I am a beginner at this.I am trying to learn anything I can on how I can take a better trophy pic on my next hunt or just take a better picture of anything.Here are some pics I took.
[URL= ]1[/URL]
[URL= ]2[/URL]
[URL= ]3[/URL]
[URL= ]4[/URL]

Nice pics. So, what's the details? Camera, lens etc.

pm sent

If you post the kind of equipment you have, as well as any post-processing software you use, it will be easier to provide advice.

There are many things which are basic to all photography of course, which aren't equipment related. Basically, when the white balance (for digital) is spot on, the focus is spot on and the exposure is spot on (with the variables of depth of field and camera shake to consider), then the rest is about composition and understanding light.

Personally, I think a good photograph isolates the subject. This can be done several ways: using depth of field (lens aperture) to have only the subject be in focus and/or using light and color to isolate the subject. If the camera moves then the pics will be blurry, so either a very steady hold or a tripod ensures less camera shake. White balance is not an easy thing to master, so you either use the auto white balance in the camera and live with it, or you shoot in a RAW format and correct in post-processing.

Lastly, digital camera sensors have only so much dynamic range (meaning the range of light they can capture) so "exposing to the right" or ETTR, is generally used by referring to the histogram on the camera LCD to see if your exposure values are up against, but not exceeding, the right side of the histogram box. There are exceptions to this of course, but it's a good general rule.

Looking at your photos above, only the second seems to come close to having the subject isolated, primarily by its color and by the fact that it seems to the sharpest (no camera shake).

Hello George,
I would be very happy to send you a book that is considered to be one of the best books ever written on the subject.

Just PM me with your address and I'll get it mailed to you free of charge...I enjoy helping those who are new to photography such as yourself

Roland

My photos have improved dramatically since I discovered the wonderful world of aperture priority.

Like I said I dont know much about photography.
My father always owned a nice film,movie and video camera.We have super 8 film of our family throughout the 70's and so fourth.My dads Balda film camera is somewhere on the bottom of the Nahanni river.I made the effort to bring along my dads cameras on our hunts.I now own my own cameras and take pics and videos of my own hunting and shooting adventures.
If you can show me a super nice natural picture of your hunt and you are offering advice-then I will be your slave! but until then we are not on the same wave length-thanks anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

If you can show me a super nice natural picture of your hunt and you are offering advice-then I will be your slave! but until then we are not on the same wave length-thanks anyway.

Both Late-Bloomer and myself have offered assistance. I don't think either of us would want you as a slave, but you should reconsider your requirement that anybody post pictures to see if they meet your standards. You admit that you know next to nothing about photography. With your approach to accepting help, I doubt if that's going to change.

I can be foolish at times-I apologize.I would like however to see some nice photos from people before taking there advice-photos that appeal to me.If there is something wrong with this approach to accepting help then be it.

I've posted hundreds of my own photos on AR, certainly enough for you to have an opinion. So be it.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

If you can show me a super nice natural picture of your hunt and you are offering advice-then I will be your slave! but until then we are not on the same wave length-thanks anyway.

Both Late-Bloomer and myself have offered assistance. I don't think either of us would want you as a slave, but you should reconsider your requirement that anybody post pictures to see if they meet your standards. You admit that you know next to nothing about photography. With your approach to accepting help, I doubt if that's going to change.

Hello George,

Like Wink, I just wanted to reach out and help...it's just my nature.

I'm not offended in the least that your style may be much different than mine or anyone elses' for that matter...IMO that is VERY healthy.

Photography itself as an art is so very subjective, and you are perfectly correct in finding an artist that suits your style and fancy.

In your quest, you may want to 'google' famous/renowned professional photographers and look at their style and study it. And just go out in the field and practice and practice til you develop a style that you're comfortable with.

Look on Amazon, and there are many books for beginners and advanced photogs covering everything you would ever want to know in the beautiful world of photography!

Enjoy it!

And relax and become one with it, and discover it's charm.

You're on the right track...keep searching patiently...you will find it

Shootway,

If Late-Bloomer and I don't meet your standards (for which I think willingness to help you might be the most important criteria), then go out and find someone on the internet or take courses in your own locality. I like Ming Thein's approach to understanding photography, so here are some links to his latest articles on the subject:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013...making-great-images/

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012...d-how-to-avoid-them/

I am going to look at your pics a little closer and I`ll let you know what I think.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am going to look at your pics a little closer and I`ll let you know what I think.

