# I'm having trouble making my pictures look professional!



## danman281 (Aug 23, 2008)

I know I just started, but this is turning out a little more difficult than I expected. How do y'all make the pictures turn out so professional looking? Like worthy of going on maxim or something. 

I have a Canon 40D, 28-135mm lens, UV filter, with speed lite flash. I can't blame my camera lol. I have been taking pictures practically my whole life, but this is my first real camera. I still love photography even if it doesn't turn out the exact way I perceived, but are there are any tips to help me? Even something encouraging? Still a "noob"

I went to the park to take some pictures. These aren't my best, but I did attempt to make them look good. 
These were on a cloudy day, in the afternoon. They look like normal pictures from amateur. (Not Edited, Not Raw)


----------



## Battou (Aug 23, 2008)

You are right, you can't blame the camera, blame the UV filter. Take it off before shooting, A poor filter will soften shots considerably.

I base on the last shot, Assuming you are using AF, I do not see a DOF failure but yet the picture is still....hazy. Unless that was heavily cropped, it should not be that soft. Bad filter.

The second picture is ok to me but I would bump the saturation a little bit, Don't go over board but definately bump it in PS.

the first just lacks interest to me, I can't help there. I do not look at those enough to see just what is off, that is my inexperience with the subject.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

One of the biggest detractors from all three of these images is indeed the sky. Technically they're fine, but they all need a little more post, esp a mild saturation boost. 

The reason you these pictures don't look professional is because you didn't take them under 'professional' conditions. It's important to undertand that those pictures on the cover of National Geographic or Outdoor Photographer don't just happen (Granted the odd one is a lucky shot but not too many). 

I'll trade the word 'professional' for the word 'skilled' since all professional means is that you make money at it. A skilled photographer would see the scene in your second image and go, "Hey, that would make a great photo - hmmm, light's crap though." He would then commit it to memory, write it down, or whatever, and come back to it when the conditions are right. 

As well, there are tools to enhance your images, filters, tripods, remote releases, and knowing what will and what won't make a good image when it's processed. For instance, in your first image, yes, the church is an interesting buidling, but is it a good photograph? I wouldn't have taken it simply because the trees block a good part of the building. In the second one, there's definitely a good photograph there, but I don't think you quite got it. Try and avoid having visual barriers in your image; in this case the the bridge cuts directly across the lower third of the image. A better way to do this might have been to compose it so that the bridge was on an angle running into the centre of the image. With the last image, always try and have animals (and people) move toward you, not away from you. I would have located myself so that the ducks were coming toward me, lay down on my stomach (yep, you get dirty doing this) and focused tightling on one or two of them

Hope that helps, just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.

~John


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

Battou said:


> A poor filter will soften shots considerably.


 
Very true; rule of thumb, if it's made of glass, don't buy cheap.



Battou said:


> You are right, you can't blame the camera, blame the UV filter. Take it off before shooting,


And what are you basing this on; if the OP has in fact bought a $10 'No-name' UV filter through eBay, I'd agree, but I've done some fairly extensive testing on the B+W filters I use (UVs among them) and have yet to detect any noticable degradation of the image at normal conditions.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2008)

Easy way to test the filter is to take shots in similar conditions with both filter and unfilter.  I use filllters and never noticed any problems but I do buy quality filters.

Remember... photography is light.  You have to consider lighting conditions as well.


----------



## Montana (Aug 23, 2008)

I agree with tirediron, its the harsh lighting of mid-day that made for the bad photos. The highlites are blown in all 3. Try metering for the sky and then reshooting. If the forground is too dark, bump exposure until you find a happy medium. Although a happy medium cannot always be found in bright sunlight and shadows. Shoot in RAW too. That way, if you do overexpose, you may still be able to pull back some of the bright details. Don't be afraid to shoot 5 or 6 shots of the same subject if you have card room. Meter...shoot, adjust settings to right...shoot, adjust settings to left...shoot. (left and right on your in camera exposure meter). Or "chimp" your histogram. When you get home, study the shots and exif data....learn from it. Don't get discouraged, if it was easy you'd see everyone carring one of this big cameras around. It just takes tons of practice and understanding.

