Photographic knowledge and tips for beginners

[workerdrone]

If you love capturing the moment in time, I guess there are two schools - the machine gunners and the time-the-moment guys.

Machine gunning is typically a derogatory term but I'm not sure it should be.  One of the joys of digital is the ability to hold that shutter button down without the expense of lots of frames of film.

I'm an SLR guy and this has been strictly an SLR specialty until recently.  But newer point 'n shoots have the ability to fire off 60 frames per second and the like.  I haven't tried them and it sounds intriguing, enabled by the 'mirrorless' technology they use.

SLR's traditionally excel at shooting things that move, with 6 frames per second a very typical rate and 10-12 fps typical of pro bodies like Canon 1D series or Nikon D3 and D4 series.  All the while adjusting focus via predictive algorithms to give you a high percentage of 6-12fps in-focus shots on tough targets like motorcycles, birds in flight, sports....

Your desired subjects sound more in keeping with the time-the-moment school, where the most desirable camera feature is minimal shutter lag - you want the picture taken the instant the shutter is pressed so you can develop a feel for the timing.  Again, SLR's have typically ruled here but mirrorless and point 'n shoots are improving.  I find something like a camera phone or lesser point 'n shoot really irritating here, where you see the shot, press the shutter, and some time later, when the camera decides it's in focus and the planets have aligned, it takes the picture.  Well after the moment is gone.

Again, I'm personally a big fan of buying used; if it ain't broke when you buy it, chances are it will continue to function 100% until it's so obsolete you want to move on.  Chances are, YMMV.

And you should generally plan on losing money on cameras or SLR bodies since tech changes so fast.  But if you go the SLR route, you can often score lenses that will hold or appreciate in value while you own them.  Mostly a function of our depreciating dollar but that's a whole 'nother discussion    Good glass changes much more slowly and manufacturers just keep raising prices year after year on basically the same lenses, which keeps the used market very healthy.

 

[Oscar Mike]

I learned a long time ago to not be a "machine gunner".

 

[workerdrone]

Timing is definitely a good skill to have.

Still, I wish I could get over the aversion I have from my film days to use the "motor drive" since it would burn up film.

I definitely still miss some great shots because I still try to time everything and just barely miss the best take.  And with the unbelievable resolution of today's cameras, if you are shooting handheld and you shoot a burst of a few images, even if they all look about the same upon first review you'll later on the pc find that one of them is just much sharper than the rest - that's where your breathing, camera hold, shutter vibration, everything lined up perfectly for the best quality shot.  There's your keeper.

 

[Howard R]

Well as they say "timing is everything"  ...  while a good sense of timing is always good, the shutter lag with (at least the older) point and shoots can be a real problem (challenge ?  ;D ) .  "Machine gunning" is a tool and can be very useful while shooting any action type shots ... be it sports, birds or aircraft as examples.

Here are some shots I took of the Canadian Snow Birds at the Airshow in Duluth MN last September.  The first 3 would be doable with a fast trigger finger, but the last 3 would be pretty hard to do consistently ... at least by me.  ;D

Howard

 

[workerdrone]

Cool airshow shots, I especially like the first 3.

Here's a couple more beginner tips - everyone admires sharp photos, but so many are ruined by camera shake.  The best solution is a tripod but one is not always available or practical to use in the situation.

And something that exacerbates camera shake is having a small, light camera - the lack of mass lets every little tremor in your body show up as camera shake.

Especially with point 'n shoots, but with any camera really, I will try to make as much contact as possible with a solid object - non-running car, tree, fence post, furniture, rock....  at the least I'll try and use them to brace my own body and arms,  but ideally I'll find a way to hold the camera body itself against the object.  Or wad up a piece of cloth or clothing to use as a pad, then smush that between the camera and the object. 

Then, always remember, gently squeeze the shutter, don't jab it.  If you've ever had any rifle shooting experience, it's the same idea - you want to be squeezing the trigger gently so it's almost a suprise when it goes off, even though you definitely meant to be squeezing the trigger.  You're only focused on staying on target.

How about a tripod substitute that costs pennies and fits in your pocket?

With a couple of short little 1/4-20 bolts from any hardware store and a piece of string, tie the string at each end to a bolt.  Thread one of them into the tripod socket of your camera.  Make the string just long enough so you can step on the other bolt and stretch the string tight when the camera is up to your eye.  This will limit camera shake quite a bit as well when nothing else is available!

