# Photo of the day



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 14, 2012)

Read up about spot metering and how it affects taking pictures in the snow and how I should bump my exposure to compensate. Also was playing with shutter speeds and paying little attention to aperture. Also paid attention to my histogram and tried to get it spot on. How does the exposure look?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 14, 2012)

Overall, it's not bad; I think the entire exposure could be increased slightly.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 14, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Read up about spot metering and how it affects taking pictures in the snow and how I should bump my exposure to compensate. Also was playing with shutter speeds and paying little attention to aperture. Also paid attention to my histogram and tried to get it spot on. How does the exposure look?



There's too much white n the right hand side which is unbalancing things.  it's certainly not underexposed.  You've cut off her hat and the crop is way too tight vertically and there is nothing in the right hand side of interest.  Did you get  a vertical (portrait) shot? A pity if you didn't as it's got atmosphere but would have been better had she been looking at the camera or if we could see who or what she is laughing at.  TRhe exposure does look better  but with so much white in the shot, it's difficult to see.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 14, 2012)

You consistently shoot in LANDSCAPE mode... horizontal format! For people (especially single subjects) try PORTRAIT mode... (i.e. turn the camera on it's side). Even if you don't FILL the frame.. it is still much more attractive. (and you really don't have to MAX out the frame on every shot! Leave a little room to breath)

The subject is still a little underexposed... even with the background slightly blown already. Shot vertically, you can avoid having so much of the blown out background in the scene.. more subject.. less background!


----------



## KmH (Jan 14, 2012)

That and it's too bad you don't seem to get it about the wide open (or near wide open) aperture and focus issue either.

2 stops smaller aperture is not 2 clicks on the wheel, if your camera is set to the default 1/3 stop per click. 2 clicks is only 2/3 of a stop down.

The minimum 2 full stops down is 6 clicks on the wheel.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 14, 2012)

KmH said:


> That and it's too bad you don't seem to get it about the wide open (or near wide open) aperture and focus issue either.
> 
> 2 stops smaller aperture is not 2 clicks on the wheel, if your camera is set to the default 1/3 stop per click. 2 clicks is only 2/3 of a stop down.
> 
> The minimum 2 full stops down is 6 clicks on the wheel.


 I was doing much with the aperture. I had it set in Shutter priority most of the time, a few with aperture priority and some in full auto mode just comparing the difference in the photos and I wanted to see what the camera would chose for those setting in full auto. I know how to view all the info on the camera but after I download them how can I go back to see what settings I had for each photo?


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 14, 2012)

Ok here's a couple more shots from today's shoot. Yes I did get some portrait shots but I do like the landscape shots of people, why is that bad? What do you think about the composition and exposure here.


----------



## CowgirlMama (Jan 14, 2012)

I would crop the first of those portrait, personally. It's just a lot of clutter on the left, nothing interesting and it takes the focus off your daughter. I think it's a really cute picture of her, though.


----------



## ang1995 (Jan 14, 2012)

I agree! And you have that pole and house in the background  But i really like it, its cute


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 14, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Ok here's a couple more shots from today's shoot. Yes I did get some portrait shots but I do like the landscape shots of people, why is that bad? What do you think about the composition and exposure here.



Shooting portraits in landscape orientation is done less as it's harder to avoid chopping bits off people without making them look too small in the frame.  It doesn't mean that it *never* works, but there needs yo be a reason to do it the other way.  Even in the portrait orientation shot above the girl is positioned too low in the shot and there is too much vacant space, and white on white is just causing you all sorts of contrast issues.  Why do you like shooting portraits in landscape orientation? What is it that you think you are getting from it.  I just want to understand your thought process on this.


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 14, 2012)

you crop that first one down and I think you have a winner. She's in focus and properly lit. Looks good.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 14, 2012)

TMBPhotography said:


> you crop that first one down and I think you have a winner. She's in focus and properly lit. Looks good.



If the shot had been done in portrait orientation there would have been no need to sacrifice IQ and image size.  To crop this so it works means reducing the size by c. 60%.


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 14, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> TMBPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > you crop that first one down and I think you have a winner. She's in focus and properly lit. Looks good.
> ...



yes but theres nothing I can do about that. so working with what I have, cropping it is the best option going forward.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 14, 2012)

TMBPhotography said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > TMBPhotography said:
> ...



