# Amateur needing lots of feedback :P



## ksven (Jan 15, 2008)

Well. This is the first time I've ever used a 35mm canon rebel. And im not to thrilled with how the pictures I took came out. Hearing adivce and tips to make them better would be great. I still have a longgg way to go until I get good, professional looking pictures. thanks.

Dial up is really slow. So im only putting up four. Pathetic, huh? 
​ 1






2





3





4


----------



## ksven (Jan 15, 2008)

Bump.

p.s. The camera im using is a canon eos rebel II with a 35-105mm lens.

Im getting another lens next month, any suggestions?
feedback would be nice. :]


----------



## ksven (Jan 15, 2008)

hm. 37 views and no help yet. :/ 
maybe i should change the title to
free money.
or something of that nature.


----------



## heinzsoup (Jan 15, 2008)

If it makes you feel any better I'm having the same poor luck on the nature/landscapes board.....and it's making me feel awful.  I would help you, but I am equally as new.....


----------



## kundalini (Jan 15, 2008)

Free money? Sign me up.  Don't be discouraged about the views or non responses.  It happens.

#1 - The highlights are overexposed and makes it hard to see what your subject is.  The refraction of the icicle on the wall is interesting.  Perhaps you could have concentrated on that.

#2 - The tree truncks are lacking detail (could be intentional) but the tangle of tree limbs doesn't give my eyes anything to focus on or want to travel through the image.

#3 - As an abstract, this works pretty well.  I think your color balance might need tweaking though.

#4 - The sunrise blow out all the detail in the lower left which is likely why there is not much detail on the right.

Be mindful of where to meter your shot for correct exposure and how you compose.

Keep taking lots and lots of photos.  Concentrate on composition and exposure.  Have fun, ask loads of question and keep posting your results.  Good luck.


----------



## ksven (Jan 15, 2008)

Thanks. Im still learning about the meters and all that good stuff.


----------



## ksven (Jan 15, 2008)

Critism welcomed again. hah.


----------



## That One Guy (Jan 15, 2008)

ksven-
hello and welcome aboard. 

first i am NOT an expert here. there are many others here who are way better than i am.

look on amazon.com for a book called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. I highly recommend it as will many others.

Being a film user ( i assume you are since you said "35mm rebel") you are at somewhat of a disadvantage to a DSLR user because you don't get the "instant report" on how your photo turned out. I too started with film and it didn't take me long to see the advantages of digital.
Advantages like:
-The learning curve being tipped in your favor by the instant report.
-You can shoot all day and night for free. 
-Make a bad exposure? no problem. just delete it and shoot again.
-Want to see how it would look in b&w? no problem. just change the parameters. or vice versa.
and many many others.

Film is alot cheaper to get into but harder to learn. many variables can affect film that are not easy to correct on the jobsite. even the film that you use can have an impact on your photo. film speed, film type,lab, etc all play a part in your photo. this is why it is VERY important that you read Understanding Exposure. 

Photography is about many technical things. it is also about interpretation of a subject. if 10 of us all went and shot the same flower, you could quite possibly see ten different "takes" of that same flower under the same conditions. no one is right and no one is wrong. it's just our individual 'takes" of how the subject should be represented and how the story should be told.


TIP: for now try shooting in "automatic" modes until you become more familiar with your camera.

Remember this: no photographer shoots 100 pictures and has 100 keepers. most of them will be crap. 

Good luck and keep shooting!!!  

ps- if you need more detailed help, i will try


----------



## SierraBravo (Jan 15, 2008)

Ksven - suggest picking up the book titled "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. Really a must-have.


----------



## That One Guy (Jan 15, 2008)

something else......
don't get discouraged and don't give up!

you have chosen to make an investment in not only equipment but more importantly an investment in the creative side of you.

TIP: try taking the shot from different angles and watch how the light falls on the subject. would the shot look better in the morning? the evening? at a low angle? at a high angle? from the south? from the north? etc. 

learn the rules of photography and then break those rules!

keep shooting and keep posting


----------



## am_photoer (Jan 15, 2008)

I have a 35mm canon rebel K2, no digital. And I'll tell you that you aren't at a disadvantage learning from someone using a digital.  So don't worry about equipment :er:.

