# What to do when you hit a wall?



## smoke665 (Jun 4, 2016)

I've been around for awhile, but my attempts to move beyond point and shoot digital only started about a year ago. We have a saying in the south "even a blind pig can find an acorn every now and then", which somewhat describes my personal growth in digital. While many have either grown up with digital, or made the transition gradually, I've tried to absorb a tremendous amount of information over a short period of time. Despite my efforts to learn and practice what I've learned, it seems that I'm still finding that elusive nut, rather than moving toward predictable, repeatable shots. It's almost as if I've come to a wall, I can see what's on the other side, but I can't seem to climb over. I'm sure others have probably felt this way at one point, so how did you get past it?


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 4, 2016)

Does your prior film background include the darkroom? In other words did you process your own film and make your own prints?

Joe


----------



## snowbear (Jun 4, 2016)

How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

Figure out what you think is your biggest single challenge and work on that until you feel comfortable.  Then move on to the next one.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 4, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Does your prior film background include the darkroom? In other words did you process your own film and make your own prints?
> 
> Joe



For about 9 years processed and printed every week, several rolls and a lot of prints. All B&W for newspaper publication. Didn't shoot much color till later on, sent that off for processing.


----------



## Overread (Jun 4, 2016)

You say you've hit a wall but you've not really described it; only generally waved your hand and said "there's a wall." Break it down into what it constitutes. What elements are there which are confusing you or proving hard to learn or what parts do you think you should know that you don't etc...

The more you can break it down into segments like that the easier it is to tackle; f you leave it generalist you won't ever know where to focus and furthermore those you ask won't be able to give meaningful advice to help either.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 4, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Does your prior film background include the darkroom? In other words did you process your own film and make your own prints?
> ...



So I read the gist of your original post in this sentence, "Despite my efforts to learn and practice what I've learned, it seems that I'm still finding that elusive nut, rather than moving toward predictable, repeatable shots." And from there I zero in on predictable and repeatable shots. Let's take the film experience analogy then and ask this question: Why bother printing yourself when you could have just dropped the film off at the one hour photo hut?

Next question: are you shooting and learning to process raw files and ignoring the JPEGs the camera creates? There is some method to the madness that camera JPEG software produces but it can be pretty elusive to pin down as opposed to simply bypassing.

Joe


----------



## SCraig (Jun 4, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> While many have either grown up with digital, or made the transition gradually,* I've tried to absorb a tremendous amount of information over a short period of time.*


Why?  We have another saying in the south that goes, "Don't bite off more than you can chew".  Is there some reason you're trying to absorb a tremendous amount of information in a short time?  That's the best way I know of to forget half of what you try to learn.  Try small bites, one thing at a time, and forget about trying to cram it all in at once.

Photography ain't rocket science.  If you have a film background, disable most of the bells and whistles like AutoISO, multiple autofocus points, 3D dynamic autofocus, auto noise reduction, etc, etc, etc, etc and focus on the basics.  You'll find that your camera is virtually identical to your old film cameras, just able to do more.


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 4, 2016)

What wall are you hitting?  Are you have trouble processing or shooting or both?  The type of stuff you shot for the paper, can you easily replicate those photos? As an old news photog myself, I tend to just use the tools I would have used in a wet darkroom ... really simplifies the the learning curve, then you can expand upon that.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 4, 2016)

You've only shot for ONE year.
You ought to be Nowhere near the wall.
Take classes, experiment with crazy ideas, shoot your greatest fears and desires.


----------



## KmH (Jun 4, 2016)

Ya gotta get outside of your box:
The "nine dots" puzzle (Public Domain image. Author: Blleininger).






Puzzle rules: Link all 9 dots using four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once.

Light direction and light quality are the key elements needed to make high quality photographs.
I wonder. How much study you have applied to them?

Composition is next on the list of importance. Again. How much have you studied the various elements of visual art composition - line, proportion, scale, visual weight, texture, depth, form, space, shape.

A few of years back I felt I needed to refill my creative juice container, but no method of doing that was coming to mind.
On a shopping trip to Walmart I went to the office and art supplies section to just look around and wound up buying a pad of sketching paper thinking doing some sketching, not something I do often because I don't do it very well, might help get me recharged.