I realise that, of course.  My point is that cropping it in post is a recovery option that has consequences: it limits your maximum print size: this one in particular by about 60%.  It can also effect how a shot is exposed and focussed, and that is why I am challenging Elizabeth about the use of landscape orientation.  Using landscape orientation is giving her more issues to do deal with and makes her DOF harder as the subject becomes smaller in the frame.  It's so much better to get it right in camera.  To do this, Elizabeth needs to know why she chooses to shoot this way and find ways where it can work and shoot differently so she can make her subject stand out better with fewer distractions.  

Personally I don't like the background in this shot in any case as it's too distracting: the fence chops the scene in pieces.  The fact that it's been thrown out of focus by a widish aperture (which one?) doesn't make it less distracting.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 14, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok here's a couple more shots from today's shoot. Yes I did get some portrait shots but I do like the landscape shots of people, why is that bad? What do you think about the composition and exposure here.
> ...



I'm going to try and put into words what I'm seeing and why I like this. First thing I see is that she is positioned in the right side of the photo and I like photos that have that extra area of landscape in it?? Does that make any sense? I also see that by cutting off half her body she looks closer and the background looks more interesting i think. I feel the need to get more of a story into my photos like what's going on around my subject and not just the subjects them selves and landscape gets way more scene into a photo. I hope some of this makes sense. It's hard to put into words.....


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 14, 2012)

all I did was crop it. I think it looks better. But thats just my opinion.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

Why didn't you just center her?

Or if you must off center, why did you put her on the left side?

Why chop her legs in favor of more space above her head?


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 14, 2012)

I put her eyes in the upper left quadrant of the RoT. I thought you guys don't like centered pics.


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 14, 2012)

is this better?


----------



## Ron Evers (Jan 14, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 14, 2012)

You seem to be putting a lot of obstacles in your own way inadvertently.
Shooting out in the snow where the light is mostly in the upper range with little in the way of shadows or nice distribution of tones - and is cold toned by definition is very difficult.  Additionally the very bright background competes with the girl for attention.

RULE 1: the brightest spot in a picture should either be the subject or be part of some design element. You don't want to attract the viewers' eyes from what you want them to look at.

If you don't understand histograms, read this







Now I think one can make this a bit better by
1) adding some more lower tones
2) lowering down the brightness and the focus of the backgrounds a bit
3) warming up the tones on the girl.






but you need to get to that later.

Shoot in more controlled situations where the light isn't fighting you.

Lew


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

TMBPhotography said:


> I put her eyes in the upper left quadrant of the RoT. I thought you guys don't like centered pics.



You have much learning to do, young grasshopper.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 14, 2012)

TMBPhotography said:


> I put her eyes in the upper left quadrant of the RoT. I thought you guys don't like centered pics.



I think what you don't realize.. is that YES.. we do like centered shots (WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE!)... and just using the ROTs because just you can, doesn't necessarily mean anything, or help the shot at all!


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> TMBPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I put her eyes in the upper left quadrant of the RoT. I thought you guys don't like centered pics.
> ...



Care to teach me the ways of the force, Obi-wan?


----------



## KmH (Jan 14, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> I do like the landscape shots of people, why is that bad?


Because it includes to much stuff in the frame that steals attention fom your intended main subject.

It also make your subject smaller in the frame giving the main subject less visual weight.

The #1 guideline in photography is 'Simplify'. Ensure your main subject doesn't have secondary, tertiary, or quantenary image elements competing for the viewers attention.

I suspect you've never taken an art appreciation class, or other any art classes for that matter.

Humans have been doing visual art for several thousand years now, and through those several thousand years have discovered which compositional guidelines work, or don't work.

Of course, you could spend the rest of your life re-doing several years of trial and error to rediscover a small portion of those guidelines on your own, or you could undertake a study of the visual arts and from those several thousand years of trial and error mistakes avoid the compositional pitfalls rather than repeating them.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

TMBPhotography said:


> all I did was crop it. I think it looks better. But thats just my opinion.