Just think about everything you are doing.  Especially try and experiment--the scientific way that is.  Isolate something you want to work with.  Angles was a good suggestion, try and go for 'easier' circumstances light highlight and good weather.  Flowers and parks can be a good way to learn about depth of field.

We all know that film is expensive, and you didn't say which kind you are using.  But in my experience Kodak Gold is great for casual shooting and only like $10 for 5 rolls.

I think the biggest part of learning though is not being afraid and going to places that are picturesque.  Check the news, local sites.  Festivals of any kind are good places.  Ballooning, hiking, do something where you can see the shot in your head and not trying to pull for something that isn't really there... makes sense? i'm tired


----------



## TATTRAT (Jan 16, 2008)

#3 is the only thing I can distinguish. I like it.

The rest are iffy for me, just out of focus all over and over exposed, but that is just my opinion. I am sure here are those that think the same of my shots. To each their own. 

Keep on shooting.


----------



## Sontizzle (Jan 16, 2008)

i am not familiar with the 35mm rebel but it looks like to me you are not focusing at all or you have really bad shaking. i kno with my DSLR i push the shutter button down half way to focus and then all the way down to take the picture. the last picture u posted looks like you focused on the tree trunk but it looks under exposed.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 16, 2008)

Well, one little bit of help I am trying to give you by moving your post WITH PHOTOS out of The Beginners' Place and into the General Gallery, since you want comments and critique on your PHOTOS, and are not asking a simple question.

The Beginners' Place is a Q&A-forum for questions any newcomer to the hobby might have.

The galleries are open for ANYONE. Newcomers to the forums. Beginners to this wonderful pasttime. Seasoned amateur photographers, professional photographers, long standing members of TPF. Just everyone. OK?


----------



## Battou (Jan 16, 2008)

You are shooting film wich means you are also scanning an image to digitalize, Correct? 

How are you scanning ? Negitive or flatbedding the print?

Judging by what I can see I have to assume you are placing the prints into a flatbed scanner and scanning them. Am I correct in this assumption?

What scanner are you using?

Doing it this way you loose twenty five to thirty percent of your color saturation and also requires a little bit of USM to get close to the prints quality (from my experiance).

It is very clear you are working on learning how to work with the meter and shutter speeds as all the images appear to be either over exposed or under exposed and yet I can see the shutter speed was adjusted. This is good, it shows that you are trying to figure it out.

TIP: for any shot using a shutter speed less than 1/30 (the lower the number the longer the shutter is open) use a tripod or some stable surface to place the camera on to eliminate shake.

I use a Canon EF (wich is drastically outdated in comparison to your camera body) So I am un able to help you understand your meter as I don't know how it is displayed in the camera, but from here it would appear you may be reading it ok and just metering spots that are not the best for the overall image, but I can't be sure untill I know how you got them on the computer.


----------



## ksven (Jan 16, 2008)

ohhh. im so confused when the scanning comes in. Yeah, all im doing is just putting them on and scanning. believe it or not, these were better scanned then when I first did it. But they still lost a lot. i have a photo editor, i just dont like altering film.  im using a lexmark everyday scanner. nothing fancy. How would i scan them better? any ideas  im completley dull when it comes to this, but im learning. :]


----------



## Battou (Jan 16, 2008)

ksven said:


> ohhh. im so confused when the scanning comes in. Yeah, all im doing is just putting them on and scanning. believe it or not, these were better scanned then when I first did it. But they still lost a lot. i have a photo editor, i just dont like altering film.  im using a lexmark everyday scanner. nothing fancy. How would i scan them better? any ideas  im completley dull when it comes to this, but im learning. :]



I'm the same way, I don't like altering my pictures either but when using a consumergrade flatbed scanner you are loosing color due to the glass, this is why they look as faded as they do. 

Using photoediting software to to match or get as close as possible to the print does not count as altering merely making it more accurate. 

There is a better way to scan but I get the impression you are not redy to spring for a film capible scanner, so what you could do is use to editing software you have and try to best match the print for right now, and you can look into improving scanners later on. With a more accurate representation of what you are holding in your hand print wise people will be better able to help correct the issues.

Depending on what software you have will likely determine who helps too so, what photo editer do you have?

I know so many questions with so few answers but kinda sorta need these things to be of the most use.

