# "When I grow up"  B&W version....



## AMOMENT (Aug 4, 2012)

1.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




4.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




5.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




6.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




7.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




8.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 4, 2012)

some of them look blurry and noisy when I converted them to JPEG...but you get the idea.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Aug 4, 2012)

I like 1,2 and 3 the best. I like the color versions too!


----------



## tirediron (Aug 4, 2012)

If they're blurry and noisy, why post them?  I can see that you're trying, but you're trying wayyyy too hard. Slow down a little and think about what you're doing. Not every shot is going to be a winner. I'd like to set a challenge for you. Tomorrow, spend the day shooting, but don't take any people pictures. Not one!  Shoot anything but, and for Monday post your two best images from that exercise. Remember to think before you click... Is the focus right?  DoF adequate?  Shutter-speed suitable?  Am I metering for optimal exposure?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 4, 2012)

tirediron said:


> If they're blurry and noisy, why post them?  I can see that you're trying, but you're trying wayyyy too hard. Slow down _a little and think about what you're doing. Not every shot is going to be a winner. I'd like to set a challenge for you. Tomorrow, spend the day shooting, but don't take any people pictures. Not one!  Shoot anything but, and for Monday post your two best images from that exercise. Remember to think before you click... Is the focus right?  DoF adequate?  Shutter-speed suitable?  Am I metering for optimal exposure?


If you go back in time I tried this same exercise once. She doesn't like to shoot inanimate objects and throws the lesson out the window because its no fun.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 4, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > If they're blurry and noisy, why post them?  I can see that you're trying, but you're trying wayyyy too hard. Slow down _a little and think about what you're doing. Not every shot is going to be a winner. I'd like to set a challenge for you. Tomorrow, spend the day shooting, but don't take any people pictures. Not one!  Shoot anything but, and for Monday post your two best images from that exercise. Remember to think before you click... Is the focus right?  DoF adequate?  Shutter-speed suitable?  Am I metering for optimal exposure?
> ...


Fair enough....


----------



## rokvi (Aug 4, 2012)

I think your using multi auto focus. Try using just the centre point focus on the eyes/face and recompose.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 5, 2012)

rokvi said:


> I think your using multi auto focus. Try using just the centre point focus on the eyes/face and recompose.



We have been there and done that.... maybe you can teach her in a way we haven't tried yet? Good luck!


----------



## that1guy (Aug 5, 2012)

make your logo smaller... your GIANT SIZED PICTURESQUE really takes away from the photo... i feel like im reading a magazine


----------



## vtf (Aug 5, 2012)

Awesome,  I just knew if you turned your images b&w and added vignetting all the issues you've had will go away. I am positive you will receive so many more pleasant critiques on this thread.
Good Luck:thumbup:


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 5, 2012)

vtf said:


> Awesome,  I just knew if you turned your images b&w and added vignetting all the issues you've had will go away. I am positive you will receive so many more pleasant critiques on this thread.
> Good Luck:thumbup:



:thumbup:


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 5, 2012)

step away from the camera


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2012)

I must say this: the first letter of each word in the OP's watermark/logo is just INCREDIBLY distracting. I've seen many,many,many different watermarks, but this one is, in my opinion, THE most-distracting one I have ever seen. It's simply overpowering. I can barely even get past the watermark to evaluate each image...it's that bothersome to me.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 5, 2012)

It's so interesting to see the commentary on this woman's work.

It's as if nobody's noticing that she's making absolutely fantastic images. Stop obsessing with the focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo, all of which are pretty awful I agree.

LOOK at the PHOTO. Her timing is damn near magical. That first photograph? Sure, it's a little soft (which actually works fine with the subject matter) but the moment she's nailed down? That's special and rare. Not to be calling anyone out specifically, but I haven't seen much work here on TPF that comes even close.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 5, 2012)

The watermark shows the level of taste is at zero. Something else to learn, as it applies to photography as well.
The knowing what looks good, when it looks good, and why it looks good will take 10 times longer to learn than achieving consistent focus.

Also, if your posts repeatedly have the disclaimer that they are soft and noisy because of conversion, you are doing it wrong, and discovered something else you have to learn to do well.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> It's so interesting to see the commentary on this woman's work.
> 
> It's as if nobody's noticing that she's making absolutely fantastic images. Stop obsessing with the focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo, all of which are pretty awful I agree.
> 
> LOOK at the PHOTO. Her timing is damn near magical. That first photograph? Sure, it's a little soft (which actually works fine with the subject matter) but the moment she's nailed down? That's special and rare. Not to be calling anyone out specifically, but I haven't seen much work here on TPF that comes even close.



