Rachel's River, a struggle to photograph there. An edited experimental blog!

[Rachel Foster]

This thread is Rachel's work in getting a fine picture made representing a fast moving small river that has captured her attention. This is interesting since here is someone motivated but inexperienced who is bold enough to share her personal struggle to get made what she sees and feels.

This is brave since all her naive failures will be public. However, this is a good learning process for us all because there are no wedding clients waiting for pictures or parents wanting their kids soccer shots on time. Here we have to go from vision, motivation, intent, struggle to define that intent to an image and learn how to frame it at what angle, position (hence perspective) and time of day and how long to keep the shutter open to get the water blurred or not!

In the end, this image yanked from a scene to a brain and worked to get it to be expressed in a final 2 dimensional image and satisfying is the Arc of Intent in my way of thinking. After all, the camera does not make the picture, unless it's a capture of an extraordinary goal save or an assassination, where the news is the defining quality. All we do is extract from what we see and create an expression based on that subject. It is not what we see. It's what our mind might see.

So here lets deal with making a great image of the river. Asher





Sometimes, I get a photo or series of photos that should have been great but aren't. This last series was of a local river where it flows serenely, looking like glass, and then tumbles over rocks. The water suddenly exhibits power and energy. It should be powerful but it's not and I can't pinpoint what's wrong.

What do you do when you're faced with that?

 

[Annie James]

For fear of sounding patronising, and you most probably already know this, but a camera only sees in two dimensions, it sees with one eye as opposed to our two, it takes a lot of practice to learn how to see the way your camera will see, I suppose a simplistic way to exemplify would be to close one eye and look at the scene in front of you. To try and interpret water, you might like to experiment with your shutter speeds until you are happy with the result and you feel it has portrayed your message in the final image.

Annie

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ok, that's a good idea. I've been taking a Socratic approach (i.e., What do these have in common?) but maybe that's premature.

Also, I want to repeat that my real question here is HOW to figure it out rather than linked to a specific photo.

Now, I know this photo doesn't cut it. How would I go about figuring out why?

Regarding any of MY photos: No one ever need feel s/he has to "beat around the bush." My skin is thick and if I post it, I want the truth. My feelings won't be hurt, trust me.

 

[Annie James]

Rachel, on first impression the image is out of focus, this is the first thing that hits me, do you use a tripod? The reason I ask is the waterfall looks like your shutter speed was slow, if this wasnt intentional, then if your camera was handheld, it would be almost impossible to get this sharp and in focus. the exposure, especially on the still part of the water is lovely, you have caught the reflection of the rocks and the grass very nicely. The angle you took the image at doesnt help the overal image, personally I would invest in a pair of wellington boots and get yourself in the water where possible. The grass is distracting as there isnt enough of it for context, it would have been better to have had 'just' the water and no bank. I think possibly the lens you use inhibits you, and if you werent using a tripod, then it would be worth getting in the habit of using one. I shall hand this over to someone else, I think the more diverse advice you receive the better informed choices you can make.

Annie

 

[Rachel Foster]

I did use a tripod but hand shake is an issue with me. That may seriously inhibit my growth I fear.

I did want the flowing aspect of the water, but it may come out as simply distracting. And I was wondering where to crop.

So, did you look at it and just ask "What's wrong?" Or is there a systematic checklist?

 

[Annie James]

Absolutely not, had it been in my eyes a perfect picture ( baring in mind that perfect is highly subjective) I would have questioned you as why you thought it was wrong to begin with! For me initially without having to lookfor something, the main issue was focus, secondary to that was composition. I'm a great believer that a Photograph doesnt have to be technical if pictorially it 'works' one can ignore OOF and exposure if the content engages, I feel you came very close to pictorial had it not been for the 'bit' of grass at the side, the best part of the pictiure for me, is the still water where you captured the reflections of the grass. Had you concentrated on the still water as the main subject, you could have ommited the grass totally and instead caught it all in the reflection. Its a shame about the camera shake issue, maybe you could try a monopod? Sounds silly but some people find a tripod quite prohibiting, but find a monopod more liberating, also for places that are rocky and uneven, just having one 'pole' to balance on the ground, makes life a lot easier, and might combat hand shake?

