What Is The Secret Behind

[Dr. Burrito]

Light!

Light should be like a lover you know so well, that every curve of her body informs your next move and decision of how and when to hit the button. Knowing and understanding light will make what seems ordinary to the eye before the shot, extraordinary after developed.

Glass!

Made correctly, glass is a surgically precise instrument that will never betray you, for it is faultless and sinless as a baby. It should be treated with the respect of a ticking bomb. Nothing corrects bad glass, good glass gives everything a chance to be realized.

Time!

Time spent slowly walking for hours down the streets of Bangkok, in the forests, rice fields and villages will yield unto you a variety of image encounters you could never possibly imagine. Without time, you will simply be sentenced to looking through others photo albums on the internet.

Instinct!

it could also be framed under the word passion I suppose, as they are both certainly intertwined to help your eye see something others cannot until you have revealed it to them through your craft. You can't teach instinct, but you also can't quell passion, so hundreds and hundreds of 'bad photo moments' will ultimately lead you to realize where your best instincts lie and which moments to pursue.

Dr. B

[canuckamuck]

Different requirements have different approaches. Dr. B is right about his approach when the intention is scenic which I am sure is what the OP meant, but it is hard to nail down a rule for all types of photography. I am a journalist so I need to compensate for conditions. Fantastic light is a major benefit but sometimes you need to work in bad light.. Great light is rare in Thailand only at dusk and dawn do you get a little help. Glass: well, buy the best you can afford, this is a decision you can only make once per lens purchase. Time! Great photos are a piece of time but being ready makes up for a lack of time, I think Dr. B was also talking about patience and diligence, very important qualities especially because some subjects are beautiful but elusive.

Instinct absolutely, Instinct makes a good photography fantastic. Instinct puts the photographer in the right place with right camera settings.

Still, if you can’t compose, you got nothing.

[Dr. Burrito]

Well, I confess, I would beg to differ regarding the above, as I also come from a photojournalist background. I am about the absolutely worst scenic photog on the planet.

Light for instance, even when it seems to betray you, if understood, then it can be compensated for hence my words of understanding it better than anything at all. You know light, then you know what to do with it even in the poorest of conditions to yield the best results possible.

Bad glass is simply an abomination peddled by Vivitar, Minolta and Sigma without shame for the consequences.

On the rest we concur I think. I suppose I should have included a sonnet on composition. I did fail there indeed.

Dr. B

Edited June 29, 2007 by Dr. Burrito

[canuckamuck]

No worries Dr B: I liked the sonnets.

Good to hear from another shooter, I didn't know this part of the forum was even here. Nice to meet you all.

Hope you don't mind if I check in now and then.

[Pez]

Anyone wishes to tell us?

Yours truly,

Kan Win

In days of old when ...... film and only film was available, now digital has come of age, top end printers ie Canon 9000 can match colour film output this has released the budding photo'r. I used to be semi pro - journalism, wedding industrial, baby's etc etc. - Hasselblad, Nikon own darkroom etc. Lots of good stuff written already so here is my take on.

So what makes a good photo? and what do we mean by 'A good Photo?.

I don't have a diffinative description of what makes a good photo - so, to keep it simple I suggest = a picture that people find interesting, or picture that might touch on human emotions or one you can sell to a company for publication maybe.

First, you must know your camera so that you can use it without having to fiddle. You certainly don't have to learn all of your cameras function, just the ones you need for you type of subject you are going to photograph. I enjoy people children stuff, any delay in taking the pic and you will have 'lost it'. The time frame is small when taking photos of people, they get bored quickly and probable take on a fixed smile.

Do not think that by buying more expensive cameras you will get better pictures, technical they will be better but they cannot replace your creativity.

Even with quite advanced automation human into is often required to improve the photo. In my view landscape photos to be good are the most difficult to achive. People in my view is the easy one to get good interesting results - but! You must be comfortable with interreacting with your subject, you must 'know your camera' and work quickly.