Although I do think some of the comments are a bit harsh...

I've taken photos of several moments like that with my cousins. It's not exactly a super rare moment in terms of child behavior. These images are something that you put in a family album, not something you get critiqued on...

"Capturing the moment" only works if people give a damn, and I'm sorry but I don't care about this kid. These photos don't make me care about her.

Why do technically imperfect Photographs make it in Nat Geo? Because there is intrigue and sometimes emotional connection. 

These are just average family documentary photos. There's just not enough empathy/interest to make up for lack of good photographic technique


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 5, 2012)

"Absolutely Fantastic"? Our tastes differ greatly.


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 5, 2012)

The subjects are adorable, but..... Here's what I think:

#1: head is cropped too tightly; crop out the right side. Feminist comment you can take or leave: I'm not sure I like the image of a toddler looking at a wedding ring while wearing a wedding-ish dress.

#2: Very cute. The jaunty angle actually works quite well. Clone out carpet specks.

#3: meh...  I don't like the facial expression.

#4: Jaunty angle doesn't work on this one. Same social comment as #1.

#5: Cute, but I'd like to see her face. Still, it works as part of a set.

#6: Younger girl seems reluctant / older girls appears controlling. Just seems a little bit awkward.

#7: On one hand, the vignette feels a little gimmicky. On the other hand, it seems to fit the olde-tyme theme rather well. So...  iunno. 

#8: Seems like a more comfortable interaction between the toddlers. I'd still like to see more happy involvement on the part of the younger girl. 

Note: The signature/logo is _way_ too big and intrusive. The word "Picturesque" doesn't fit child photography; I think of charming landscapes and rustic cottages and shorelines when I see that word.

Overall, I think you captured a couple nice and cute toddler moments. Photographing kids isn't easy. I'd try to keep the imagery simple and focused on childhood, and I'd keep the special effects to a bare minimum.


----------



## vtf (Aug 5, 2012)

At one time I thought you couldn't use another's company name? Picturesque Photography is in use, can it be used because "by Erica" is in it?
You have many other companies ahead of you, I would look for something unique and then run a search on it, you want it towards the top of the page.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 5, 2012)

vtf said:
			
		

> At one time I thought you couldn't use another's company name? Picturesque Photography is in use, can it be used because "by Erica" is in it?



Depends on what the copyrighted company name is


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> It's as if nobody's noticing that she's making absolutely fantastic images. Stop obsessing with the focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo, all of which are pretty awful I agree.



You make it sound like these things are trivial. If you can list 5 (major) things you can improve, it's not nitpicking, it's not obsessing, and it's not trivial. It's a poor image.

AMOMENT - I agree with many people in here about your images. If you really want to take better images, you need to learn how to take better images. Practicing the same improper methods over and over will not change anything. Like TiredIron said, take pictures of things... not people. Take pictures of things that are not moving, this way you aren't pressured to miss any "good" shots. Work on the basics and master them. You are obviously looking for help if you post here, so take the advice of the individuals here. 

The drive is there, you just need to go in the right direction.


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 5, 2012)

vtf said:


> At one time I thought you couldn't use another's company name? Picturesque Photography is in use, can it be used because "by Erica" is in it?



It is generally a poor business practice. You could always get sued and have to deal with that mess. It's just far better to research and come up with an original name.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 5, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I've taken photos of several moments like that with my cousins. It's not exactly a super rare moment in terms of child behavior. These images are something that you put in a family album, not something you get critiqued on...



I disagree, obviously. I'd offer my baby-shooting credentials up and blah blah but what would that prove? Nothing whatsoever.

I offer this theory up, with respect: You're unable to get past the technical flaws to see what's good in the underlying image. That's not intended as an indictment, although I dare say it looks and feels like one. The culture on TPF is to worry about technical details to the exclusion of expression and communication. If I am recalling correctly, you're a fine arts student and are actively working on your craft. It would frankly be surprising if you were NOT a little deeply focused on technical details.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 5, 2012)

When I assert that things like "focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo" are trivial, I mean that they are trivial.

They're all easily fixable (some in post, some with a little bit of education). Great timing is much much harder to master than learning how to focus a camera, and it's much more important to the final image.