Annie

 

[ron_hiner]

Sometimes, I get a photo or series of photos that should have been great but aren't.

Whew, I'm glad that's never happened to me! ;-)

I like my pictures to be ABOUT something... there should one thing that dominates the image. In a portrait, that something is most often the subject's eyes, at least the way I shoot them. There are a million exceptions to this of course, but I think your sample has too many elements, and nothing dominates. It's busy -- and my eye doens't know where to go.

Landscapes are hard to do well... because the subject is often no single object and the sum of all the objects is what is interesting. One landscape photographers secret to counter this is to get the image technically perfect, then make HUGE prints.

The other big secret is to be on station with your tripod set and everything ready for your shot at 1/2 before sunrise. Just like butter and/or sugar will make just about anything taste good, a sunrise will make just about anything look good.

I did use a tripod but hand shake is an issue with me. That may seriously inhibit my growth I fear.

I did want the flowing aspect of the water, but it may come out as simply distracting. And I was wondering where to crop.

So, did you look at it and just ask "What's wrong?" Or is there a systematic checklist?

If there was a checklist, it wouldn't be an art would it?

As for hand shake, check to see if your camera has a self timer or something that will delay the release of the shutter by a couple seconds - so you can get your hands off. or use a cable remote or a remote trigger of some kind.

The only thing that will inhibit your growth is to stop asking and stop experimenting and to stop exploring. Hand shake won't do that.

Ron

 

[Rachel Foster]

"As for hand shake, check to see if your camera has a self timer or something that will delay the release of the shutter by a couple seconds - so you can get your hands off. or use a cable remote or a remote trigger of some kind."

Oh, damned good idea! Excellent! (Happy dance here).

Yes, too busy was one thing I thought (Annie hit on that too). What I wanted to capture was the stillness and the movement juxtaposed. So, perhaps the answer is when it doesn't work, just start cropping in as many ways as one can think of; same with saturation, contrast, etc. If it still doesn't work, throw it out and chalk it up as a learning experience?

 

[Rachel Foster]

I went back to the river and reshot. The primary reason I shot today is that the weather is changing fast and quite soon it will be too cold (for me....I'm a wimp). So, rather than risk having to wait til May or so (I told you I'm a wimp!) I shot.

Annie, I took your advice. I don't have Wellingtons, but I went into the river, barefoot. My preliminary impression is that today's results are better. Now to go study them. And photoshop them!

If anyone wants to peek (don't want to clutter up the thread by posting), they're here

http://s183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Nature

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Camera Shake

A few works about camera shake. Faster shutter speeds are helpful - which means you have to have a smaller lens opening. Also shorter focal lengths help because you can then shoot a bit slower in the shutter speed. Flash will freeze any motion too - not that you want it for landscape, but, that is something to add to the equasion. Image Stabilization is on some of the L quality lenses but then you are paying for that. So mastering that, you can also avoid needing a tripod, which is not always preferred.

Rachel, I noted you were shooting in Shutter Priority mode (I looked at the exif data). Is that why you were using that? One very helpful way I learned was to put my camera on automatic and see what the camera wanted to shoot at and then I'd flip to manual mode and modify the settings to my liking. It was a great learning tool for me. P mode will do the same but this was before I understood what P Mode was (It was during my film days too - maybe there was no P mode)

 

[Jeff O'Neil]

Rachel,

I'm not a pro shooter either and I have felt the way you've described after looking at my results.

What I've found helpful is try and recall what exactly was it that captured my eye?

Often it has not been the subject itself but the combination of many things. The balance of light and shadow, the stillness, the activity. There was something about that scene that promoted me to grab the camera. However I've often not captured what I saw.

I found trying to keep the intended focus of that moment clear in my mind helps to find a way to capture what my eyes are seeing. Your posted image is fine, but you sound like it's not telling the story you wanted it to.

I've felt that way many times about my own work. Now I really try and concentrate on my initial reaction. I find it helps the creative juices to begin flowing. (Often it takes 2 or 3 bracketed shots combined in layers for it to reveal)

Hope that makes sense as I think I understand your initially posting.

