a book about how to use it.

Re:It's a known fact

[pmhudepo]

Very true; this whole story reminded me of Philip Greenspun's old Dickless Yuppie statement.

Re:It's a known fact

[Chanc_Gorkon]

When was the last time you saw a computer book for 15 bucks that was actually up to date??

Re:It's a known fact

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A lot of people be better off if they read the manuals that are included with PCs, for free.

Anyway, digital photography in itself in terms of how you treat your lighting, framing, exposure speeds isn't inherently different from film. The only reason to have it in the title is to make it more marketable.

Flamebait

[Heem]

If I could moderate a story I'd mod this as flamebait -1... I mean, who cares if we don't take "perfect" pictures. We couldnt take perfect pictures with film cameras either - or with VHS or 8mm camcorders, but who cares? these pictures of my friends and familty are good enough for me to remember the good times.

Re:Flamebait

[poot_rootbeer]

these pictures of my friends and familty are good enough for me to remember the good times.

I'm glad that yours came out "good enough", but my videotapes of friends and family from 10 years ago are mostly dark and shadowy, and barely better than having no record of the events at all. If we had bothered to learn how to take 2 minutes and get a white balance before taping, or even taught why white balancing was important, the videos that were created would have been of a much higher quality.

Re:Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I tell my passengers. I mean, who cares if I don't drive "perfectly". I mean, I don't walk perfectly either - or rollerskate, but who cares? If most of us get there alive with making only a few dents in other cars, it's good enough for me. Bones will heal, but it's the destination that counts.

Re:Flamebait

[Idarubicin]

...who cares if we don't take "perfect" pictures. We couldnt take perfect pictures with film cameras either - or with VHS or 8mm camcorders, but who cares?

Your friends and family care. You made us look through your photo album, and we had to suffer through scores--nay, hundreds--of badly cropped, underexposed, flash-washed-out, out-of-focus snapshots.

Twenty years from now, you'll be thrilled to have a few good pictures of your kids. You don't have to take perfect pictures, but you just spent a lot of money on a camera--wouldn't you like to get good-quality images?

It doesn't take much effort to check the focus, make sure the horizon is level, check the exposure, and remember to include the top of Aunt Millie's head--but you'd be surprised at how many people fail to think of these things. A little reminder doesn't seem out of place. Photography is a lot like cooking. You can make it as complicated and artistic as you want, but producing acceptable, aesthetically pleasing meals or photos that you needn't be embarrassed to present to company is within reach of anyone.

Re:Flamebait

[Junior J. Junior III]

Yeah, but everyone's imperfect film prints are safely tucked away in photo albums where the public will never have to look at them. With digital images being so easy to distribute via email and http, it's becoming akin to a form of literacy. If you're going to play around with an artistic medium and plan on letting the world look at it, pride will dictate that you learn how to do a decent job.

It kindof mirrors the way that the original photographic revolution sparked a revolution in personal grooming and appearance consciousness. Bad hair, teeth, and not smiling suddenly became unfashionable once your appearance could be captured and preserved for posterity.

Re:Flamebait

[jridley]

Yes, but if you can take better pictures with just a little effort, why not? I mean, you can say the same thing about absolutely anything in life; you can do just good enough to get by, or you can try a little harder.

An example; some people think that their writing is "good enough" so why bother getting better. Some of these people's writing is so bad that I have to read their output 5 or 10 times and sometimes try to guess what they meant, or even write back and ask.

Everyone has things they care more about, or less. If photography isn't your bag, fine, but please admit the possibility that some people care about taking better photos and might like to learn about it.

Re:Flamebait

[aWalrus]

Yeah, 'cause we should never aspire to improve any of our skills! And anyone who tries to help in such an endeavour should be summarily dismissed!

Re:Flamebait

[bs_02_06_02]

I agree. If someone I know takes bad pictures and posts them to a web page, so what? It can't be any worse than Polaroid in the 1970's.
There are a lot more serious problems in the world than people that take bad pictures.

Fair comment, sort of

[Amiga Lover]

As digital cameras get in the hands of more and more snap happy photographers there will be more and more average images cluttering the PC's of the world.

And that's not a bad thing. Most of the people who take the pics want to see the people in the images, and doesn't give a damn about the composition or other aesthetic quality. As long as there's a person they love in the scene, all else is meaningless.

Fair if you're interested in the creative side of photography of course.

Re:Fair comment, sort of

[gfxguy]

Well, I for one AM interested in the creative side, but that's neither here nor there, since that's my personal preference.

I will say this, though - all it takes are a few simple points that can turn a snapshot into a very memorable picture. How about the snapshot of you and your friends after triumphantly climbing mount Fuji only to find out that you are all just sillouhettes because of backlighting? If the person taking the picture had follwed a few simple rules, that backlit picture could have instead been one that you'd be proud to print out at 8x10 and frame.

I think this sort of "news" is worthy because it encourages people to try new things with modern technology. At the very least, there's no harm to mentioning it - which is why I find the "this isn't news" posts annoying.

Re:Fair comment, sort of

[clintp]

As digital cameras get in the hands of more and more snap happy photographers there will be more and more average images cluttering the PC's of the world.

And that's not a bad thing. Most of the people who take the pics want to see the people in the images, and doesn't give a damn about the composition or other aesthetic quality. As long as there's a person they love in the scene, all else is meaningless.

And just remember, even if the quality of everyone's photos goes up most of us will still be within a couple of standard deviations of "average". :)

Infinite monkey hypothesis...

[Lodragandraoidh]

Given the infinite monkey hypothesis (given an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, and time, the complete works of William Shakespeare would eventually be produced), I would assume that the total amount to 'good' pictures should be increasing.

1. The cost of developing for viewing is nil (immediate feedback).
2. You can immediately delete any bad pictures.
3. As a result you take more pictures because RAM is free.

Thus, by sheer accident of the technology, neophyte shutterbugs are finding out the secret of the pros: take as many pictures as possible - one of the bunch is bound to be a beauty!

Re:Infinite monkey hypothesis...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thus, by sheer accident of the technology, neophyte shutterbugs are finding out the secret of the pros: take as many pictures as possible - one of the bunch is bound to be a beauty!"

It depends on the definition of "a beauty". Fact is, if you shoot a lot of pictures they won't be any better if your initial composition sucks, you will only have a lot of ugly pictures. So the rule only applies to candids/snapshots that rely on capturing that one moment in time. If you take a photograph of a building/landscape this won't work.

So, more shots isn't equal to more good shots.

Re:Infinite monkey hypothesis...

[Lodragandraoidh]

I better explain my reasoning in more detail.

Given that you will have a finite set of 'good' photographers (ignoring the small number of people who are improving themselves to fall into the 'good' category on a curve that represents this phenomena) who consistently take 'good' pictures (whatever that is), the resultant set of total 'good' photographs is bound to increase. The factors I listed above (free RAM instead of costly developing of film and immediate feedback and editing capabilities) serve as a catalyst for this change.

My observations are based on experience with myself and my extended family members. I observed, in both myself and other family members, the tendency to get a larger number of 'good' pictures with our digital cameras, than in previous years using film technology. I noticed that people were reluctant to shoot pictures, or shoot multiple pictures using film due to cost considerations. Making every shot count served only to provide a large pile of mostly useless pictures. On the other hand, the number of pictures downloaded from digital cameras invariably returned a larger number of useful pictures.

Finally, another factor that may play into this phenomena is the fact that digital cameras are giving people more 'shutter time'. By this I mean with cheap 'film' - in the case of basically free RAM - people are getting more practice using their cameras, and thus are showing improvement in their abilities, as a result. However, my direct observation of the facts did not corroborate this hypothesis, and so I leave that as an exercise for the reader...

Re:Infinite monkey hypothesis...

[sql*kitten]

You can immediately delete any bad pictures.

In practice it doesn't work like that. About the only thing the LCD is really good for is looking at the histogram. You cannot really judge an image on that tiny LCD, you have to see it on a 19" calibrated monitor. Many's the time a pic has looked great on the LCD and crap printed, aye, and vice versa.

Re:Infinite monkey hypothesis...

[Lodragandraoidh]

That may be the way you see it. However, my observations of user habits differs substantially from your experience (see previous message for details).

I can see enough in the LCD screen to determine if a picture is a complete dog or not - certainly. All those that fail go into the bit bucket. My daughter, sister in-law, wife, their friends, my father in law, and myself arrived at this mode of operation independent of any conscious attempt to standardize - so I think my observations hold some weight.

Other factors that might effect this are regional and cultural predispositions to certain modes of operation...but I wouldn't hold that as very significant.

Re:Infinite monkey hypothesis...

[sql*kitten]

However, my observations of user habits differs substantially from your experience (see previous message for details).

Oh, I know that people do do it. I'm saying that they should wait and use their monitors - you can still delete just as easily from yout HD if the picture doesn't turn out. Some things you can see on the LCD, but much you can't.

Weird friend

[nizo]

I have a friend who takes digital pics, and then when he downloads them at home he changes them at a whim. For example, he moves Fred from the left hand side of the picture to the right to fill in a blank space in a group photo for example, or moves an outcropping that doesn't "balance" the photo. This practice seems totally bizarre, I mean if you are willing to do that to your pictures, why not just download pictures of places off the net and doctor up a whole set of family pictures in exotic locations???

Re:Weird friend

[gfxguy]

Why not? My son was a "ninja" for Halloween, so I downloaded some pictures of scenery from Japan and put him in there... really neat.

Of course, using a doctored photo like that as a keepsake or anything other than playing like that is pretty pointless.... "remember that time we all went to Disneyland? Look, here's a picture!" Uh... no, I've never been. It's a fake memory.

It can be fun, though.

Re:Weird friend

[Dielectric]

My wife made me stop doing that. I was pasting our baby's head on different poses, because in one picture she was smiling nicely but the background was cluttered, etc. The old lady didn't think that fake memories were a good idea. I think it makes my life a little more Philip K Dick-ish, which could be good or bad, I don't know.

I did Gimp her mom into a bunch of exotic locations once, just for giggles. She really liked it.

Re:Weird friend

[Idarubicin]

It all depends on the nature of the change and the purpose of the photos. My grandfather has been an avid photographer for decades, and has been doing digital for a few years now.

He's been very popular among his female friends because he can conceal double chins and smooth out symptoms of age.

When he travels, he doesn't have to climb trees or hang off cliffs to move an ugly poster or telephone wire or the like out of the frame--he can just edit it out. (In my own travelling, I've hopped more than one fence to get something undesirable out of a picture...probably risked my life doing it, too.) He's happier with the pictures, and that's what really counts, right?

If he was selling the pictures to the Times after processing them, then I'd have a problem with it.

A conspicuous social artifact of digital cameras

[Various Assortments]

..is the now-infamous "me taking my own picture by standing in the bathroom facing the mirror with my new digital camera".

I've never seen one taken with an analog camera. Perhaps they love the new toy so much they have to record one of their first good times together?

Top tip

[91degrees]

Takes lots of photos. Throw out the ones that aren't very good. This will be the vast majority of them, even for a professional.

Actually, this was my technique with film as well. Digital has saved me a fortune.

Re:Top tip

[rjstanford]

This will be the vast majority of them, even for a professional.

Almost correct. I would say, "This will be the vast majority of them, especially for a professional.

Even in situations like a wedding where people originally want every picture, you're going to end up taking 500-700 for a 50-photo album.

Re:Top tip

[FooGoo]

I agree this is the best thing to do and can help you get a lot better. I spent 3 days at a photoshot last week with some pro photographers. During that time I shot 900+ pics over about 21 hours of shooting time. out of the 900+ only 10 where good and 3 really good. I can acctually see my evolution of a phoographer over those 900 shots and all the keeper shots where from the last day. The instant feedback of digital combined with no film cost to make mistakes is great for aspiring photographer.

-1 Flamebait!

[ostiguy]

I have a triple chin you insensitive clod!

2 small generic tips

[proudlyindian]

Take a deep breath and press the shutter, it gives a good stability(avoiding camera shake) to the cam which is required in low light or long zoom condition. Take time to look at the corners of the view finder while taking a pic. sometimes ppl neglect it and the resultant pic shows some unwanted things in corners and stuff. And you can always take some tips from my site ;)

Good start....

[gfxguy]

Here's another website that I've been going to; it's got digital as well as traditional photography forums: Photo Takers Forum.

My problem is that I can't afford an SLR. I'm generally happy with my Fuji FinePix 3800, but it's very bad in low light (my camcorder is absolutely fantastic, however, but the resolution of the still frames pales in comparison). I've bought some filters and conversion lenses, and I'm really having a great time learing with it.

Sadly, it doesn't take a digital camera to make most people lazy. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to encourage my brother-in-law to take better pictures by using sarcasm ("nice use of backlighting, there!") to no avail. Quick tip to backlighters: use a flash! It brings out your subjects in the foreground!

My wife is the queen of "shaky-cam", no matter how many times I tell her to use the flash indoors. She'll come back from an event at my childs school, hand me the camera, and I end up throwing about 80% of the pictures away. I tried to teach her how to use manual settings to compensate, but she doesn't even want to try to learn.

Still, even "snapshotters" can make prints like a champ with simple editing software (I have to admit I often use Microsoft's Picture It Express 7.0 that came free with a Kodak picture CD - red eye removal, cropping to standard image sizes, basic color/brightness/contrast editing... and free). For example, the first thing in the article is composition - very often you can fix this with creative cropping. Doesn't always make up for poor photography to begin with, but you can fix an awful lot.

Just...get...closer

[Drunken_Jackass]

These tips are great, but i think that everyone would see a big improvement in their picture quality if they followed the #1 of photography - fill the frame.

9 times out of 10, when you're shooting someone or something, you need to prioritize what the focus of the photo is supposed to be, and fill the frame with it. The rest of the composition usually falls into place.

It's the simplest way to get better composition without a lot of extra thinking. Either use your feet, or use your zoom and get closer to your subject.

women

[millahtime]

as they were talking the rules of thirds i realized that a womans breasts are about 1/3 the way down from the top. that's why we guys are always looking and attracted to them so much. it's not our fault. it's just nature

shutter lag

[adamgeek]

shutter lag is the term you're looking for. and yes, everything short of DSLRs that i've used, seems to suck to varying degrees at this.

however, you can get VERY good at shooting action, even with lag. for a long time, my friend Pete was shooting semi-pro photos at rallies.. using only a coolpix 5000. he eventually made the switch to DSLR. if you look at some of his old stuff, he can pan perfectly in time with a car 50 feet away going 100mph.. of course, pete isn't your average digicam user either ;)

Re:shutter lag

[pherris]

Excellent stuff. The Nikon 5200 (the closest thing to the 5000 I guess) is $500 retail, which IMO is very reasonable. I wonder how fast it is for the first shot? Does it feel like the response of a SLR? I guess they've make some improvements since the 3200.