Derrick

P.S. what aperture was these shots taken at?  I bought my 40D with the same kit lens, but I think I took 2, maybe 3, shots with that lens then threw it in the bag and never even looked at it again.  I wasn't overly impressed, but the colors were good.  Just not a focal length that I didn't already have covered by a better lens.  (All this is speculation, it may be a superb lens, I just haven't tried it much.  Heck, it may be my best piece of glass and I'm using it to catch dust.  LOL)


----------



## DWS (Aug 23, 2008)

stick with it and learn the camera's characteristics and capabilities......also, light is not light, ie., lighting is an art within itself.....your best colors will come at dawn and dusk, while mid day is the worst time for light impacted colors.....


----------



## Alpha (Aug 23, 2008)

use more cowbell.


----------



## Resin42 (Aug 23, 2008)

Alpha said:


> use more cowbell.



You made me spill beer on my keyboard!


----------



## Rachelsne (Aug 23, 2008)

a circular polariser will help with keeping skys blue, or darker, i think the first pic would benifit from having a little more foregraound too, maybe with a wide angle lens and have it landscape instead of portrait?

 keep an eye on your high lights try to expose so they dont blow out, or take two shots (if the item is stationary) using a tripod, and expose both differently then combine the two, i used to do that with my old point and shoot 

enjoy your self


----------



## clarbin (Aug 23, 2008)

Alpha said:


> use more cowbell.


 
I got the fever........


----------



## epp_b (Aug 23, 2008)

> Like worthy of going on maxim or something.


I'll forget you said that and move right on to C&C 

It's pretty rare that you'll get exactly what you want straight out of the camera, you'll find that you nearly always need to do some editing.

The main problem I see with your photos is that the highlights are completely blown out, particularly with the sky.  *tirediron* covered most of points on how to avoid this (using CPLs, playing with exposure settings, etc), but I'll make a couple of suggestions as well.  

For example, I think the first picture could have been a great photograph if you'd...
1) Used a polarizer
2) Shot in RAW to adjust balances later
3) Bracketted with a tripod (I'm pretty sure the 40D has this built-in)

There's not much you can do with it now because to the JPEG compression is too harsh to make any significant adjustments (though, I assume this compression was done by your graphic editor)


----------



## danman281 (Aug 23, 2008)

Battou said:


> You are right, you can't blame the camera, blame the UV filter. Take it off before shooting, A poor filter will soften shots considerably.
> 
> I base on the last shot, Assuming you are using AF, I do not see a DOF failure but yet the picture is still....hazy. Unless that was heavily cropped, it should not be that soft. Bad filter.
> 
> ...


 
  The UV filter I was using was from HOYA. I think HOYA is an alright brand, and I read good reviews from them, nothing fancy though. Any brand suggestions?



tirediron said:


> One of the biggest detractors from all three of these images is indeed the sky. Technically they're fine, but they all need a little more post, esp a mild saturation boost.
> 
> The reason you these pictures don't look professional is because you didn't take them under 'professional' conditions. It's important to undertand that those pictures on the cover of National Geographic or Outdoor Photographer don't just happen (Granted the odd one is a lucky shot but not too many).
> 
> ...


 
 Thanks John. Lighting that day was indeed very dark. I tried compensating by longer shutter speed and messing with the aperture. Unfortunately my tripod didn't come in until the day after I shot it. great suggestions





Montana said:


> I agree with tirediron, its the harsh lighting of mid-day that made for the bad photos. The highlites are blown in all 3. Try metering for the sky and then reshooting. If the forground is too dark, bump exposure until you find a happy medium. Although a happy medium cannot always be found in bright sunlight and shadows. Shoot in RAW too. That way, if you do overexpose, you may still be able to pull back some of the bright details. Don't be afraid to shoot 5 or 6 shots of the same subject if you have card room. Meter...shoot, adjust settings to right...shoot, adjust settings to left...shoot. (left and right on your in camera exposure meter). Or "chimp" your histogram. When you get home, study the shots and exif data....learn from it. Don't get discouraged, if it was easy you'd see everyone carring one of this big cameras around. It just takes tons of practice and understanding.
> 
> Derrick
> 
> P.S. what aperture was these shots taken at? I bought my 40D with the same kit lens, but I think I took 2, maybe 3, shots with that lens then threw it in the bag and never even looked at it again. I wasn't overly impressed, but the colors were good. Just not a focal length that I didn't already have covered by a better lens. (All this is speculation, it may be a superb lens, I just haven't tried it much. Heck, it may be my best piece of glass and I'm using it to catch dust. LOL)



The aperture I used on that duck one was f/5.7
I'm honestly not that fond of these lens either, but these are the only ones I got to work with.




epp_b said:


> I'll forget you said that and move right on to C&C
> 
> It's pretty rare that you'll get exactly what you want straight out of the camera, you'll find that you nearly always need to do some editing.
> 
> ...



I'm not very familiar with ps. I have used a couple of times, but the most I can do with it is adjust brightness and contrast. I'm an MS paint person haha jk... sort of. Should I just jump into RAW mode anyways?



And Thank you for the awesome comments and suggestions everyone else has posted. Just got home and I need to get ready for tmr.


----------



## epp_b (Aug 24, 2008)

> Should I just jump into RAW mode anyways?


For situations where you are unsure about lighting, yes.  You can always use IrfanView (free) to quickly batch convert your RAW images to a lossless format like TIFF and then open them in any graphics editor.



> I'm not very familiar with ps.


Personally, I think Photoshop is needlessly overcomplicated.  See if you can "find" a copy of Micrografx Picture Publisher 8, which is now abandonware (PM me if you want to know what I "mean").  It's kind of buggy, but it works well for many photo adjustments.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 24, 2008)

I will have to disagree with epp b; Photoshop is not needlessly over-complicated, it is, rather, very powerful, and features a huge array of tools. The nearly infinite array of adjustments you can make to an image neccesitate a complex menu system, and some commands which are less than intuitive. That aside, it is the industry standard for image editing. 

While you certainly don't need to go to the expense of purchasing Photoshop CS3, I would strongly recommend spending ~$100 on either Adobe Photoshop Elements, or Corel PaintShopPro. Both of these are very full-featured editors which will last you for a long time, and have the power to deal with most situations you're likely to encounter. Something like MS Picture Publisher while cheap (and if money's a concern, try The GIMP; it's freeware - www.gimp.org) are not going to be updated, and do not follow the informal standards accepted by the "big boys".

Time spent learning Photoshop is time well spent.


----------



## Battou (Aug 24, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Very true; rule of thumb, if it's made of glass, don't buy cheap.
> 
> 
> And what are you basing this on; if the OP has in fact bought a $10 'No-name' UV filter through eBay, I'd agree, but I've done some fairly extensive testing on the B+W filters I use (UVs among them) and have yet to detect any noticable degradation of the image at normal conditions.



Personal experience with UV filters including but not limited to Hoya (as was later explained to be the filter used) as well a lot of reading on the subject of UV filters. UV filters are not just a disposable peice of glass everyone makes them out to be, they are a filter and they do effect the light as it travels throught the glass, this effect most noticable when one is not used when it should be. Also I have seen a lot of disscussions where filters and AF don't seem to cooperate as they should. Knowing the insight you routenly provide I assume all your tests where done using manual focus correct?



danman281 said:


> The UV filter I was using was from HOYA. I think HOYA is an alright brand, and I read good reviews from them, nothing fancy though. Any brand suggestions?