Jeff

 

[Marian Howell]

i can see why you might like this - i do too! the water swirls are enthralling.
but...might i suggest cropping the rocks out (off top and off right). the detail is blown out on them and they distract. i think the image would be much stronger without them.
and you don't have to go outside to crop...you can crop all winter if you want

 

[Johnny_Johnson]

Hi Rachel,

Have a look at the website referenced below. It gives a number of recommendations for composing landscape paintings but most can be equally applied to photography. The problem with the white rocks in your previous shot is covered in example #9.

Some will probably say that rules like these are too restricting and I agree to some extent. But, they can assist with developing your vision until you free comfortable with trying for your own style.

http://photoinf.com/General/Johannes_Vloothuis/landscape_composition_rules.html

Later,
Johnny

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

Photography is not "zoom in", "crop, crop". Photography is to find a subject that compels you and then use that to manufacture an image in which your vision of the matter is embedded. Since you have not yet learned to define your vision and its imperatives, how can you crop? So let's put aside that for the moment. One needs a cake before you can cut out a chunk!

Just get a book or a fishing rod or a chair and look at the river. Take in a wider view. If the swirls interest you, they may be photographed tighty but you can examine it on your screen from a wide picture. So, I'd take some wide angle shots print them and study the pics or else post them. If you send it by http://www.yousend it.com to me, I can select an image and we can just work on onlt that and see what the patterns are. That way we can be beside you!

Let's work then on one wide image as a start, get feedback ideas for you to measure against your intent. Then you must return repeatedly to retake the picture each time, framing and exposing to fit your clearer ideas.

Asher

"We don't capture what we see, we make an image of what we might show."

 

[Don Lashier]

Rachel, it really helps to "see the shot" in the wild rather than in front of the computer. Nevertheless, experimenting with cropping can help you to acquire the talent. For some reason, at first anyway, it's not as easy to see the shot (composition) thru the viewfinder as opposed to on the screen.

Alternate crop of your shot. Not anything great but note that:
- it provides depth - front (left) to back detail
- contrast of plant detail vs soft reflection (would be more apparant in larger size)
- eliminates the distracting shadow area in the upper right
- provides some subtle framing on the left and right
- overall balance is much more pleasing - note that on the original your eye goes all over the place and doesn't know where to settle and can't pull things together, and the right half of the image is largely "blah" contributing little if anything.

- DL

 

[Asher Kelman]

Don,

I like your ability to see this portion of the view so well. Maybe Rachel can provide this one file then in full size!....and here it is. You can download a fair sized jpg file here.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Ah, you went to the other side! I went for the close up in the upper right.

I see now with yours, you used the "rivers should have an s-shape or at least curve principle. Am going to study it more.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher I shot it with as wide an angle as I could (got it to 3.5 I think). I had to go downriver to get the camera to go to that angle. I'm sure there are very easy ways to do it but I've not figured it out yet. I've had my "axe" (musicians call their instruments axes...) for a week and I'm still learning it.

This is what I have...what did you want? I don't think this is it.

Also, I'm not sure what size is appropriate for this.

 

[Rachel Foster]

OK, a new concern. The more I look at this shot, the more I like it. Research has shown that mere familiarity increases liking. How does one keep one's critical ability free from the familiarity effect? Likely a question for a new thread, but I wanted to get it down before I get distracted. It relates to the original question of how do you know what's wrong with a photo, especially when "noise" like the familiarity effect enters the equation.

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

I'm a long way from an expert myself, but there are some technical challenges with this photo to deal with first. There are things I like about this image, but I'm struggling with it as is.

The EXIF data says it was taken at 30mm, which on your Rebel XTi is very close to "normal" so it's not very wide. Did you buy the kit lens? That 18-55 won't win any awards (mine is very soft in the lower left corner) but it does go reasonably wide. When you said you "got it to 3.5" I think you were referring to aperture, not focal length. The shorter the focal length the wider the angle of view (on the same camera).

Next, it seems this was shot in aperture priority (where I do at least 80% of my shooting), but only stopped down to f/4. Since this was bright daylight you had a shutter speed of 1/1250 and had lots of room to stop down without resorting to a tripod. Even f/11 would have been plenty fast for handheld and would have helped sharpness front to back. The smaller the aperture (the bigger the f-stop, numerically) the deeper the depth of field.

