Photo-Off
Whilst out enjoying a few beverages with mates a couple of nights ago, a friend and I decided to have a digital photography duel. Our weapons were nothing special, and the rules were simple, cameras at 5 paces - the fastest to draw wins. The results of this horiffic duel have been classified, due to their inane and unattractive nature.
On the walk back to the city we had opportunity to take some experimental photos of the misty Yarra-side scenery (the results of which can be seen in the photo gallery) and compare results. Being someone that thinks they know everything, I had my camera on the manual setting, playing around with ISO settings and exposure times (my dad’d be proud), while the other camera was on ‘Best Shot’ mode. The results speak for themselves: seems I don’t know as much as a roomfull of engineers and photography experts - who’da thought?
So now I pose the question, is it worth fiddling with settings, when the electronics can do a better job? And where can I get a decent photography book? 
May 31st, 2006 at 12:06 am
In general no. But sometimes you have to, like when you want to trick the camera into thinking your not taking a macro photo when your are, or vice versa.
Or if you want to take bad photos.
The technical book shop will have killer photography books. It used to be at Lonsdale and Swanston, moved somewhere up Lonsdale and Latrobe IIRC. Also has a good collection of european car magazines.
That be it.
~SST
May 31st, 2006 at 8:12 am
I guess it depends on what you are going for (and whether or not you know what you’re doing
). I find that modern auto-modes work pretty well on most camera’s and can acheive a “technically perfect” shot under many light conditions. But, often a “technically perfect” shot (and by that I mean optimal exposure, focus, colour etc.) is often not the look you were trying to go for, and your photos end up all looking too consistent and boring.
In more difficult light, even the best cameras seem to struggle, e.g. sunsets, night shots without flash, indoors, directly into the sun, etc.
Another thing is, on smaller cameras (which often have a small CCD/CMOS imager chip to keep the camera and lense compact) there are very small margins or tolerances for things like exposure, e.g. if you have the ISO set too high you might get a faster exposure to freeze motion for instance, but it might come at the expense of considerable noise on the image. The auto-modes are often able to position things in the middle of their optimal ranges better.
By far the most important part of making good photos though is choosing a good subject, good composition and interesting lighting. Even a technically rubbish photo that is composed nicely and lit nicely well end up looking better than a technically perfect photo with rubbish composition.
A few months ago I bought a nice hardout Nikon D50 SLR camera and lense and have been trying to learn how to take good photos. Getting the technically aspects of photography right was pretty easy (just takes a bit of reading and practice) but learning to compose pictures well (and being patient enought to wait for your subject to look how you want) is going to take me much longer to get right.
I would recommend taking one of those “community education” courses rather than getting a book. I’m sure uni will run them (Canty runs the photography ones through the Fine Arts department). They’re pretty cheap and well worthwhile. Also or instead, find someone who is a good photographer (meaning they actually take good photos, NOT computer geeks who tell you they know everything about photography) and ask them. Also try the library if you want books, they have lots of those there
May 31st, 2006 at 11:27 am
Auto modes are good… until you start taking photos of something that isn’t normal. Really, what is normal in this world anyway… so auto mode won’t give you the best results.
Speaking of normal the first thing to know is that the photographic normal is 18% grey. Simply speaking the camera’s exposure system mushes up all of the colors in the photo and then sets the exposure so that this mix is at 18% grey. This is fine if your photo actually averages out to 18% grey. But as i said before… Normal? Bah no such thing.
High Key and Low Key photos… ever seen those photos of models where everything is bright, their skin tones blend into the background… high key is where your photo is BRIGHT… Like the Fonz. Here you are going to want to override the camera’s exposure and let more light in… Moody dark photos night scapes and those pesky light trails everyone tries to take photos of can of course have an average color of darker than 18% grey so once again the camera will need to be told what to do.
In short: If a scene is dark the camera will most probably lighten it up. If a scene is dark the camera will most probably darken the scene.
The best way to find out wtf your camera is to take lots of photos… and then some.
ISO - Sensitivity of the film / sensor. The higher you go the more sensitive it is, with the caveat however that since the number of incident photons is the same the amplification of the signals produced increases the noise (graininess of the photo) 400 is a good starting point…normally?
Shutter Speed - Most common way to control the exposure, problem is the slower you go the more you have to worry about your subject moving or the camera shaking.
Aperture - Funky new apple program… and the ratio of the focal length divided by the iris diameter. Smaller (larger in photo speak) apertures let more light in… however this involves using the extremities of the glass and images can become ’soft’ also controls depth of field.. (distance in front and behind focal point that is in focus.
In conclusion…
Take lots of photos, take note of what works and what doesn’t and before you know it you will be shooting all the time in one of those manual modes… Look at other people’s photos and remember to do some study before EXAMS.
www.photozone.de provides alot of good information….