 


Bitter Jeweler said:


> Why didn't you just center her?
> 
> Or if you must off center, why did you put her on the left side?
> 
> Why chop her legs in favor of more space above her head?


 


TMBPhotography said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > TMBPhotography said:
> ...



Start here,



Photographic Composition - Introduction


Digital Photography Tips and Tutorials



Guidelines for Better Photographic Composition.


Photography Composition Articles Library


10 Top Photography Composition Rules | Photography Mad


Then buy/borrow books on composition. Not one or two. As many as you can. Then look at thousands of images, and drawings and paintings, assess how the information is applied, why it works, or why an image that you think breaks a rule follows others. 

You need to put the time in to learn. There are no magic apples, and no way to sum up years of experience, package it up nice, and post it here. Of course, you can post specific questions when the information confuses you.


----------



## rokvi (Jan 15, 2012)

There needs to be another point of interest then. If its the fence choose a diffeerent angle so the fence is going through the photo and change the D.O.F. maybe...


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

KmH said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > I do like the landscape shots of people, why is that bad?
> ...



Freaking snobbery. And wrong. Just plain wrong. Landscape mode is very useful in portraiture, it just takes a bit more attention to things to make sure it works well. 

There's nothing wrong with landscape portraits and I like what he's trying to do. A whole bunch of options exist to make that picture work better within the  Landscape mode, or maybe he can try square, with the subject on one side and something to try and build the magic triangle. Maybe he can try an aperture with a shallower DoF to bring more focus on the subject but still have some surrounding stuff. Maybe he can try fill flash. A lot of options for suggestions other than "you've obviously never taken an art class" which makes you sound like a boob.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 15, 2012)

Man, I just hate it when people use a difference in opinion as a chance to call someone else a name.

Why not just state you opinion and say why and assume that the facts will speak for themselves. Calling names just sets the stage for yet one more pissing content.

And the photographer receiving suggestions is a 'she' not a 'he'; I drew that inference from the name 'Elizabeth30'

One more thing, making an alteration and giving as the reason "i like it' or 'it looks better'  helps the OP not at all.


----------



## ph0enix (Jan 15, 2012)

Oh no, you di'int!  This is going to be funny.



vandal said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

Because people with pompous-ass attitudes and condescending tones deserve to have their bubbles of pseudo elitism popped, that's why. The OP could be an it for all I care.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...



Perhaps rather than name calling you could provide your own example of a portrait taken by you in landscape orientation to demonstrate what you mean.  That may show Elizabeth the way.  Very few of the landscape orientated shots posted have worked as there is too much dead OOF space.  As I have said, landscape orientation *CAN* work, but it must have a compositional reason or else it doesn't work very well.  Cutting off body parts to get a landscape orientation never works.  Keith isn't showing snobbery, just applying the principles.  Your self righteous attitude helps no-one.


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> vandal said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but I find it snobbish and condescending to say that someone has never taken an art class. My self righteousness helps me. Kind of the point, huh?

Kathleen Connally's Photoblog - Landscape & Portrait Photography :: Durham Portfolio


Brad Young Photography :: Professional Portrait and Landscape Photography


Fine Art Photography on Etsy - Abstract, portrait, landscape photography

Careful with the absolutes.


----------



## Ron Evers (Jan 15, 2012)

I looked @ the first link & found she has many of her models looking out of the frame rather than into it.  Rather offputting to me.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 15, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> Cutting off body parts to get a landscape orientation never works.



WHAT?? Not true!
Cheeky Smile | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Grace | Flickr - Photo Sharing!http://www.julia-franzosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/chicago-northshore-childrens-photographer.jpg
http://www.londonnewbornphotographe.../best_newborn_photographer_sevenoaks_kent.jpg


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

You guys seems to look at photos with a checklist and if something doesn't fit you summarily dismiss it. Sometimes a subject looking off can ruin flow. Sometimes not. But you dismiss the work because of it? She admits that her page has some that work and some that don't. But most of the portraits shot in landscape mode do work. And the ones that don't, have little to do with them being in landscape mode. 

If you want your photos to look like everyone else, go ahead and follow the pedantic rules. If you want a style, keep playing around until you find what works for you. No one else here likes it? Who cares.


