Photographers: What Went Wrong? Help me out on this one. (1126 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: 0.93 on 60 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by shadow (View user info) at 2007-09-28 10:51:18 EDT
OK Über, here's the scoop: I have this friend, the kind of friend that was very lousy for a very long time but finally quit drugs, went back to school and got her life together. Good for her I say, I encourage this. So she wants to be a photographer, and I want to be a writer, and she wants us to be a team! Yeah, it's cute... and ghey. Whatever. She volunteered to do all of the photography for my upcoming book and it's graphic novel (The book will be in print by JUNE, that is my promise) for the paltry price of a by-line on the credit page. I took that deal.
Long story short: I've lived in many a place, and traveled all over the world, so when my friend, let's call her Lynn, said she wanted to take pictures of abandoned buildings and such (she got a kick out of LostAmerica.com) I knew exactly where to go. I told her to grab her gear and we packed it up for a day of ABSOLUTELY LAWFUL PHOTOGRAPHY.
Anywho, about two weeks ago I took her to the all-too-quickly developing stretch of narrow highways and forgotten back roads that span the river-cut land between Fredericksburg and Richmond, VA. This area is rife with dead homeowners and unstable property values, leaving acre after acre of abandoned ground. The land is slow to rezone and fast to become overgrown with native vegetation, leaving the old houses, shops and warehouses to crumble, tumble, and eventually fall all of their own accord. Lynn wanted to do a combination of daytime and nighttime shots, using techniques she had read about online. Unfortunately the results were.... terrible. See below for examples.
Now I've dabbled in many an art form, and I've gone as far as having some of my work (sketch, pen&ink and photos) displayed in local spots like libraries and such, but I am certainly no expert in photography. During this trip I did not break out my own camera because I didn't want to steal Lynn's thunder, and I regret that decision. I need to know what went wrong and how to fix it because tomorrow I'm on the road again to investigate an abandoned church and she wants to come with to do the photography. I need good, clean, reliable shots to bring back for my research, not the garbled mess of color and light below.
If you have any tips, advice or comments on technique, film speed, etc. PLEASE drop a comment below. I need all the help I can get. (It should also be noted that of the 145 pictures she took in Baltimore with me for the graphic novel, only 7 were usable. At the time I figured it was my being too choosy, but in hindsight I have to say that most of the photos were, in fact, utter shite.)
Thank You, Gentle Über-ers, God Speed to Your Weekend Debauchery!
User Reviews
Submitted by ShapeShifter (user info) at 2007-10-01 11:47:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/112120#2540543
Submitted by semperfatuus (user info) at 2007-09-30 21:57:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and if you're looking for a cheap functional camera. Check out the Nikon N90s. No longer made, but it's pretty good.
Submitted by semperfatuus (user info) at 2007-09-30 21:55:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It seems as if she doesn't really know how to use her camera.
The ones where it looks as if there is a "ghost" image can be attributed to the lack of a tripod, and the camera shaking when she pressed/held the shutter.
When things are just blurry, it probably has to do with either her not being able to correctly manually focus or not using the autofocus correctly on her camera.
The light stripes could be from the lens, but it almost looks as if she didn't load the film correctly and it was bunched up over the shutter. (High spots get more light, low spots get less..) I'm not even sure how you could do that, but this makes sense if they're only on pictures from one roll.
There is really no sense to her composition. Also, she doesn't really employ any kind of strategic use of depth of field. It looks as if she bought a brand new fancy camera and decided to play photographer with it, at your expense.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-30 21:30:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
...but it does look sexy.
I've gotten some pretty decent photos with my crappy cameras, but I'm not in line to become a photographer myself, perhaps when I have a bit more "disposable" income I'll pick one of those up.
i do appreciate all of the advice though, the little adventure that created these photographic abominations was more experimental than anything else. While I don't mind spending a few hours helping out a friend, I hate wasting time and money, so I wanted to come back to the project with usable information.
With that in mind, I thank you, the denizens of ubersite, for tossing in your intelligent two cents.
Here's too you. And Pumpking cheesecake. And Traminete wine.