The fact that this was shot in the middle of the day creates challenges with the range of brightness, from the darkest shadows to the sky and highlights on the water. Early morning or late evening, near sunrise/sunset would make this easier. Alternatively I've played with a crop removing the bridge so the sky isn't an issue and then I can let the highlights in the water go just a little. This may not be what you were thinking, but it's one possibility:

It doesn't solve the problem of the blurry plants in the foreground, but the dynamic range isn't quite so big so there would be more room to brighten it all up a bit.

Aaron

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

The EXIF data says you were shooting in Av, which is where I spend most of my time. That's not the problem. Photography is a combination of art and science (I'm better at the science part...). If you're happy with the image but it's technically imperfect that, in my opinion, is a much simpler problem to solve than tack sharp images of drivel.

What lenses do you have? It's easiest to see depth of field (DOF) changing with a longer focal length, but you can work even with 30mm. Using aperture priority (Av) mode, line up a shot along a wall or something like that. Focus near the middle distance, then switch to manual focus so it doesn't change during this experiment. Alternatively you could set up a little still life at a relatively short distance from the camera then a longer distance to the background.

Start with the largest aperature (smallest f-stop, probably around f/4) and take a shot. Assuming you have the camera set up for 1/3 stop increments click up 3 times to go one stop smaller (if you started at f/4 now you'd be at f/5.6). Take another pic. Rinse and repeat up to the smallest aperture your lens can do. Now download those to your computer and study how the DOF changes as you increase the f-stop.

Since most grand landscape photos require everything from front to back to be in focus you'll often be working at f/8 - f/11. You probably don't want to go higher than that with your camera as something called diffraction starts to hurt sharpness everywhere. The good news is the smaller sensors we have (I have a 20D, which is very similar to your Rebel XTi) actually help when we want more DOF.

You'll get there. This is all mechanical. Like I said, much easier than the artistics stuff....

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks. I'm going to go back to the most basic levels and make sure I understand what I'm doing. I was looking on the net and there is a DVD made to explain how to use the Rebel as well as books and an online course. So, I don't feel quite as stupid. But I'm going back to Camera Kindergarden. I've already printed http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2444

Next I'm going to dig out Photography for Dummies and work my way up to Photography for Almost-Dummies. The next time I shoot the river it's going to be done right.

Oh the lens: It came with an 18-55. I'll soon know what that is, too.

Time Ms. Ignorant hit the books.

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

There are lots of books, lots of web resources. I've got a book called Mastering Digital SLR Photography by David D. Busch that seems pretty good. It's generic to all DSLRs, but that's not really a problem. Almost any photography howto book, aimed at digital or not, will cover what you're looking for.

The lens you have is the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. That means it has a focal length of 18mm at its widest to 55mm at its longest, which covers wideangle through normal and on into short telephoto. Not at all a bad range for general walk around photography. Not worth a hoot for shooting birds and such, but it's quite a useful range for many things. My biggest complaint with this lens is actually focusing, as there's so much slop that it's very difficult to manually focus, which also makes using filters tougher. But that won't stop you from taking beautiful pictures, it just makes it a little trickier.

The 3.5-5.6 range means the maximum aperture varies as you zoom. This is common on consumer-level lenses, but it generally doesn't hurt unless you're in really low light and it definitely makes for cheaper and lighter lenses.

Read books, take a photo class, whatever works. If you can teach stats you'll get this quickly.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks...that made a lot of sense.

Yes, I have been trying to skate on the technical aspect. Big mistake...and one I shouldn't have made. If I'm going to be serious about this, I have to do it right. That mistake is about to be corrected or I will hang up my Rebel and go back to shooting snapshots.

I'll be back with new river pics when I've gotten some study under my belt.

Asher introduced this thread with "This is brave since all her naive failures will be public. However, this is a good learning process for us all. . . ." Failure number 1: Cheating on learning the technical stuff.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel,

I'm happy! You went back, the pictures arn'nt bad and you are still breathing

Use a tripod and set the camera to AV, ISO 400 and f8 and put the timer on and press the shutter button and let the camera do its thing. All you have to do is focus on something with high contrast and keep shooting.

ISO 400 is fast enough and noise free enough to get your pictures in daylight.

f 8.0 means you are using the sweet part of the lens and its difficult not to have what you want in focus.