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> When I assert that things like "focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo" are trivial, I mean that they are trivial.
> 
> They're all easily fixable...



Except when they aren't fixed. Some people just keep doing those things over and over and over...


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> When I assert that things like "focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo" are trivial, I mean that they are trivial.
> 
> They're all easily fixable (some in post, some with a little bit of education). Great timing is much much harder to master than learning how to focus a camera, and it's much more important to the final image.



Ok, but the images at hand are what's being discussed. Talking about the future and what could be, are not. Also, if you can fix the focus in PP - I have a few shots I would love some help on. 
I also disagree about great timing being a hard skill to master. To me, timing is luck and patience. Knowing where to focus and properly expose for that given time to me would take time to master. I'm confident that anyone can sit their kids down in costumes and take 500 pictures while they play and get 5 or 6 pictures worth keeping.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> When I assert that things like "focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo" are trivial, I mean that they are trivial.
> 
> They're all easily fixable (some in post, some with a little bit of education). Great timing is much much harder to master than learning how to focus a camera, and it's much more important to the final image.



Great timing is is one small aspect of great photography. Great timing does not make a good photograph. If I turned photographs of my university's football team with the level of technical incompetence that these show, regardless of whether the moment is awesome, the editor would be like "are you joking?"


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Football photography is specifically what I had in mind when I mentioned timing.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> It's so interesting to see the commentary on this woman's work.
> 
> It's as if nobody's noticing that she's making absolutely fantastic images. Stop obsessing with the focus, the exposure, and the weird effects and the vignettes and the logo, all of which are pretty awful I agree.
> 
> LOOK at the PHOTO. Her timing is damn near magical. That first photograph? Sure, it's a little soft (which actually works fine with the subject matter) but the moment she's nailed down? That's special and rare. Not to be calling anyone out specifically, but I haven't seen much work here on TPF that comes even close.



I would have to strongly disagree... the subjects are cute, the posing is just the kids doing what they do... and if you shoot thousands of photos of the same subjects, you will occasionally catch one that has good timing. And even the good shots are less then they could be due to the multiple technical and compositional  errors.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > They're all easily fixable (some in post, some with a little bit of education).
> ...



See the part where I said 'some in post, some with a little bit of education'?

Some of the problems, like focus, are not fixable in post. They are fixable with a little education. If you can't even be bothered to read what I write, I am gonna have a little trouble believing that you're actually looking at her photographs.

This is starting to get a little acrimonious, and part of that is me. I've said all I have to say, really, so I'm out now.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 5, 2012)

Advice has been given and ignored repeatedly for a long time now. It's one thing if the OP was putting the help offered to use but that assuredly is not the case here.... It's become a roadside horror show.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Right, and you didn't specify which one was which. I read what you wrote and shook my head the whole time. Encourage progression, not stagnation.
Education is what has taken place with the OP over a series of months. This isn't her first week of shooting. She's been here for a while.

Also, why ignore the actual argument and harp on something that is actually trivial?


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Advice has been given and ignored repeatedly for a long time now. It's one thing if the OP was putting the help offered to use but that assuredly is not the case here.... It's become a roadside horror show.



I think the only thing to do now, is for us to ignore images posted that do not follow advice, and focus on the one's that do.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Advice has been given and ignored repeatedly for a long time now. It's one thing if the OP was putting the help offered to use but that assuredly is not the case here.... It's become a roadside horror show.
> ...



that would be nice.. but it would require a consensus! SO it won't happen! lol! If nothing else, similar shooters, and noobs would be passing out compliments, and encouraging the current practices.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



Unless someone volunteers as a mentor.


----------



## Tee (Aug 5, 2012)

The good news- this is probably your best work.  There's definitely some progress, albeit slow.  I think one positive comment is her composition is getting better (before you ask me what I've been smoking, harken back to last year with her examples).  I think 1 or 2 can be keepers but the exposure is a little too hot.  I agree about the watermark.  Perhaps tone it down so it's not a dominant part of the image? 


Amolitor- what I don't think you understand is the history behind all of this.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



MLeek did that for several months.. and no notable progress was made. Very frustrating for her, I'm sure!


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Maybe she's not a good teacher


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 5, 2012)

the yardstick was too short


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


Oh, I am not the only one. Several of us tried. I can tell you that NOW I am probably not the ideal mentor. Then? I spent time helping and explaining 7 ways 'till Tuesday. 

