Taking good pictures, help?

[Jody Radzik]

I bet it is to the extreme majority of them.

Speaking as a magazine art director, I never give the rule of thirds a second thought.

My main concerns are resolution, clarity and adequate interest. If the photo looks nice and communicates something pertinent to the article it's illustrating, it's good to go in my magazines.

 

[Jody Radzik]

ST needs to do another thing for their logo too btw. Get something new for up there.

Oh no. I love that ground-scraping monstrosity. I hope I don't die when I see something like that myself for real.

 

[Jared Farrer]

Thanx guys, great advice I hope most of it sticks. I want to share another picture with you real quick. And tell me what you guys think?

Shot was taken, May 8th, 2007. Crawfordsville downtown fire.

What do you think about that shot? I shot in manual, again using the histogram. I think I got a little lucky with that shot though.

I believe that was the first time I heard about the 2/3 rule, in this thread. I am trying to shoot structure mostly, so say an interesting feature comes out higher up, well maybe its better left in context with the base. And you do not have ground to shoot giving the circumstances. I am just kinda thinking out load. Also I havnt dived into the whole post-processing thing yet. I am still learning photoshop techniques. Right now I am using GIMP. Which is alot like Adobe. I plan on getting Photoshop CS as the spring season arrives. I am in the process now too, of getting a new camera. I am going DSLR.

P.S. What do you mean FOV?

 

[Joe Zemek]

That's an interesting subject; the lack of ground leaves the firefighters floating, but the bank helps give a sense of ground somewhere. Your exposure level looks fine. The only thing I would suggest is to crop out the partial no-turn sign and top fraction of the fire truck cab. If you got the entire truck in the shot (and thus a small portion of ground), that would've been a whole different image.

As far as the Rule of Thirds goes, it's not a Law of Thirds. It is just a first tool to help aspirant photographers break out of the "gunsight mentality", in which every image's subject is centered with little regard for the rest of the image. Sometimes this is exactly what you want, sometimes not. The main thing is to begin to retrain the eyes by breaking subconscious habits.

 

[Jim Hunt]

Jarred, I shoot sports 90% of the time and live be a simple rule...

Shoot Tight, Crop Tighter

Of course when I find the perfect storm structure I might need to rethink that rule.

Also, I didn't relaize you are on ST but I enjoy your blog and have had it as a link from my weather website for a while.

Jim

 

[Jared Farrer]

Thanx, Jim. It was my first year out, in 07, with a camera and camcorder. I am very excited about next year. My Blog is under construction. I moved content over to my website. And I am going to keep the blog and maybe make it more interactive. I have lots of cool ideas, so soon it will be alot of fun to visit, hopefully. I am going to be adding links soon to other chasers as well.

 

[Greg Cranwell]

Taking great photos

This is my first post on any website so I hope I am writing this in the correct spot!!! There are alot of opinions on how to make "average" photos better. All of the suggestions on this thread are great! I have a different perspective of encouragement to Jarred! Great Job in capturing this one-time event!!!! You learnerd the science, followed the steps, and took initiative. You got to the right spot at the right time and brought your camera. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that YOU captured the shot. This is science first, art second. Any numscull can go to that one tree in that one forest 7, 8, 9 times until the lighting, atmosphere, mood is just right, set up the carbon 6 Gitzo with remote, put the 1DS mark II on f/22 and blah blah, take 100 images and go back next week for a "better" shot. That's not, or shouldn't be, the focus on storm chasing. You've captured valuable information that we should be honored to view!!!! Thank you for that.

On the note of fixing your image: See if you can get AT LEAST Photoshop CS. All images from any digital camera stink until you clean them up in Photoshop first. That is your lab, your darkroom. I use "Shadow and Highlight" first to elliminate most of the under and over exposure in the same image. Then I use levels to increase midtone contrast by bumping up the midtones and shadows manually. Then, I use the dodge and burn tool to bring out the clouds without blowing out the highlights and bringing detail in the grass. Finally, I add color saturation if it needs it, to give the photo more pop. AFTER all of this if you really care about the rule of thirds, you can crop the image any way you like. You did right by getting as much of the storm in your photo as possible. You can always take away, but can't add.

If you want to really make your images amazing, after Photoshop, open your image in "Neat Image" and clean up the digital noise. None in this photo, but great for long lightning exposures. It will make the clouds seem fluid while keeping sharpness in the image.
As far as cropping this image, I would leave ALL of the grassy field (bottom-weighted) and crop the very top of the cloud just where it seems to break up. Crop just enough to make the top solid. Your grassy field is a great anchor for the photo and gives the illusion of distance, depth, and cloud scale. It also makes the photo more dramatic. Rule of thirds is a tool if you need it. The rule of the rule is that once you understand the rule, you have permission to break it!!!