I like to think photgraphy is an art form, but like an artist you really have to get to grips with some of the technical stuff. As some one has allready posted about visulisation you need to understand that ie going to an F1 race with a simple camera will not produce any worth while pics, unless mabe you go to the pits and get close-ups. To get good pics you probale need at least 300mm lens, however, Monaco will need different equipment to say the Canadian race. If you take photos of people with the sun in their face, their eyes will be little slits, so, turn them around and use fill in flash - a winning result.

So it is important that you understand what type/subjects you are interested in before shelling out money for hardware.

Many people like myself used to be intersted in what you could do in the dark room - ie edit the subject to enhance it or create an alternative effect. Now you replace the dark smelly dark room with the comfort of you lounge and a PC and software ie Photo Shop. Just recenty I have discovered the wonders of Nikon Creative NX, it allows you to avoid some of the computer stuff and concentrate of the subject. nb. you don't have to have a Nikon to use it(look on the web for more info).

Thats it for now.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Pez

[astral]

Mark Lamai's comments are good, but it should be pointed out that they apply for a standard format SLR.

The new generation with the smaller format alters the effective focal length of the lens by x1.6

which alters the playing field a great deal. Especially when considering depth of field.

I'm aware of this, but is that the whole story? For example, is my 50mm prime on a 1.6 SLR essentially the same as a 80mm prime (50mm x 1.6) on a full-frame camera? Are there other factors to consider that I don't know about?

At the same distance from the subject your 50mm will give you the view of an 80mm

but with the depth of field of 50mm

[Head Snake]

Anyone wishes to tell us?

Yours truly,

Kan Win

In days of old when ...... film and only film was available, now digital has come of age, top end printers ie Canon 9000 can match colour film output this has released the budding photo'r. I used to be semi pro - journalism, wedding industrial, baby's etc etc. - Hasselblad, Nikon own darkroom etc. Lots of good stuff written already so here is my take on.

So what makes a good photo? and what do we mean by 'A good Photo?.

I don't have a diffinative description of what makes a good photo - so, to keep it simple I suggest = a picture that people find interesting, or picture that might touch on human emotions or one you can sell to a company for publication maybe.

First, you must know your camera so that you can use it without having to fiddle. You certainly don't have to learn all of your cameras function, just the ones you need for you type of subject you are going to photograph. I enjoy people children stuff, any delay in taking the pic and you will have 'lost it'. The time frame is small when taking photos of people, they get bored quickly and probable take on a fixed smile.

Do not think that by buying more expensive cameras you will get better pictures, technical they will be better but they cannot replace your creativity.

Even with quite advanced automation human into is often required to improve the photo. In my view landscape photos to be good are the most difficult to achive. People in my view is the easy one to get good interesting results - but! You must be comfortable with interreacting with your subject, you must 'know your camera' and work quickly.

I like to think photgraphy is an art form, but like an artist you really have to get to grips with some of the technical stuff. As some one has allready posted about visulisation you need to understand that ie going to an F1 race with a simple camera will not produce any worth while pics, unless mabe you go to the pits and get close-ups. To get good pics you probale need at least 300mm lens, however, Monaco will need different equipment to say the Canadian race. If you take photos of people with the sun in their face, their eyes will be little slits, so, turn them around and use fill in flash - a winning result.

So it is important that you understand what type/subjects you are interested in before shelling out money for hardware.

Many people like myself used to be intersted in what you could do in the dark room - ie edit the subject to enhance it or create an alternative effect. Now you replace the dark smelly dark room with the comfort of you lounge and a PC and software ie Photo Shop. Just recenty I have discovered the wonders of Nikon Creative NX, it allows you to avoid some of the computer stuff and concentrate of the subject. nb. you don't have to have a Nikon to use it(look on the web for more info).

Thats it for now.

Good stuff. SO much is written.

I can only add make sure you have a backup battery. I hate it when I've shot my wad and I don't have enough battery left for more pics or pic reviews.

[Jimmyd]

At the same distance from the subject your 50mm will give you the view of an 80mm

but with the depth of field of 50mm

Interesting. That means that the optimum portrait setting for a 1.6 is the same as for a full frame, 85-105mm. Am I correct?

[AlexLah]

How about these?

[jukapot]

What wonderful responses on this thread. Most all have been at the professional level and many others apparently have had formal training in photography. I'm saving this page for reference to be reread because I have so much to learn. I feel intimated and out of place contributing my simple thoughts.