 

[SeilerBird]

"Machine gunning" is exactly how I take all my photos. I have my Sony a55 set on burst mode and it stays there. I never take only one shot of something. If a subject is worth photographing then it certainly is worth taking 5 to ten shots. Most of what I shoot is critters. The problem with shooting critters is that they don't take direction very well. If I am photographing a human I can tell them where to stand, how to look, what to do, etc, to get the exact shot I want. With critters that is not possible. So I have found that by taking a burst I get a selection of poses and facial expressions. Then I can pick out the best one in post processing.

On an average month I take a few thousand shots and keep about 30 of them. Film is free and I have 16 gig SD cards that are impossible for me to fill up in a day. So I just keep blasting away.

 

[Larry N.]

Wow! Nice shots, Howard!

 

[Larry N.]

Especially with point 'n shoots, but with any camera really, I will try to make as much contact as possible with a solid object - non-running car, tree, fence post, furniture, rock....  at the least I'll try and use them to brace my own body and arms,  but ideally I'll find a way to hold the camera body itself against the object.  Or wad up a piece of cloth or clothing to use as a pad, then smush that between the camera and the object. 

So long as that object isn't vibrating (like an airplane window), that can work. With no object near, hold your non-shutter hand under the camera and brace the camera against your face/forehead with the shutter hand, then tuck your elbows in against your side (this is kinda like off-hand shooting of rifles) to provide a decent bracing, being sure that your feet are planted solidly. Granted this is tough when there's no viewfinder -- I can't help there, as I can't take a decent picture holding the camera out away from me.

 

[PancakeBill]

Nothing wrong with machine gunning.  It sure is a throwback to film as an aversion, but as one mentioned, you will find the shot in there that is just right, thee is not much chance of getting that just by timing.  We have photography workshops up here in Yellowstone, and they are always talking about getting off a string of 4 to 5 shots, the middle shots are always the best.  Hard to get that with squeezing one off. 

Yes, it can be done.  As Tom says thoough, especially with critters, and for that matter, moving water, you get a batch and analyze. 

 

[SeilerBird]

Here is an example of machine gunning. Twenty shots in two seconds (10 fps) with my a55, of a tern coming in for a landing. It is a lot easier to do it this way than to attempt to decide exactly when I should take just one shot of him coming in for a landing and hope it looks ok.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36889801

 

[Ron from Big D]

Gives you a number of possibilities doesn't it?

 

[Great Horned Owl]

Hi Tom,

I would add at least one more rule, and I would question the need for one of your rules.

My added rule would be:

Acquire some photo editing software, and become proficient at using it. It is rare for a high quality photo to come straight out of the camera without at least a little bit of tweaking. I can recall reading an interview in which Cole Weston was talking about having spent his youth working as an assistant to his father. Those of you who are not familiar with Edward Weston's work might enjoy looking at it. Cole said that he would watch his father spend an entire day, setting up and taking a single photo. He could then, spend an entire week in the darkroom, making a single print.

Fortunately, today's "digital darkroom" is a lot less expensive, an a whole lot less smelly than my old wet darkroom was. The gold standard today is Photoshop  CS6. However (unless you are a student), it is rather pricy, and has far more power than most of us will ever use. Photoshop Elements 11 is quite reasonably priced, and will satisfy the needs of all but commercial art professionals.

Personally, I tend to follow your rule about taking lots of shots, but I don't know that everybody needs to work that way. Edward Weston certainly didn't, and he is not the only photographer who did some fantastic work while taking very few shots. Jim Brandenburg once spent 90 days alone in the northwoods of Minnesota, between the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice.

He had a self imposed rule to take one, and only one, shot each day. The results are published in the book Chased by The Light, and are some of the most beautiful nature phorography you will ever see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J78cmsC7s4w

I have often thought that he must have some awful decisions to make. Can you imagine Jim wandering around at 3 p.m., still looking for today's shot. He finally comes across a shot that i ok, but not spectacular. Should he shoot, or should he wait? Imagine the  agony of deciding to wait and then not finding anything else as good. Even worse, could be deciding to take the ok shot, and then stumbling upon upon what could be the shot of the week. I wonder if he ever cheated.

Good shooting to you,
Joel

 

[Bob Buchanan]

I would add at least one more rule, and I would question the need for one of your rules.

That speaks highly of Tom's rules for beginners.    I guess we could all add at least one, and disagree with at least one.