Shootaway,

Save yourself the trouble. The last thing I need to know is what you think of my photographs.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am going to look at your pics a little closer and I`ll let you know what I think.

Shootaway,

Save yourself the trouble. The last thing I need to know is what you think of my photographs.

Now that's a hoot.......

There are alot of stunning pics I have seen around the net by people who really know how to take them.Unfortunately I have not seen any here on AR throughout the years I have been on.One fellow took some nice pics of his hunt in Tanzania a couple of years back.There have been some attempts by some here to use fancy equipment and computer editing only to make a picture worst off,IMO-or to give it a fake and undesirable look.I dont think I will ever be able to take a stunning photo.I believe it requires years of experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Late-Bloomer:
Hello George,
I would be very happy to send you a book that is considered to be one of the best books ever written on the subject.

And I can send you a tutorial I created a couple years ago for my friends in regards to post-processing if you'd like.

Just PM me with your address and I'll get it mailed to you free of charge...I enjoy helping those who are new to photography such as yourself

Roland

What's the name of the book?

I need all the help I can get.

Zeke, I've got a bookshelf full of photography books and most are frustratingly repetitive, all saying almost the same thing in a different way. One of the better books is not even about photography. The title is Light for Visual Artists by Richard Yot. Another reasonably good book is Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Recently I've been following the blog of a professional photographer in Malaysia named Ming Thein. You can google his name and get to the articles on his site. He writes clearly on both the technical and artistic aspects of photography. In the end I am probably more influenced by simply looking at photographs and today, with internet, it's pretty simple to look at photographs from all of the great photographers, past and present. Look at the photographs taken by Robert Doisneau or Henri Cartier-Bresson, just as a couple of examples.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I dont think I will ever be able to take a stunning photo.I believe it requires years of experience.

Well, unless you're immortal, you better get started. One of the great advantages of photography, when it's a hobby, is that the only person who has to like the photos is yourself. I suspect you wouldn't recognize a good photo if you saw it. Allow me to put it a different way, I suspect you don't know why you think a photograph is "stunning". If you do know why it's stunning then all you have to do is the same thing the original photographer did.



I've got another news flash for you, digital cameras are in fact just computers. Digital cameras don't take "pictures" that then get modified by jerks on computers who make the pictures look different. The only difference is that the computing power and software in a camera is woefully weak when compared to the average desktop or laptop computer. And if you're wondering what equipment I used to take the sexy buff picture above, it was with a Nikon D60 which is an obsolete 10 megapixel camera with less resolution than your average iPhone. But I taught it everything it knows. I like my buff picture and they haven't yet invented the machine that can measure my indifference to whether you like it or not. You can do the same and get exactly the pictures you want.

I like your buff and especially the sneaky OxPecker trying to do his job.Was never really able to get a GOOD picture of a Buff even with a long lense. As far as the technical aspects of current photography go you really don't require skill just good state of the art equipment,but to make a world class photograph you have to have an innate eye for composition and what exactly MAKES a spectacular pic. I have never read a book that teaches that aspect. You are completely right in the fact that the only one you have to really satisfy is yourself. In all my years of photography ( since 1950) I have probably taken less than half a dozen of really exceptional pictures. But I have hundreds of images that completely satisfy me. I have completely switched to digital and it lets you shoot unlimited pictures being released from the restraints of film. I shoot strictly what comes from the camera ( presently a couple of Leica M8's) and do no processing as I absolutely hate PC's though I have Elements on my laptop. I never did film processing either. It's hard to hunt and take pictures both as it is hard to birdwatch and take bird pictures. You can either do one or the other but not both simultaneously and do justice to either. Just my personal opinion and certainly no one is required to agree.

Zimbabwe, like you, when I'm hunting I'm not in photographer mode. Most of the African animal photographs that I like were taken in National Parks and photography was the objective. Most of the photographs I've taken while hunting are snapshots whose main purpose is keeping a visual souvenir for looking back on good times. It isn't necessary that they be visually stunning.