Your friend has taken some great pics. And yes, the term the correct term is shutter lag. Thanks for the correction.

Re:shutter lag

[brer_rabbit]

the best way to overcome shutter lag is to manually focus. Using manual focus on a digital camera the shutter lag, while still not as good as a fully manual film camera, isn't that bad.

Figuring out how to use the manual focus and prefocusing on a digital camera is left as an exercise to the reader.

nothing new...

[klocwerk]

it's not that people didnt' used to take useless photos, just that since they were film shots the rest of the world wasn't exposed (hahamesopunny!) to their awful photography. With the advent of userfriendly webhosting and easy-upload photo sharing sites, the web is quickly being filled up with this dreck.

The administrators of this here interweb are going to need to add some memory or sumthin.

Re:nothing new...

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Who is forcing you to look at it?? HMMMM?

Re:nothing new...

[afidel]

On the flipside I can enjoy new works of art almost daily if I choose by going to sites like dpchallenge. Compare this to going to an art museum every couple years to see a new photo expo that may or may not be all that great (and I live near one of the worlds best art museum's Cleveland Art Museum). Digital photography not only makes the art side cheaper it also makes it cheaper and easier for me to enjoy the art that is being created.

My tips

[pubjames]

David Bailey, a famous British photographer, once said (something like) "The quickest way to double your skill as a photograph is to throw away half your photographs".

It is absolutely true - most professional photographers take hundreds of photographs a day, only one or two of which are likely to be actually seen. This used to be one big advantage professionals had over amateurs - amateurs couldn't afford all that film and developing. With digital cameras, now you can take as many photos as you like.

Personally I just follow three simple rules:

1) Is the light nice? This is fundamental - if you've got nice evening or morning sunlight, your change of a good photo increases enormously. If it's a cloudy grey day, put the camera away.

2) Get closer. Just a step closer would improve so many amateur photos.

3) Take lots of photos. Even if you are taking the same subject again and again, one will of them be better than the others - especially if you are photographing people. Even more so if they are children.

To summarise:
1) Good light?
2) Get closer!
3) Take more!

Re:My tips

[pmhudepo]

If it's a cloudy grey day, put the camera away.

No! Please don't. Go for little details. Notice how the absence of sunlight also causes the absence of harsh shadows.

Indeed, don't expect a grand landscape to look great in dull light. Or the sky. Or lots of other "splendid" things. But do take advantage of the "mother of all soft boxes": an overcast sky.

I wholeheartedly agree with your (or rather, Robert Capa's) tip to get closer. Fill the frame.

Re:My tips

[pubjames]

I stick by my three rules, because they are just general very basic guidelines - what I try to drum into my mum, for instance, so she doesn't take dozens of lousy shots of her grandchilren.

If, however, you want to take photography more seriously, then of course my rules don't really apply. There have been great photographers who hate the "take more" rule (people of the "Ansel Adams" school, for instance).

Re:My tips

[meta-monkey]

[quote]If it's a cloudy grey day, put the camera away.[/quote]

Absolutely not! Cloud cover turns a hard, directional light (the sun during the middle of the day) into a soft, diffuse light. Clouds are a giant softbox...I love 'em. However, you just don't want to get the sky in the frame.

Re:My tips

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a bad 3 rules, but you are dead wrong about cloudy days.

The really `bad` light is bright noonday sun. Very hard to work with. Soft lighting on a cloudy day can be wonderful (rain too).

Re:My tips

[pubjames]

Absolutely not! Cloud cover turns a hard, directional light (the sun during the middle of the day) into a soft, diffuse light.

Ok. I shouldn't have added the bit about cloudy days, because as you say, sometimes the light can be great even when it's cloudy. But the rule about good light still stands - it's just it's true that you can have good light on cloudy days.

Re:My tips

[poot_rootbeer]

With digital cameras, now you can take as many photos as you like.

Speed is still a concern though, especially for documenting fast moving situations (like sports, or trying to snap a shot of something out the window of a moving vehicle)

With a film camera, the next shot can be taken just about as quickly as the next exposure on the strip can be spooled into place. With a digital camera, though, the image has to be captured, digitized, compressed to JPEG, and written to the storage medium. Granted, any digital camera over $30 will have dedicated encoders and data buffers and fast media to help minimize the problem, but even a rate of one shot per second is enough to overwhelm a good percentage of the digital still cameras on the market.

Re:My tips

[Dun Malg]

There have been great photographers who hate the "take more" rule (people of the "Ansel Adams" school, for instance).

Yeah, but he used a view camera. Anyone who's ever had to buy film for a view camera tends to think along the lines of "plan better, take fewer".

Re:My tips

[Hiro Antagonist]

Er, you do realize that cloudy, gray days provide this great, diffused light, which is perfect for a variety of subjects, whereas bright-and-sunnry days give very contrasty shadows which are very difficult to work with, even for professionals?

Re:My tips

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually harsh sun throws hard shadows - not good.
cloudy, misty, rainy, much better

missing the point surely

[jeff munkyfaces]

one of the biggest advantages of digital photography is that you can easily crop and compose your images after you have taken them.

apart from that, what is this article telling us about digital photography?

Re:missing the point surely

[Andy_R]

that it's very simlilar to non-digital photography?

Wow this is absurd

[lancomandr]

They have Lightspeed content filtering at my highschool and it catergorizes the link to the article as porn. Better yet, their function to submit a site for human evaluation is broken. I think it just doesn't like any non-US domains with the exception of .uk. I have tried to look at websites in Holland and Finland about some electronics projects before and it catergorized them as porn. Are there any non-AU mirrors? *sigh*

Yep

[Enahs]

Insult the reader with abrasive teaser copy and expect them to read. Lest we forget, the rise of the Intarweb brought the rise of bad journalism.

some personal tips

[Ubergrendle]

I'm not a professional nor even a good amateur photographer. However, using some common sense I've found that I can consistently come up with some excellent shots that are comparable to my hard core photography-obsessed friends.

#1. Its digital. Take a ton of shots. Take shots you don't think will turn out; take lots of the obvious shots. Shoot your camera with reckless abandon. It costs you ~nothing~. This technique was validated by a professional photographer friend later on...he claimed that at professional shoots you sometimes have a ratio of 10:1 or 100:1 of good vs bad shots, even with an optimum setup and years of experience on his side.

#2. Know the limitations of your camera. If you don't have an big zoom lense, don't expect long distance shots to turn out. Digital zoom is pretty useless. Most digital cameras have a good short-to-middle distance focal length. Anything beyond that and you're pushing beyond your camera's limits.

#3. Next best investment you can make to getting a good camera = tripod. Extend the exposures to get more clear pictures in low-light conditions, or dark coloured subject matter. Lots of shots I took at the time looked good in the LCD screen, but later turned out to be slightly blurred.

#4. Avoid use of the flash. Its a 'brute force' attempt to get good lighting. Work with your ISO setting and exposure levels first. (remember your tripod!). If you don't know about ISOs or exposure, who cares, just take the same pic 3-4 times with different levels...you learn.

5. Be brutal about your pics. Take 200, delete 190. Don't be the guy with the unending home movies... only keep and show the best of your best pics. You'll also get a good rep for taking good photos this way.

6. Learn the basic filters in Photoshop and touch up your digital pics if necessary. I prefer Photoshop sepia and B&W to the filters that come with the camera.

For hard core photographers this may all seem obvious, but for us beginners I found these 5 or 6 tips are what really made the difference for my pics. And they're easy to execute.

Re:some personal tips

[gfxguy]

#1; I agree for amateurs, but I don't think really good professionals take pictures like that... of course they do, but it depends on the situation. In a studio they should absolutely not have to do that. At a wedding, where you are taking many different pictures (just the bride, just the groom, now the bride and groom, now with the parents...) you can't really take more than three or four of each shot, otherwise it would take hours, and the whole wedding party is generally itching, at that point, to get to the party.

#2; I agree - I got a camera with a 6x optical zoom, which is pretty good for a consumer grade mid-range digital camera. I'd like the Canon with the 10x, though! I did buy a 3x conversion lense, but it doesn't compensate for a good telephoto lense on an SLR.

#3; Can't agree more.

#4; The flash can be your friend when you are running out of options. I still use it when I have no choice but to have backlighting. What people need to remember is the distance for a flash, especially a built in one, is not very long, and they need to be aware of the wierd and very hard shadows that the flash can cause.

#5 and 6; Can't agree more.

Re:some personal tips

[Idarubicin]

Avoid use of the flash. Its a 'brute force' attempt to get good lighting.

Important exception: if you have backlighting or harsh shadows on the subject--sometimes it's a good idea to use flash to fill in and soften.

One of the biggest difficulties associated with challenging lighting situations is that our eyes have a much greater dynamic range than the film (or CCD, in this case.) Something that looks like a hint of shadow to our eyes turns into an ugly slash of darkness when you take a picture.

Re:some personal tips

[m.dillon]

good tips except for #4, which I would disagree with quite strongly. Built-in flashes usually produce horrible results but a mounted flash bounced off the ceiling produces quite excellent results (and if you can't do that, a using a diffusor is your next best option). While it takes time to learn, controlling the flash exposure can produce really excellent results. You definitely do not want to bump up the ASA setting, at least not too much, because that will result in horrible digital noise and greatly reduce your post-processing options. The important thing to remember when using a flash on a digital camera is simply to avoid washing out the detail in the picture and not blowing up the white balance too badly (bounce and diffusor make a huge difference in how the results look). Most anything else can be fixed in gimp or photoshop. (e.g. the balloonman url I posted earlier is an example of an unedited photo which contains sufficient contrast, low noise, and detail to be very easily editable in gimp or photoshop for production output).

Even a point-and-shoot's flash will produce reasonable shadow fill results for daylight photos. Try this experiement: In bright sunlight take a picture of a friend's face where part of his face is significantly shadowed (e.g. by his hair or the angle of the sun). Take the picture with and without the flash, then load both into gimp or photoshop and see how well you can clean them up. You will find that you can clean up the fill-flashed picture a lot more easily.

Example #2: open your garage door and from inside the garage take a photo that includes portions of the inside (in shadow) and outside (in the sun) of the garage. Do this with and without fill flash and bring them into gimp/photoshop. You will find the fill flash photo a lot easier to clean up.

-Matt

Re:some personal tips

[Anonymous Coward]

when using a flash indoors.... you do not always have to use the camera in the highest flash sync speed. (ie 1/200 or 1/250 or whatever)

If you consider that the flash illuminates the primary subject and the ambient light illuminates the background, then choosing a lower shutter speed such as 1/30 or 1/15 can result in a much better interior flash photography, especially considering the flash will keep the focused detail sharp, and the background should be out of the DOF anyway so camera shake will not make much difference.

You still have to have a steady grip and squeeze the trigger properly.

tips on taking outstanding pictures

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

When Taking a picture of your G friend.

• Take picture
• Fire up photshop
• Download a picture of 'insert beautiful celebrity here'
• cut and paste G friends head onto aforementioned downloaded picture.

When taking a picture of yourself

• Turn off all light sources
• turn off all flash bulbs, etc.
• Turn off the camera
• take the picture

Use a proper flash

[m.dillon]

If you want the perfect shot, proper use of a flash is essential, especially with the limited contrast range (not enough bits per pixel) that even good digital cameras have issues with.

(1) Get a good bounce flash, e.g. like the Canon 420 EX for Canon EOS cameras.

(2) Get a diffusor ($0.01 worth of milky plastic, usually $5-$10 retail). For most shots either bounce the flash off the ceiling or use the diffusor. Never use a direct-pointing flash unless you have no choice (e.g. shots from a distance).

(3) Learn how to properly use Tv, Av, and Manual modes with the flash to properly fill the image. I generally either use Av with the flash sync fixed at 1/200, or Manual mode to control how much of the shot is from natural light and how much is from the flash (on the Canon the flash exposure is automatic when operating in manual mode though for obvious reasons you have to be more careful about its exposure range capabilities).

(4) The proper use of a flash for fill is even more important in bright sunlight due to the huge contrast between shadow and sunlight (especially on faces). I almost universally use the flash with the diffusor for daylight shots.

And that's pretty much it. Most people don't use flashes properly, but it doesn't take much exposure :-) to at least double and maybe even triple the number of good shots you take in a day. As usual, I just happen to have some great examples:

The BalloonHat guy at NextFest

Re:Use a proper flash

[Anonymous Coward]

Your balloon hat pictures are terrible. Sorry to say.

Re:Use a proper flash

[ManxStef]

Pretty good advice, but the Canon flash system's confusing at the best of times! If you've got an ETTL capable camera remember that you *can not focus then recompose* when using the flash unless you fire the Flash Exposure Lock (FEL) afterwards - it weights the flash exposure around the original focus point and things can go quite screwy (esp. with white garments like wedding dresses). The FEL button helps, but people think you've taken a picture when the preflash fires so it doesn't help posing much :( People coming from other systems hate this and I tend to agree, Nikon handles flash a lot better (though I'm a Canon man myself).

As for plastic diffusers, the Stofen instructions state that you should never use it directly and should *always* tilt to 45 degrees or so and bounce it off the ceiling. As such, they're not very useful at all, esp. when the ceiling isn't white. If you can't bounce off the ceiling I'd recommend buying a decent "mini-softbox" that velcros over the flash head (if you can get a bigger one than the Lumiquest, do so). They're fiddly and bulky, but the results are better.

Oh, one last addition: **always** use a flash bracket: something that holds the flash above and to the left/right of the camera - on-camera mounted flash (even with a diffuser) is the no.1 cause of ugly shadows. If you only have the money for a flash bracket + cord, or a diffuser, go with the bracket.

Re:Use a proper flash

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful with the flash bracket, it makes people very self-concious because you're pointing this mass of equipment at them. Heck, even putting the speedlight on top of the camera is enough to take the situation from "casual snapshot" to "serious photo", and people start getting self-concious.

Flash+bracket+diffuser is great for photographing bugs too.

Re:Use a proper flash

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Balloon Hat Guy an example of how *not* to light your subject?? No offsense, but those pics are .. not worth putting on a website.

Also, isn't like some kind of mortal sin to put a Sigma lens on any camera that cost more than $300?

Re:Use a proper flash

[m.dillon]

Heh, I could fill a book getting every detail down. The presumption is that you pretty much have to have the flash at at least 45 degrees with a diffusor, otherwise the focusing element on the flash won't necessarily go wide-angle. So, yes, definitely angle the flash with a diffusor.