However the subject is about taking good photographs not great great photos meant for the museum. I'm 68 years old, retired and digitalizing 5 to 6,000 old negatives and slides from the last 50 years. I've learned much by reviewing and evaluating my own photos taken over a half century - and have become opinionated as to what makes a good or bad photo.

Bad photos are in that category of "who really cares", this group includes dancing dolphins at amusement parks and the like. The next obvious group are those photos that have been shot correctly but are simply boring, they lack people. Examples include my collection of photos of the Acropolis taken in 1970. They are nicely done and I had fun shooting them, but so what. I should have bought post cards. Them same goes for photos of the pyramids and temples of Egypt. Nicely composed but now boring because of the lack of people or animals.

I've learned that to take good photos the two most important rules for me to follow is to get up close to people (arms length) and never ask the subject to pose unless they are professional models.

I do have taken a few "great" pictures in my my lifetime. These are picture that make me smile and bring back wonderful memories and pictures I can share with others. Some of these pictures are great simply because they are old.

Old pictures that have been lost for decades suddenly improve. Time can make an ordinary good picture one to be treasure and great in its own right.

As said before, my most important rule for taking good pictures of people is to move close in. It simply does wonders.

My question is why do some people spend hundreds of dollars on a camera and not bother to read simple tips on how to take good photos ?

[paulm]

A photo is only as good as the thought "do I like it and do I enjoy looking at it", of course it is about everything else you have to consider if you are a pro, however for the average photographer it should be about the enjoyment a photo you have taken gives to YOU.

[Kan Win]

A photo is only as good as the thought "do I like it and do I enjoy looking at it", of course it is about everything else you have to consider if you are a pro, however for the average photographer it should be about the enjoyment a photo you have taken gives to YOU.

Yes, but I also share mine with folks around the world and that gives me even more enjoyment.

Thank you all for your contributions, should be pinned up I think?

Astral what are your thoughts, should we pin this one and leave it open for more comments?

Yours truly,

Kan Win

P.S. Had to bump this one up though for "MrSquigle" sake.

[astral]

This topic is very relevant with the new Evaluate My Photo idea.

I cannot pin every good topic so I have started a pinned topic of

Useful Links and Discussions and pinned that.

Please let me know of other topics that should be added to the list.

[The Vulcan]

As Bert Hardy (a great British photographer) once said "If it ain't good enough, you ain't near enough"

Fill the frame - That's what makes a good photo (imho)

[astral]

Get some decent primes (for me that's 24mm, 50mm and 120mm), take loads of pictures ..........

Good advice if you have a full frame SLR.

As Bert Hardy (a great British photographer) once said "If it ain't good enough, you ain't near enough"

Fill the frame - That's what makes a good photo (imho)

This is also very good advice, and not so easy to follow using primes.

Older members like myself will have started out with a set of primes,

as zooms did not exist, or were to big and slow.

The world has moved on and I would recommend a 17-85mm zoom on a cropped sensor DSLR, as a good starting point.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Here's a link to an article part of which discusses the relative merits of zoom lenses and prime lenses. Primes still have their advantages in certain situations.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

[Jimmyd]

I think technology has advanced. My 17-55mm zoom is better than my 50mm prime at 50mm.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

You still get more light from a prime than you do from a zoom. That part of technology hasn't changed.

[PhilHarries]

Do not think that by buying more expensive cameras you will get better pictures, technical they will be better but they cannot replace your creativity.

Rarely has a truer word been spoken. Some of my favourite photos were taken with my first SLR, a plain simple Zenit B - no light meter and no fancy focussing aids. A hand held light meter, gut feeling and a lot of luck was what was needed. I must admit I disagree with the get in close when it comes to portraits. I prefer a medium length telephoto, 135 mm, and give the subject a bit of space but each to his own and I am no way close even to a gifted amateur.

At the moment I am using a Panasonic TZ3 digital which is quite a nice snapshot camera but I'd like to see some of the results printed out to really get an idea of it's capabilities. Far too many functions in it, 90% of which I ignore but it does have a reasonable point and shoot ability which I use most of the time (work pictures where photographic quality is secondary).