Here are a couple more buff photos, taken on the same day with the same camera:






All digital photographs are computer processed. First within the camera body itself, following the parameters both you and the manufacturer have programmed into the camera. If I could only program a camera to get all the parameters right for every photo I would be very happy and it would be a wonderful world. But digital cameras don't always get it "right" (especially white balance) without a lot of pre-photo programming. If you're shooting a white card or grey card and presetting the camera's white balance, then you may be able to avoid doing it later in "post", but how many want to spend that much time and effort in the field when they can do it later at home on a rainy day, or even know how to do it or have a camera that allows it? For most people, close is good enough and they white balance on "auto". Besides, in wildlife photography the opportunities are gone in an instant.

Most cameras also have their own tone curves, giving different color renditions compared to another model or another manufacturer. You shoot with Leicas, which have a very distinguishable color rendition compared to Nikons for example. If you want to change the color rendition then you have to do it in "post". Most digital cameras have sensor filters to compensate for things like moiré which degrade the perceptual acuity of a photograph. One can "fix" that in post-processing. In that sense, if you aren't doing any post-processing then you aren't getting the most out of the camera body. If my pics appear to be sharp, it's because I adjust the high pass filter and the unsharp mask, among other things, in post-processing.

Auto white balance, auto exposure, auto ISO are all just computer programs using sampling methods and programmed data banks to hopefully come up with the right decision for that image. They work pretty well, most of the time. But they are rarely perfect and none of them work perfectly all of the time. But then, if you don't post-process you'll never see the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Like I said I dont know much about photography.
My father always owned a nice film,movie and video camera.We have super 8 film of our family throughout the 70's and so fourth.My dads Balda film camera is somewhere on the bottom of the Nahanni river.I made the effort to bring along my dads cameras on our hunts.I now own my own cameras and take pics and videos of my own hunting and shooting adventures.
If you can show me a super nice natural picture of your hunt and you are offering advice-then I will be your slave! but until then we are not on the same wave length-thanks anyway.

What I would do is to learn how to use the camera first, and then take photos with it as you learn about composition and other photography stuff from some of the books mentioned above by others.

David D. Bush has a book written for your camera, and this book is much like the manual, but very large in size with explanations, charts, photo examples, and the rest… detailing every feature or control that camera has, and what's the result of changing settings, and so forth. Also, it goes into details how and which flashes to use, lenses, and the rest. I imagine that if you practice as you read the book for your camera you will be on your way of taking good photos. the rest comes with practice, and luck of course.

Later you can join this forum and post your photos for critique or ideas of how to take photos, post processing, and the rest:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

quote:

Originally posted by Zeke:

quote:

Originally posted by Late-Bloomer:
Hello George,
I would be very happy to send you a book that is considered to be one of the best books ever written on the subject.

And I can send you a tutorial I created a couple years ago for my friends in regards to post-processing if you'd like.

Just PM me with your address and I'll get it mailed to you free of charge...I enjoy helping those who are new to photography such as yourself

Roland

What's the name of the book?

I need all the help I can get.

Hello Zeke,
Sorry for the late reply as I hardly ever visit this part of AR...but the book is Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.

If you haven't got that one yet I'd be more than happy to send you my copy

PM me your address and consider it done brother

PM Sent

TY

A couple pics from my wallpaper files.
I don't post my pics often. If like a picture I use it as wallpaper. Then I stare at it for a few months to decide if it's a good picture or not.
My wife is my barometer of what's good. If she wants a pic for her desktop at work then it's probably fit for public consumption.
I've been on a aperture priority kick lately. It's made a huge difference in the quality of my picture. Less crap and more keepers.

D3100 55-300 DX VR


D3100 lowly 18-55 DX VR kit lens


D3100 55-200 DX VR

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am a beginner at this.I am trying to learn anything I can on how I can take a better trophy pic on my next hunt or just take a better picture of anything.Here are some pics I took.
[URL= ]1[/URL]
[URL= ]2[/URL]
[URL= ]3[/URL]
[URL= ]4[/URL]

In reality your photos are nice and sharp, and everything else seems to be OK except as follows:

The first one does not show a specific subject. In this case you can crop the upper half of the photo so that the leaves in the center becomes the center of attention.

The second one, is just fine as it is.

The third one is also fine, but like the fourth, not really an interesting subject.