I can help you with photoshop if you like. Give me a hollar. I can send you a copy of your image with some sample CS processing if you like, but I won't copy it without your permission since it's copyrighted!

Thanks for sharing this awesome photo!!!

Greg Cranwell

 

[Esa Tuunanen]

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.

What would you guys have done taken the exact same picture? What would you have used to not blow out the sun?

Despite what advertising department says it's designed as and acts like P&S which have tendency to overprocess pics because general public keeps Disneyland-coloured contrasty pics better.
So shooting in RAW would be best option because that bypasses entirely camera's internal processing designed to make those colourful, contrasty vacation shots.
IIRC that's unavailable in that camera so next thing to do is decreasing contrast. While these very small high pixel density sensors always have problems (laws of physic) with high contrast scenes sensor can still capture wider dynamic range than what resulting pics contain at default settings and lowering contrast increases brightness range that camera can store into JPEG image.

There's snow on ground so if I have time I could take some example shots with different settings... while it might take couple weeks for sun to show up snow itself guarantees enough hard contrast.

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.

Depth of field isn't problem with small sensor P&S cameras. Especially at wide angle depth of field is such deep that for example it's practically impossible to take photo with object sticking from blurred background unless object happens to be very near lens. Canon S3's depth of field is probably over ten times deeper than DOF of APS sensor DSLRs. (larger sensor KM A2 has 7x DOF)

 

[Skip Talbot]

I can't think of anything to add to the great tips everyone has contributed. Like Mike pointed out, a photo can really be helped by Photoshop. I took Jared's picture into Paint Shop Pro and manipulated the curves to give the midlevels more contrast. I also applied a local contrast enhancement to bring out some of the definition in the clouds, and finally cropped the image to take some of the ground out of the shot:

 

[Dick McGowan]

I generally stop the image down if the sun is at bright as it is, and snap pics in a variety of f stops. If it's too dark (and I can't get a shutter speed of 1/100 or higher), I will bump up the ISO to 200-400, as long as I'm not taking a long exposure, but I want the sharpness of the lens when not opened to its maximum f stop (such as 2.8 or 4.5). I usually start with 5.0 down to 9.0 or so. I haven't done any tests on "which" stop is the greatest on each lens, but generally it's around 7.1-9.0. It just depends. I am not very good at exposing images at all, but you can always correct it somewhat in post-processing. If anyone owns a Canon DSLR, I put up a quick tutorial on my blog for ways that worked for me.

Mike H. has some great tutorials, and has always taken the time to help me out when I have questions. He's the best of the best and a heck of a nice guy (and very unselfish) to put information out there for anyone to see.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Thanks Dick. I'm not the best of the best obviously, I just chase often and have plenty of patience and persistence with the sky. That along with just enough to get by in photoshop, works I guess. I know sooooooooo little about how to get really good colors through photoshop. I wish I was better with that aspect, as it really is very important. So often there are just plenty of color tints that if removed would make an image even better(or more than tints, the color levels just need adjusted around). It's more than just a white balance thing too. Color is just a horribly important aspect to it all. I'd give myself a D in that department.

I was having a horrible time getting some mammatus photos too look worth a darn. They just weren't looking like they did in person. I then decided to fart around with them in levels, but by each color channel individually. I got one to look sweet. I knew when I went to the next and tried to repeat it, it would not happen. Sure enough, it was near impossible to do it again. I think the truly amazing looking images out there are done by folks who excel at that kind of stuff, or even do it by each color channel using curves. A person can surely accomplish a lot more with their image if they adjust by individual color channel. Many won't need that, but some do. It's not the easiest task in the world to do well I have found.

I'm not that unselfish either. I do have google ads on those tutorial pages, lol.

I always heard that bit about lenses stopped down a bit making them sharper, or getting them into their sweet spot. All I can say, is the 17-40L I have doesn't get any sharper than it is wide open at F4. Same goes for the Canon 10-22 EF-S. It's horribly sharp wide open at F3.5. The Canon 100-400L is F5.6 when at the 400mm end. I've found it too doesn't get any sharper stopped past there to F8 or something. I remember my first copy of that lens. I kept trying F8, F9, and F10 and was getting nothing any better than I was at F5.6. I understand they are supposed to work that way, but at least the 3 lenses I have, do not. I used to try it with my kit lens too, thinking that was always my problem. It wasn't. It was a pos crap through them all. I'm sure the ones I have are just the big exceptions though.