*EDIT*
I am predominately film and went threw a lot of this my self, as I am sure a good handfull of others have as well.

When I come in to work later tonight I'll show you the difference and just how the scanner is effecting what we see.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 16, 2008)

Oh, how I know about the flaws of flatbed scanners. My newest one (over 3 years old) is even equipped with a negative and slide scanning device, but has long lost its ability to properly scan negatives, and also its scanning prints is questionable, to put it mildly. 

So anytime I prepare analog photos for web-presentation (i.e. digitalise them), I have to work on them with post processing software so they come AT LEAST *close* to what the print looks like. (I know, of course, that also the way the PRINT looks is the big lab's "interpretation" done by their automated printing). 

Anyhow, what I mean to say is: when you digitalise your analog photos, you have to work on them in PP. An example for my own difficulties and frustrations can be found in this_old_thread_of_mine (in case you are interested, it is a longer read).


----------



## That One Guy (Jan 16, 2008)

I wasn't trying to be harsh by saying you would be at a disadvantage by using film. I just meant that the benefit of the instant report that digital offers can help quite a bit when you are first learning.

I still shoot film and have no plans of stopping any time soon.

As far as scanning goes......does your local lab offer photos on CD? they will turn out better than using a flatbed scanner.


----------



## ksven (Jan 16, 2008)

Battou: The photo editor I have is called ulead. came with an older camera I had, and its pretty good. I mean, its nowhere near photoshop or anything but its decent.


----------



## rob91 (Jan 16, 2008)

I'm really diggin your style. #2 especially, green sky, dark branches and some sweet grain. It has a great mood. I have no idea what that really fuzzy one is, looks like a dog?

Your most recent one reminds me of a horror film. Maybe the Blair Witch Project.

Great stuff, keep shooting.


----------



## ksven (Jan 16, 2008)

rob91 said:


> I'm really diggin your style. #2 especially, green sky, dark branches and some sweet grain. It has a great mood. I have no idea what that really fuzzy one is, looks like a dog?
> 
> Your most recent one reminds me of a horror film. Maybe the Blair Witch Project.
> 
> Great stuff, keep shooting.



Hah. The fuzzy one isnt a dog. Its an insence burning, and the smoke was all captured like that. Long shutter speed captured it. I retook it on another roll more stable. But I havnt developed it. Thanks for the comments.


----------



## Happy Hour (Jan 16, 2008)

Ok from what I see in your pictures do not go and buy another lens yet! buy a book called Understanding exposure By Bryan Peterson. I can garuntee you that your pictures will improve 200% after reading this relatively short book I read it in one night! but a monkey can understand his mistakes after reading this book. It not only shows you how to adjust for your shot the right way, it gives you pictures as references,and even Projects to do along with the book!!! The author also has 3 other books that are all great as well!! I was Talking to the editor yesterday and he advised me not to even bother with his book understanding digital, for it is already outdated! but from what I see in your pics it is a very simple solution and that all has to do with understanding exposure!best of luck!


----------



## Battou (Jan 16, 2008)

That One Guy said:


> As far as scanning goes......does your local lab offer photos on CD? they will turn out better than using a flatbed scanner.



That is a double edged sword, sharp enough to the point of saying it's a bad idea. Most places that offer the Photo CD only offer it in the higher processing options (I.E. Kodak Perfect Touch and what not). With these processes the processors literally go threw and compensate and/or correct issues in exposure. Wile yes they will provide a very good digitalization of ones photo the corrections that have been done completely negate the possibility of finding and correcting the issues the one behind the camera is making.

In other words you can't fix it if you don't know it's broken. If one just wants nice prints for family memories that is fine, but for anyone wanting to learn the camera and the facets of photography for internet display, their best bet is to go with standard prints and digitalize the images them selves and learn from some bad looking prints.




ksven said:


> Battou: The photo editor I have is called ulead. came with an older camera I had, and its pretty good. I mean, its nowhere near photoshop or anything but its decent.



Oh dear, I've never even heard of it, let alone using it. Not knowing the software I can't be of much help in that department.

But as promised here is the picture I said I would bring.