It took me a while to learn how to use the 420EX, but it's really easy once you've played with one for a while. I started out locking the exposure at 1/200 but once I realized that automatic flash compensation actually worked properly in Manual mode I pretty much just use Manual mode (with the 10D, I don't think it works with the 300D) for late afternoon/evening/night flash shots, and Av for daylight shadow fill flash shots. (You have to use something that controls the aperture when using this particular Sigma lens because it has very bad distortion at low F-stops... but it's an excellent lens at F4). I wish the wireless 5xx series didn't cost so much (you need an additional expensive piece of equipment to actually use it in wireless mode), else I'd have someone hand-holding a second flash to get better coverage.

Flash brackets are just too imposing, I hardly ever use mine any more (the 10D with the flash and Sigma 20mm lens alone is already almost too imposing for casual shots).

And, as for the silly anonymous posters denegrating my wonderful balloonman shots :-), well, they can kiss my ass for all I care, and put up some URLs with their full blown non-thumbnailed shots if they care to compare casual pics. I didn't edit any of those photos and there's plenty of contrast there to work with. The glossy prints look very good (though the flower shots are of course much better since I didn't have to deal with a near pitch black warehouse), and most of those were taken wide frame for crop-down purposes anyway. But, of course, those anonymous bozos don't understand any of that so I don't even know why I bother trying to explain it to them.

-Matt

fairly common in the photography world

[adamgeek]

depends on what aspect of photography you're looking at, but (for instance) photoshop's dodge and burn tools come from REAL WORLD use of dodging and burning in film developing. photographers have been "doctoring" their pics for decades, cropping, adjusting saturation and contrast, etc. the digital ability to easily retouch unwanted stuff out, or recompose the photo, is a natural extension of what has already been occuring for a long while.

but, where it applies to 95% of the photos they bring me at work that need to be in a press release and ask me to remove 4 people from the background, i sure with they would have taken an extra 15 seconds to compose the photo properly, instead of expecting me to sacrifice an hour to fix it digitally.

Re:fairly common in the photography world

[nizo]

I can understand this in a commercial setting, but for personal pictures? We are talking family photos here. I mean heck, why not start adding in dead relatives to your pictures of your next family trip????

I guess the point I am getting at here is that at least in my pictures, I want them to be a record of what was actually there, with as little fiddling with the picture as possible. Other folks probably feel differently.

Why just digital photography

[drgonzo59]

The rules mentioned are the same for yer olde analog 35 or 120 cameras. The article should have been titled "the rules of photography," since there is nothing pertaining to digital in the article.

low light photography - personal tip

[pomakis]

When I'm taking a photo of a non-moving subject (i.e., not a person) in low light, this is what I tend to do:

• disable the flash
• set the ISO to 50 to minimize "grain"
• enable the timer (2-second preferrably)
• place the camera on a rock, fence stump, hood of a car, whatever (in leiu of a tripod)
• press the shutter release and stand back

Results will vary, of course, but I've taken some awesome low-light shots this way. For example, this one. This technique isn't limited to digital photography either (with the exception of the setting-the-ISO part).

Re:low light photography - personal tip

[sharph]

Setting the ISO.......

That gives me an idea.

I wonder if you could have a liquid crystal thing in a film camera to simulate lower film speeds.

Of course that would mess with polarized light, but its just an idea.

Re:low light photography - personal tip

[CanadianCrackPot]

Cool Purdy's Wharf in Halifax right?

Re:low light photography - personal tip

[pomakis]

Yup! Taken from a friend's balcony.

The problem is Aunt Mildred

[lfourrier]

note: I didn't bring Aunt Mildred into the conversation, so don't "you incensitive sod" me with your aunt Mildred, or because you are called Mildred and have a few nephews ;).

Already there must be millions of self portraits taken at arms length (complete with double chins), countless pictures of Aunt Mildred (cut off at the knees) and just as many out of focus shots of everyday objects in the living rooms of new digital camera owners too lazy to move from the couch.

As the cost of photography and storage tends toward zero, it is not imaginable to think it will slow. You know the TV show where they show people having accident, filmed with a camescope, by some bystander ?

It could not work if millions of people where not filming absolutly anything. With photo, it will be more so, and even if we don't get gargoyles yet, millions, billions, and more photos will be taken, that are not intented as photo as we know it.

And frankly, Aunt Mildred is cut off at the knees, but what was the justification to take the picture in the first place ?

Before asking people to learn how to photograph, you must first teach them good taste.

Set the camera to dummy mode

[www.sorehands.com]

Once you do that, you will be fine.

Use a proper flash II (more shots)

[m.dillon]

Here are some more examples of flash shots. My parent's maintain a wonderful garden and they were on the Secret Garden Tour in Berkeley this year. I took a lot of shots of flowers. Unlike the NextFest shots, which were in a dark warehouse, nearly all of the garden shots were in bright sunlight. Proper use of the flash filled in the shadows and narrowed the contrast range, producing some incredible flower shots.

I should have saved some of the test shots I took with and without the flash but I didn't. Suffice it to say that most of these shots would not look anywhere near as good as they look without the flash to provide shadow fill.

Secret Garden Tour Shots

Aspect Ratio

[MCZapf]

I've noticed that many digital photos are in a 4:3 aspect ratio, instead of the 3:2 aspect ratio of film. Has anyone who's switched from a film camera to a digital camera had problems with this? I imagine it would be harder to properly fill the more squarish frame, as most subjects seem to be suited to the landscape or portrait proportions. Then again, I often crop my film photos to make desktop wallpaper for my computer, and it doesn't seem to be a big problem.

Re:Aspect Ratio

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I'm a film guy, but my feeling is that 3:2 is a great proportion for landscape-orientation shots, but not that good for portrait, while 3:4 is the opposite. I usually find myself cropping portrait orientation shots to something close to 3:4, while I crop landscape shots less frequently, and usually to make them narrower and more panoramic.

Incensitive

[TheCrig]

Coconut or fruity?

The 1500s just called...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

With the 'Rise of Oil and Canvas' I suspect we will also see the 'Rise of the Dodgy Oil Painting'. As oils, brushes, and canvas get in the hands of more and more amateur painters there will be more and more average paintings cluttering the walls of the world. Already there must be millions of self portraits (complete with double chins), countless pictures of Aunt Mildred (cut off at the knees) and just as many poorly drawn renderings of everyday objects in the living rooms of new painters too lazy to move from the couch. Its time to learn how to make good art before its too late! Drawing and Painting Composition Tips aims to teach the world a few basic guidelines for improving painter's skills everywhere.

Walk through darkroom techniques electronically

[SgtChaireBourne]

The best thing about digital is that you can afford to make mistakes, and the cost of practice has gone to zero. The key is to take pictures, look at them, then take more. If you commit yourself to taking 10 pictures a day, you'll start to notice things, and develop an eye for it.

You can do the same when practicing prints as well. Some friends of mine got MFAs in photography and made the same recommendation, but also for the darkroom as well. One used a grant plus some of her own money for a Hassleblad + lens. She did a lot of preliminary effects with Photoshop to get an idea of what to pursue and plan her lab sessions rather carefully. The result was cutting an average of 15 hours in the dark room down to around 2.

I store mine in folders by date, in c:\photos\yyyy\yyyymmdd\DSCNxxxx.jpg, and it works very well for me.

I let iPhoto take care of the folders for me. ;) However, what I would like is a camera that saved as PNG. Checked about 15 digital cameras last week in the 4 and 5 mega pixel range and found that most suffered from compression artifacts because of JPEG.

My Advice for the Average photo moron

[aflat362]

The average person who acquires a digital camera won't bother to read an article like this. Here's my dumbed down version of this advice and some of my own that maybe even the most technologically inept can appreciate and apply.

• Give extra room - you can crop later. Too many photos don't give enough head room or whatever. If you can't run an imaging program to crop someone else can.
• Buy the biggest memory card you can afford. When your taking pictures, take as many as you possibly can. Carry an extra card and extra batteries. Don't worry about reviewing the image on the 1.5 inch LCD screen and deleting it then. Wait till you import them onto your computer to give a fair assesment.
• Try to be somewhat concience of what the flash on your camera does. Learn when to use it and how to turn it off and on. You will always see people in huge football stadiums taking a picture of the field from the 200th row with the flash on.
• You don't have to Use the LCD Screen all of the time. You know, that fancy camera of yours does have a view finder on it. And it actually is possible to turn the LCD off and hold it up to your face. Many times this will give you a better shot. Especially when you are taking a picture in the dark. The LCD will be almost completely black and these people will be straining and straining trying to see images on the thing.

Re:My Advice for the Average photo moron

[Anonymous Coward]

The average person who acquires a digital camera won't bother to read an article like this.

The average SlashDot poster won't read a dictionary either. What's your point (besides being another stellar example of the typical spelling idiot who uses big words that do not mean what you think they mean)?

zoom and you

[chocolatetrumpet]

My camera has no zoom, and I have no legs!

Thanks, you insensitive clod!

That was a /. joke, in case you're new here. Anyway, one of the funniest things to me is when I hand someone my camera for a group picture or whatnot. The same thing happens every time - the photographer of the moment steps about 10ft away and then asks where the zoom is and how to use it.

Gah, intelligence... so rare...

Re:zoom and you

[micromoog]

Stepping away and using a zoom tends to produce better balanced pictures. Imagine taking a picture of 10 people next to each other. The people on the ends are slightly farther away from you than the people in the middle . . . if you back up and zoom in, the effect of this is lessened.

Not to say that's what the people you describe had in mind, but the end result is that you're probably getting better pictures (assuming you disabled "digital zoom" [worst "feature" ever] on your camera).

The People Who Need it Won't Read It

[ReadParse]

Not only are they completely unaware that they're bad photographers, they don't care. Their objectives when taking pictures are completely different than those who strive to take good pictures.

RP

history repeating itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Ages ago I trained and worked (in the days of hot type, then offset lithography) as a graphic artist and typographer.

We joked, when Desktop Publishing took off, that all it did was enable folks to make bad designs quicker.

Likewise Digital Cameras and production systems allow one to make bad photographs faster than one could make them before.

The truth of the matter is that the medium isn't to blame. The ease of production equates to more crap. But it doesn't stop good stuff being produced; indeed the sheer volume of production should (one hopes) increase the number of good photographs over time. If one can be bothered to filter through all the crap to find them!

A deeper truth, to some, might be that the quality of most design has diminished because now "untrained" people are producing stuff the good and better design & images might simply not be produced now. As in - there won't be any Ansel Adams quality in our future.

I'm inclined to think that's bullshit, though. Mass markets and accessible consumer products don't mean that the few fine art types won't produce wonders any more. Indeed the accessibility of the consumer products might even encourage a few more to take up fine art photography. Just as we've found that Desktop Publishing has raised the game overall ie there has always been crap out there, but the general level of the crap represents a HUGE improvement over what low-end jobbing printers produced before.

And the business plan was...

[dpbsmith]

1) Find 1939 article on "Leica photography composition tips"

2) Change "Leica" to "Digital"

3) ?????

4) Profit!

P. S. For best results, use Digital Kodak Verichrome Film and process in Digital-76 developer.

Holding the camera is MOST important

[lcsjk]

The article leaves the "Hold the camera still" to near the bottom of the list. If you practice holding the camera still, braced against your face, a wall, frame or nearly anything, chances that your picture will have much better focus and that you will have at least a chance of a good picture. If you move the camera, it doesn't matter which brand you choose or how well you compose the picture. If you really have a problem with that, then consider a camera with automatic movement correction. (I have not tried them yet, but H Keppler gave it good marks.)(Pop-Photo)

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[JaumPaw]

Also, consider a mini-tripod (about 20cm long). It is very helpful when taking picture at low light, and also is very mobile.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[dasmegabyte]

Well, there are a few other basic ones too:

Don't use the flash unless it is so dim, and the action is so fast, that you absolutely have to. Flash light is unnatural, causes skin to look shiny and brings blemishes out of nowhere. Not using a flash in low light means shots could be blurry with a 1/20 shutter or slower...but the colours will look so much more natural.

Fix your goddamn white balance! Don't use the same white balance indoors you use outdoors or people will look all purple. And don't use the same with your flash that you use without!

Another colour thing: most digitals have a really crummy ISO rating, so if you keep your camera on Auto Shutter, it'll adjust itself to use a really long exposure. So either put the camera down, put it on a tripod or if you can't, adjust the shutter to at least 1/20 if you're steady, 1/40 if you've been drinking, and 1/100 if the subject is moving at all. And keep your elbows tight against your sides, just like shooting a rifle.

Something some people don't understand is that modern cameras have two positions for the shutter. Press down a little, and the camera does all of its auto work (focusing, metering, adjustments, etc). Press it again and it takes the picture. If you push the shutter all the way down before these adjustments are done, some cameras will take your word for it...and take a shitty picture! So, press down, give it a second, and press again. Kodak cameras force you to do this with a red light in the viewfinder. Best of all, put it on full tilt manual, do your adjustments before your subjects know you're taking the picture, and you're ready to hammer away whenever you like.

Check out my digital photos to see how following these simple, stupid rules on colour and shutter speed can lead from SHITTY photos (like the ones I took in 2001) to PRETTY DAMNED GOOD ONES (like the ones I've taken this year).

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[PPGMD]

If you practice holding the camera still, braced against your face, a wall, frame or nearly anything, chances that your picture will have much better focus and that you will have at least a chance of a good picture. Seconded majorly. If you practice you will be able to take excellent hand held (or location stabilized) photos down to 1/2 second.

I think the single biggest thing a budding photographer should buy is either a descent tripod, or a monopod. And when in doubt use them.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, but if I load a camera with 1600asa film on a bright sunny day, you can put it in a paint shaker and get a crisp photo.

many GOOD digitals allow you to set the ASA speed so set it fast and dont worry about steady.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[plover]

All good suggestions.

A simple suggestion I'd have for you regarding the flash is to bounce it. Whenever I'm forced to use a flash, I like to bounce it off the ceiling whenever possible. (Ceilings are usually bright white, whereas walls that look white indoors may sometimes be off-white, giving an unnatural tint to the subject.)

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[zapp]

I gotta ask....

how do you point the flash at the ceiling, but keep the camera pointed at the subject? ;)

Most of us don't have fancy enough cameras for them to be separately movable.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[stuktongue]

This is excellent advice. In particular, purchase the heaviest, most stable tripod you can afford. Mass ==> stability, especially in wind. Fewer leg extension elements is also better (4 beats 5 beats 6) for any given length. Carbon fiber vs. aluminum is mostly personal preference, though some prefer cf due to (slightly) reduced weight when considering a tripod for mobile use.

Monopods are useful, too, but they should not be thought of as a replacement for a good tripod. Rather, they are useful in situations where tripods are not viable but stabilization is still desired. Developing good monopod technique is valuable.