I am definitely not a Machine Gun shooter. It's not that I think I would wear out my Canon 50D faster, but rather how I prefer to shoot. I guess the 50D shutter and mirror have 100's of thousands of cycles, and at 6fps, I would divide that by 6. So that only leaves me 10 years or so before it explodes on me. And I am sure the technology curve will force me into a new body before this one wears out - regardless of the fps I use.

When shooting fast stuff, such as my learning BIF, SIF, and HIF (the later being Squirrels and Helicopters), I am slowly adding fps. Am only at 3 in AI Servo for now. Am still learning to keep that guy in my frame vs. trying for a super final shot as yet. My sessions with TomS have been very helpful. When he talks BIF, I take notes. 

However, over the years from 35 and medium format film shooting, primarily people, I have learned to keenly keep my eye on the viewfinder to catch that just right expression vs. hoping for the best with a burst. I am definitely a dSLR view finder shooter. With relatively slow moving candids, I can get what I want with one shot at a time. I may take a number of shots, but only one at a time. Otherwise, the good one may wind up half way between two burst shots - and I wind up with a distorted face. OTOH, if it were a fast moving kid, I would burst away hoping for the best - but also, would avoid fast moving kids anyway. I sometimes leave it at 3fps, but will most always linger too long and get more than just one when I only want one. So most of the time I am in single shot mode.

Here is an album in my Flickr portfolio that I dump shots I like myself a lot - and represents what I like to do and how I do it. In photography, my greatest thrill comes when I capture that just right expression - especially if that expression contains the emotion of the person involved at the time of the shot.

For example, you will see one shot of my brother and SIL dancing at the wedding of one of their 10 grand children. I probably fired 5 or so frames - while staying right with June's expressions. And this is what I got. One of the "money shots" for a wedding photographer is the one of the brides first eye contact with the groom as she starts down the isle. In this one I only needed 2 shots - because I had her in the viewfinder from the moment she entered the back of the area. BTW, on this shot I am shooting with a Canon 580SX flash with a Quantum battery pack. It will give me 500 full powered shots at about 3/per sec if needed. The shot of Ned and Lorna's rig is using that battery pack.

In another wedding shot, the flutist kept the same basic expression as she played, but the issue was the position of her left hand. I finally got the right "note" after about 7 or 8 frames -- one at at time. Her left hand was all over the place during her performance. As a back up photographer, I have been able to use my 100-400mm Canon to get in close from the back of the area w/o anyone noticing. That image became her FB profile pic the next day. The shot of ring exchanges was from over 20 yards away. Weddings are fun for me now, but only if I am not the primary shooter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob-bluecanon/sets/72157621769130537/

For best full screen viewing, hover over any one of the large thumbnails, then click the angled arrows in the lower right to go to black box mode - then F11 for full screen. You can then move through some of the pics in the album in that mode.

Finally then, my advice for beginners is to begin with single shot mode - and learn to closely track the subject. Even if at first a moving object. If the subject is not in the frame, a burst of shots will not help. If doing a person, watch for that just right expression vs. a burst and hoping for a good one. Then add bursts as you feel necessary for the type of shot you are after. Every shot in this album was in single shot mode - other than the horse race.

 

[workerdrone]

Maybe some of us could give examples of certain types of shots and how they were achieved so beginners can take some notes or try them out themselves?  In the previous flower shot I posted, it's what's known as a macro shot - an extreme closeup.  SLR's will use a macro lens, point 'n shoots should have a macro mode you can enter so the camera will know not to bother trying to focus anywhere but close up.  I took it handheld early in the AM, with dew still on the landscape, and I shot directly into the sun, so the flower was backlit.

One type of shot you see all the time is using a slow shutter speed to smooth water - here are a couple of examples.  The waterfall was a stunning location all by itself but I knew I wanted a certain effect.  The red dirt rivulet was actually very small, just a boring trickle, but I knew what would happen if I left the shutter open so I tried it out.

In all of these, I set a shutter speed of 30 seconds, to thoroughly smooth out the water.  The only critical thing for this type of shot is that the camera remain absolutely still the whole time.  I used a little travel tripod, far from ideal but it got the job done.

If the long shutter speed is going to result in a complete overexposure, you can use filters such as polarizers and neutral densities to cut down the light to a manageable level.  Stopping down your lens (f16 vs f4) and choosing the lowest possible iso will also help with this.

You can sometimes use this very same technique if you're in a spot where you want to get a shot but the damn tourists / cars / whatever keep entering your frame.  If you have a 30 second shot, someone walking through your shot will often barely show up, if at all 

 

[SeilerBird]

Hi Tom,

I would add at least one more rule, and I would question the need for one of your rules.