This has been a good weekend.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-30 21:17:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-09-30 18:07:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/
buy this
and a tripod
___________________
I'm probably sharing way too much information here, but that camera would cost me THREE MONTHS OF MY CURRENT SHITTY SALARY.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-09-30 18:07:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/
buy this
and a tripod
and have a long think about lighting - coz it'll make your life miserable trying to shoot like this. You need a big aperture to get anything in this.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-09-30 16:59:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
GO PHILS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-09-30 10:23:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Kick your fried in the cunt and sell her camera and buy her some smack. Then but a $100 dollar camera and take better pictures yourself, these are so bad I'm not even going to start on them.
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2007-09-28 20:47:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The last pic wasn't so bad, but tell her how the others could be improved.
"I didn't want to steal Lynn's thunder, and I regret that decision."- a +2 to the first person who knows where that phrase came from.
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2007-09-28 18:45:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I've got a DiMAGE A200 but it pretty much sucks. Until I can afford to get like a Mark II or something I'm just sticking with my old film Rebel. The DiMAGE hasn't taken a single incredible picture but the Rebel's taken hundreds.
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2007-09-28 18:29:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Digital IS cheating. Never forgegt that.
But, if you're going to cheat, cheat to win.
Submitted by triangle_man (user info) at 2007-09-28 18:22:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I have an old Rolie with a ziess lense and a tripod. Use a shutter release button and the timer.
Shoot a roll or two with low speed film through a big hole (ask schlongy).
if you go digital you'll have to pay a bit more for a decent camera.
practice makes adequate
Submitted by ChaosJester (user info) at 2007-09-28 18:11:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Awww, Em.
I'm tired of fighting.
Can we kiss and make up?
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-09-28 18:06:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Hey I always thought you made your photos uglier somhow CJ!
Submitted by ChaosJester (user info) at 2007-09-28 18:02:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I know fuck-all about photography (as my camwhores and trip picks undoubtedly prove).
Still, you WILL let me know when your novel comes out or I will...will...will write a NASTY post about you and make fun of you and everything.
...Wish I had more to say.
:(
Submitted by beer-turtle (user info) at 2007-09-28 17:07:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Tripod is her first problem.
Correct exposure time is another.
Fancy Nikons do indeed have timers. My fancy Nikon (film not digital) did and it takes great snaps.
I did some fun stuff in the darkroomn to my shots too.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 16:08:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Good good good!
Okay, the talley goes:
Use higher quality, higher speed film
timer is a must
plantlife + night = blurry
Brightness will dictate shutter timer
practice practice practice
take more time to set shots and take more shots
Hire the ghost of Ray Charles
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2007-09-28 15:42:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Combo of all factors.
Try a higher speed film for night shots (I don't shoot anything slower than 400 at night and outside of an urban area at night wont go under 800). Use a tripod for any shutter speed slower than 60. Also it looks like the focus is off on most of those - she just needs to take more care in getting the subject in clear focus.
The flashlight painting technique is tricky and will take a lot of tries to get it right.
I'd say have her work on the things above and take twice as many shots as you think you need, using different techniques - that way you will have a greater chance of getting useable shots.
Also, keep in mind - If I go to shoot a subject, I will normally shoot between 2 and 4 (36 exp) rolls and most of the time I will get between 18 and 36 useable shots...and I know what Im doing...
Submitted by street-pirate (user info) at 2007-09-28 15:32:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The light stripes in the images look like they're from light leaks; some part of the camera or lens is cracked and lets in light from somewhere else than the front of the lens. Since it doesn't show up on all shots, I'm guessing it's from the lens. Have a repair shop check it out.
----------------------------------------
She held the button, apparently fancy Nikkons don't come with timers...
------------------------------------------
That mode is called bulb, a mode that requires you to hold down the shutter button from the entire length of the exposure. You simply cannot use that mode without a remote control.
Her nikon probably has a timer that doesn't go longer than 30 secs, which is why she used bulb.
BTW; trees in night scenes will almost always be blurry because of the wind.
You don't have to use fast film for shooting at night, since film has little long exposure grain, and will let you use very long exposure time without problem. People have made sharp half-hour exposures.
------------------------
is there a ratio of film speed to exposure time? Some kind of rule of thumb for when to use what speed?
Like 1sec/200speed 7sec/800speed? That would be useful.