Av means when you set the aperture to f 8.0 the camera will respect your decision and now only change the shutter speed to allow just the right amount of light for the small f 8.0 hole!

Tripod: overcomes issues of blur due to camera shake! That happens when you get an AARP card or a bottle of the good stuff!

You can go to classes when you have good pictures. Then you'll find out how to make better choices.

However, courses are only allowed after you have struggled with this project so the explanations will become meaningful to you. Anyway courses are for gaps between projects and for sorting out what you couldn't figure out by first trying. You now have enough knowledge to take great pics.

So as the little lady said (before her plane crashed) "Brush yourself off and try again!"

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Made me laugh.

I was using a tripod....oops! Maybe my tripod needs some Mirapex, huh?

This failure is the best thing that could have happened to me. I learned a real lesson. And I now know what aperture, shutter speed and ISO are all about. (Don't know why the camera needs three different ways to control how much light comes in, but I'll know that soon enough.)

Even cooler is that I got some water in motion pics...my daughter was tossing rocks and I got water frozen in mid-air.

I'll be back to the river but after I master a few more technical concepts.

(There really IS a photographer hiding inside me somewhere!!)

 

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

Using the tripod, I hope you are also using the timer or a remote/cable release. There is no point in setting it on a tripod, then prodding the button ;-). I take it the tripod is as stable a stable thing, not blowing in the wind. If you hang a weight from the centre of the tripod, it will become more stable. (A carrier bag with a couple of rocks will do)

wrt the tv/av setting. It is easily nudged, and it is not too clear what lines up with what on the dial, due to other markings on the camera body. You need to check, if it is not apparent when you change the settings (you will get familiar with the camera).

If it is easy to get to the river, then I would suggest you set the camera up, and take shots at various settings of speed, aperture and iso, set the lens to manual focus, and focus on the rock in the centre image. Use just the centre focus point, on, say, the rh edge of the rock. You need a high contrast boundary for the focus indicator to work. Be methodical!!. set iso at 100, then vary av, in, say, 2 f stops from wide open to tight. Then set iso to 400, and repeat. Repeat for the higher iso ranges. You do not need to look through the viewfinder. The process will be quite quick, if you use a cable release, a bit slower if on the timer. Go way beyond the ranges you would expect to use. I would guess 50 or so shots required.

When you get home, Use irfanview to more quickly see which ones you prefer, wrt your ideas of depth of field, water texture, etc.. Ignore composition, colour and other aspects, then load those into photoshop to make your final decision. Try and decide _why_ you prefer them. You can see how the shutter speed alters the cream effect of moving water, how aperture effects the depth of field, how there may be a trade off with iso value. Learn the settings that are associated with that effect. Write them down. (Hopefully you keep a notebook of all this - you know one of those paper based things, and a pencil.) Go back the next day, repeat, but with more images around the chosen settings. If you can't go back, then use your back yard. You need to get some discipline into what you do.

If you are not doing as I say in the first paragraph re camera stability, etc., then you are wasting everyone's time.

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Diane Fields]

Rachel, you can shoot without a remote. Just use the timer which will separate your hand from the camera's shutter button--not as quick as the remote, but it works for the same purpose more or less.

I live in a relatively rural area also--or at least not near a town that carries most any camera equipment I want--I buy almost entirely from the web. But--you are equipped well enough for now if you have a tripod, the timer on your camera---and the time to do the experiments Ray suggested.

Diane

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, that's right! I have the timed release function. I've even experimented with that setting some.

A systematic, methodical approach is very consistent with my training (social sciences research). I like it, as well as Asher's suggestions on the portrait lighting assignment.

I just want to repeat that I know I have a lot to learn, that in fact I had my point and shoot for three years before I bothered to learn anything more than disable flash. I fully intend to "earn my stripes" and am not expecting a magic bullet or anyone to do it for me. I am well aware that photography requires study and work and am committed to doing just that.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Diane: Yes, the XTI does have metering mode (evaluative, partial, and center-weighted average). Thank you for the tip. It's on my list.

Ray, today's shoot:

Asher, the exif data says
F/4
exposure time 1/4000 sec.
iso speed 400
exposure bias 0 step
Program mode Aperture priority
White balance Auto
EXIF version 0221.