The sketching pad just sat around - un-used - for several weeks.
One day I was dusting the floor in the little personal studio I have in what would otherwise be an upstairs bedroom, looked at the sketching pad and an idea for a photograph popped into my head.
I grabbed one of several sheets of white foam board I keep around to use as reflectors and laid it flat on a table.
I grabbed some thumbtacks and started taking sketching sheets out of the sketching pad and thumb tacking them to the foam board in the shape of waves.
I put a blue gel on a speedlight and set it up with a remote radio trigger behind the sheets of paper.
I put my DSLR on a tripod, closed the curtains on the window to darken the room and:

SOOC (straight out of the camera)





It works nicely as my desktop image:





Edited to B&W





Have you played with shooting incense smoke?





Add some color with Photoshop editing.
Flame





Rosebud


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 4, 2016)

snowbear said:


> How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.



40 plus years in business, one of my favorite sayings. Prided myself on isolating complex problems into manageable bites.



Overread said:


> Break it down into what it constitutes



If I could answer this in a concise manner, I would have already addressed the problem. I have a working knowledge of the technical aspects of photography, composition, and software. I can take a shot and if nothing else produce a decent shot post processing. The frustration comes in when making that step from decent to good on a consistent basis.



Ysarex said:


> are you shooting and learning to process raw files and ignoring the JPEGs the camera creates?



I switched over to Raw last year. Pentax gives you several different options for image finish tones, which you can also customize to personal settings. All of the data for the tones is included in the metadata of the raw image. I've switched to processing the raw file in Pentax's Utility software, because it allows access to that data, then doing further editing in PSP.



SCraig said:


> disable most of the bells and whistles like AutoISO



Some of the frustration started with a newly acquired camera. Despite it being the same manufacturer, there are a few differences. The other thing is why they always feel it necessary to set the default to "on" for those bells and whistles. Yesterday evening I started the tedious process of taking multiple, images with each lens to compare the effects of aperture, shutter, and ISO. Surprised  by some of the results..


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 4, 2016)

KmH said:


> Light direction and light quality are the key elements needed to make high quality photographs.
> I wonder. How much study you have applied to them?
> 
> Composition is next on the list of importance. Again. How much have you studied the various elements of visual art composition - line, proportion, scale, visual weight, texture, depth, form, space, shape.
> ...



Though far from my profession in life, art in one media or another has always been a source of fulfillment and relaxation for me. From wood working, metal working, sculpture, carving, painting and drawing, and photography, I've managed some good (according to others) and some so-so work. I think you're right in that we all come to a point when we feel like we've reached an impasse in creativity. The fact that you were able to create beauty in the mundane is a testament to the fact that you moved past that point. This may be part of the funk I'm in, I know much of technical aspects of what should work, it's putting that knowledge to work in a creative format. It might be that the time has come to settle on a direction, rather than snapping away in a random manner at anything that catches the eye. It hasn't gone unnoticed that many of those on this forum are very good in certain areas, be in portrait, landscape, wildlife, etc. 

I apologize my hand is a little unsteady today, but I think you can see one of the solutions to the problem, there may be more.


----------



## Overread (Jun 4, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> The frustration comes in when making that step from decent to good on a consistent basis.



I like to call that intermediate and its horrible. The gains are small and often the result of continued practice. You often won't see them, but they do happen. Also with getting consistently good results note that this is good to aim for but not something to go nuts over. It's also very variable. Take a top sports photographer; they might well be great working in sports with a high keeper rate - but put them in a studio and they might fall to bits. Sure they'll have basic skill, but the new environment and situation will dull their results for a time. 

This is why self development is often good when done alongside focused projects and themes because you work within a niche where you can improve; as opposed to doing everything. 



smoke665 said:


> Yesterday evening I started the tedious process of taking multiple, images with each lens to compare the effects of aperture, shutter, and ISO. Surprised  by some of the results..



Can you share those results with us - what surprised you?


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 4, 2016)

Overread said:


> put them in a studio and they might fall to bits. Sure they'll have basic skill, but the new environment and situation will dull their results



I got completely away from anything to do with photography in early 1980 because it became an unbearable chore thanks to inconsiderate people who thought my sole purpose in life was to photograph every little insignificant event in their life. I fear that in my haste to enjoy reentry I've let the process out weigh the end result.  Your quote somewhat confirms another thought brought on by a comment made by KmH earlier, it's true we each have subject matter, techniques, and experiences that we do better at than others. I need evaluate where I fit best and concentrate on that.



Overread said:


> Can you share those results with us - what surprised you?



Regrettably I deleted the files. I intend on redoing it more in depth for each lens. The surprise I was referring to came when I weeded out images. My interpretation of a properly exposed histogram didn't necessarily coincide with what I thought was  a good image.