-----------------------
No. That entirely depends on how bright the scene is.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 15:16:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Amontillado, that is a whole lot of good advice. My friend did take a roll of black&white, but the developers at Ritz put the negatives in a color solution by mistake, so every shot turned out this sickly green. Which is a shame really, those where the shots from the abandoned warehouses along the Rappahanok(sp) River and were the most difficult to get, aside from the motel with the dogs.
Well, it was probably just one dog, but it was huge and the bark echoed around the structure...
Tomorrow will be strictly daytime, and I'm breaking out my digital camera so I might just see what happens when I stick them in black and white.
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2007-09-28 14:57:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Another tip for her- take more time setting up shots. Take a couple changing settings, angle slightly and one of them will probably turn out much better than the original. Notice stuff that's distracting and get rid of it.
Submitted by Amontillado (user info) at 2007-09-28 14:50:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Sometimes when one presses the shutter it causes the camera to shake, even on a tripod. If possible, try using a remote. If you're using autofocus, shine a light on the spot you want in focus, focus it, and turn it off. I've noticed with my cameras sometimes they focus on the wrong thing while you're just trying to press the shutter so this will keep it from happening. Without light on the focus point the camera might not recognize the object it's supposed to and focus on thin air.
Also, any lights in front of the buildings can cause weird patterns to show up on images. Make sure there's no lens flare before the shot is taken.
For the flashlight shots, maybe a longer exposure? Like 30 seconds? I don't really notice anything that looks like what you described.
Instead of using your own lights, try just going at dusk or a full moon because fluorescent bulbs just don't work. No flash!
If you're using film make sure it's the highest ISO possible. Like at LEAST 800. For digital, sometimes you just need a top of the line camera and it'll make all the difference in the world.
For creepy stuff having really strong, blinding sunlight striking the building and then putting it in black and white will turn out awesome. Or in foggy moonlight would be awesome. Something to play with could be fogging up the lens with your breath before taking a picture. One of my favorite pictures that looks kinda like that is here: http://www.durhamtownship.com/November1405.html
If you look through more of her photos and read the comments section she lists the technical details your friend might want to look at.
Submitted by precision (user info) at 2007-09-28 14:38:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
a couple of things: use a remote shutter release with a tripod, and get the shutter sync on the camera fixed.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2007-09-28 14:17:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-09-28 13:09:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
if you get a chance, shoot an email to redskieslookfake. he deals with digital art for a living. digital is not cheating, it's just development. if she wants to get really picky maybe she should start with tintypes, especially since she's ok with printing her stuff digitally.
another good practice would be polaroids. to get a good polaroid picture you really have to watch your lighting and handling. the film's kind of expensive, but if she doesn't like taking multiple shots there's no reason to waste a roll of 30 pictures on crap when she could practice with 10 at a time and see instantly where she fucked up.
digital and film have almost no distinction between clarity and color quality. it's really the quality of the photographer, film and/or camera. a lot of what you'll see in magazines nowadays was shot digitally and you can see that it still looks great when it's done by someone who knows what they're doing.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 13:06:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
inion, that was a remarkably useful link, thank you.
I've also heard of night shots done with tungsten film. Appantly that is tricky business, and expensive. I'll have to hold off on that for a time when money is not so very very tight. And get the photo-lassie a LOT more experience.
Tighter than a Mulim school girl, that money is. But there is a very good reason: I have a graphic artist in PA assembling the original art for the book, and though she'd do for me for free, I can't in good spirits not pay her.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 13:02:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
these were all manual, my friend doesn't give any credence to the digital, she claims it's cheating.
I've gotten spoiled by the digi so that's what I'll be using tomorrow. I also just love the instant gratification of see the picture I've just taken, but i like the strong colors and clear details of traditional film, so it's a toss up for me.
Submitted by DirtyHarry (user info) at 2007-09-28 13:00:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't know anything about photography. Here's one for using the umlaut.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:49:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:42:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I assume it's a digital. You need to have it set to the highest possible quality and color level.
-----
he said it was film below, so multiple shots would be really expensive although i'd recommend she do that too. shell out the money for the film or invest in a digital for practice. b&w film is cheaper too she could try that. it would give her good practice for a steady hand and good contrast.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:47:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
the higher the better anyway because it allows more detail. but with night shots or motion shots you want as high as you can get because obviously low light and movement will equal less detail.
< 400 is for bright light and still subjects. or you know, those one time use cameras that are crap but you can still manage even good pictures with those if you use it right.