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

Here's my advice:

"While most photographs don't aspire to be art, ultimately their value to us depends on something that art teaches us: direct emotional response. Develop that and, rather quickly, your gear and your expertise begin to feel a lot less important than your subject and your relationship to it. "

In the great postmodern tradition, however, it's not mine. I sampled it.


----------



## KmH (Jan 15, 2012)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/269733-educated-art-not-2.html



Bitter Jeweler said:


> My biggest peeve is all the talk of breaking rules, as if it's the holy grail. It's bull ****. It's ignorance. It's lack of understanding. And good photographers perpetuate it, which makes the mind boggle.
> 
> When you talk about an images succes, there is more to it than the art/composition side.
> Like you give examples of, MLeek, there is also the human element. There is the historic element. There is the STORY element. The emotional element. These can very often trump the importance of composition! Content can trump composition. BUT, an image can be successful, relying on composition alone!!!
> ...


The tools of the trade. Ya gotta know how they work to use them effectively.

Camera, lens, light, design, composition.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> If you want a style, keep playing around until you find what works for you. No one else here likes it? Who cares.



Then you and Elizabeth should stop posting for CC, and carry on inventing your "styles".

I don't understand how someone like Elizabeth, who doesn't really know much about composition, can post someone elses work and tell us that what they do is fine. If you can make those authoritaive judgements about someone elses work, you should be able to make those decisions about your own work, and again, *why bother posting here for CC*? Seeking validation?

Just because you link to someone who is selling their work, doesn't make it good. 
I can say this as I sit here repairing the sh!t work of another jeweler that has been in the business longer than I have.
People use him because he is cheaper than me.


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 15, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> You seem to be putting a lot of obstacles in your own way inadvertently.
> Shooting out in the snow where the light is mostly in the upper range with little in the way of shadows or nice distribution of tones - and is cold toned by definition is very difficult.  Additionally the very bright background competes with the girl for attention.
> 
> RULE 1: the brightest spot in a picture should either be the subject or be part of some design element. You don't want to attract the viewers' eyes from what you want them to look at.
> ...



Lew, how do you feel about that edit? Do you truly think that enhanced the photo?


----------



## MTVision (Jan 15, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> WHAT?? Not true!
> Cheeky Smile | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Grace | Flickr - Photo Sharing!http://www.julia-franzosa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/chicago-northshore-childrens-photographer.jpg
> http://www.londonnewbornphotographer.com/wp-content/gallery/rhyse/best_newborn_photographer_sevenoaks_kent.jpg



I only looked at the first 2 links but - even those aren't comparable to what you posted. 

You cut off a girl at the knees. You can chop body parts but you shouldn't do it at limbs. Also, the backgrounds aren't competing with the subject like yours are. You have bright white snow and some ugly Building/houses. You also have a fence cutting through the girls waist.  

Landscape can be fine but it has to add something or be part of the story. Shooting portrait would've gotten rid of all the ugly distractions like the buildings and telephone poles. You can't really point at someone else's work and say it worked for them. It didn't work for you this time and it didn't work in the other post when you were trying to get the crazy Lensbaby shots my4hens has taken.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...



And who are you? just curious?


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 15, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> vandal said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a style, keep playing around until you find what works for you. No one else here likes it? Who cares.
> ...



My apologies! I didn't mean any offence. I am very unskilled in the sense of taking the photos but I have looked at thousands, maybe millions and some of the best photographers have landscape shots without the whole body and I have never thought, "gee if only more of her head where there, or maybe her hand shouldn't be cut off" So I'm not skilled enough to critique anyone but BEFORE I started learning about photography I loved these types of photos and still do. Who are we trying to impress? Other photogs? OR isn't it more important to impress clients? 

You talk about rules.... well who made these "rules"? I have had so much conflicting advice in past few days I have no clue which way to go. The only certain advice that everyone has agreed on is learn the basics but after that? Isn't creativity a persons OWN UNIQUE style and tastes? I may like the way one film maker makes his movies and hate the other? 
If I take a great shot of my child and the focus is there, exposure is there, atmosphere, then the composition is the enhancer, it's art through the artists eyes. 
I really think there are some GREAT photogos here who have given great advice but I really really am serious about learning and it's so hard when I post one photo and have everyone argue about what the "rules" are and why or why not the photo works..... how do I know how is right?