However... I'll breathe deep and try this again... Now that I am NOT in the bottom of a wine bottle...

You are quite obviously having a hard time using all 3 elements in full manual. Why not try using the priority modes? 
I  believe you said you don't have the steadiest of hands, so you know you  must have a shutter of about 1/250 or more. You could use shutter  priority for a time and practice using good shutter speeds to accomplish  what you are attempting. 
Put it in Shutter Priority
Dial in 1/250 as your shutter speed. 
Start at ISO 100. If your settings blink at you in the view finder you need to raise your ISO up until it stops blinking. 
Then spend your time focusing on focus. 
When you are seeing what you need and it is starting to have that "AH HA" effect in your head, switch. 

Then put your camera in aperture priority. 
Set the aperture according to what you want for DOF. 
Start at ISO 100. 
Watch your shutter speed. If it is under 1/250 you need to raise ISO until you get to at least 1/250. 
If  you can't get there stop and think about WHY and what your options are  to get you there? Can you reduce your aperture? If not then you have no  choice but to add light. 

These aren't things that you can do for  a day or a session and WHAM BAM have it all together. I am talking  weeks here. Shoot in one priority mode until you are looking at your  kids and you already know in your head that you are going to have to use  THIS ISO or THAT shutter speed because of ___________. It could be a  year. Priority modes are FINE!!! MANY photographers shoot in them almost  exclusively!!!


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 5, 2012)

I know it's not evident via text - but I was kidding MLEEK.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 5, 2012)

vtf said:


> At one time I thought you couldn't use another's company name? Picturesque Photography is in use, can it be used because "by Erica" is in it?
> You have many other companies ahead of you, I would look for something unique and then run a search on it, you want it towards the top of the page.


Depends on where you live.  Here (BC), you can't use the trade-marked portion of a name, so I couldn't set  myself up in business as "Xerox Photography" since "Xerox" is a unique, trade-marked name.  Since "John's Photography" is not unique, and has nothing trade-markable, there could be ten of us on the same block.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 5, 2012)

*Okay everyone... can we try and re-rail the thread?  This has turned into an "The OP won't take advice" thread rather than a critique of the images.

Thanks!*


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 5, 2012)

Ok, to me this feels like digital images that are imitating those Lomography shooters.

Out of Focus'ness can be used as a creative tool ... but in this case it is just an error in the image taking (not trivial).


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > If they're blurry and noisy, why post them?  I can see that you're trying, but you're trying wayyyy too hard. Slow down _a little and think about what you're doing. Not every shot is going to be a winner. I'd like to set a challenge for you. Tomorrow, spend the day shooting, but don't take any people pictures. Not one!  Shoot anything but, and for Monday post your two best images from that exercise. Remember to think before you click... Is the focus right?  DoF adequate?  Shutter-speed suitable?  Am I metering for optimal exposure?
> ...



Mleek =(  Why would you say that?  I have so many still life shoots.  I even posted a bunch on here......everytime someone recommended it, I did it and reposted it....


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

. Not to be calling anyone out specifically, but I haven't seen much work here on TPF that comes even close.[/QUOTE]


Wow!  That was the kindest thing ANYONE on here has ever said on here.  Most of the time a lot of people on here just want to be bullies.  I'm all for CC like "try a different type of focus, use a faster shutter, increase DOF, but most the comments on here are simply personal attacks.  NOT ALL, but some.  Photography is supposed to be fun, or at least it is for me, but people on here act like if you post a picture against their expectations or in opposition to their advice, that it is a some sort of dis' on them.  a little narcistic?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

Because that is exactly what you did when I was working with you on still life. 
You have so much potential, but you just seem to throw out everything you are told or that you seem to learn for a second. 
You seem to refuse to slow down and take it one step at a time. When we told you don't add in flash you went out and bought flash... 
You have yet to master how to do any one thing. Some people can learn a hundred things at a time, but not many. This is a very complicated thing. You have to build the layers of knowledge one. step. at. a time. 
I think in your brain you KNOW a lot of things, but you can't apply them all at the same time. 
First and foremost you have got to get focus. Everything else is useless if the image is out of focus.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

Okay, so 1. THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN WITHOUT A FLASH AS RECOMMENDED.  2.  They were shot at a shutter speed of 1/200 or FASTER AS RECOMMENDED!  3. I shot in shutter priority to make sure this was the case! AS RECOMMENDED.  4.   I rasied the ISO instead of using external light sources AS PER RECOMMENDATION!    What gives?