BTW, anyone notice that new EF-S 17-55 F2.8 they came out with? It's a grand. The thing has a 3 stop image stabilization system on it. And it is F2.8.....and it is wide angle! I was trying to figure out just dark it could be and still use that thing without a tripod. I mean normally without IS they say the reciprocal of the focal distance is what you'd use to still handhold. So at 17mm you'd get by with 1/17. Since it is a F2.8 that'd be getting into some fairly dark conditions. Then say you bump up the ISO. Then add in 3 stops stabilizing! You'd never need a tripod on storms unless you were shooting lightning in the dark.

 

[Jody Radzik]

Adobe Photoshop is without a doubt one of the 3 best programs EVER invented for the personal computer. However, 8 times from 10, casual users go overboard and end up producing images that are more than editorial in what they communicate about the reality they captured.

What I'm suggesting is to use Photoshop to bring the image as close as you can to the visual truth of the moment of capture. When you go overboard–as many seem to do–you are in essence, lying about what was in the sky at the moment of capture.

This may be a somewhat controversial thing to say, as we all want our images to look awesome, but I believe it's much more important for the photo to convey a truth rather than an aesthetic. The cameras don't always capture the image we are seeing, which is why Photoshop is a godsend, but pushing the image to beyond our eye, while maybe more pleasing to our eye, is a betrayal to a viewer seeking to understand exactly what happens in the sky during supercell events.

 

[Heidi Farrar]

...

What I'm suggesting is to use Photoshop to bring the image as close as you can to the visual truth of the moment of capture

...

For me, all of what Jody said is the rule I live by when it comes to anything shown on-air ... however, I also find it to be very artistically satisfying to "go overboard." (Out of control is, at times, more like it!)

For example, this photo was used on-air at the end of June this year:

This is the same photo with artistic editing (Photoshop Lightroom), which I would never dream of sending to our mets. to use unless it was April Fools day ... or something

I use another rendering of this image as my avatar. It's a fun shot to mess with.

 

[Dick McGowan]

Adobe Photoshop is without a doubt one of the 3 best programs EVER invented for the personal computer. However, 8 times from 10, casual users go overboard and end up producing images that are more than editorial in what they communicate about the reality they captured.

What I'm suggesting is to use Photoshop to bring the image as close as you can to the visual truth of the moment of capture. When you go overboard–as many seem to do–you are in essence, lying about what was in the sky at the moment of capture.

This may be a somewhat controversial thing to say, as we all want our images to look awesome, but I believe it's much more important for the photo to convey a truth rather than an aesthetic. The cameras don't always capture the image we are seeing, which is why Photoshop is a godsend, but pushing the image to beyond our eye, while maybe more pleasing to our eye, is a betrayal to a viewer seeking to understand exactly what happens in the sky during supercell events.

Very true, but most just assume someone just "photoshops" an image, when it seems unrealistic. It's kind of a stereotype that some use, when they see an image. When I think of "photoshopping" an image, I think fake, as in something added to the photograph, or taken away (like adding a tornado) . When someone shoots in RAW, the image is just that....raw. It hasn't had anything applied to it, and is captured "as is" so-to-say. When someone uses their point-and-shoot camera with, let's say, with the landscape function in the jpeg format, the camera' is applying techniques to "enhance" the image, as the photographer would use to fit whichever setting is necessary for it. Those shots have preset settings, that they apply the exact same each time, for each setting.

Shooting "RAW" is simply shooting the image, without those effects applied by the camera, but instead can be manually applied.

Just one of my pet peeves I have I guess, since my own girlfriend accuses me of "photoshopping." lol. Here is a shot of a "RAW" image and one I have processed, first the raw settings, then photoshop.

Link

and here is the "final" product.

Link

Not much done, except applying some contrast, levels, and sharpening. It's pretty much all I do for storms!

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

50% of a good photograph is in the post processing, whether it's in the darkroom or on a computer monitor. (Slide film is an exception, though if you ever have your slides published, they'll be manipulated before they go to print.) How much you're willing to post process depends on your goal. For fine art, the sky's the limit. Personally, I try not to push it too far, as I think one of the reasons photography is such an interesting artform is that it's generally considered to be more "honest" than other mediums, which require a reconstruction of reality. Since this honesty is a strength of the medium, you've gotta be careful when tinkering with your photo in a way that might take that strength away.

I took a quick crack at your photo -- this is much more heavy-handed a treatment than I'd usually do for my photos, but I was trying to give an example of just how much latitude and possibility seemingly "dead" images have within them. There are people who could make it look much, much better than this, too.