----------



## jaicatalano (Jan 15, 2012)

don't listen to the too much white idea people have... Peter Hurley built a career off of pure white portrait backgrounds with subjects off center. He is one of the best in the biz.


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 15, 2012)

My first impression was I like the shot. Her eyes are clean and not hidden in shadows, her skin tone isn't bad (the shadow under her neck is a bit curious), her hat is amusing and well exposed. For the crop, yes didn't manage to get her feet into the shot, but you did avoid cutting her off at the knee which I find key (although you are close). I feel as though when you are cropping/chopping body parts, it's best to avoid joints; so a crop at the thigh to me is better than a crop at the knee. I probably would have brought it in just past the telephone pole.
For the background- I think the fence is perfectly fine, enjoy the color and the fresh snow that has fallen on it. The tree is the same and has good contrast to the red fence (feels very holiday).


If you had showed less snow people would have said it lacked context, if you had cropped tighter, they would have said it didn't have any breathing room. 

I just say if you are really just starting out and learning, this is not a bad go out in the snow.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 15, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok.......... is there a book, article or anything about "cutting off body parts" in composition...... becuase it's really confusing to hear someone say "NEVER cut off body parts in landscape" and then you say it's ok to cut off body parts just not limbs?? and I wasn't comparing my work to theirs in terms of anything other than the cut off bodies.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > vandal said:
> ...


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> I really think there are some GREAT photogos here who have given great advice but I really really am serious about learning and it's so hard when I post one photo and have everyone argue about what the "rules" are and why or why not the photo works..... how do I know how is right?



Well, you seem to keep "liking" the amatuer's who can't even produce consistently in focus shots, or consistent decent exposures.... hmm.... and you are going to listen to THEM? Or is that just because it justifies the style of shooting you seem to prefer?


----------



## MTVision (Jan 15, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> My apologies! I didn't mean any offence. I am very unskilled in the sense of taking the photos but I have looked at thousands, maybe millions and some of the best photographers have landscape shots without the whole body and I have never thought, "gee if only more of her head where there, or maybe her hand shouldn't be cut off" So I'm not skilled enough to critique anyone but BEFORE I started learning about photography I loved these types of photos and still do. Who are we trying to impress? Other photogs? OR isn't it more important to impress clients?
> 
> You talk about rules.... well who made these "rules"? I have had so much conflicting advice in past few days I have no clue which way to go. The only certain advice that everyone has agreed on is learn the basics but after that? Isn't creativity a persons OWN UNIQUE style and tastes? I may like the way one film maker makes his movies and hate the other?
> If I take a great shot of my child and the focus is there, exposure is there, atmosphere, then the composition is the enhancer, it's art through the artists eyes.
> I really think there are some GREAT photogos here who have given great advice but I really really am serious about learning and it's so hard when I post one photo and have everyone argue about what the "rules" are and why or why not the photo works..... how do I know how is right?



Learn about photography in other places then a forum. You've been given links to tons of compositional guidelines. Guidelines not rules BTW.  Buy a couple books....

I guarantee most people who look at photos don't notice or care that the hand is chopped in half or missing but the photographer would see that. 

Look up some good decent child photographers like 
Meg Bitton
 Andrea Joki
Lisa Lucky
Lisa Harrison is an amazing newborn photographer from Vermont who is one of the admins at Clickinmoms
PastelPhotography
Erin Cobb

I guarantee if you went to another forum you would hear all the same things about chopping limbs, composition, etc.  (some might be nicer about it).


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

jaicatalano said:


> don't listen to the too much white idea people have... Peter Hurley built a career off of pure white portrait backgrounds with subjects off center. He is one of the best in the biz.



YEA.. after many YEARS of experience and skill.. which Elizabeth30 does NOT HAVE... so how is your comment the least bit pertinent?


----------



## MTVision (Jan 15, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> Ok.......... is there a book, article or anything about "cutting off body parts" in composition...... becuase it's really confusing to hear someone say "NEVER cut off body parts in landscape" and then you say it's ok to cut off body parts just not limbs?? and I wasn't comparing my work to theirs in terms of anything other than the cut off bodies.