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

HOENSTLY....mob mentality "let's all just not respond to her."  I'm sorry but are you joking?  What are you guys from high school?  BIG deal my photos are flawed.  Let's just say for a second that I'm not improving....GET OVER IT!  It doesn't mean I'm personally disrepsecting you or THAT IM NOT TRYING TO TAKE ADVICE.  For what it's worth, I actually have been mentored on here by someone over the phone who has told me to do certain things in which I have...so maybe I'm not taking "your" advice, but I am taking someone's.  I'll tell you something else.  Foprget about what type of photographers you are but as people, ON HERE AT LEAST, you're kind of just mean and disrespectful.  I don't care how frustrated I was with my students, I wouldn't let it get to the point that I completed IGNORED AND MISSED ALL OF THE ATTEMPT BEING TAKEN..AND ADVICE!  I posted still like, I shot in shutter priority, I rasied ISO instead of introducing more equipment.....


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 5, 2012)

Well, nearly all are OOF.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

Whether this is an online forum or not, let's not forget something... WE ARE "ALL" ADULTS on here and a general respect should should be given.  I don't understand how you could say I'm ignoring all of your adgvice qwhen clearly I have given you the data to show you I am not!  I think everyone on here just wants to gang up on me and REFUSE TO ACTUALLY see how much I am trying and listening.  I think frankly, you just can't get past it...


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

Okay, so Jaemi..let me ask you.  I shot these in shutter priority because I KNOW IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT I not shoot slower than 1/200.  Obviousely, in shutter priority , it chose the aperture.  I bumped up my ISO to 6400 (Around there) to compensate and shot in AF-S because someone on here said it was prob the best thing to use.  I chose my FP but also shot in auto to eliminate at least some of the decisoon making processed for me, since I'm not ready to shoot in full manual.  What would you have done differently?  I wasn't "supposed to use a flash"......I rasied my ISO in order to allow for faster shutter speed, and no external light.  I shot in shutter priority to take some of the decision away from me which I guess I can't handle yet....


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

I am taking all of the advice.  I recently posted a whole heep of still life .....


----------



## tirediron (Aug 5, 2012)

Amoment, I think that the reason people are saying that you're not taking the advice that has been offered is because that is the way it seems.  You've been a member here for almost a year, and you've posted a lot of work.  That's good.  However...  despite all of the suggestions and critique that has been offered, there seems to be little overall improvement in your work.  Your images suffer from focus issues in at least two out of three cases that I see, and while certain elements of composition and exposure can be "modified" in the name of artistic license, it's always best to understand the rules before you try to break them.

Answer me this:  Why, after a year are you still suffering focusing problems?  This is something that anyone with a modern DSLR should be able to sort out in the first week or two of use.  A number of people (including myself) have suggest to you, in one form or another, that you slow down and attempt to become skilled in one aspect at a time rather than trying to get the perfect picture each time.

How about going out right now and taking and uploading three images of your daughter where the face is in tack-sharp focus.  Don't worry about the composition, don't worry about anything else, heck shoot 'em in Green Box mode, just get that focus nailed.


----------



## vtf (Aug 5, 2012)

tirediron said:


> vtf said:
> 
> 
> > At one time I thought you couldn't use another's company name? Picturesque Photography is in use, can it be used because "by Erica" is in it?
> ...



I believe here you can still use a trademarked name such as Canon, Xerox, Nikon etc,  as long as it's your name.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

1. You aren't in shutter priority, you are in full manual. You have an f/2.8 lens, but you are leaving it at f/4 for one subject instead of dropping it down to get proper exposure. Then you are increasing exposure in your editing program. You are still missing focus. Why is that?