One was scanned with a Canon dedicated film scanner and the other the print placed in my HP all in one and scanned. Both images have been left as they came out of the scanner with the exception of the resize, That was done by PB's autoresizer (in other words I never opened them in editing software).

Film scan





Print scan




Digital pic of print






These demonstrate the difference between the two types of scanning, as you can see there is no way for me to make this one hundred percent accurate to what I actually captured but I can try to get it very close to the print itself with some saturation and maybe some unsharp masking, atleast for the subject. Knowing the drawback to a consumer grade flatbed scanner is going to be of great use to you at the time being though. Now that you know there is a difference basically you are going to have to hold the print up to the monitor and work the image as close as possible to it by visual comparison. You can get by this way until you are ready, serious enough or have the money to spend the money on a scanner equipped with a negative and slide scanning device or even a dedicated film/slide scanner. 

This image also shows something you are going to want to know, commercial print labs tend to print to a medium grey instead of black at times, thoroughly blowing out the sky, but not always, it depends on who is running the machine.




As That One Guy, SierraBravo and Happy Hour all said Pick up that book and don't let these minor setbacks get you down, we have all gone threw the process of incorrect exposures....any one who says otherwise is a lying pile of auto settings.


----------



## LaFoto (Jan 17, 2008)

Battou said:


> *scanned with a Canon dedicated film scanner*


 
Oh. Wow!
I want one. NOW!
That might make me use the Leica more, and also use film more... wow! The scan is goooooooood!

Sorry, ksven, this has nothing to do with your thread, but I needed to get this off my chest.


----------



## Battou (Jan 17, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> Oh. Wow!
> I want one. NOW!
> That might make me use the Leica more, and also use film more... wow! The scan is goooooooood!
> 
> Sorry, ksven, this has nothing to do with your thread, but I needed to get this off my chest.



Yeah and think of this.....Mine is fairly mediokre and got mixed reviews and has issues in comparison to some of the scanners I have seen in use around here. But it's compatible with my OS at home one of the first ones I found that was.


http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/c...rs/film-scanners/canon/PRD_84539_3126crx.aspx


----------



## ksven (Jan 17, 2008)

Well thanks again guys. I'll look into getting one after I figure out the camera settings and such first. 

Thanks again :]


----------



## ksven (Jan 17, 2008)

Happy Hour said:


> Ok from what I see in your pictures do not go and buy another lens yet! buy a book called Understanding exposure By Bryan Peterson. I can garuntee you that your pictures will improve 200% after reading this relatively short book I read it in one night! but a monkey can understand his mistakes after reading this book. It not only shows you how to adjust for your shot the right way, it gives you pictures as references,and even Projects to do along with the book!!! The author also has 3 other books that are all great as well!! I was Talking to the editor yesterday and he advised me not to even bother with his book understanding digital, for it is already outdated! but from what I see in your pics it is a very simple solution and that all has to do with understanding exposure!best of luck!




Okay. I ordered this book from walmart.com just about a half hour ago. I'll let you guys know what I think after I read it.
Im excited, hah. Thanks again everybody. All your comments have given me a lot of inspiration to keep going and work through the bumps.


----------



## That One Guy (Jan 17, 2008)

ksven said:


> Okay. I ordered this book from walmart.com just about a half hour ago. I'll let you guys know what I think after I read it.
> Im excited, hah. Thanks again everybody. All your comments have given me a lot of inspiration to keep going and work through the bumps.



you are welcome! i still have bumps so don't worry about it. no one takes perfect pictures all of the time and if they say they do they are full of s#@!

keep shooting......


----------



## Happy Hour (Jan 17, 2008)

ksven said:


> Okay. I ordered this book from walmart.com just about a half hour ago. I'll let you guys know what I think after I read it.
> Im excited, hah. Thanks again everybody. All your comments have given me a lot of inspiration to keep going and work through the bumps.


just keep practicing! The more you shoot the better you get! and don't worry about any screwup! We all have them, and some of them turn out to be a better pic than you were looking for in the first place.good luck and have fun reading your new book


----------



## ksven (Jan 18, 2008)

New photos. What'cha think?
1






2

2





3


----------



## SpaceNut (Jan 18, 2008)

Never give up!


----------



## Happy Hour (Jan 19, 2008)

ummm... Have you read understanding exposure? these all look way over exposed.


----------