I meant to say not at the joints.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> Because people with pompous-ass attitudes and condescending tones deserve to have their bubbles of pseudo elitism popped, that's why. The OP could be an it for all I care.



wow... you don't sound POMPOUS at all, do you?


----------



## MTVision (Jan 15, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> Ok.......... is there a book, article or anything about "cutting off body parts" in composition...... becuase it's really confusing to hear someone say "NEVER cut off body parts in landscape" and then you say it's ok to cut off body parts just not limbs?? and I wasn't comparing my work to theirs in terms of anything other than the cut off bodies.



It was suppose to say not at the joints. 

Do some research on composition and cropping and you will probably find the answer. They didn't say you can never cut of body parts. You can but not at the joints.


----------



## Compaq (Jan 15, 2012)

Remember that the way we learn it to take it step by step. In maths, you first learn that in fractions, the nominator must be smaller than the denominator. Later, you learn that "no, it's very much possible for the nominator to be bigger than the denominator". And, as if that wasn't enough, later you learn that "holy cow, the nominator can even be it's own fraction, as can the denominator! Fraception!"


----------



## MTVision (Jan 15, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> Ok.......... is there a book, article or anything about "cutting off body parts" in composition...... becuase it's really confusing to hear someone say "NEVER cut off body parts in landscape" and then you say it's ok to cut off body parts just not limbs?? and I wasn't comparing my work to theirs in terms of anything other than the cut off bodies.



You have a picture of a girl obviously standing in the snow yet you cut off her lower legs. Why not chop it so the legs arent showing at all and get rid of the ground completely? In the links you posted - they were upper body shots without the half missing legs. I believe that is what was meant by "cutting off body parts to shoot in landscape never works."


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 15, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> <snip> OR isn't it more important to impress clients?


Wait! Are we talking $50/200photo clients?



> You talk about rules.... well who made these "rules"?


Actually, I don't talk about rules, other than that I hate the term because elements of design and composition *AREN'T RULES*.



> I have had so much conflicting advice in past few days I have no clue which way to go.


Of course you are getting conflicting information. This forum is largely uneducated hobbyists. Ya get whatcha pay for!





> The only certain advice that everyone has agreed on is learn the basics but after that?


After that? That's where YOU shine. Or fail. It depends what you get out of it, and how deep your understanding is.



> Isn't creativity a persons OWN UNIQUE style and tastes?


Unique? Everything you posted (links) looks about the same. It's the all the rage right now.
Thousands of moms with cameras are copying each other. I don't see anything very creative about that.
Uniqueness, newness, and departure from the norm is increasingly difficult as time passes. This day and age, that new unique thing gets distributed in a flash, and thousands latch onto it and copy it. Also creativity itself doesn't speak to taste. They are two seperate animals.
Creativity has to do with how you think, taste is about how you respond.




> I may like the way one film maker makes his movies and hate the other?


Yeah?




> If I take a great shot of my child and the focus is there, exposure is there, atmosphere, then the composition is the enhancer, it's art through the artists eyes.


Yes, use of composition can make or break your perfectly focused, perfectly exposed image. But perfect exposure, and perfect focus does not make a successfull image alone. Further, poorly focused, poorly exposed images can have greater success when they are very well composed. Even a step further, an image with poor technique, and poor composition, can also survive on emotional impact. But the latter has to be pretty powerful. They are all tools at your disposal. When they all come together, they can make a pretty outstanding image.




> I really think there are some GREAT photogos here who have given great advice but I really really am serious about learning and it's so hard when I post one photo and have everyone argue about what the "rules" are and why or why not the photo works..... how do I know how is right?


 You don't, really. You can look at the work of those giving the advice, and weigh that. You can look at the $100k a year seller on Etsy and weigh that. But don't confuse making money with excellence. There is a big combination of things involved in that. (Derrel, care to insert your McDonalds analogy?)

How do you know what is right? You learn eveything you can. You listen to what everyone has to say, and you make judgements on that from your gut based on YOUR interpretation of everything you have heard and learned. But until you gain a deep understanding, what are your judgements based on? Currently they seem to be based on what others are doing, and not your own creative instincts.