Image 2: You are not in shutter priority, you are in manual. Evidently you saw somewhere that your exposure wasn't so hot and you dropped some on the f/ and the shutter. Knowing already that you can't hand hold at a slower shutter speed. You still had to raise it in post, but it's not nearly as bad overall, you did have to bring up some shadows


The rest match these. Why try to BS us? You are only frustrating us more and cheating yourself. You feed us whatever you THINK we want to hear about anything and everything. It doesn't do you any good. You are still making the same mistakes and making it impossible for anyone to help you by lying about it. Not one of the ones posted recently is in anything other than full manual. The only thing you seem to change up in any of them is your metering pattern from spot to matrix.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

tirediron, I don't know =(  I'm very frustrated.  I have even shot in auto focus and have no where near tack sharp photos.  I have tried shotting af-s byut at smaller apertures to increase my DOF and compensate for missed focus.  I tried shooting in burst as suggested for a while, I tried shooting in Af-C an only using the center FP,  I shot still life, I tried only using FP WITH THE CROSS SENSOR, I tried shooting in aperture or shutter prioity to make sure my exposure wasn't causing the noise.  It's so hard to hear people say I'm not taking their advice when this couldn't be father from the truth.  I TRY IT ALL....=(


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 5, 2012)

Have you tried more than one camera?


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 5, 2012)

When you are looking through the viewfinder at your subject ... do they look in focus ???

Hmm, Ok ... maybe you should stop and do a focus test to verify that:

image in viewfinder that looks in focus ... corresponds with what camera says is in focus.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

See, MLEEk...I did shoot with a higher ISO AS YOUR  INTERPRETER SHOWS.. and a fast shutter speed.  How can you say I didn't take that advice?  

The last we spoke you said this to me vis PM and I'm only sharing bc it is nothing personal.  That being said, we had been conversing, you were so kind, and I will even post replies where you said I was improving.  Then you fell off face of the earth, came back and said you tried to help but I wasn't a good student basically.  


You said months ago (last response from you )

"Cross type focus points are stronger. That's my primary ***** with my 5D Mark II-it only has one cross type focus point. If you are shooting in good light any of your focus points should work well. If you are shooting in something low contrast you may find that you need to switch to the center point. If you are focusing and recomposing using the center point bump your aperture up a bit to give you more leeway with the depth of field. 
Focus is depressing until it locks focus, then shifting slightly to recompose the frame. The problem with that is that when you move left to right or up and down you are changing the distance from the sensor to the subject/focal point. You can wack your focus a bit-which is why I say to add to your aperture a bit to compensate for that. 

Hope everything else is going great! It's hectic as hell here as I am getting knee deep in running a wrestling tournament-that means I get to do all of the planning, fundraising, ordering, staffing... you name it-for the 3rd and 4th of Feb. I am INSANE!!! Plus shooting 5 nights a week! UGH! I haven't been into 3 posts in the forum today cuz I just now got to sit down! 
I can't really complain about it... If I weren't this busy I'd be bored! 

Hope everything is great for you too! 
MLee


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

You even said this, Mleek.  I seriousely feel hurt and surprised by your replies.


"The ones by the window are beautiful! 
I REALLY like the series of your older daughter. 
I see you are still REALLY having a hard time with that focus and it seems that your camera is locking onto often the blow in the hair-which is a HUGE contrast point. 
You have the D3100 right? I am going to see if I can find anything on specific focus issues with the D3100 doing this and how to overcome it. 

I have a diffuser thingy that Lumiquest gave me several of for students. It's actually for a pop up flash, however I find they work nicely on a speedlight too. give me an address and I'll stick it in the mail this week.

I am going to TRY to get back to you in detail today... I do have some time still today... I THINK... But then you know how the holidays can take over! LOL! I also have a bunch of e-books I had uploaded for another "student" at one time. 
If I don't get back to you I hope you guys have a beautiful Christmas


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

How could you say that you were becoming frustrated with me and I wasn't listening?  Clearly you had given me some advice, I took it, and you were pleased..............this is like a Jeckle and Hyde situation.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 5, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> Have you tried more than one camera?



This is her 2nd camera.


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> Okay, so Jaemi..let me ask you.  *I shot these in shutter priority* ...



Photo #1:


Date Time Original2012:07:19 14:10:05Exposure Time1/200F Numberf / 4Exposure Program*Manual*ISO Speed Ratings6400Metering ModeSpotFlashFlash did not fire, compulsory flash modeFocal Length50mmWhite BalanceManual white balance

It appears you shot in Manual, not Shutter Priority. 



AMOMENT said:


> Obviousely, in shutter priority , it chose the aperture...



You were in Manual, so you chose the aperture. I would have tried a larger f-stop.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

Mleek you also said this 

"Re: Here's a few...				There is some great improvement in there!!! I'll try to get to them closer today... I should still have some time before Holiday Hell breaks out!"