Regardless, you are doing fine with your new camera, so keep on shooting

I figure that since I will always refer back to my trophy pic for years it should be good.I am not after the sharpest picture as I find them too computerish or hard for my taste.I am not after a picture with exagerated colors either-they look too fake to me.The pics that I liked the most I took with my film camera.However the last couple of times I used it I had to find a new place to develop the film and I suspect they screwed the pics.I am after something that looks pleasant to me.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I figure that since I will always refer back to my trophy pic for years it should be good.I am not after the sharpest picture as I find them too computerish or hard for my taste.I am not after a picture with exagerated colors either-they look too fake to me.The pics that I liked the most I took with my film camera.However the last couple of times I used it I had to find a new place to develop the film and I suspect they screwed the pics.I am after something that looks pleasant to me.

That's why I said that you are doing fine. Just shoot-away with your new camera as you learn about it. Sooner or later you will figure what you like, and practice always helps. Just don't discount image sharpness as being a bad thing; it's a plus.

Besides, you will notice that your camera has several modes (portraits, landscape, and so forth). The portrait mode is preset for the images to be a little soft to aid with skin imperfections and such, while the landscape mode offers sharp images. If you are taking macro photos you want sharpness, not soft images.

One thing that I forget to do is set up for a limited depth of field while taking shots of trophies, etc. You'll want your subject to be the main focus of the shot, in most cases, so use the aperture to assist in this. In the previous pics of the buffalo, you can see how blurring the background places the point of interest on the beast.

The good thing is that you're using the digital cam there's no waste to shooting like crazy and see what works and what doesn't. Very fun, indeed.

I honestly don't think he wants any assistance.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I honestly don't think he wants any assistance.

Some artists are never happy with their work. He's doing fine.

I will be renting a Canon 50mm F 1.2 lens tomorrow.I am going to try it out on my Canon Rebel and see what it does.

I'd like to throw out some tidbits of information for those who are beginning in digital photography, perhaps even more important for those who did some film photography at some point previously. I consider myself a beginner in digital, since I've only been using the medium since 2009.

Before starting on this, most Nikon cameras have file endings of .nef for RAW images and most Canon cameras have file endings of .CR2 for RAW images.

1) When you are looking at an image on the back of your camera, on the LCD sceen, you are looking at a jpeg image, always, (even if you have set the camera to record only RAW files). This is sometimes misunderstood (it was by me) when taking a photo in RAW only recording mode.
2) When you are shooting in RAW you are not really taking a picture, you are data gathering, with the intention of creating a jpeg file (a digital picture) somewhere down the line, for either web viewing or for printing which, to be optimal, will not be the same.
3) When you view a RAW file you have just created on the LCD screen, the camera has processed the data to a jpeg to allow it to be viewable. On a Nikon you can set Picture Controls that will be applied to the raw data which include contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc, or you can set them all to neutral or off, for the least amount of in-camera processing. The latter results in a very dull and soft looking jpeg on the LCD. (I do cheat on this principle, since I set the sharpening control to the maximum, allowing me to verify critical focus after enlarging on the LCD).

So why would anyone, such as myself, take only RAW files and turn off, or set to neutral, all the picture controls? The main reason is that I'm "data gathering" to obtain the most information possible from my camera's sensor, within the limits of its dynamic range, which is the range of light values it can record. When I look at the "picture" I have taken on the LCD I have set it to show the 4 histograms (red, blue, green and overall light) to make sure that I am not off the scale at either end (when it's possible) and to adjust accordingly for a subsequent shot if it could get more data in the histogram (or lose less if there's significant clipping). This "guided by histogram" approach doesn't mean that I'm not looking at the image and its contents, but it does mean that I'm not too worried about whether it looks too dark or too light, if I can see that the histogram shows the data I want is being recorded, because then I know I can retrieve it in post-processing for the creation of a TIFF or JPEG file.

So, why can't I just do that with the camera set to take jpg or a combination of jpeg and raw? The answer is that all of the picture controls have a direct effect on the histogram, shifting it right or left and spreading it out, sometimes clipping either the dark or light end of the sensor's dynamic range, which limits your ability to later get the most data possible to create a jpeg file. This is one of the reasons why I shoot RAW only and how I set my exposure values (as with film you are still "exposing" the sensor to a certain amount of light). The other reason is that I can change the exposure value, as well as the white balance, in post-processing when I record a RAW file. You cannot do this with a jpeg file.