How slow you can shoot handheld is determined by many things; lens length, ISO speed, available light, etc. One-half second is pushing the limit, particularly if you intend to blow up your image at all. When images are blown up is when you really see the payoff of tripod use; images that seem sharp at 4x6 can look really bad at 8x10 or larger.

For slashdotter's interested in photography, digital or film, check out photo.net ... it's pretty much the #1 photo geek site out there. Much info available for the enthusiast.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[stuktongue]

While your advice to avoid flash whenever possible might be useful to the user of low-end equipment, I don't think it is correct in general. Flash is frequently used by professional photographers in a wide variety of circumstances to address a wide variety of lighting problems. For example, flash is used to provide "fill," or illumination of shadowed areas such as under people's chins, under bills of hats, or in eye sockets.

The trick is to learn how much flash to use and how to apply it. Bounce flash is one useful technique to reduce harshness.

Color casting is a concern, but this is where Photoshop (or it's equivalent) can come in. Most (all?) flash units are balanced for daylight usage, which means that the color cast of flash more or less is equivalent to mid-day sunlight. This won't work that well under tungsten lighting indoors. Flourescent is problematic under almost all circumstances. Photoshop color correction techniques can do quite a bit to fix things though.

Anyway, please consider flash as a tool for more than just low-light conditions. With practice, it can be a good thing.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[BlueJay465]

I can think of several different ways to make it work.
-Rigging a simple pocket mirror to the flash, think something like 2"x2". It might look tacky but could produce some good effects.
-Fabricating a small clip to the flash that would have a sort of half-cone chrome mylar reflector to catch and spread out the flash.
-Other than that, I am pretty sure someone makes a compatible remote-flash, or make your own out of a disposable camera.

Improvising is something that photographers and geeks alike have been doing for many years.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[cowbutt]

In particular, purchase the heaviest, most stable tripod you can afford

Yeah, and have it sit at home, unused, because it's too heavy to lug around on the off-chance you'll need it.

That's not to say there isn't value in a heavy, good quality tripod, but the advice I've read which makes more sense to me is to buy a cheap, light one that you'll CARRY WITH YOU and USE at first, then a heavier, quality model later for less spontaneous shoots later.

--

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[plover]

I purchased a separate hot-shoe flash. I've always been disgusted with the performance of the built-in flashes on virtually every camera I've owned or used. Simple optics dictate that they're all going to give your subjects red-eye (or epileptic seizures in a feeble attempt to avoid it.) A separate flash unit holds the lamp farther from the objective lens, which helps reduce red-eye.

The Canon flash I bought for my G2 has two adjustable axes, one to tilt the flash up, the other to rotate the flash from side to side. You don't have to get so fancy. (I find that I rarely have need for the side-to-side rotation, for example.) But even a fixed-aim hotshoe flash can be connected by a rotating mount to your camera, and you can then point it in whatever direction you need.

If budget is a concern (my flash unit was about $250 from a local dealer, known for their service but not for their low prices) you can try using a diffuser in front of your flash. It's simply a piece of translucent white plastic that you snap in front of your flash. You can even jury-rig up a homemade version, but there's no guarantee you'll get even colors or lighting from a cut-up milk jug. You can also try various reflectors (I suppose tinfoil would work) to get it to bounce up or around, but those probably won't hold up well, and your camera's going to look like it's held together with duct tape. :-( Check and see what your camera manufacturer offers, or there may be third-party add-on products out there to do this for you.

Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[BlueStraggler]

A good quality Digital SLR costs many thousands of dollars, once you buy a decent selection of lenses. A similar film SLR, complete with a selection of quality lenses, can be picked up for as little as a hundred bucks on the used market from some older techno-geek who has gone digital. Add a scanner with a negative carrier, and you can digitize anything you shoot at any resolution that suits you. And, don't forget: never order prints when you get your film processed - request developing only. It's only a couple bucks a roll.

It takes longer than pure digital, it's more complicated, it requires detailed technical knowledge, there is exotic machinery that must be mastered, every tip in this article still works, and you end up with amazing digital images with the warmth and tone of film, much to the amazement and envy of professional photographers everywhere. What's not to like?

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[sharph]

Thats a good tip. Thank you.

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[wheelgun]

Ditto sir! I only use my digital camera for utilitarian things. Everything I "care about" is photographed with a Minolta SRT202 and the resulting film is run through a Minolta DiMage Scan Dual III film/slide scanner. The results are fantastic.

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[m.dillon]

This isn't true at all. Lens for a digital SLR (such as a Canon) are in fact the same lens one uses for their film SLRs. They aren't going to magically cost loss just because you have a film body. Same lens, same flash, same cost. Different body, different cost... but just for the body.

So the only difference in cost is the body and storage, and while it is true that a digital body costs more then a film body, it isn't on the order of 'thousands of dollars'. More like around a thousand dollar difference, tops for a good prosumer digital SLR. High-end digital SLRs such as the Canon 1Ds are certainly far more expensive, but their prices have been coming down steadily. All the professional photographers I know have switched to digital (though many keep a film camera around for traditional black and white shots), and for good reason: they can produce pictures that are just as good for most particular purposes, and it takes far less time to prepare the shots for printing then it does for film and that time factor alone more then makes up for the difference in cost, even for a high-end SLR.

Film is dead. Actually, film died a while ago, it's just taking awhile for the old farts to realize it.

-Matt

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[spaceyhackerlady]

Actually, film died a while ago, it's just taking awhile for the old farts to realize it.

Film is far from dead.

Some of us actually like the craft of playing with wet things in the dark, the meditative process of taking a really good picture with a large format camera, the look of a print with the quality that only a large negative (120 is small in this context) can give.

It's still kicking. I use digital lots for snapshots myself, but the good stuff is still on film, and will be so for a long time to come.

...laura, Pentax 67 owner, 4x5 owner, considering moving up to 8x10

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[bhima]

I think it would be said that film is moving from the unwashed masses to the artists & hobbists.

You're right it's far from dead, some really intersting things are going on in the film camera world!

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[TheAwfulTruth]

If you actually think that the result of a slide scanner beats the result of a digital SLR raw image file then I have to respectfully say, "You don't know what you are talking about".

Not only does digital naturally have 1 to 2 zones of added exposure range over 35mm, but scanning any negative with even the best scanner reduces films already inferior exposure range by up to one additional zone! Not to mention reducing films potentially superior line resolution in the process to that of the current crop of digital SLRs.

Don't compare film to a $99 snappy digital camera. If you are going to make judgements such as "Don't use digital". At least start out by comparing the output of a decent Digital SLR with a film SLR.

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[BlueStraggler]

This isn't true at all. Lens for a digital SLR (such as a Canon) are in fact the same lens one uses for their film SLRs. They aren't going to magically cost loss just because you have a film body.

But the thing is, they do magically cost less, if you buy on the used market. Plenty of people are dumping their old film SLR equipment, instead of just replacing the body. They buy digital all-in-ones instead, and let all the film equipment go for a song, because in their head it's old tech. I could take time out to educate them, but I don't because (1) they actually prefer their all-in-ones, and (2) they might raise the price of their "junk".

I've bought plenty of camera equipment this way - most recently, a Canon AE1 with 4 lenses, filters, plunger, and tripod for $100. I have a total of 4 bodies and 9 lenses picked up under similar circumstances. Mind you, these aren't state-of-the-art bodies. They are good old fashioned film SLRs, with solid bodies, and basic features. You have to focus and set shutter speeds, and do all that insanely complicated technical stuff. But the durability, battery life, optics quality, and most importantly for me, click-to-clunk time, leave consumer digitals in the dust.

So it's not about the media, it's about the camera. In fact, until someone makes an affordable digital that can capture a candid action shot (not some random image from a full second later), you really have no choice -- film SLR plus scanner is the only way to get quality digital action images for cheap.

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[BlueStraggler]

Don't compare film to a $99 snappy digital camera. If you are going to make judgements such as "Don't use digital".

Why shouldn't one compare a $100 (used) film SLR with a $100 (or even $500) digital camera?

At least start out by comparing the output of a decent Digital SLR with a film SLR.

Fair enough. Output for a decent (new) digital SLR: $2000. Output for a decent (used) film SLR: $100.

(Fair comparisons with decent used digital SLRs will be available in 5 or 10 years. But by then I expect people will have figured out that they can recycle the lenses...)

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[maugt]

I disagree.

Negative film has way more lattitude than digital. Digital is closer to slide films, but still, the lattitude of the process is not quite the same.

And scanning Velvia 50 on a good scanner (not some awful $200 thing) will produce a better image than a DSLR in most cases (unless you hate Velvia colors). Scanners also let you composite two images if you have to by varying the exposure window.

But anyway, who cares. Its the picture thats important anyway. I scan lots of film and slides, but my favourite shots that everyone likes were actually taken with a coolpix 5400 that I was using to check the exposure. Doh.

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah! Flamebait.

Film isn't dead, nor will it be dying any time soon. I still can't get a digital camera to do what I want to do, nor will I be able to get one for a reasonable price in the next five years.

Here's what I want:

100% manual.
Shutter release, and image capture, within 0.01 seconds of me pressing the button. (Believe me, this matters a lot when the subject is moving.)
Can operate from ISO 4000 to ISO 12, with image resolution to match film of that speed. (Try getting a CCD that matches the resolution of a 35mm frame of Tech Pan.)
A viewfinder that shows me what's in the frame in real time. (No lag, no delays.)
No flash, or a flash that can be switched off.
No CCD streaking when I point it at the sun. (The sun finds its way into a lot of my photos.)

Oh yeah, and it has to work without batteries. And when it's very cold.

Now, pray tell - where can I buy such a digital camera?

Re:Tip #10: Don't use a digital camera.

[TheAwfulTruth]

Actually at the rate of obsolescence in the digital world, it's not hard to puck up a used digital camera off an aquaintence for about that...

Whats digital matter?

[NeoSkandranon]

Who cares if they're using digital cameras or not. If it werent for the advent of affordable digicams the same shitty pictures would be taken with disposable cameras or cheap 35mm's

That secret....

[gfxguy]

is actually quite sophmoric. Most pros do not do this, only ones that aren't really good enough so they cover all their bases.

I'd look at wedding photography as an example. Generally (and this is similar to TV and film) you take a beauty and then a "safety", you don't take a million pictures of the bride and groom just standing there - they usually have a party to get to. At my wedding we didn't have more than 4 of any one shot. Wedding photographers charge an arm and a leg, but then the vast majority of people who use them are satisfied with the results, and wedding photography is harder than it looks.

Re:That secret....

[Dun Malg]

That secret is actually quite sophmoric. Most pros do not do this, only ones that aren't really good enough so they cover all their bases.

This is true, but I don't think he was saying taking hundreds of pictures indiscriminately is the way to get a few good shots. I think it was implicit (though, admittedly, not necessarily obvious) that one should be choosing one's shots rather than firing off the camera at every turn. The real wisdom is to choose your shots and not just take one picture.

It is an I/O bottleneck, not a firmware problem.

[Jim McCoy]

Slow burst speed is not a problem with the firmware or the lens/focus hardware, it is a simple I/O problem. Do the math here. If your digital camera could take 5 fast shots of 4 megapixels each, where would it put the data? It can't get it through that slow CF or SD interface that fast, so it has to buffer it somewhere. What the expensive cameras have that the cheap ones lack is RAM for the buffer so that it can store the shots while waiting to push them off to the storage device.

Megapixels invalidate many of the rules

[rkischuk]

The tips on choosing a good angle, lighting, "framing the picture" with foreground elements and such are still valid, but as cameras get higher resolution, I think many of these tips can be changed to "Favor taking wider and more versatile shots of the subject matter - choose image composition, orientation, location of subject matter etc. while editing the image."

My 3 megapixel camera takes pictures that look great printed at 8X10". Ramp up to a 5 MP camera, and you can afford to crop, rotate, and reposition the subject of the picture in an image editor. In my opinion, more megapixels mean that you can take pictures for maximum flexibility rather than focusing on taking the perfect picture.

Re:Megapixels invalidate many of the rules

[skatedork]

I don't like this kind of thinking since it invalidates much of what makes a good picture. As a teacher of mine said, cropping should be done IN camera.

When you shoot a scene with a wider focal length, objects look different in relation to each other because of the distortion of the lens whereas zooming in can pull distant objects in tighter and provide a less distorted look. The hardest thing is to go from that digital snapshot mentality of "let me just take a few wide angle shots and worry about it later" to a more thoughtful approach where you consider each and every part of a scene and decide if it's valuable to include. Like another teacher of mine said, "You're responsible for everything in the frame."

For me, good photography is about light and emotion, get those two things right, and a lot of the other stuff falls into place.

A couple (admittedly biased) links: Some articles I wrote about digital photography, and a course I teach.

For (photojournalistic) inspiration, I look here and here (warning, popup).

Stephen
Oracle Hosting

Re:Megapixels invalidate many of the rules

[Max Threshold]

When you shoot a scene with a wider focal length, objects look different in relation to each other because of the distortion of the lens

Wide angle lenses don't inherently cause distortion. A cropped section of a wide-angle shot is EXACTLY the same compositionally as using a telephoto lens. (But of course it will be lower quality.)

Re:Megapixels invalidate many of the rules

[skatedork]

A cropped section of a wide-angle shot is EXACTLY the same compositionally as using a telephoto lens. (But of course it will be lower quality.)

Not true. At the same settings (shutter speed/aperture/ISO), if you have a crop of a wide angle shot you'll have a lot more depth of field than if you were to zoom in on that cropped piece of the scene with a zoom lens to fill the frame. This is one of the reasons people use a longer lens for portraits since longer lenses do a better job of throwing the background out of focus.

But I always thought...

[allanj]

that one of the big improvements to come with digital was the ability to shoot countless images and just keep the good ones without the cost/delay/inconvenience of developing traditional film. Back then it mattered that each photo was good because you couldn't review the photo before several days had passed, and it was important that each shot was good. Now, I tend to just take maybe 20 or 30 shots in rapid succession and rely on one or more to be good - a quick review will tell me if it's ALL bad, and in 30 seconds the memory is erased, and I can start snapping pictures again, this time moving to avoid the backlight or whatever spoiled the first batch.
Not really arguing against learning to take better pictures - selfimprovement through learning is always GOOD (and geekish, mind you). It just doesn't seem as necessary as it once was.

Re:But I always thought...

[Sycraft-fu]

That is the biggest advantage of digital, another one being that good digital cameras can burst fire and take a bunch of photos in rapid succession. However, no matter how many pictures you take of dog shit, it still looks like shit. In other words, the conditions DO need to be there to take a good photo. Things like making sure your subjects fill the frame. If you take 30 photos of them in 1/8th of the frame, you now have 30 photos that suck.