----------



## Overread (Jun 4, 2016)

Of course not; the histogram is purely one of many tools. It's prime use in the camera is ensure that you get the most light data without clipping the highlights whilst achieving the creative result you want - in reality you will often compromise between light data gathering - light you have and the creative result you want.

If you get hte most light data you can then edit those results with the most degree of choice - and of course you might edit them far away from a "correct" histogram result. 



As for where you best fit - forget that - find what you most ENJOY more than anything else. Might be you're not as good at it as you want. That's fine as now you've got a focus. Of course we all do enjoy doing what we are good at too so having some idea where you can shine even if its not your most favourite subject is good too.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 4, 2016)

My eyesight is not what it used to be so I find myself relying more on live view, which is still difficult. The meter is easy to read, but the histogram display is so small that it's difficult for me to see very well. My intent is to add a Flucard which will allow functionality on my tablet for live view. As to best fit, since the only reason I do it is for enjoyment, I most certainly will move in that direction.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 4, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> My eyesight is not what it used to be so I find myself relying more on live view, which is still difficult. The meter is easy to read, but the histogram display is so small that it's difficult for me to see very well. My intent is to add a Flucard which will allow functionality on my tablet for live view. As to best fit, since the only reason I do it is for enjoyment, I most certainly will move in that direction.



You mentioned Pentax -- don't know what model you have. There are all kinds of histograms both in camera and in processing software. If live view is showing a histogram it is most likely a single histogram in which case it's either a luminosity histogram or RGB composite. Both can be misleading and in camera both would be derived from the camera JPEG processor and so not necessarily reflect what you'll get in the raw file. I believe your camera will show you a histogram when reviewing a photo and in that case display a three channel view. Again this histogram is derived from the JPEG and does not directly reflect the raw file.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 4, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> If live view is showing a histogram it is most likely a single histogram in which case it's either a luminosity histogram or RGB composite



There is more difference between my previous K30 and the new K3 II then I originally thought. I'm a little disappointed with Pentax on documentation with the K3 II. The book that came with the K30 was more detailed and informative. The addition of a slew of new image altering algorithms makes it difficult to even shoot manual without it trying trying to control something. So at times it seems like we are in a battle of wills, to the point that I almost give up and go to full auto. I can't find the documentation to prove it, but I believe you are right about the histogram on live view being an RGB composite. It gives luminosity on the instant review, and RGB, luminosity, red, green and blue on the review screen. I also think (but can't verify) that the histograms are all based on conversion to a JPEG based on the "camera tone finishing setting" (at the time the image was taken). However the camera saves the information to the file so that you can change the "image tone" (which also affects the histogram) at any point up to and until the raw file is processed by using their proprietary software for file conversion.


----------



## PhotosInParadise (Jun 5, 2016)

OP - have you been to the optometrist lately and had your eyes checked for cataracts? I think you said you are an older person, pardon me if you're not. I am 69 and had cataract surgery in April and it has made a tremendous difference in my eyesight.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 5, 2016)

PhotosInParadise said:


> OP - have you been to the optometrist lately and had your eyes checked for cataracts? I think you said you are an older person, pardon me if you're not. I am 69 and had cataract surgery in April and it has made a tremendous difference in my eyesight.



I'm a couple of years younger than you, but my eyesight has been getting progressively worse over the years. Last visit to the optometrist (6 months ago) they told me that it wouldn't be long before I would need cataract surgery. Despite the  reflective coating on the trifocals I have a lot of difficulty seeing from light into dark.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 5, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > If live view is showing a histogram it is most likely a single histogram in which case it's either a luminosity histogram or RGB composite
> ...



It's hard to find that kind of info which tells you something. My Fuji has a live histogram as well and it's a luminosity histogram. It was a real struggle to dig up and verify that info with absolutely no help from Fuji. You've got to wonder how important they think the info is and you're left wondering what your problem is since it seems like you're the only one who wanted to know.

I am very sympathetic to your lament; "at times it seems like we are in a battle of wills, to the point that I almost give up and go to full auto." But I don't know you well and find it difficult to advise you. I suspect given your background and prior comfort with shooting, processing and printing B&W in an environment where you were fully responsible to the end result that you're somewhat like me. I'm very happy with modern digital tech. because it extends what I was able to do with film and does it better, but I have the same lament about the camera software's interference. For example features on my camera that the manufacturer touts as best-thing-since-sliced-bread and that the user community lauds as the same have me cussin' and spittin'. I'm using a camera now with an EVF and Fuji has designed the EVF to deliver a preview of the JPEG the camera is going to create -- an exposure, WB, tone response live preview. It's a major selling feature! People love it! I hate it, but I've learned to ignore it. Why do I want to see how the software in the camera is going to mangle it's version of my photo? That's just a nuisance.