Now, if you want to go straight to jpeg and do little or no post-processing, then setting the camera to record jpeg files only is most likely the right approach. In this case, use the various picture controls for contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc, or use the various scene modes some cameras contain, since they become your primary end-product tools.

As some would describe it, taking a RAW file is like taking a negative, which later has to be developed to be seen, and taking a jpeg file is like taking a slide, since you can't do as much to it in post-processing. But remember, your jpeg started out with RAW data and the camera processed it to a jpeg, recorded the jpeg and eliminated from its memory all of the RAW data. Also, jpeg is a "lossy" format, meaning that every time you make even the slightest alteration to the file you lose data. If you make and save alterations two or three times the quality of the image becomes severely degraded. So, be sure to make a copy of the original jpeg before you downsize for the web. After downsizing (which by definition means eliminating a lot of data) you will probably want to apply some degree of "sharpening" with whatever tool you have in your software.

Back in the old film days, unless you were shooting with Polaroid film or slide film, you were taking negatives, not pictures. These were then enlarged and printed, usually by a lab unless you did your own darkroom work. That enlargement and processing added new adjustments to the image, for exposure, color balance, cropping, etc. While the processes are not at all identical, there is a conceptual analogy in the process, since the objective is to get an image that is, at least, visually pleasing. I think that anyone who developed their own film will remember the bias toward exposing for a slightly denser negative, since you could get more out of it under the enlarger, as well as the bias toward a slightly underexposed positive when shooting slide film since blown highlights were unrecoverable. So, while the dynamic range of digital sensors is greater than most films, the principles aren't much different.

The two biggest differences are that today 1) the majority of images are viewed on a computer screen and not printed, and 2) processing software is cheap and anyone with a computer has a "darkroom" of unprecedented power even if, like me, most of us only use a fraction of the post-processing power of the software.

In my opinion the recent development of on-line creation of photo albums, which are then printed and sent to the photographer, may be the last best hope for the printed image in terms of mass consumer printed images. I say this because some of them are of very good quality, since the majority of the print-from-jpeg at Walmart type of options are usually really pitiful quality. If you have spent a couple of thousand dollars on modern digital cameras and lenses, the images really deserve better. Almost every modern DSLR is capable of recording the data to create a beautiful printed image (or digital jpeg for viewing on a computer screen), but few people are optimizing their exposure (even though they can immediately see the results on the back of their camera) or their post-processing (even though just about everybody has a computer), and even fewer are using labs that make quality enlargements. When was the last time you had a "quality" enlargement made and framed?

wink, those are some great points. Another point to remember is that most community colleges and universities have classes, both classroom and on-line, ot aid the new and more advanced photographers alike. The advantage to on-line is that you can be anywhere in the world and take the class. While it may not be right for shootaway, this is a good beginning class.

XKP 5040 - Mastering Your Digital SLR Camera

Link to Photography classes

I took one such class the last two weekends. While I didn't learn anything new about the photography end personally, since I have been doing it a long time, even digital, I did learn a trick or two that I just had not thought about. If nothing else, it provides a structured place for "assignments" to gain experience. One such was how to keep the camera from condensation after shooting on a very cold day (it has been in the single digits here for a long while) and bringing it into the house. I do it all the time with my rifles, I just never thought about the much more delicate camera. Put the camera in a plastic bag when you bring it in, and the condensation will stay on the bag and not in the camera. Most assuredly an old trick, but I never thought about it.

Larry,

The plastic bag is OK if your camera and lens can fit. But if you've got a long telephoto or zoom that won't always be at hand. Last week I spoke to a professional photographer who works in the Alps in some pretty cold weather and he just puts it in his camera bag (of course we're talking about a zipped-up relatively sealed camera bag) and doesn't open the bag for a couple of hours after coming into a warmer place. So far he hasn't had any problem. But either way, yes, you do want to put the camera in something which will avoid condensation.

I use nylon dry bags. They come is a variety of sizes and are far more durable than anything plastic. They are compact and weigh nothing.

I think mine are from Outdoor Research, but there are a bunch of makes.

Jeremy

Russell Green River Works blade, African Blackwood scales, Black bear smoked links and fixins'




Hill Country hoglet and an Ingram



a couple a shots



an Ingram after dark.




guilty pleasures.




urban survival gear.

Best,

GWB

wink, that is probably why I never had the issue. I always put the camera back in the bag. In my case it is old timers disease and that way I know where it is.