Taking good pictures, help?

[Jared Farrer]

Ok look at the picture below. I wanted to ask the professional photographers here what advice would you give and what is wrong with this picture? I mean, the sun is blown out for one, you cant really see any features for two. i.e. details in the cloud. It almost looks a little overexposed to me.

So any help out there would mean alot to me guys. I guess experience is built by doing this for years. I have only been doing this for about a year now. I mean taking pictures that is! So can anyone point out what is wrong with it. It's not a terribly abd picture I think. But I could have done alot better, having known what I was doing. By the way the picture was taken on June 6th, 2007, just outside Atkinson, NE.

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

Looks pretty soft what lens were you using? I had similar problems with some of my pictures on May 22nd some of these pictures here http://www.severechase.com/5-22-07.htm really got screwed up, I like to put much of the blame on it being the cheap kit lens, though its mostly that the camera was still really new to me, thankfully I was able to correct it a little and salvage some decent pictures, shooting directly at the sun makes it difficult to find a decent exposure, I still struggle to find an appropriate exposure, but think upgrading lenses will certainly aid in improving the soft look that many of my pictures have.

 

[Steve Miller]

Tell us more about your camera. Are you using a DSLR in manual mode? A point-and-shoot consumer camera?
Going off what I have seen in my own pictures, it looks like it was taken on full auto and definition in the clouds may have been lost due to the cunfusion of the processor with all the dark ground in the shot (definition seems to be good on the ground too). If it is indeed a point-and-shoot, try going for about 20% landscape and the rest sky. If not, someone else will need to help you cause I still can't take decent pictures with my DSLR!

 

[Jared Farrer]

Ya I guess it would be helpful to list my camera and some of the settings I was using.

Camera: Canon S3-IS 6 megapixels. Somewhat of a capable camera. Its like a mini-SLR type camera. It has an aperture value of 2.7 - 8.0, shutter speed is from 15 sec - 3200, ISO settings are from 80 - 800. But this cameras ISO sensor isnt the greatest. It starts to get pretty noisy at 400 ISO. It looks like an SLR camera only smaller. It has a lens that comes out when turned on. Canon Zoom Lens 12x IS, 6.0-72.0mm 1:2.7-3.5 USM.

It is a decent camera however. It is capable of taking very decent shots.
I wish I could find where to display the histogram. On a program not the camera. I mean software. I know I can but I cant find the version I could click on. I can say the histogram was split. Their was a mound between the white and middle range kinda on the 1/4 range. Then another mound on the oppisite side between the middle and white side, in the 3/4 range.

Exposure time is 1/10

Thats all I can find. I am going to try to install a program I have to see if their is more advanced options.

I think the aperture value was low so I could keep the ISO below 400 so noise was down. But shutter speed was close. 1/15. I had to try and stay as still as possible.

So far I shoot mainly in manual. I use the histogram mainly right now. I try and just keep it in the middle. So far doing that, I just play with the shutter, aperture, and ISO. Thats all I know how to use correctly at the moment. Their are alot of other features on my camera. I know a little about them but not enough to use them to my advantage in a timely manner. e.g. AE lock, not even sure what it exactly does, let alone how to use it correctly. Exposure compensation. again same. Lots of others.

What would you guys have done taken the exact same picture? What would you have used to not blow out the sun? And to make the cloud features come out better? I guess these are the things I am looking for.

 

[Jayson Prentice]

Shot Settings:
Exposure: 1/10"
Aperture: f3.2
Manual Exposure

One thing that may lead to the softness was the 1/10" exposure, but really as long as you weren't really shaky there shouldn't be a problem there. With an aperture of f3.2 and in a 'pattern' focus setting that you were likely using with that style of camera the censor could have easily gotten confused and misfocused. Even an DSLR will do that on some landscape shots like that, when using such a large aperture like that any slight variance in focus will really show.

Depending on what you can change with your camera and how you can focus could change the outcome of this picture. If you could up the exposure time, then that could eliminate that factor if it was one. Using a wider aperture, I like to use f/5.6 to f/8 for my landscape shots; but for SLR lenses you have a sweet spot that works best. On a 'lens' such as that one, I'm not sure if it would have quite the same effect, but its' worth a try. Lastly, shooting into the sun with any camera usually won't turn out great focus wise, unless you can focus on something else and then move to frame the shot.

The best way to learn how to fix your shot is to practice, go out on a sunset and see what settings help the camera take the best picture. I'm still learning things with my XTi and I've taken nearly 10,000 shots with that thing... I think when I got rid of my previous sony cybershot I was really just getting all of its' settings figure out, it only took me about 2 1/2 years. Just practice and it'll come to ya...

 

[Dan Cook]

Read some of Mike H's writings on photography. It's what I do when I want to improve my photography:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/photography.htm

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

A little less exposure would maybe help. The sun will surely have to blow out to some degree on that. The best thing that helps a shot like that, pull the mid-tones down in photoshop. 95% of the time that really helps storms. It'll often make the foreground too dark then though, so you'd use a mask layer...if you wanted.

The scene is beyond the dynamic range of the camera, and even when they aren't, the way the camera spreads the lightness around isn't usually how you saw it.

Also, I've seen some storms just don't want to look that great...obviously. I shot the same storm and don't see really anymore detail on mine. Mine is just darker is all.

Really, it's just darker(less exposure). I don't think I even bothered with a mask layer, as the foreground is obviously a bit dark.