I don't use UV filters, even when necessary. I stopped using them all together when I kept forgetting to take them off. I've tried a bunch and Hoya was not bad at all, but I manual focus so, I can't say I have real insight to help you with.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 24, 2008)

Battou said:


> Personal experience with UV filters including but not limited to Hoya (as was later explained to be the filter used) as well a lot of reading on the subject of UV filters. UV filters are not just a disposable peice of glass everyone makes them out to be, they are a filter and they do effect the light as it travels throught the glass, this effect most noticable when one is not used when it should be. Also I have seen a lot of disscussions where filters and AF don't seem to cooperate as they should. Knowing the insight you routenly provide I assume all your tests where done using manual focus correct?   I don't use UV filters, even when necessary. I stopped using them all together when I kept forgetting to take them off. I've tried a bunch and Hoya was not bad at all, but I manual focus so, I can't say I have real insight to help you with.


 
Hoya is a good name in filters, although some of their uncoated, entry-level stuff is suspect.  As long as you stick with the big names  (Hoya, Tiffen, B+W, Rodenstock, Heliopan, Singh-Ray) you won't have issues.  Bear in mind too, that when people talk about distortion and filter effects, they're often refering to the extreme edge of an image shot wide open and cropped 100 or 150%.  You're simply not going to see these things under normal conditions on images which are printed or displayed at common sizes.

As far as the testing goes, I have to admit that it never ocurred to me to deliberately test either manual or auto focus specifically, but as it happened, both were tested, simply because I compared all of my glass, including my 2.8/60mm macro, which is always manually focused.  As far as I am aware, the only two filters which will affect the auto-focusing of a modern DSLR are linear polarizers and IR filters.  UVs will have no effect whatsoever.

With DSLRs the use of a UV filter as a UV filter isn't really necessary.  There is already UV protection built into the high-pass filter in front of the sensor.  Most people have them on their lenses for protection since they have the least affect on an image of all of the standard filters.  I've switched over from UVs to B+W clear glass elements mainly to keep dirt, dust and spray (I do a lot of shooting on/around water) off the front element of my lens.


----------



## randym77 (Aug 24, 2008)

I suspect your main problem is that you picked a cloudy day.  Gray, overcast skies are probably the worst for outdoor photography.  Storm clouds can be dramatic (just don't get hit by lightning), and blue skies, perhaps with a few fluffy white clouds, are a postcard staple.  But gray overcast skies send most photographers indoors to watch TV or something.  

Pro photographers also prefer to take photos in the first hour after dawn, and a few hours before sunset. The light is much better then.

There are exceptions.  Gray overcast skies are good for macro photography.  (You can get nice photos of flowers, etc., without harsh shadows.)  The noon sun is good for city shots (or deep canyons), where the subject will be in shadow otherwise.  

But I think you'll be much happier with your photos if you take them in late afternoon, with better weather.  

Also, use a tripod for landscape photography, when possible.  A cheap lens on a tripod will often beat an expensive hand-held one.


----------



## anubis404 (Aug 24, 2008)

tirediron said:


> I will have to disagree with epp b; Photoshop is not needlessly over-complicated, it is, rather, very powerful, and features a huge array of tools. The nearly infinite array of adjustments you can make to an image neccesitate a complex menu system, and some commands which are less than intuitive. That aside, it is the industry standard for image editing.
> 
> While you certainly don't need to go to the expense of purchasing Photoshop CS3, I would strongly recommend spending ~$100 on either Adobe Photoshop Elements, or Corel PaintShopPro. Both of these are very full-featured editors which will last you for a long time, and have the power to deal with most situations you're likely to encounter. Something like MS Picture Publisher while cheap (and if money's a concern, try The GIMP; it's freeware - www.gimp.org) are not going to be updated, and do not follow the informal standards accepted by the "big boys".
> 
> Time spent learning Photoshop is time well spent.



Personally, I'm not the biggest ps guy and I have elements 6 and am loving it so far. If you can cough up $100, its worth every penny. Maybe get a used earlier version of elements for cheaper if you're crunched for money.


----------



## Mitch1640 (Aug 24, 2008)

is that UF? i think i took a picture of the same building a month ago.


----------



## danman281 (Aug 24, 2008)

Mitch1640 said:


> is that UF? i think i took a picture of the same building a month ago.



This was at the St. Phillips Church in Post Oak.


----------