But yes, it is mostly having lots of pictures so you can find the ones where you got lucky. Never ceases to amaze me how much that plays in to it. For example my sister snapped a picture of two of her friends before the prom. Just a little insta-cam snap, nothing in the way of setup, one of many that evening. When she got the print it was clear this was an exceptional photo. Everything was just right and it was almost artistic in its beauty. The parents of the kids photographed ended up getting large, framed prints of it made it was so good. And nothing but luck made it that way.

Re:A conspicuous social artifact of digital camera

[Dr. Evil]

Nobody has to worry about the development house laughing at them.

This same effect also opens the world up to all kinds of quality home porn.

What a strange lead-in

[Junks Jerzey]

With the 'Rise of the Digital Camera' I suspect we will also see the 'Rise of the Dodgy Digital Photo'. As digital cameras get in the hands of more and more snap happy photographers there will be more and more average images cluttering the PC's of the world.

Oh my, is that negative or what? And a bit misguided too, in that (a) digital cameras are hardly new, and (b) this is a topic from the rise of the point-and-shoot camera era many decades ago. I did get a chuckle of out "I suspect," though. It sounds like something Peggy Hill would say :)

Re:What a strange lead-in

[TroubleMan]

Quite. Also, in the early years of digital cameras, they were hardly the tool of choice for "good" photographers (unlike, say, USENET, which started out as the plaything of the literary elite, before being sullied by the unwashed masses, with their trifling emoticons, and such :) My point is that digital photography isn't worsening (if we can judge it as a whole, which we probably shouldn't, but somebody else brought up the subject), if anything, it is improving as more and more "photographers" use it.

Memory Card Speed?

[pherris]

Would a "faster" memory card speed things up? I've wondered if it would or if the claim "the faster the card, the lower the shutter lag" was snakeoil?

Re:Memory Card Speed?

[gfxguy]

It speeds up the writing of the image to the card, the shutter lag doesn't go away.

I have a Fuji camera with an XD memory card, which is supposed to be the fastest, and I still have shutter lag. I think the shutter lag has more to do with the autofocus and other autosettings than it has to do with write speed.

Now, if you want to take multiple images more quickly, then the faster card helps a lot.

Remember the different ratio

[dltallan]

"Fill the frame" is a good tip. Two caveats, though.

1. One advantage of digital photography is that filling the frame can be done after the fact (through cropping) more easily than with film photography. So you can respond quickly to those fleeting moments and not lose them while you rush in closer or fiddle with the zoom - and then crop them down later. (It does reduce the resolution, though.)

2. If you live in a household like mine, where the decent pictures tend to get printed (at 4x6) for inclusion in a photo album, then you need to remember that the digital camera ratios are different from the film camera ratios.

In other words, you'll have to do some cropping to get it to a 4x6 ratio. And if you have completely filled the frame, Aunt Mildred will be chopped off at the knees again.

So you may want to consider learning how the difference plays out, and not quite filling the top and bottom (for a horizontal composition) or the sides (for a vertical composition).

The manual is horrid

[Anonymous Coward]

reading the manual and learning what each of the functions the camera does

These actions are in no way related.

fix compositing errors with the GIMP?

[ubiquitin]

WinGIMP once carried a story about a high school digital photography class that made use of the GIMP to, among other things, fix basic errors.

As tep closer

[jbeaupre]

I have to agree with those three. But sometimes having other photographers getting closer to the subject can help. I'm reminded of a trip to the Cliffs of Moher. If some of those folks had just gotten a little closer, I would have had some great photos! Seriously, moving around helps. One of my classic photos I took on my back in the streets of Pisa. Had my brother raise his foot, shifted my camera and voila! A picture of my brother kicking over the leaning tower of Pisa.

DigitalSucks.com NSFW

[bogie]

Just fyi for those on the clock. The entire left hand side of the front page is Nudes. It may be just boobs but obviously many companies are going to have a problem with that.

Re:DigitalSucks.com NSFW

[Didion Sprague]

Just fyi for those on the clock...

Yes. Thanks for catching that. I'd forgotten about their contest. Apologies. (The photos are still pretty interesting, though -- but, yes, it's NSFW.)

not a new idea

[Anonymous Coward]

this idea and problem are as old as the camera itself. just because they can create *more* pictures faster doesn't make it any worse of a problem. this is just couched as "Digital Camera's Gone Awry" to get interest. its not new at all.

Get RAW

[rgmoore]

However, what I would like is a camera that saved as PNG. Checked about 15 digital cameras last week in the 4 and 5 mega pixel range and found that most suffered from compression artifacts because of JPEG.

You might check for TIFF capability, which is what manufacturers tend to use instead of PNG. What you probably really want, though, is a camera that has raw photo capability. Most reasonably high end cameras now offer the ability to save the raw data off the image sensor, rather than the processed data in some image format. Many people describe the raw file as the digital equivalent of a negative. It's usually losslessly compressed, but other than that it's unprocessed- no white balance correction, saturation adjustment, sharpening, or the like. It hasn't even been color interpolated, as a TIFF or PNG would be. That turns out to be a bigger issue than you might think, as the interpolation algorithms in most cameras are optimized for speed rather than quality, and going to a better algorithm can make an obvious difference in the photo.

Look at the whole scene

[akuzi]

The article is a very good summary of composition rules BUT the main reason most people's snaps are not well composed is quite simple - they don't look at the scene as a whole before they click the shutter button.

90% of people are only looking at the main subject of their photo. This is why most people put the main subject in the middle of the scene - why almost always results in bad composition.

This is where having either a SLR camera where you see the whole scene in the view-finder, or a preview screen on a digital camera is essential.
Another essential feature is exposure and focus-lock that allows you to focus and take exposure readings off non-centered objects.

Wrong definition

[jkabbe]

Ooops! I read this title the wrong way. I was thinking this would be an article about a generation of people taking pictures of themselves and compositing it with a picture of the WTC jet or the Hindenburg disaster. Isn't that what everyone does with self portraits?

Zone System

[malachid69]

Perhaps we need a "Digital Zone System" for color digital photographs. The best b&w photos I ever took used the Zone System.

Step 4

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot

4) Profit!!!

As an amateur photographer

[WormholeFiend]

I find it inefficient to take lots and lots of photos and keep only the best few. Makes for too many photos to review and evaluate before deleting the crap ones...

This is what I do... I take my time, and I visualise what I want to get on the final image BEFORE even looking through the viewfinder or lcd screen.

Then I try to make everything fit in the frame.

I don't really follow the "rules" of aesthetics as defined by pros and critics, since the photos I take are for my own personal enjoyment and for decorating some walls, most of the time.

Then there's also the issue of too many people deleting perfectly good photos because they personally dont like "how they look" on the photos, due to being way too self-conscious. This will lead to a biased of what the past really looked like, in the future, when looking at those carefully selected pictures.

Re:As an amateur photographer

[sholden]

I find it inefficient to take lots and lots of photos and keep only the best few. Makes for too many photos to review and evaluate before deleting the crap ones...

This is what I do... I take my time, and I visualise what I want to get on the final image BEFORE even looking through the viewfinder or lcd screen.

Of course then you miss the photo...

By the time you've done that the baby isn't standing for the first time, it has fallen down.

According to the file names generated by my camera it's taken 3000 or so photos of my 8 month old son. (And the last month has been slower due to my wife returning to work 2 days a week - less photos get taken when there's only one person who has to both prevent the baby from committing suicide and take the photo).


Then there's also the issue of too many people deleting perfectly good photos because they personally dont like "how they look" on the photos, due to being way too self-conscious. This will lead to a biased of what the past really looked like, in the future, when looking at those carefully selected pictures.

Looking at the baby photos of me, and the ones of my son, you can see this already. Every photo we put in an album the best of a large bunch, whereas my baby album is full of blinking/squinting/crossed eye pictures (of course it could just be the case that I was a particularly ugly baby...)

Non-baby photos are different, I guess. Other people actually look where you ask them to instead of you having to get lucky, And most people don't burst into tears if you take more than 5 seconds setting up a shot :)

My wife also *enjoys* sorting through the photos.

This is hard with non-SLRS !

[gosand]

These tips are great, but i think that everyone would see a big improvement in their picture quality if they followed the #1 of photography - fill the frame.

This is where SLRs are great - because what you see through the viewfinder is what you get in the picture. Not so with almost all non-SLR cameras, including digitals. You always get more picture than you wanted, and it sucks.

BTW, I hate using LCDs for taking pictures. One of my new pet peeves is when people take pictures just using the screen. Hey, I use mine when I have to, but that is rare. I put the damn thing to my eye. It isn't that hard. My mother-in-law has a new 8 megapixel Sony, and there is no viewfinder on it at all. When you look through the eyepiece, you see a digital representation of the shot. It is weird.

Re:This is hard with non-SLRS !

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every SLR, and in fact all digital slrs also crop the image somewhat. This can range from 97% coverage of a canon f1n to about 85% coverage of an ae-1. The only cameras that have a true 100% 'what you see is what you get' in the viewfinder are the single digit nikons, ie nikon F, F2, F3, F4 and F5. every other SLR camera is certainly not 'what you see is what you get' That myth is simply marketing drivel. I find the rangefinder camera's benefit of being able to see the picture while the exposure is occuring and seeing the area outside of the 'frameline' helps to get better compositions than looking through a mirror and prism.

Re:This is hard with non-SLRS !

[smyle]

One of my new pet peeves is when people take pictures just using the screen.

That used to be one of mine, too ...until I got one of my own. I really like being able to take pictures without squinting up to the viewfinder.

viewfinder woas

[rothfoto]

another big problem is that in digi-cameras where the viewfinder is optical (not a small screen inside the viewfinder like a camcorder) what is seen through the finder is often different from what is recorded by the ccd (or cmos). this can lead to compositional errors that are not fully the fault of the user. i guess most people with consumer digi-cams use the lcd anyway, so this may not be as a big a problem as it could be.

How about throwing away 999 out of 1000?

[shmlco]

I think your rule is off by several orders of magnitude.

While it's true that some photographers often shoot hundreds of pix of a given subject, the vast majority of those "rejects" would still have been images the average Joe could never have taken.

While luck counts, skill counts for more.

Re:How about throwing away 999 out of 1000?

[Glonoinha]

I think that 1 of 10 is a pretty good number. Most people aren't getting published, they are just taking pictures for themselves and friends.

Look through Joe Random's 64M compactflash card that has 500 pictures on it and I bet you could find 50 pretty good ones. The trick is to take those 50 out of context (ie, delete all the other crappy ones and merely 'good' ones) and all of a sudden it looks like he took 50 really good pix. He did, actually, but you need to learn to only go public with the good ones and not show all the ones that aren't as good as those 50.

Hence the rule.

And the biggest reason I can't take pictures as good as the photographers for Penthouse / Playboy has nothing to do with technical merits or ability and everything to do with that pesky restraining order.

Re:How about throwing away 999 out of 1000?

[carlos_benj]

Seems to me that you're fixated on one type of subject matter (hot babes) and it could be that the salivation and shaking are affecting enough of your shots that only one in ten is any good. Try taking landscapes (a type of photography where the photographer takes far fewer exposures than someone shooting people) and see if you're steady and composed enough to get a better ratio.

Re:How about throwing away 999 out of 1000?

[stuktongue]

And the biggest reason I can't take pictures as good as the photographers for Penthouse / Playboy has nothing to do with technical merits or ability and everything to do with that pesky restraining order.

While I'm pretty sure you're joking here, I'd like to point out to folks that aren't photographers how difficult glamour photography really is. Take a look at some amateur stuff on photo.net and see how crappy the results can be with decent equipment and solid amateur skills. If you read any interview with a pro glamour photographer, you'll hear them point out how they are totally focused (no pun intended) on their job; no time to ogle the pretty girl. It's one of the toughest photography gigs out there.

Digital Photography Composition Tips????

[eclectic_echidna]

The real trick is take lots of pictures.

Improve your odds through the power of statistics. Some are bound to be good through sheer luck, so take more.

It may not up your % of good pictures, but it can up your # of them...

ee

It brings forth good photography as well

[SsShane]

My father took up photography as a direct result of it being digital and really excels at it now. Without the need to buy and develop film he has been able to take up a hobby he had no idea he would enjoy so much. Him, his digital camera and his Macintosh are unstoppable.

Who cares if it's perfect or not....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

I personally do not care if the picture is perfect or not. As long as it's good to you and the people you share it with, who cares if the pro photod thinks it sucks. I have a bunch of pics I did at Church on Mother's day that had a bit of a sun flare on them because of where I took it and noone complained!

Clutter?

[iii_rjm]

It's their hard drive why should I care if they fill it up with crappy images?

Other reading

[EdMcMan]

Can anyone reccomend other sites that go into more detail about how one would get started in more advanced photography?

Something on exposure, ISO and other things like that.

What jokes?

[Grendel Drago]

Seriously, I'm not kidding. For too long has the internet been beset by would-be amateur pornstars who think that the problem of 'proper lighting' is solved by turning on the flash. I go to the trouble of making sure that my amateur porn is reasonably well produced and encoded. Everyone else should do the similar.

--grendel drago

Literally?!

[Grendel Drago]

you literally pay through your nose.

Literally? Holy shit! They put one of those ancient-egypt style hooks up into your brain and draw out the precious, precious gray matter as remuneration for their all-to-ephemeral hardware?

My friend, I believe that price is a mite high for me.

--grendel drago

Too true

[Sycraft-fu]

And that's one of the great things about digital. If you don't cheapskate it, you can get a large memory card (maybe multiple large memory cards) and go nuts on pictures. There is no per picture cost so you can take as many as you have space for.

That's something that has always annoyed me about my family. A number of them have digital cameras and often I'm the one taking the pictures, since I hate having my picture taken and I am deceant at getting good shots. However, without fail, they have tiny little 4-8MB memory cards which just totally defeats the purpose. Give me a GB and let me go nuts. I'll sort through it later and give you a compilation of good pics.

Slashdot Gizmodo

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop copying posts from gizmodo to slashdot.. They are not the same webpage.

A site about photography in general

[clutch110]

Here is a site that I started to frequent often. It has a load of small articles on taking pictures, everything from lighting, to composition, to types of photographs. Fodor's Focus on Photography Enjoy!

That's fine...

[Sycraft-fu]

But all thigns being equal, wouldn't you rather they were of better quality rather than worse quality? There are some simple things you can do to make your photos better, why not do them? It's nice for the other people you show them to. Some blurry, grainy photo might remind you of the great time you had, since you were there, but to me it doesn't do anything.