 

[Laura Hedien]

Just another thought.... always use a tripod if at all possible.
The slightest shudder from you can blur a picture- especially if you are shooting in low light, wannig light, etc.
I never leave home without the tripod. I did it once and had to improvise. Almost lost some lightning shots because of it.
Happy hunting!
Laura

 

[John Olexa]

You got some good help with your question. Now one other thing You will want to remember. The photographers "Rule of thirds" Your pic is a classic no-no. you have the line between the ground & sky almost dead center in the frame. Which is fine if you just want some pic's for your self but if you ever want to sell images you will need to learn the Rule of Thirds.

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/rule-of-thirds/

In your shot you would want 2/3 sky - 1/3 ground . Also If you like taking these kinds of images look into getting a Circular Polarizer filter!

 

[Joe Zemek]

One thing new photographers learn about in short order is the Rule of Thirds. In storm photography this most often means one thing that in retrospect seems obvious: put more of the sky in the shot.

Take a look at your shot and Mike's. At times you will want more ground in the shot for a specific purpose, but for whatever reason most people naturally tend to put the horizon in the middle. I don't think we are even conscious of this but I still do it if I am not paying attention. Again, sometimes you will want a centered horizon, but for now go shoot around while deliberately putting the horizon 1/3rd from the top/bottom of your frame. You will see a difference in your composition. Your photographic eyes will open up bigtime.

As far as exposure goes, when you have a massive light range, take a few seconds to bracket at least a half stop (or 1/3 and 2/3 stop if applicable) in each direction. This will help you get a feel for light and your camera so that in future photography you will be better able to go straight to the exposure you want. You can practice on non-storm subjects like a light in an otherwise dark room. See how your camera responds.

One thing that happened in your shot is that your camera exposed the grass perfectly. Are you a grass chaser? Probly not Combining these two elements--more of your desired subject in the shot, and bracketing the shot--will give you a better storm photograph in this situation. Shooting the sun directly is always tricky and adding darker ground to that is asking for an overexposed sky. Just experiment with your camera all the time, so that you will be ready for the next storm season.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

First rule in photography...there are no rules. lol. I think the storm dictates what you can do. I'm guessing there's not a lot more to see having the frame any higher up on that storm anyway. But yeah, you may want to zoom in more and do something closer to 1/3s....since in this case there ain't much in the foreground to go with. I'd say to get all the structure(in most other cases) you end up with 1/5 foreground, 4/5 sky. That st logo up there is a good example. A lot would have been lost with the thirds deal. ST needs to do another thing for their logo too btw. Get something new for up there.

 

[Greg Campbell]

What is your subject?!
IMO, every picture needs one or at most two main subjects. You have grass, sun, clouds, and more. I'd argue that you used a lens with way too much FOV. A tighter composition would help.

I'm not much for heavy photoshopping, but setting a photograph's black point is fundamental. Also, applying a wee bit of high frequency unsharp mask (or one of several other sharpening filters) would help define the stuff on the horizon.

Personally, I think the 'rule of thirds' is nonesense. You really have to move the camera around and let your eye decide how to balance the various scenic elements to best effect. Brightness, color, shape, texture, etc., all need to be taken into account when composing. Placing everything on a 1/3, 2/3 grid will consistently produce outstandingly boring photographs. Like Mike says, a sliver of ground is all most weather pics really need. Particularly here, with a rather boring, homogeneous foreground.

For what little it's worth, I'd aim for something like this: (Even with a tighter lens, this would require a little cropping)

Or even the full panoramic treatment. This pares the picture down to it's most interesting part - the ground/sky interface.

 

[Patrick Martin]

I use the same camera Jared. Laura is correct about the tripod, use one whenever possible, even if it's not in a slow shutter speed situation. Just be aware that the tripod receiver on the camera is plastic, so some care is needed. Also, the image stabilization won't do you much good below about 1/100, even if you are trying to stay still. As you mention, noise is a definite issue at or above 400 ISO. Try staying with the 80 or 100 ISO. It will mean you will need a tripod in low light situations as your shutter speed will be slower, but you'll be much happier with your image. An example is my avatar, which was shot at ISO 100, f2.7, 10 sec.

On the histogram question, Phtoshop Elements can be a good program and will allow you to do a lot more effective editing than the Canon software.

Since you shoot in manual, suggest shooting the same scene using different combinations of aperature and shutter speed. Since it's an advanced point and shoot, you'll need to get creative sometimes. I've found with this camera that if you want the subject to be what's happening above the horizon, or to keep the color of the sky from being washed out, aim the camera at the portion of the sky you want exposed, then bring the camera down to the area you want focused. Your sky should stay exposed the way you want and the foreground will likely be underexposed. This is where editing software comes in handy as you can lighten up the foreground (without losing the color or contrast of above the horizon) a bit to bring the scene back to the way you remember it/want it to be. An example using 2 different shots of the same scene. The images are straight out of the camera only difference is what was used to set the exposure.

This one used the foreground for the exposure. Notice the land is exposed properly, but the sky is nearly completely washed out.


This one used the sky to set the exposure. The sky is the way I remember it, but the land came out a bit underexposed. (Using PS to select the land and then doing a small levels adjustment will lighten up the foreground.)


Hope this helps.

 

[John Olexa]

Personally, I think the 'rule of thirds' is nonesense.

Not to magazine editors it's not.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Not to magazine editors it's not.

I bet it is to the extreme majority of them. I license out things often, for the last 4 years, and not one single time has someone mentioned an issue with things not being 1/3 / 2/3 in nature. I'd say I average 1/6 / 5/6 after a brief look through things. That's way off of the whole thirds thing. If the sky is the subject and there's worthwhile "stuff" there, all it really needs is *some* kind of ground anchor. I'd stay away from tiny tiny slivers for foreground though. 1/5 or even 1/6 I'd say is often enough.