My added rule would be:

Acquire some photo editing software, and become proficient at using it. It is rare for a high quality photo to come straight out of the camera without at least a little bit of tweaking. I can recall reading an interview in which Cole Weston was talking about having spent his youth working as an assistant to his father. Those of you who are not familiar with Edward Weston's work might enjoy looking at it. Cole said that he would watch his father spend an entire day, setting up and taking a single photo. He could then, spend an entire week in the darkroom, making a single print.

Fortunately, today's "digital darkroom" is a lot less expensive, an a whole lot less smelly than my old wet darkroom was. The gold standard today is Photoshop  CS6. However (unless you are a student), it is rather pricy, and has far more power than most of us will ever use. Photoshop Elements 11 is quite reasonably priced, and will satisfy the needs of all but commercial art professionals.

Personally, I tend to follow your rule about taking lots of shots, but I don't know that everybody needs to work that way. Edward Weston certainly didn't, and he is not the only photographer who did some fantastic work while taking very few shots. Jim Brandenburg once spent 90 days alone in the northwoods of Minnesota, between the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice.

He had a self imposed rule to take one, and only one, shot each day. The results are published in the book Chased by The Light, and are some of the most beautiful nature phorography you will ever see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J78cmsC7s4w

I have often thought that he must have some awful decisions to make. Can you imagine Jim wandering around at 3 p.m., still looking for today's shot. He finally comes across a shot that i ok, but not spectacular. Should he shoot, or should he wait? Imagine the  agony of deciding to wait and then not finding anything else as good. Even worse, could be deciding to take the ok shot, and then stumbling upon upon what could be the shot of the week. I wonder if he ever cheated.

Good shooting to you,
Joel

Hi Joel

Thanks for your great input to this thread. First off my list is not rules, it is tips. Mere suggestions. The point of the thread is to help out beginners who are having problems getting their photos to come out the way they want them to come out. These are the basic basics. These tips are not meant for intermediate or advanced photographers since they will already know and use most of these tips. If I were to do a thread on tips for intermediate photographers it would end up like a book.

I don't recommend photo editing software for beginners. I feel like that is making digital photography too time consuming and too hard for a beginner. I know plenty of photographers who shoot jpg, don't post process and get spectacular results. These people tend to put a lot more thought into each photo before pushing the shutter. My method is machine gunning and then post process the best ones. My method works great for me but I am not sure there are many beginners who would want to do what I do.

One thing a lot of advanced photographers forget when counseling beginning photographers. Not everyone wants to end up with a backpack full of camera gear so they can produce masterpieces. The huge majority of the people with cameras in their hand today are only looking to take photos that actually come out. This is why I don't believe in trying to convince beginners to invest thousands of dollars into lens when all they want is a snapshot of their grandkids and dogs to mail to their friends.

 

[Tom]

I've found some of the 'tips for beginners' useful and informative, and I'm grateful to all contributors. However, arguments between the 'experts' are something of a turnoff when trying to pick the gems out of this topic. Why not start a new topic on 'expert disagreements' or some such?

 

[SeilerBird]

Excellent idea Tom. Why don't you split this thread in two?

 

[Tom]

Excellent idea Tom. Why don't you split this thread in two?

I did; The split/moved messages are here.

 

[workerdrone]

Ok here's another one - perhaps many times you have been stopped in your tracks by the sight of a heavenly rainbow, snapped a whole bunch of pix, and they just never come out.

Rainbows are simply an extreme example of the camera generally not cooperating in conveying your sense of wonder at what you saw.  Something to do with the camera sensor or film not being able to represent the full range of light and color at one time that the human brain coupled with your eyes conspire to do.

A couple things you can do here - a polarizing filter is a huge help with rainbows - you will find that there is a certain point in the rotation where the contrast just pops and the rainbow in the picture will look almost as impressive as the one you saw in front of you.  Take the picture.

Then, you can tweak it a bit later in "post processing" - Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, any of a hundred programs that function as a digital darkroom, and ranging from free to hundreds of dollars.  There are very few images straight out of the camera that will not be much improved with a few seconds or minutes of tweaking on the computer.  They did the same thing back in film days but it took hours or days instead.  Here, it's up to you how far you want to mold the image, but at least a bump up in contrast and saturation and dialing the exposure up and down for maximum effect is hard to resist with something like a rainbow:

 

[workerdrone]

Wow, this thread has gone very quiet  8) - does anyone want to share frustrations with trying to take certain types of shots, and maybe more experienced folks can help out?