So many of you come here and want to make a business out of photography, and it seems you want to be able to do it by next week.
Is that how all the great people became great? Were they great within a year of picking up a camera, or paintbrush, or pencil for the first time? You are lucky though. Portrait photography has one thing that many other art related businesses can't depend on. Emotional attachment to the subject, no matter how poorly portrayed. Easy win.


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> vandal said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a style, keep playing around until you find what works for you. No one else here likes it? Who cares.
> ...



I've never posted for CC


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> vandal said:
> 
> 
> > Because people with pompous-ass attitudes and condescending tones deserve to have their bubbles of pseudo elitism popped, that's why. The OP could be an it for all I care.
> ...



That was kind of the point. Miss subtleties much?


----------



## manaheim (Jan 15, 2012)

TMBPhotography said:
			
		

> I put her eyes in the upper left quadrant of the RoT. I thought you guys don't like centered pics.



Oh gawd...


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > vandal said:
> ...



Maybe you should... back up your mouth with your work???


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > vandal said:
> ...



No.. not usually.. but you weren't being subtle!


----------



## vandal (Jan 15, 2012)

Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.



I never attacked "your work".... merely said that you should post some photos, to show us that you have some credibility when making statements like you have been making! 



vandal said:


> Because people with pompous-ass attitudes and  condescending tones deserve to have their bubbles of pseudo elitism  popped, that's why. The OP could be an it for all I care.



For all we know, you are all mouth, with nothing to back it up! As far as me being a dick.. well, I don't deal well with bull$hit... so put up or shut up!


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 15, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly what I meant. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough, Elizabeth. You can go against the 'rules' or guidance, once you understand the rules/guidelines.  There has to be a reason.  Looking at a shot where there is lots of wasted space around and yet the body is cut off just makes it look like a mistake was made.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > vandal said:
> ...


Which of these is yours?  I asked for your examples of your own photos where you can demonstrate how it works.  It's easy to make judgements isn't it when you don't put your own images out for judgement.  Elizabeth has at least stuck her images out there to be looked at.  I wasn't talking absolutes.  If someone has used aperture to make something OOF, it means it's not the focal point.  Since when should what is not the focal point take up 60+% of the shot?  Sometimes, but not usually this will be the case, but not in these shots.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:
			
		

> Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.



Seems like you were the one who started calling others snobs and such. I believe people are (understandably) trying to determine if you're an edgy expert we should pay attention to, or just another Internet blowhard.

The longer you take to back up your words the more weight you put on the latter half of the scale.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 15, 2012)

vandal said:


> Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.


Wow, you just came here to be a colossal ass, didn't you? You launched by calling basically anyone who is trying to teach a newbie who wants to learn the basic guidelines a snob. Then calling Charlie a dick for pushing back at you being an ass. Wow. 
Gotta love the internet for trolls.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> vandal said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My vote!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 15, 2012)

My guess is that vandal has vandal-ized and departed.


----------



## KmH (Jan 15, 2012)

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman10262l.jpg


----------



## JustinZ850 (Jan 15, 2012)

I had to go grab a bag of popcorn at page 2, carry on


----------



## manaheim (Jan 15, 2012)

I _hate _it when I throw down and they run away.

I mean, I know it's because basically the dude pretty much realized he just got kicked in the groin and has pretty much nothing he could possibly say at this point without making himself look like a total [deleted], but still... I like to see 'em try.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 16, 2012)




----------



## ph0enix (Jan 16, 2012)

MLeeK said:


>



I'm not a fan of the lighting in that one


----------



## greybeard (Jan 16, 2012)

Hi Elizabeth30,
1st of all, it looks like you have gotten metering in the snow down.  I like your exposure just fine.  Any little problems can always be corrected post production. Back before all this fancy "through the lens, spot metering, etc. etc. we would use a hand held meter, check the scene and add 2 stops more exposure, worked like a charm. 

  Becoming a better photographer is a process.  Everybody starts out learning the basics of their camera and how it works.  Looks like that is exactly what you are doing.  Not that you can't be working on composition and lighting while you are working on understanding the camera, it should definitely be and is your 1st priority.  Metering for me has always meant having enough light on  the main subject.  Most meters calculate exposure to an average of neutral gray.  That is why your snow will come out gray and you subject too dark if you don't compensate or use spot metering. 