Same with home videos. No one is saying you need to make an emmy worth film of your kid's birthday, but it would be nice to learn a few basics to help the quality. The people you make sit through it will be apprecitave.

yeah but...

[ovit]

It is certainly good advice that we should all learn to be better photographers... But I have to say... One of the things I've always loved about digital camera's is that it is SO easy to take pictures and store them that I for one take a LOT more pictures than I used to... and a lot more of them are spontaneous and fun... I don't think these HD's full of photos are a bad thing...

Tony

The Camera is NOT that important

[acomj]

The camera has to work.. It has to have a good lens, but in the overall analysis it has little to do with images. I've taken great pictures with a cheap manual focus ae-1 and a fixed focus 55mm lens and crappy photos with a better camera. Sometimes technology helps but its not the be all end all to taking pictures. People have been holding cameras over there heads and taking pictures without the benifit of that screen for a long time.

Ken rockwell has a good summary of this philosophy, called You camera doesn't matter

Re:The Camera is NOT that important

[ahoehn]

That's crap. It's true, you can get a good shot with a crappy camera - but in any sort of difficult or unusual conditions having manual control over at least your f-stop and sutter speed is essential.

Three letters:

[JeffTL]

SLR

While an SLR won't solve every problem (a tripod solves double chins and steadiness issues, and composition takes practice), a camera that doesn't have parallax will keep you from cutting off Aunt Mildred at a bad location.

Poor choice of equipment can cause a lot of problems. And if you cannot bring yourself to buy a digital SLR (or ZLR if you don't care about interchangable lenses -- the reflex is what's important so long as you have a good midrange optical zoom on it), consider film. It lacks the instant gratification (and deletability!) of an LCD and a TV output, you have to buy film, and a film cartridge will never be as durable as a CompactFlash card, but on the other hand, parallax-free cameras are cheap.

Just use analog rules

[Anonymous Coward]

It's rather simple really, think of your camera's CCD as if it were a piece of film, and use the same rules as those for good ol' fashioned analog film. Basic concepts one should know to take nice pictures:
1) Exposure time v aperture size
2) Field depth depending on (1) above
3) Details such as using a flash during daylight to prevent subject from being too dark due to surrounding light sources
4) Differences between taking a picture close by or from further away with more zoom (yes, the results are VERY different!)
5) etc etc etc etc

Just read a few analog film manuals (plenty around) and your digital pictures will improve just like your analog would.

This is especially the case if you have a decent digital camera where you can adjust things.

take Photography 101 at your community college!

[caveat]

..since the basic principles are the same whether you're using digital or film (i'm suprised people don't realize this more often - there's all sorts of articles about how to become a "better DIGITAL photographer", as if one can be a master with a 35MM SLR but pick up a digi and instantly forget everything...sorry, going off on a tangent there).
lord knows my digital shots got a lot better after i took black once you've been formally schooled in composition, even just for a semester, it all just sort of subconsciously falls together in the viewfinder (or on the LCD as the case may be) and you get a lot more passable pictures.

Well duh...

[MP3Chuck]

Good intentions, but if people didn't care enough to try and take good (better?) photos with their film cameras (where each botched photo is a waste of film), why would they try to take good photos with their digi where you can keep 100 shots on a little CF card and instantly discard ones that may not have come out well at all?

some simple helpful tips

[flacco]

use plenty of lighting, make sure the focus is perfect, and center the vagina smack in the middle of the composition.

Works both ways

[mwillems]

Sure, it needs to be learned. But the effect is not all bad - actually it works both ways. I am an avid amateur photographer who has swapped his SLR's for digital SLR's. All digital now and loving it. Here's the compensating effects:

- I shoot ten times more so the chance of great pics is ten times higher. I actually produce a lot more good shots now.

- Four letters: PS CS. Photoshop CS allows you to take raw images that are terribly underexposed, and push them to get excellent exposures. Also, skin blemishes, things that you just did not notice in th epicture, etc: all vanish with Photoshop.

Andyes, the printing press alloed bad writers to write, and the same will happen here - but the net effect will be a hack of a lot more great photos worldwide.

Tips and Tricks

[raelimperialaerosolk]

Lots of agreement to lots of previous posts...my $0.02:

Back in the day I shot lots of black and white with my Canon F1. The B&W file was cheap (bulk loaded) and I could develop it myself. The great thing about B&W is that it teaches you composition. No pretty flowers to distract the eye...you look for shadows and highlights, an emotion, some action.

I always always figured that 10% of my pics were good enough to print, the rest was junk.

My brother in law just got a fancy Canon Digital SLR (his mom came into some $$ and bought it for him). He's a nice guy, but doesn't know a THING about photography. I'm always explaining f-stops, and shutter speed, and lighting conditions, depth of field, etc. He needs to learn the basics...and at least in the digital realm, he can do it cheaply.

Re:Tips and Tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that you cannot learn about DOF on a p&s digital camera because the sensor is so tiny and the lens is usually so slow that practically everything is always in focus... kindof obliviates any delusions of creatively controlling DOF in any fashion. I suggest getting a seagull or old yashicamat or some other cheap 120 film camera and learn photography from a more basic standpoint. The more you have to work to get a picture when you are learning, the quicker that the mechanics of making a good shot become 'second nature' and you can focus purely on artistic efforts without worrying about why your 'automatic' camera is behaving a certain way.

Re:A conspicuous social artifact of digital camera

[mrhartwig]

Sorry, been there, done that. Was trying to do something "artsy" for my high school photography class back in the late 70's....

And no, don't ask for the pic. A) I ain't that good-looking, and B) Heaven only knows where the negative & print is.

Coolpix is another option

[Blackice912]

If you're like me (lazy, cheap), get the Nikon Coolpix 2200. I have mine setup to take continuous shots and keep the best image out of the batch (it's an option called the Best Shot Selector).

Practice.

[Raven42rac]

Those average shots are practice for the shutterbug. Do you think everyone starts out shooting rhinos in the African jungle? The post sounds borderline elitist, along the lines of "people who use Garageband are not really musicians". Can't you be happy for people who want to learn how to do things? These are your potential contemporaries.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 with a rotatable screen, I ditch all of my average shots and keep the ones I like. I have been told I have an eye for composition and what makes a good shot, and I set pretty high standards for myself. It is figuring out flash, shutter speed, length of exposure, aperture, zoom, focus, white balance, that comprises most "average" shots.

The last set of film photos I took, I developed a total of 98, and thought that about 15 were keepers. I have a much higher rate of keepers with my digicam, because, for the most part, what you see is what you get. This is even more the case with an SLR.

If you are truly a student of the game, take a class at a community college, read all the magazines you can afford to read, hit the library for books. There are tons of resources out there for those serious about learning photography.

Photography, like any other form of art, is purely subjective. What may look good to one person, may look horrible to another. Maybe to some people the picture of their Aunt is very special to them, while some may ridicule it, there was a reason the picture was shot. To capture a moment in time. And that is all photography is, an attempt to stop time in it's tracks.

Get a fast camera.

[Medievalist]

My method of photography is "Start shooting before whatever you want to shoot happens, and keep going until after it's over".

I was so happy when they came up with fast-forward-winding film cameras. The more pictures you can shoot, the more chances of a serendipitous shot you'dve never have been able to set up in a million years.

Digital imaging greatly reduces the cost of this method - I was getting two or three awesome pics per roll of file, so I couldn't afford to do very many - but unfortunately many of the digital cameras have a slow cycle time, and you'll find yourself between clicks when the pie hits the President.

Check out camera speed before you buy!

How do you process such RAW data?

[Medievalist]

What software would you recommend?

Do you know of any camera/software combinations that are noteworthy?

Thanks!

What I didn't see mentioned...

[cdyson37]

Lead the eye. One of the basic objectives of a good photograph is to keep the viewer looking at the picture. Using lines to lead the eye works well to draw attention to parts of the picture. Fences, roads, coastlines all create interest as well as leading the eye around the picture. Conversely, lines going out of the picture will lead the viewer outside of the picture, and make them feel less interested in it.

Frames, as discussed in the article also help to create interest for much the same reason, because they also try and stop the eye from leaving the image.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

At higher resolutions (even > 2 MP), your optics start to play a much more important role. The SLR will give you a much better result. The CCD in SLR cameras have lower "image noise"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/3 0/214525 5&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=152&tid= 185
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?dire ctory =beyond_megapixels_part_1
http://www.thetechloung e.com/article.php?directory =beyond_megapixels_part_2

2 second timer = virtual tripod

[celltower]

One low light trick I use in low light conditions (I don't like flash in crowds and because it flattens the image): Set the 2-second timer. A lot of camera shaking comes from the act of pressing the shutter. That shaking is gone after 2-seconds. Doesn't work for action shots, but your shutter is open too long for decent action shots anyway. Bonus tip for arms-length self portraits. My Canon ELPH has a little silver logo-button on the front. When I see my reflection in the logo, I can compose the shot. Fun for vacations.

Re:2 second timer = virtual tripod

[stuktongue]

Remote or cable release works well here, too. Also, if your camera supports mirror lock-up, this can help, though you need to use a tripod for that.

Digital Photo and the GIMP - High School Course

[pnelson]

Here'a a digital photo course using the GIMP published under the Creative Commons license. You might find it interesting.

Re:How do you process such RAW data?

[rgmoore]

Most camera manufacturers provide converter software as part of the package, and in some cases it's of a higher quality than the stuff built into the camera. This shouldn't be surprising, since there are fewer time and processing power constraints in off-line processing.

AFAIK, though, the best available software is Dave Coffin's dcraw program. It's available as free software under a non-advertizing BSD-style licence. It can be used either as a standalone converter (with Windows, Mac, and Linux versions available) or as a GIMP plugin. The author also claims that the program, or at least parts of it, is used in many commercial programs including Photoshop. I've been pretty pleased with the results so far.

Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[$criptah]

I have been doing photography for almost 10 years and there is no way I will trade my film Nikons for anything digital short of digital SRL because everything else is simply crap. From what I've experienced, digital cameras are divided into crappy and very crappy. Here is my opinion on this matter.

When you get a digital camera for several hundred bucks you are getting robbed by the manufactures because most of cheap consumer point-and-shoot cameras (film and digital) come with a non-replaceable lens. To make the matters worse, these lenses are tend to be on a shitty side. They have less-than-average capabilities, no special effects and if you scratch it, you are shit out of luck. The camera will need to be repaired which may cost you a good chunk of money. Will you ever buy a car that has an engine that you cannot replace? What if this engine happens to be not so good? And there you have it, my problem #1 with digital point-and-shoot cameras: crappy, irreplaceable lenses that make you handicapped when it comes to special effects. In fact, the lens should be the most expensive part of your camera becase it is that important. If you ask professional photographers what to get, most of them will suggest to spend more money on the actual lens because lens is what matters! You can have an all manual old Nikon with a superb lens that will outperform any digital camera that is full of features but lacks what is absolutely necessary: a good lens.

Then there is an issue of color. If I want to manipulate colors, I use different film, filters and ask for different processing. With a digital camera, the hardware can do everthing for you. The problem is that hardware is not perfect. In fact, there is a fair amount of guess work involved when a chip inside your digital camera tries to calculate the color. As a result you get too many digital cameras that are thrown off by reds. Do not believe me? Take a picture of something red on grey background. Then compare it to the real setup. Most of the times reds come out over saturated. If you think that this is not a big deal, take pictures of people with rosy cheeks. Chances are, your subjects will never ask you for a re-print. That is problem #2.

Problem #3 is shot specifict. In particular, very few digital cameras can produce clear nigh shots without making certain things purple. The best way to find out is to take a picture of street lights and objects close to them. In many cases you will see a rim of purple around the lights. Does it matter? Well, if you spend $300 on a camera, don't you think that you deserve a camera that can take good shots at night? Do not get me wrong, if I were to spend fifty bucks, I would not bitch about it, but if Fuji wants me to get their FinePix, they better fix those fuckedup color schemes that come up in night shots!

Problem #4 is zoom. None of 10x zoom cameras that I've seen so far had lens stabilizers. In plain English: when lenses were zoomed out, you could giggle any extended part of the lens. To my best knowlege, only certain Panasonic cameras were able to stabilize the lens and prevent it from being shaken.

Problem #5: accessories. Most of cheap digital cameras do not offer hot shoes or metal tripod mounts. I use tripods in a good fraction of my shots and I would hate to repair my camera's plastic tripod mount every once in a while. In my opinion, a good tripod mount must be mandatory for every camera. If your camera comes without a hot-shoe, you might as well throw it away, because you will not be able to use a flash. I am sorry to disappoint you, but a little flash that comes with your camera is nothing but a fill-in flash. It is not suitable for distant objects, it is not suitable for a large scene. If you want to be serious about photography, you'll have to spend at least $150 on a good flash.

Problem #6: manual features. I believe that every camera's feature must be available in "manual mode." Users must be able to override everything from focusing to shutter speed

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[Ubergrendle]

Try a Canon A-Series camera. I use the A-70. I got it for $450 CAD (probably ~ $300 USD).

It has very accurate CCD translation of colours. I will try your recommended red test. When I bought the camera, the research I did suggested it was the best camera for accurate colour representation in its price range.

For x10 zoom, I agree that SLR is the way to go, and digital SLR cameras are MUCH more expensive.

The lense for the Canon A-70 is replaceable, and albeit its not SLR quality there is also a zoom lense available for the A-series.

I think you're mis-intrepeting why people buy digital cameras. I'm not looking at this like an overpriced 35 mm point & shoot camera, but I'm looking at this like a better 35mm point & shoot camera with minimal costs over its lifespan for photo developing. With moderate regular use of a 35mm camera I can easily hit $100 in photo developing a year.

BTW, all of the functions of the A-Series 60/70/75/80 are manually available. Flash, ISO, exposure, focal lenghth, white balance...if the camera does it, you can override the auto setting for your own enjoyment, and set macros. Another reason why I chose Canon.

I bought a digital camera so that I could avoid 35mm print development and import into Photoshop right away; I wanted better, crisper pictures than a point&shoot 35mm camera would give me. Also, SLR cameras are not cheap, and neither are their lenses. I suspect you're targeting the $500-$2500 hobbiest crowd with your comments, not the $500 beginners who need a few years to learn photography at a low cost and convenience.

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[$criptah]

I will try your recommended red test.

Go ahead. It would be useful to see a site with a list of red color tests for different cameras. There are many things that manufacturers do not want you to know :) If you have time, do the night test as well. Go find a monument, a church or something that has a series of lights on it. Take a picture and then see if you have purple rims around the lights.

With moderate regular use of a 35mm camera I can easily hit $100 in photo developing a year.

I hit $100 a month. Please bare in mind that I do photography as a hobby. I do not sell the pictures I make, but, boy, they will last me a lifetime.