Right up to the top end flagship cameras now the manufacturers are all pushing their automated JPEG processing aggressively enough that it is difficult if not impossible to step aside and ignore it. Reading forums like this one and encountering someone learning to process raw files you constantly see the complaint; "No matter what I do I can't make the raw file look like the camera JPEG. What am I missing?" OMG! The whole point of saving and processing a raw file is so you don't have to tolerate the bleep bleep camera JPEG and then try and repair it! Why would you want to replicate it?!

When I take photos I stay focused on: There's a sensor in my camera and I'm going to expose it. I don't need help with that nor do I want interference. For me a good exposure is saturating the sensor to threshold period. I'm not interested in seeing what kind of JPEG the camera software creates from that. Since the histograms the camera displays are all derived from that JPEG I tend to ignore them. I will save the raw sensor capture and process that later to the end result I want and again I don't need help with that and I'm not interested in seeing what automated software can or can't do.

So I'm an old guy with fancy new tech most of which I keep turned off and or have learned to ignore. When I get a new camera the first thing I do is find the metering system. It will have that manufacturer's version of "matrix" or "evaluative" metering enabled by default. I turn that off and never turn it back on. I do not need software in my camera trying to second guess me while I'm setting an exposure. That's my job and I know how to do it -- it's my photo. Once the meter is behaving like the measuring tool it should be I test it and I'm good to go. In sympathizing with your lament I come down to what I just said in the prior sentence; it's my photo. That battle of wills is between me and the automated software in the camera that's interfering. I turn that sh*t off or ignore it.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 5, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> I don't know you well and find it difficult to advise you. I suspect given your background and prior comfort with shooting, processing and printing B&W in an environment where you were fully responsible to the end result that you're somewhat like me. I'm very happy with modern digital tech.



Joe thank you for confirming that I'm not really going crazy with your comments on technology, and I have found previous advise you've given to be extremely helpful. I am also happy with modern digital, just find it frustrating when I know what I want, how to go about getting it, and a computer deciding I want something else.

Something you said in the your posts about what the camera displays, made me curious. Yesterday I shot a number of different settings, with the same lens.. I pulled this off the SD card because the image looked decent in thumbnail, it's not the best of the bunch but it illustrates my point. 1/6 sec, f/14, ISO 200, 24.38mm, AWB. 

In the first image and histogram, the raw file was loaded into Pentax's Utility 5 conversion software. No changes were made other than to let it convert and save as TIFF. I then loaded the TIFF into PSP, re-sized and saved as a JPEG. 


  

The second image and histogram, I loaded the raw file straight into PSP, let PSP convert, resized and saved as a JPEG with no further intervention.

  

Maybe I need to incorporate this into work flow, rather than going straight to PSP for editing might save me a lot of trouble.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 5, 2016)

I was a the same point a few years back.  For me, it was more about going back to the basics and just enjoy telling stories through photos, rather than worry about making perfect photos.  There is no such thing as a perfect photo.  Simple, elegant, refinement, and emotions are the things that I aim for these days.


----------



## Overread (Jun 5, 2016)

RAW data is data; but in order to display a rendering the RAW software has to pick a starting point for how to render that data. That is partly why different RAW software options will show the same data in slightly different ways. However the file data itself still holds the same capacities; you can get one to look like the other by tweaking a few values. 

Of course the software also has differences that can result in an actual difference in how the data appears; but they are often very marginal and generally speaking something you don't have to concern yourself with as the differences will, in most cases, be invisible to a print or internet display.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 5, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know you well and find it difficult to advise you. I suspect given your background and prior comfort with shooting, processing and printing B&W in an environment where you were fully responsible to the end result that you're somewhat like me. I'm very happy with modern digital tech.
> ...



What you're experiencing here also drove me near to madness when I first started working with digital. With a raw sensor capture a lot of processing has to take place before you've got an RGB image you can look at. I first started out with the misconception that a raw file first opened up was showing me my photo ready for editing. That's not the case, when first opened up, raw conversion software A versus software B shows you your photo already edited -- a lot. Same theme again -- it's been done for you by the bleepin' software. I started opening the same raw file in different raw converters to compare the result. No two were alike and in fact the differences were substantial in some cases.

