amateur photo thread.

  • Thread starter Conbon14
  • 1,831 comments
  • 104,526 views
HOLY CONTRAST, BATMAN!​

I gotta get a proper setup. At the very least a calibrated monitor :indiff:

Were you hoping for a greater tonal range? Ive been tinkering with contrast, im not sure what the optimum is I should be aiming for though. I bet the skyline in your captures would be particularly good at dawn / sunset picked up in the water, not sure if you have the east west aspect there. In trying to understand light better I keep revisiting the same subject in different weather or time of day, I guess its subjective though? Ive been trying to absorb ideas from nature documentaries on how they frame up or use light.
DSC04098.JPG
DSC04317.JPG
DSC04285.JPG
 
Were you hoping for a greater tonal range? Ive been tinkering with contrast, im not sure what the optimum is I should be aiming for though. I bet the skyline in your captures would be particularly good at dawn / sunset picked up in the water, not sure if you have the east west aspect there. In trying to understand light better I keep revisiting the same subject in different weather or time of day, I guess its subjective though? Ive been trying to absorb ideas from nature documentaries on how they frame up or use light.


I wanted a more natural look. I have a certain mood/tone that I've been editing for the past few months but I overdid it. I only got to check it when I saw it on my phone (as it's the only "calibrated" monitor I have).

Completely crushed the blacks, and messed up the white balance.

Also no, for that series of images the sun was setting behind me. I was on the Quebec side photographing Parliament.

If I was on the Ontario side I wouldve gotten a nice sunset.

Like this one I shot on my phone (not edited):

20210601_204600.jpg


As for your question, I find it to be subjective. I usually avoid adding too much contrast and play around with the blacks and shadows. I bring the shadows up about 10 points and drop the blacks by 15, makes the image a little crisper and adds depth.



If you want to capture the sky and foreground I would get a tripod and do a double or triple exposure and merge them for an HDR photo.

Or you can save the headache and toll on hardware by getting a circular polarizer or ND filter depending on your situation/location.

The second and third photos are great 👍
 
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]As for your question, I find it to be subjective. I usually avoid adding too much contrast and play around with the blacks and shadows. I bring the shadows up about 10 points and drop the blacks by 15, makes the image a little crisper and adds depth.

If you want to capture the sky and foreground I would get a tripod and do a double or triple exposure and merge them for an HDR photo.

Or you can save the headache and toll on hardware by getting a circular polarizer or ND filter depending on your situation/location.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for sharing your insights, Ive never tried or even considered multiple exposures, this is why I need to upgrade my camera at some point. I currently use Sony's entry point compact camera im starting to reach the limits of what it can do, its certainly pre HDR. So much to learn, I had to google what a circular polarizer and ND filter are... im so naive lol. For now rather than use filters I will have to take advantage of nature using time of day and weather, I find red shifted light at sunset interesting.
DSC04290.JPG

Sadly my finances wont stretch to buying professional gear, for now Im "focussing" my compulsive nature on learning the basics ( been taking hundreds of snaps a week / sorry for spamming the thread ) I figure the more mistakes I make the quicker the progression. Its been a saving grace during this strange year getting out and about with the camera, the feeling you get from nature is really restorative. Standing in a wildflower meadow this time of year is a very serene uplifting experience.

DSC04322.JPG


I took a few shots with quite a broad range of contrast yesterday I tried a silhouette of local windmill, it was awkward avoiding lens flare.
DSC04340.JPG
DSC04341.JPG
DSC04346.JPG

DSC04278.JPG
 
Last edited:
As for your question, I find it to be subjective. I usually avoid adding too much contrast and play around with the blacks and shadows. I bring the shadows up about 10 points and drop the blacks by 15, makes the image a little crisper and adds depth.

If you want to capture the sky and foreground I would get a tripod and do a double or triple exposure and merge them for an HDR photo.

Or you can save the headache and toll on hardware by getting a circular polarizer or ND filter depending on your situation/location.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for sharing your insights, Ive never tried or even considered multiple exposures, this is why I need to upgrade my camera at some point. I currently use Sony's entry point compact camera im starting to reach the limits of what it can do, its certainly pre HDR. So much to learn, I had to google what a circular polarizer and ND filter are... im so naive lol. For now rather than use filters I will have to take advantage of nature using time of day and weather, I find red shifted light at sunset interesting.
View attachment 1015278
Sadly my finances wont stretch to buying professional gear, for now Im "focussing" my compulsive nature on learning the basics ( been taking hundreds of snaps a week / sorry for spamming the thread ) I figure the more mistakes I make the quicker the progression. Its been a saving grace during this strange year getting out and about with the camera, the feeling you get from nature is really restorative. Standing in a wildflower meadow this time of year is a very serene uplifting experience.

View attachment 1015279

I took a few shots with quite a broad range of contrast yesterday I tried a silhouette of local windmill, it was awkward avoiding lens flare.
View attachment 1015282 View attachment 1015283 View attachment 1015284
View attachment 1015285[/QUOTE]
If you want upgraded equipment for cheap look for a used entry level DSLR. It can be had for peanuts and the image quality is miles ahead of a compact.
 
@evldave333

HDR images are made after the fact, not in-body. All you have to do is change exposure for each shot and compile the images after.

Also to add to @RacingGrandpa 's point, there are tonnes of great professional and prosumer DSLRs that can be had for peanuts as well.

Your two main contenders: Nikon and Canon have tonnes of options.

I suggest going with a full frame body for cheap and then investing the rest of the money in glass. You can save even more by buying old/vintage lenses. Nikon and Canon have a lot of lenses spanning all the way back to the 40s/50s.

You can probably spend hours upon hours scowering eBay for vintage lenses.

I've personally been obsessing over Soviet copies of German lenses like the Jupiter series or the Helios lineup.

This hobby doesnt have to be expensive and you can definitely achieve more for less. 👍 Key is to have fun with it.
 
Haven't posted in here in quite a while, so here is a random assortment of pics from a couple different cameras:

Canon SX530:




Nikkon D300:




Just bought the Nikkon a few weeks ago used, but nearly new with 3 lenses, all accessories, and some extra bits here and there. Been goofing around with it and it is really fun to play with. :cool:
 
^ Prototypes typically allowed for a lot more design variation, which always makes them fascinating to me.

A couple recent shots...

Sunrise at 28,000 feet makes the best of those stupid-early (wake up at 3:00am for a 5:30am flight) mornings:


Colorado National Monument:






Up and off on the way out, too:
 
Last edited:
Back