BTW, all of the functions of the A-Series 60/70/75/80 are manually available. Flash, ISO, exposure, focal lenghth, white balance...if the camera does it, you can override the auto setting for your own enjoyment, and set macros. Another reason why I chose Canon.

Cool. As I said, I did not have time to test every damn camera in the world :)

I suspect you're targeting the $500-$2500 hobbiest crowd with your comments, not the $500 beginners who need a few years to learn photography at a low cost and convenience.

Well, to be honest with you, I do not believe you can learn photography on a digital camera. If I wanted to teach my kids how to become good at it, I would get a used SLR with a good lens for starters; make it all manual as well. You are right: pictures from a point-and-shoot digital camera can be much crispier, but... they will still lack behind what one can develop with an SLR. Please note, I am not talking about superb Nikon lenses. In fact, I use a standard beginner lens for what I do most of the time. You will be surprised what deals you can find if you look for used equipment. People do not tell you, but digital cameras depreciate at a greater rate compared to good SLRs. That is another point that I wanted to make.

Overall, I do agree with you on certain points. I'd get a digital camera for my mom if she wanted to take a lot of pictures of her damn garden, but I would not get a digital camera for myself.... at least not until digital SLRs become $500 a pop :)

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[Anonymous Coward]

You took 2 swipes at Fuji then mentioned your Nikon - in my book that makes you a Nikon facist. I've seen them all over the place, they like to believe that Nikon is the be all end all of the camera world. Here's a little quote for you: "Don't buy a Nikon name when Fuji will do the same .. for LESS." Funny how you didn't mention chromatic aborations appearing in any other "cheap cameras" like Pentax, Panasonic, Canon, Casio, etc, etc.

Cheap digital cameras don't come with a hot shoe because people buying a cheap digital camera DON'T KNOW WHAT A HOT SHOE IS and will most likely NEVER USE ONE, cheap cameras come with a built in flash. As for tripod mounts, all the cameras I've bought have come with one although I know some camera's mounts are not centered with the lens, which can cause problems.

And for the record, I use a cheap FinePix and people say I must be professional. I'm not, and your comments tell me you're not either.

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[cvdwl]

Good Lord, man, take a breather!

There are, in fact, people out there who are not trying for Art Wolfe or Galen Rowell (sp?) on every photo. We want a decent representation of what we saw, and we want to see it right now, without pulling out the slide projector and dimming the room, or printing a 16x20. These are people who buy disposable cameras and print their film at Long's Drugs.

I used to shoot exclusively slide film. My slides of Laos, New Zealand and Europe are moldering in a box somewhere until I get the time and equipment to scan them. I haven't looked at them since I got back and sorted them, laboriously, with a slide projector, over about a month.

My digital pictures of Antarctica, the Californian Sierra Nevada, and New Zealand (round two) are in my hard drive. I look at them almost every day; friends and family see the web page whenever they want. Given my computer screen is 1.3 megapixel, my 5 megapixel camera was overkill. Yeah, the Antarctic ice isn't as white as I remembered it, but the penguins are still cute and the marine life still pretty (took a Canon digital housing... it flooded... [mod:irrelevvant]). And I challenge ANY slide projector to provide the necessary lumens to accurately render any image of an ice sheet on a sunny day with black penguins in the foreground. Even my eyes really couldn't handle that much light without serious squinting and GOOD shades.

Digital is a medium, just like slides; it has it's strengths and weaknesses, just like slides. If people want to take memories rather than art, they still would be better off not cutting off Millie's legs or shooting the family picture into a setting sun.

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[$criptah]

Fist of all, Fuji FinPix was the first camera that I could evaluate, it was in my price range and I had a chance to play with it. I also got a chance to toy with Olympus-750C (which beats Fuji, IMO). I also used my friends' Sonys and Canons. Also, it was the camera I was not impressed with.

Secondly, I am not a Nikon facist. In fact, I have used a great variety of cameras in my life. Nikon N80 is my current camera because I could buy it for really cheap (less than $300) on sale. I was planning on getting an SLR, any SLR with a reasonably good lens. The N80 that I bought was priced way below its market value. The person who sold it had to get rid of it that very same day and it was the best bang for a buck I could find. That is why I bought it. I still use old Soviet SLR cameras that I picked up on ebay for $25.

I am sorry to diappoint you, but I sure as hell like to use flash. If I shell out $300 for a camera, it better have a hot-shoe! Flashes that come with cameras are not really flashes! They are tools used for filling in shadows. You cannot use them in order to provide enough light for a large setting or an object that is located far away from the camera.

You are correct, most cameras come with a tripod mount, but when I was looking for a long-zoom camera, I did not see too many ones that had a metal tripod mount. Plastic mounts do not cut it if you use tripods on a frequent basis.

Chromatic aberrations or purple fringe will appear in most digital cameras and cheap optical products. Why? The answer is in lenses. Different wavelengths of light have different focal lengths and cheap lenses cannot focus all these different wavelengths in one plane. Cheap lenses do not have achromatic doubles (pieces of glass) that can help solve the problem. I was surpirsed to find out that Nikon cameras were pretty crappy when it came to this defect.

You get what you pay for.

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have time, do the night test as well. Go find a monument, a church or something that has a series of lights on it. Take a picture and then see if you have purple rims around the lights.

I've also got an A70. About the only time I've seen purple fringing of lights in my night shots were in the the ones I took of my university campus during the winter. There were fairly prominant blue halos around the high-powered halogen lamps they use to light the walkpaths -- some of the very distant halogen lights were totally blue/purple. Any of the other night pictures with street sodium lights or regular incandesent bulbs came out fine.

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[Nemesis099]

I agree with everything you said if you apply it to pro photography.

But not everyone is a pro! For pics of fluffy or some family event you don't need an slr camera. Also you mention how the lenses aren't interchangable well believe it or not 35mm cameras exist that don't have interchangable lenses. Are those people idiots for not spending more money on an 35mm SLR? No they aren't they just have different priorities.

Saying all of this I will say I own and digital SLR and absolutly love it. I also think people should try to take better pictures but since some people just aren't good at it I feel fine taking my own pictures and letting them buy prints off of ofoto.com

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[$criptah]

Yep, that is it. This can happen in SLRs too, but only if you use cheap lenses. In any case, once you change the lens, you're all set.

Re:Tip #1: Use a Good Film SLR

[$criptah]

Good point. However, nothing prevents me from taking images and scanning them for digital use.

One more thing: once in a while I do develop my pictures at Wal-Mart, CVS, etc. The quality is not bad at all! Most of the pictures are sent out to Kodak anyway. I have tried to do CVS One Hour development once and it was miserable. You do not have to spend a fortune to get good prints from film nowadays.

I am not trying to make freaking art myself. I take shots while I travel. Still, I do not find point-and-shoot digital cameras as useful because I cannot change the lens (the same goes for film point-and-shoot). I do not mean to argue that all digital cameras are bad. I've seen some wicked goods ones; they, alas, had price tags over $1,000. With point-and-shoot digital cameras I feel that I get very little value for my money. That is my own opinion.

digital photography candids

[oomis]

I think that one of the best things to come out of the widespread adoption of digital photography is the fact that it has become so much easier for people to (inadvertantly in most cases) document their lives.

What's valuable about this is that the quantity of pictures has increased - and this includes all the crappy candids that capture the moment, instead of the scene. And it's the moment that matters in candids, not necessarily the anal-retentiveness of making sure that the best shot possible is taken.

This being said, the better a photographer knows the fundamentals of photography and the ins and outs of the camera, the better the pictures will be, but when a person starts fiddling with the camera at the expense of the moment, the spontenaity simply goes away and that moment is lost.

*shrug* some of my most valuable pictures are ones taken on a crappy camera, that aren't totally in focus, and that are plain bad pictures. But to me, and to my friends that identify with the moment that was captured, and to my son who will grow up and learn something about me from the pictures that he would never see if the pictures (crappy though they be) didn't exist....none of that matters.

1 out 10?

[bored_geek]

You get 1 out of 10! You're good! I get about 1 in 25 on film and about 1 in 40 with digital.

Knowing you don't have to pay for the tossed photos makes it really easy to push the button a few extra times.

ThumbsPlus - by Cerious

[ka9dgx]

I use ThumbsPlus 6.0 by Cerious software, it makes thumbnails and stores them in an SQL or Access97 compatible database. You can add keywords to the files for searching, etc. It also makes web pages with thumbnails, etc, etc.

It also features a slideshow mode which I use to browse the photos I take, and make my picks for keepers. I recommend this to everyone who asks.

Now I can search manually by date (October 2000 was our honeymoon, for example), or by Keyword (such as DoorCounty, or RoadTrip). I'm carrying the last 3 years around on my laptop, weeding out the lesser half in terms of quality.

--Mike--

Re:ThumbsPlus - by Cerious

[pla]

I use ThumbsPlus 6.0 by Cerious software, it makes thumbnails and stores them in an SQL or Access97 compatible database. You can add keywords to the files for searching, etc. It also makes web pages with thumbnails, etc, etc.

Hmm... I use TP5, and agree that as far as quickly going through tons of pics, including batch processing, you just can't beat it. Not exactly The Gimp in its manipulation abilities, but simply amazing as an all-purpose digital photo viewer.

For searching, though, how do you do that in 6? perhaps 5 just doesn't have it, but that does indeed sound convenient...

As an aside... Do your comments go into the EXIF data, or only into the DB? If the latter, I'd worry quite a bit about the DB getting corrupted (at least with TP5, that has happened to me probably half a dozen times; never a problem, since it just takes a few seconds longer to rescan the thumbnails, but if I actually stored metadata in the DB, I would have lost it all).

Re:ThumbsPlus - by Cerious

[ka9dgx]

I've never used comments, but I use keywords all the time, which go into the database, not into the file. It's a good idea (through I haven't) to back up the database.

For editing photos, I use Paint Shop Pro from JASC.

--Mike--

We need more digital photography specific lessons!

[abrinton]

I have been looking for a class in Photography, based around using a digital camera. Classes available today are either "traditional" and teach photo technique, composition, and LOTS of darkroom; or digital, with minimal technique, composition and TONS of computer image manipulation.

What are needed are classes to teach digital photographers how to *take good pictures*!! No darkroom, no manipulation, just technique!! It's very hard to find this right now.

How is this any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cropped out legs/heads? Bad photos??!

These are nothing new! Before digital cameras, we had film cameras. And bad photos on film. What's the difference??

CowboyNeal?

[sharkey]

Already there must be millions of self portraits taken at arms length (complete with double chins)

Photo Nazis

[hshana]

I am all for doing things in a professional, well thought out manner, but if you don't like my pictures, don't look at them.

A dissenting voice

[njdj]

Everybody is praising the tips in the linked article. I think some of them are rubbish.
it is surprising how few subjects are suited by the height of a human standing at their full five to six feet, a maxim which is illustrated by a really terrible photograph of a building in Oxford taken from 2 inches above the road surface. Don't confuse "eye-catching" with "good". This building would have been better photographed from the photographer's normal standing height.
Good places to put things; third of the way up, third of the way in from the left , you get the idea. Duff places to put things; right in the middle
It depends. If you're composing a landscape shot, there should be interesting material off-center and you need to think about balance. But if you're taking a picture of some specific object, "right in the middle" is far from a duff place.
The best way to improve the quality of your pictures is to throw away 90% of them and just keep the best 10%. With a digital camera, that doesn't cost anything. That's by far the best tip you can give any digital photographer, and it didn't get a mention.

Not always the rule...

[ScottGant]

This is the "spray and pray" theory of Photography...which isn't always the best.

When dealing with Photography, someone always invokes the name Ansel Adams....so let me be the first.

Ansel always preached "pre-visualzation" in his Zone System and also for composition.

He saw the picture before he ever took the picture. He taught about this technique all through his life. Ansel didn't take hundreds of pictures to get a dozen really great shots. He lugged glass plates and 8x10 cameras up mountains, so he didn't have the film in the remote locations to "spray and pray".

Now, does this help Joe Sixpack with his digital camera and Photoshop? Yes, if he's really interested in making his photography better. I would suggest picking up The Camera, The Negative and The Print from Adams. It's the old way of photography, but it has a ton of usefull information.

Remember: good photography is an art

[snStarter]

And as an art form it takes more than just a properly exposed photo to be worthwhile.

Digital makes it easier/cheaper to make images, but it takes a thoughtful appraisal and work to make very good ones.

I encourage everyone to try - and save the precious ones that will mean something to you in future years.

Karma whoring.

[jotaeleemeese]

Link here.

The old "hat trick" works with digital, too

[plover]

Set the camera up for a two or more second exposure. Cover the lens with a black hat. Be careful not to touch the camera, just surround the lens with a black, non-reflective opaque object, such as a hat. Trip the shutter, wait a second or so for the vibrations to settle down, then remove and replace the hat to expose the picture.

It's a trick that's worked since chemical photography was invented, and it still works with digital today. (I've done it with outdoor night photos.)

One problem with extremely long exposures in the dark that is peculiar to digital is that noise in the sensors becomes extremely apparent. You might see "static" or "snow" on extremely long, dark exposures. If that's a problem you encounter, try keeping the camera as cool or cold as possible (don't put it in the freezer and frost the thing, though!) That means leave it out in the cold rather than tightly held in your jacket, for example; and spare the LCD display as much as possible as the EL panels really warm them up.

Re:The old "hat trick" works with digital, too

[RetroGeek]

And you can also do flash fill that way (over a large area). Takes two people though.....

One holds the hat. The other the flash.

Remove hat, take flash.
Move 10 feet down. Remove hat, take flash.

Repeat as required.

Re:Set the camera to dummy mode

[carlos_benj]

Is that the mode where you hand the camera to someone nearby and say, "Here, I'm too stupid to use this."

Flash.

[jotaeleemeese]

Nonsense, it is there for good reasons.

For example in a sunny day the only way to get a background image (like a big monument) sometimes is standing in a very dark place due to shadowing.

Use the flash and any interest in the foregorund (specially people's features) are brought to life in a quick and dirty way.

There's only TWO rules needed for digital cameras!

[Linker3000]

1) Work out what you want to snap about 3-5 seconds beforehand because that's how long it will take the bl**dy electronics to auto-focus the camera and take the picture...your son/daughter on a merry-go-round = tons of pictures of them not quite in shot, or just leaving it!

2) Want to take an action sequence? FORGET IT because it will take your camera 3-5 seconds to save each picture to CF/SD/memory Stick/Smartmedia, whatever.

3)Take nice, deep, calm breaths and wait for technology to catch up with reality.

OK, that's THREE things - so I lied.

What I do...

[OneFix at Work]

I started out with a Pentax K-1000, taking photos for Journalism in High School and developing my own B&W film.