This left me with the nagging question, how do I know I got the exposure I wanted? How do I know the software isn't covering something up? Back in the film lab I had this device called a densitometer. The densitometer allowed me to check my film exposure and processing and know with certainty what I was doing. I was comfortable with that methodology and now with digital I've got the rug pulled out from under me. Open my raw file in software A and I get one version, open it in software B and it's entirely different. In both programs A and B I'm seeing a histogram for my photo, but what's it a histogram of? They're both different and I haven't done anything yet!!!!!! How do I work like that?! Then I found RawDigger: RawDigger: Raw Image Analyzer | RawDigger

RawDigger gave me my densitometer back and I'm back in control. The raw conversion software products are all different tools with different abilities. None of them will show you your photo without putting their spin on it. It's frustrating and infuriating. I rely on a couple different raw converters changing tools to suit the job so to speak, but I rely on RawDigger to know what I did when I made my exposure and inform my camera use next time out.

Joe


----------



## Dave442 (Jun 5, 2016)

In the two images you posted is a normal issue as Joe noted. Each software can use its own conversion of the Raw file. I use LightRoom and besides the normal White Balance adjustments there is also the Camera Calibration where there are usually a number of different preset options (you can add presets and also make your own) as well as the ability to adjust tint, hue and saturation of the primary colors. 

I have not used PSP, but it may have some options so you can have it process the Raw photos when importing so they look closer to what you like when using the Pentax software. Often the camera manufacturers' software will read the settings that you may have adjusted in the camera to apply to JPG files and their software will apply give the option to apply that to the Raw file, so you will see something similar when processing in the computer as to what you saw on the back of the camera. 

If it is like LightRoom, then you can have the software apply a Camera Profile upon import based on the serial number of the camera (so you could have a specific profile for each of your cameras).


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 5, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> What you're experiencing here also drove me near to madness



Yes, Yes, Yes!!!! Thank you Joe. Once again, I think you've come to the rescue. I just about pitched everything a couple of weeks ago. I think my "blind pig finding an acorn" analogy was much closer to the truth then I realized as I was struggling to make an educated guess as to where I should be, but not knowing for certain. For now I've gone back and reprocessed some raw files using the Pentax utility then editing the TIFF in PSP. The difference in the end result is amazing. As "Overread" said earlier "data is data", but when you read that data and it comes out different, it is hard to understand what's correct and what isn't. I still believe I should download  "Raw Digger", for my own piece of mind. Which version do you recommend?


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 5, 2016)

Dave442 said:


> f it is like LightRoom, then you can have the software apply a Camera Profile



PSP uses a plugin for raw conversion. I think I've read something about using a camera profile, but haven't figured out where or how. I fear that this may be another of the those "add on for a price" things that Corel is notorious for. I need to get ready for a meeting in a bit so will check it out in more detail this evening. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 5, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > What you're experiencing here also drove me near to madness
> ...



You only need the exposure version of RawDigger -- a mere $25.00 last time I checked. When you open a raw file in RawDigger you get a histogram for the raw file. It will be the first time you will have in fact seen the histogram for your photo. Every other software from the camera right up to the raw conversion software that shows you histograms DOES NOT show you the histogram of the raw file! They are all showing you the histograms of their processing output from the raw file. And who's to say they haven't mangled up that processing. For sure they can't read your mind and know what you intended when you took the photo. Is it your photo or not? So with RawDigger I get to see what I did and know where I stand.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 5, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Dave442 said:
> 
> 
> > f it is like LightRoom, then you can have the software apply a Camera Profile
> ...



Before you spend more: PSP isn't the best raw converter out there. Your Pentax utility is probably pretty good but otherwise limited in capability. PSP's editing ability for the converted RGB (TIFF) files is fine and you can use that without a problem.

Every time a raw file is opened and processed a camera input profile is required in the conversion process. When you buy raw conversion software and they support your camera, one of the things you get from them is a ready to go input profile (or two or more) supplied by their software engineers. With some of the less featured raw conversion software out there you have to live with what comes in the box. Better raw conversion software will let you build and install your own camera input profiles (can be a daunting task).

If you are finding the Pentax utility and PSP not giving you the results an/or features you want before you spend $$$ look at the free open source converters Raw Therapee, LightZone, and DarkTable (MAC).

Beyond that you can 30 day free trial most of the major products and I'm pretty familiar with most of them if you have further questions.

Joe


----------