How could you possibly be reacting this way now?  It's out of the blue!​


----------



## Tee (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> See, MLEEk...I did shoot with a higher ISO AS YOUR  INTERPRETER SHOWS.. and a fast shutter speed.  How can you say I didn't take that advice?



Upping your shutter speed and ISO is not the same as shooting in shutter priority.



AMOMENT said:


> . *I shot in shutter priority to make sure this was the case! *AS RECOMMENDED.  4.   I rasied the ISO instead of using external light sources AS PER RECOMMENDATION!    What gives?


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

Yes, for these I'm sorry I shot in manual but my other shoots were not.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

Kieth, anyone? Can you take the link out of that post please?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> You even said this, Mleek.  I seriousely feel hurt and surprised by your replies.
> 
> 
> "The ones by the window are beautiful!
> ...



THAT is the frustrating part. You do it all. For a minute. Then you seem to toss it out the window.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

okay, Jamie...thanks.  If I chose a larer f-stop, then how, being I shot at pretty much the highest ISO possible, would I have remained at a fast shutter speed of 1/200?


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

this is actually helpful ....


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

So when exactly did I toss it out the window?  We stopped talking, and bascially my progress might have stopped because of that.  I then got conflicting advice on here and prob got lost again.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> Yes, for these I'm sorry I shot in manual but my other shoots were not.


NO THEY ARE NOT IN SHUTTER PRIORITY. NOT ONE POSTED IN THE LAST TWO DAYS IS IN SHUTTER PRIORITY. 
Why? WHY do you feel the need to lie to us? Just stop now.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

Mleek, why do you care if they see what you said to me?  It's not personal and it actually has no personal information about you, just positive critique of me.  Do you not want everyone to know that you were giving me positive feedback and that I ACTUALLY had been working with you, trying, "listening," and doing better,....I mean this is crazy.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

I'm not lying to you...the ones of the girls with flowers were in aperture priority


----------



## Jaemie (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> okay, Jamie...thanks.  If I chose a larer f-stop, then how, being I shot at pretty much the highest ISO possible, would I have remained at a fast shutter speed of 1/200?



Because you are in Manual Mode.  Regardless of your other settings, if you set the camera for 1/200, it stays at 1/200.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

I'm almost 100% they were.  'm not lying..these were taken all over a month ago and I don't have a program that tells me all the info I was shooting in so I try and just remember.  I take so many over a month and try different suggestions, shutter priority, aperture, manual as per the man that was helping me said to do......don't always assume the worst.  I'm not lying, I just don't have a program to tell me what eexactly I was shooting in and it's hard to remember.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

You could easily and much more kindly say "you know, as per my data, I believe you were shooting in manual."  I would say "I'm sorry, my mistake, it's hard to remember."...and go from there.  Yes, I became defensive at first, but, Can you blame me?


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

okay, so Jaemie...if I used a larger f-stop, stayed with the high iso, and kept that fast shutter speed, I would have been underexposed?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 5, 2012)

I don't know where in New York you live, but in all but the very smallest of towns there are usually camera & photography clubs of one sort or another.  I think what you really need to do is join up with one and seek out some one-on-one instruction so that you can get immediate feedback and critique.  Everyone learns best by different methods, and I'm starting to suspect that the shoot-post-implement method is not the best for you.  I think you could be an excellent photographer with some refinement of basic skills, but until you get that sorted out, you're not going to be able to progress.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT, a few technical suggestions:  On your camera, MENU, CUSTOM SETTING MENU, a Autofocus, a2 AF-S priority selection, and select FOCUS.  This will not allow the camera to take a picture before focus is achieved.  Do the same thing for a1 AF-C.  Also in CUSTOM SETTINGS MENU, under d Shooting/display, turn the Volume on.  This will give you an audible confirmation when the camera is in focus.  It doesn't work 100% and you still get out of focus pictures once in a while, but it will help a bit.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> okay, so Jaemie...if I used a larger f-stop, stayed with the high iso, and kept that fast shutter speed, I would have been underexposed?



Over expose.


----------



## KmH (Aug 5, 2012)

** Thead Closed **

A lot of this back and forth could be done using PM's.


----------



## KmH (Aug 5, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> vtf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Company names cannot be copyrighted. However, tradmark law may apply. Visit www.copyright.gov and click on their FAQ page.



> *Can I copyright the name of my band?
> *No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information.


----------