I still have the K-1000, but I got rid of my Kodak Color Lab a while back. Chemicals are expensive...if I don't take any photos for a year, I have to buy all new chemicals (certainly a major cost problem). Film (I mean good film) really costs. Photoshop is so much easier/cheaper than having to buy new filters/equipment.

In the digital darkroom there is no real cost for film, and not much trade off for Color vs. B&W, so all of your pictures can be taken in color and changed via Gimp/Photoshop to set the "mood".

I currently own (and use as my primary camera) a Canon Powershot A70. You don't need a SLR to take good photos, if you're just taking photos of a skyline, trees, etc...you can still get good results with a well built snapshot camera.

The things to remember are the following:

Learn the limitations of your camera. Know how to get the best photos using the manual settings. A good start is generally setting the ISO Rating to ISO 50, set a fast shutter speed and a higher aperture. Set the highest resolution and quality setting. Turn off the flash unless it's absolutely necessary (your subjects will look "dead" otherwise) and don't get too carried away with zoom (digital or otherwise)...

Now, why am I using a snapshot camera and not an SLR??? Some people want you to belive that because they spent $1000 on their camera, they somehow take better photos than those of us spending $300 for a camera. Despite what others would have you belive, you can still take bad photos with an SLR and you can certainly take great photos with a snapshot camera.

Don't belive that good photos can be taken with "cheap" cameras...Look at this site...where all of the photos have been taken with an Aptek PenCam (earlier shots were taken with the $30 PenCam VGA)...

NudityDirty

[orasio]

I don't know which country you live in, but I believe in the modern world those are not considered dirty pictures, and non suitable for work, if spending your work time on the web is allowed in the first place.
In my city, we have a reproduction of the Michaelangelo's David at the door of the City Hall, and he is nude there.
I believe in most places, it would be more troublesome to be caught all day slashdotting than watching some [wannabe] artistic pics, nude or not.

Re:NudityDirty

[spoco2]

No Matter how you try and justify the validity of looking at these works or not (I happen to think they are lovely), it's perfectly fine to warn people that there is nudity on the page, as quite frankly many work places are going to throw a tantrum if they see you looking at a page with boobs on it.

That's the way it is, so don't pick on the guy for just warning people.

piece of crop!

[invein]

Crop your photos!! Many a bad photo can be made much better after some judicious cropping. Yes, you are discarding precious pixels, but I'd rather have a well composed picture than all the pixels. ("Well it sure looks like this photo has all it's pixels! whew!")

It's all well and good to "crop in camera". If you get to that point where your framing is impeccable, good for you! Until then crop, crop, crop. It's the same idea of "take many pictures, and toss the ones that don't work" applied to a single picture. You are simply throwing what doesn't work in the photo.

The great thing about this is that you can apply it to pictures you have already taken. And it's easy to do -- in iPhoto for example, it is simple to make a cropping pass over all your images.

Think FAST

[jimlintott]

One of the best tips I've ever received is think FAST

Focus
Aperature
Shutter
Think

It's like a checklist that is now a habit. Works well in the darkroom, too. (The darkroom was a magic place where we would develop film and make images appear on paper.)

Whatever!

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with digital photography. These are tried and true lessons they teach us in photography 101.

What's next /. we'll get postings on "digital plumbing tips"?

Another GREAT site - DeviantArt

[spoco2]

OK, I'm quite the avid photographer, and there is a supurb site for posting your pieces and getting critiqued, and you can end up selling them there too, it's www.deviantart.com Which is always amusing to me when I tell people my page there (spoco2.deviantart.com ) as they assume it's all about porn or other such 'deviant' behaviour... it's a great site, with digital and film photographers and all sorts of other artists as well... a great place to hone your skills

Composition My Ass

[Axel2001]

And yet again, I see the idiocy that the so-called "digital revolition" has spawned ... composition for digital. How is composition for digital different than composition for film? I could understand lighting for digital or something of that nature... The "digital revolution" has caused people who never would have had any interest in photography to get involved in it - and I'm all for that. But many of these folks are very techno-savvy, and probably lack artistic ability. Digital photography is great for convenience. It helps out people who don't care enough about their photos to wait an hour to see them. It has spurred a market of technology-hungry consumers who want the latest and the greatest, and who usually care little about "composition." Don't believe me? Then why does Joe Blow go out and buy that 1GB CF card to hold a jillion images, everyone one of which he is going to go home and edit in PhotoShop? Any other book on composition will give you as good or better information - anyone who concentrates on equipment as a defining characteristic of composition knows little about the art of photography.

Re:NudityDirty (way OT)

[orasio]

Ok, I'll make it simpler for you.
I was "picking" on the disgusting puritanism of the US populace, as it looks from the outside.
In my case, my employer would probably be mad at me for spending so much time at slashdot, wasting their money, but they don't care what I do with that time, especially if I am looking at B/W pics of nude people. The first is unarguably wrong, and the other is not, per se. I have come to believe, based in part in /. comments, that in the US nudity is considered bad itself. That would explain for example why MTV blurs people cracks and nipples, but shows some sexual beahviour.
Nevermind, I was just bitching about something that I really don't care about, this is not the right place to talk about that, but what the hell....

Re:NudityDirty (way OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the nation of hypocrisy. You can't say "shit" on the radio but invading a scapegoat nation is AOK!

Don't delete - Archive

[Anonymous Coward]

The posts are all helpful in rounding out the advice on comosition.

One word of advice my father in law - who is a professional photographer gave me:

Be selective about what you print/display but don't delete any photos - archive them.

Our perception of the event we are trying to capture is often coloured by our view of it at the time, and often with hindsight we see the event differently or perhaps more completely.

In 10 years time when you are assembling a family album you may suddenly find that one of your 'rejects' captures the event perfectly, even though it may not be a technically brilliant photo.

Personally I archive my entire memory card (512MB) to CD ROM, before I start sorting them on my pc, knowing I have an archive and a backup.

-oops! wait a minute - CD's dont last 10 years any more!! /gratuitous archived slashdot story reference

"Digital" == "Shiny new trendy READ THIS"

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Have you looked at the photography technique section in a bookstore lately? You'll find countless books whose title goes "Digital [insert plain old photography topic]". The funniest one I've seen is Digital Nude Photography. I guess the difference between this book and one about plain old boring film nudes is that it tells you how to upload the pix to the Usenet or something.

No.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I think his point is that the fact that it's got the word "digital" in it creates the expectation that the tips are going to be at least a bit specific to digital photography. And they really aren't.

Re:No.

[Moofie]

How is the composition of a digital photograph different from the composition of a film photograph? Or a watercolor, for that matter?

Re:No.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

How is the composition of a digital photograph different from the composition of a film photograph?

Duh, that's the point.

Or a watercolor, for that matter? That's a hard question. At one level, both involve the placement of lines and shapes on a plane. At another... the photographer works within a set of constraints very different from the painter-- film records a real-world scene more or less mechanically, so perspective and crop must be controlled by a combination of camera placement and lens focal length, which are subject to all sorts of mechanical constraints too.

The painter can do all sorts of stuff that the photographer can't-- hell, the painter can dispense with perspective altogether if he so wishes.

You're wrong.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Not only does digital naturally have 1 to 2 zones of added exposure range over 35mm, but scanning any negative with even the best scanner reduces films already inferior exposure range by up to one additional zone!

First, "35mm" is a film size, not a medium. Your statement is meaningless.

As another poster said, digital can't beat the exposure range of negative film, period. Slide film (which I prefer) IIRC gives more contrast than digital, too.

In general, for screen display, digital has a bit of a resolution advantage because scanning film introduces blur. OTOH I like the color reproduction of film way better.

Yup.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

You have pretty much the same setup as I do. Don't tell me you shoot Astia too!

easy fix for white balance

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how you set white balance under today's strange spectrum fluorescent lights.

Loosely rubber band a jumbo white coffee filter over your lens, hold another filter in front of the lens, and take a picture of the middle of the room, then set the white balance. Orange, yellow, and purple people no more!

Or you can buy an expodisc.com for $150US. But try the coffee filters first.

the AE-1 stuff is stranded

[Anonymous Coward]

and doesn't work on any digital, throw it out

Get a cheap medium format from the sixties. The Yashica TLRs with Yashinon lenses, Mamiya C33, they go for under $200.

DIGITAL CAMERA HACKS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody hacking the firmware of digital cameras? A good project would be enhancing certain options in a few of the low end high optical zoom cameras such as the shutter speed.

For example, the Fuji Finepix S5000 is an excellent camera at a very nice price.... with one drawback. The slowest shutter settings is 2 seconds. This destroys this camera's night photography use, limiting it to typical consumer point and shoot abilities.

If anybody wants to tackle a project like this, you'll make a lot of people very happy.

I am a pro photographer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! A chance to talk about something I know :)

The tips listed are ok for general use. Of course, anyone serious will need to learn more but most camera owners don't know even the basics. Helping a tyro shoot decent pics is a good thing.

The idea/advice that the only way to get any good pictures is to take hundreds is stupid at best. I use medium format film and can't afford to shoot and shoot and shoot just to get a few good images. I have to be productive and my usage rate (scans you see on my website) is closer to 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 images, mainly because I deliberately shoot multiple angles and compositions. In fact, my "garbage" ratio is about 1 in 10 (1 or 2 bad frames on a 15-exposure roll.)

Finally, digital still can't get anywhere near larger film formats. I'd need a 30+ megapixel DSLR to equal the image quality my Mamiya 645 gives me. I expect to switch to digital in maybe 5 years if technical advancements continue on their current pace; for now, film is the only way to go.

My website is at Lumigraphics if anyone wants to see my work.

Post processing is the key!

[sejanus]

With Digital SLR's, they generally deliver a fairly flat file from the camera that lacks sharpness and contrast straight out of the camera.

Just by adjusting the contrast and sharpness in your fave graphics program will immediately improve your results.

You still need to know how to take a shot, but post processing makes the difference between a good shot and a great shot.

I'm not suggesting you radically modify the photo in Photoshop, just do the basic post processing and you'll see what I mean.

Have a look at my photos at www.gavincato.com (especially the bikini clad girlies) - notice how most are nicely sharp, with great colour & contrast. Most amateur guys don't seem to make this step up, and I wish they would as it's so easy to do.

Lenses are of course important, I'm lucky enough to
have a nice selection o f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes.

cheers

Mirror or tinfoil

[leonbrooks]

I have a handy-dandy unfolding hairbrush with a mirror inside the handle. Holding that across the front of the flash on my Sony DSC-F707 at about a 30deg angle bounces the light off the ceiling quite nicely, a steeper hangle diffuses it around the room behind you. A slab of tinfoil wrapped around a ruler or similar also does well, and if you use a short length of fat broom-handle or similar rod - you may be able to get an inch or two (a few centimeters, or for the farmers about 1/800 of a chain :-) of offcut from a timber supplier, woodworking or cabinetmaking shop for free (sawn in half lengthways) to form the tinfoil over, it makes a nice convex reflector and disperses the flash across most of ceiling.

You can also experiment with muting your flash (with plastic containers, cloth, paper etc). If you want to see serious redness, use a hand. (-:

digital is a lot different then 35mm

[debugdave]

One thing that I have been taught about shooting digital is that it is harder to get the image that you want then with film. With film you can incorrectly expose the image and then when it comes time to print you can adjust for density. So you can over expose the shot and it will still come back from the lab looking correctly exposed because they can make those adjustments.
Digital is a lot like shooting slides just because once you open the shutter, there is your image. Granted, you can go into any number of photo suites and adjust accordingly with a digital file, but not everyone has the knowledge of a photo tech to know what channels to punch up and down accordingly.
So in my opinion there are a lot of people out there shooting digital that need to do a lot more reading before they go blow $500+ on the latest in camera hotness. They wonder why when they download their pictures they don't have the beauty and punch that the 35mm prints coming back from their local photo lab did.

The other thing about a nice camera...

[leonbrooks]

...vs a crappy one is that you can take larger images and fix framing mistakes by cropping and scaling them into the smaller size.

Also, using my DSC-F707 in 640x480 mode (not sure if it'll go that low, it might only go down as far as 800x600), you can fit about a zillion shots on the hopelessly small Sony sticks, compared with only about 60-70 at full res.

But wait... there's more... (-:

The Sony will also do infrared shots, close-ups down to about 2cm, postage-stamp movies (the DSC-F828 does reasonably sized movies), and sounds for attachment to images. Admittedly, the sound quality is not exactly prizewinning, but it's useful for stuff like tagging a shot of a bird with its call. It also optically zooms.

OTOH, you can buy a lot of more-or-less-disposable crappy digital cameras for the cost of one high-end camera.

It's an interesting exercise for cars, too. I can buy 40 of the second-hand Peugeot 505 that I drive for the same price as my brother-in-law's single 4WD.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy sure should need some "few basic guidelines for improving digital photographer's skills".

Take a look at this....

[acomj]

I agree to a point..

There is a minimum functionality that is required for certain shots (obviously in low light a disposable or really cheap 5-20$ camera won't do.) I used to shoot a lot of concerts and events and expose by eye because I knew about what to expect and my camera meter was primitive and easily fooled by backlighting etc. My camera was primitive and I used manual focus fixed lenses which wern't great with the manual wind it wasn't the fastest shot.., but I think I got some good results. I was limited by only shooting 400 speed film too (pushed to 800-1600 at times because we needed too). don't think I would have don't much better with a better camera or better film.

However sometimes you can get good shots with a point and shoot. too. They have there place.

Re:Take a look at this....

[ahoehn]

I think the moral of this article is that while most slashdot readers are nerds, they're not photography nerds.

Re:easy fix for white balance

[dasmegabyte]

I just do what we used to do at the TV station: I carry a piece of 96 bright laserjet paper with me. Put it down, aim the camera at it (from an angle...no shadows please) and hit the auto white balance button. No issues.

The coffee filter idea doesn't work quite so hot, since they aren't really white either. But that 96 (or brighter) paper almost GLOWS, even in low light.

Oh, and today at the arena, I was having trouble getting a good balance because of smoke from pyrotechnics. So I zoomed in on the abdomen of a woman in a white shirt. Look at the shots I took after that, there's a noticable difference in the color histogram.

Carry Duct Tape???

[lcsjk]

Those phone cameras don't have tripod mounts do they now? So again, if possible hold the camera/phone steady against something, even if it leaves a phone print against your face.

Re:How do you process such RAW data?

[Medievalist]

Excellent, thank you. My camera is listed as "supported"! I won't get a chance to work with the software for a couple of weeks :^( because my employee is sending me all over the map lately, but I should have lots of opportunities to snap pictures, anyway.

Thanks again!