 Mastering depth of field or I like to call it DEPTH OF FOCUS (DoF) is another very important camera technique you should read up on.  It lets YOU control how much of the scene in front of and behind of the main subject is in acceptable focus.  To over simplify it, bigger numbered f stops like 11,16,22 mean deep DoF   and smaller number f stops  like 2.8, 4, mean shallower DoF.  There are other important factors that play into DoF but that is the start of it.  

good luck and keep pushing that button 


Corrections added about the f-stop numbers.

small f-stop numbers means a big opening letting a lot of light and shallow Dof
larger f-stop numbers means a smaller opening letting in less light and a deeper Dof


----------



## Compaq (Jan 16, 2012)




----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 16, 2012)

greybeard said:


> Hi Elizabeth30,1st of all, it looks like you have gotten metering in the snow down.  I like your exposure just fine.  Any little problems can always be corrected post production. Back before all this fancy "through the lens, spot metering, etc. etc. we would use a hand held meter, check the scene and add 2 stops more exposure, worked like a charm.   Becoming a better photographer is a process.  Everybody starts out learning the basics of their camera and how it works.  Looks like that is exactly what you are doing.  Not that you can't be working on composition and lighting while you are working on understanding the camera, it should definitely be and is your 1st priority.  Metering for me has always meant having enough light on  the main subject.  Most meters calculate exposure to an average of neutral gray.  That is why your snow will come out gray and you subject too dark if you don't compensate or use spot metering.  Mastering depth of field or I like to call it DEPTH OF FOCUS (DoF) is another very important camera technique you should read up on.  It lets YOU control how much of the scene in front of and behind of the main subject is in acceptable focus.  To over simplify it, bigger f stops like 11,16,22 mean deep DoF and small f stops  like 2.8, 4, mean shallower DoF.  There are other important factors that play into DoF but that is the start of it.  good luck and keep pushing that button


Not trying to nitpick but f stops 11, 16, 22 are small stops and f/2.8, 4 are large stops. One of the main lessons is understanding that the numbers are fractions of the focal length. A 1/4 is much larger than 1/22nd. It's an important definition as stopping down has a different effect to stopping up. It also helps to define DOF


----------



## Compaq (Jan 16, 2012)

A stop is a stop - a measure that's convenient. There aren't large stops, and there aren't small stops. "2 stops" could mean anything - going from f/2 to f/4, or going from f/22 to f/16. What you're talking about is the aperture. Though their sizes are relative. f/4 might be a "large" aperture for a super tele, but not very large for a 50mm prime.

(some of the apprx) f#s:

1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22

For example: f/4 are found thus

f/4 = f * (1/(sqrt(2)^4), f being the focal length

the f-number can be used to calculate the opening of the lens


As you see, tele lenses need a much bigger opening to be termed an "f/4" lens than smaller focal length lenses. That's part of why they're expensive: more high quality glass.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 16, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Elizabeth30,1st of all, it looks like you have gotten metering in the snow down.  I like your exposure just fine.  Any little problems can always be corrected post production. Back before all this fancy "through the lens, spot metering, etc. etc. we would use a hand held meter, check the scene and add 2 stops more exposure, worked like a charm.   Becoming a better photographer is a process.  Everybody starts out learning the basics of their camera and how it works.  Looks like that is exactly what you are doing.  Not that you can't be working on composition and lighting while you are working on understanding the camera, it should definitely be and is your 1st priority.  Metering for me has always meant having enough light on  the main subject.  Most meters calculate exposure to an average of neutral gray.  That is why your snow will come out gray and you subject too dark if you don't compensate or use spot metering.  Mastering depth of field or I like to call it DEPTH OF FOCUS (DoF) is another very important camera technique you should read up on.  It lets YOU control how much of the scene in front of and behind of the main subject is in acceptable focus.  To over simplify it, bigger f stops like 11,16,22 mean deep DoF and small f stops  like 2.8, 4, mean shallower DoF.  There are other important factors that play into DoF but that is the start of it.  good luck and keep pushing that button
> ...




oops  I knew that........senior moment..


----------