600 is the minimum i use but i'm very amateur so i like all the help i can get so i use that film or iso setting on my digital camera.
if she's going to be using film at night a lot she really should invest in a light meter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter
i <3 wikipedia sometimes.
Submitted by ShapeShifter (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:44:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
$7
Submitted by ShapeShifter (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:43:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Come out and play.
sicosemen.at.gmail.com
Submitted by ShapeShifter (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:43:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oops
Submitted by ShapeShifter (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:42:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Shadow and other Baltimore dwellers. There is a CD release party for my buddy's band, Savory James, at the Talking Head. Doors @ 8ish. I'll be the incredibly sexy guy buying hot broads drinks in attempts to shag them or at least let me put a bicycle spoke in there hole.
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:42:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm pretty sure the problem is with picture quality.
I assume it's a digital. You need to have it set to the highest possible quality and color level.
You also need to give the camera time to adjust to the lighting and setting. Take a picture of the same thing multiple times, and you'll see what I mean.
I assume you neglected to edit the pictures properly, because they look slightly blurry. If you've got photoshop, I'm fairly sure there's a function to define the edges of objects. Might want to give heavier editing a try.
I think there also must have been a problem in the development process, because some of these look slightly tinted.
I'd have to be doing this all myself to give you some more accurate information, because I'm just judging on what I see.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:36:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
is there a ratio of film speed to exposure time? Some kind of rule of thumb for when to use what speed?
Like 1sec/200speed 7sec/800speed? That would be useful.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:34:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:32:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
btw night shots should be using at least 600 film, 800 and higher even better.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:31:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I have a tripod...in my pants.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:27:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
if you say the film wasn't bad than her lens might need a really good cleaning. it could be the paper and ink used to print obviously but if these were straight to digital and not just scanned in then the problem is the film or the lens, and more likely the film.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:22:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought film may have been an issue, but we were at a junk yard in Ruther Glen earlier that day with Kodak, and those shots were blurry too. The second batch was Pharmacy-grade cheap film.
I think her compositions could absolutely use some work, she also tends to take one shot and move on, so if she blows the first one it's a wash. I tend to get about 2 good pics for every 8-10 I take with a cheap ass old Fuji manual and a cheap ass 4megapixel digital, but I'll burn through five or six shots on the way to the one I want, so by virtue of statistics I wind up with a few gems. For me, it's luck more than science when it comes to photography.
Tally:
Better Film
Timer instead of holding the button
Tripod (i think if she wasn't holding down on the camera that may have worked better
Hire Ray Charles's ghost
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-09-28 12:05:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
i wish i had a tripod, it'd make long exposure shots so much easier. it coulda been windy. the striation could be from old/bad film not necessarily the development. these are still fairly interesting for the subject matter. there's only so much you can do with doors and walls and windows. i kind of like the blurriness, it makes it feel aged and slightly more creepy.
Submitted by StereoTypist (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:53:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I does as I is told :)
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:53:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Berty, please explain.
I was under the impression that the tripod would make them less blurry as it holds the camera steady? I don't know, I just write the stories... gonna hafta find me a better photo-grapher.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:50:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you and your friend were using a tripod whilst taking these then it's no wonder they're so blurry.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:36:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-09-28 10:57:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
a lot of them look overexposed.
----------------------------------
What he said. I used to make that mistake an awful lot when I began doing night photos.
If you have one at your disposal, you might consider using a backlight for some of the evening photos. That will help out with the shots where you're trying to capture detail. Just make sure it's positioned so as not to create bizarre shadowing - try to place it as far above ground level as you are able.
Anyhow, I think cutting the exposure and using a backlight will help ya out. That's my two cents. Otherwise, decent work.
Submitted by Hilarity_Ensues (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:34:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I know exactly fuck-all about photography except that I am an utter failure at it.
+2 b/c I love exploring creepy places and will read your book when it's published :)
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:32:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I had an ex who lived in Fredericksburg. Well, Spotsylvania. A truly drab part of the world.
I have no idea what is wrong with the photos, aside from the obvious suckage.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:27:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, the text came first Squinty McGee, perhaps you should spend some of that hard-earned cash on a new eye exam.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:26:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
On second thought, I've figured out where ALL the problems are coming from:
"I have this friend, the kind of friend that was very lousy for a very long time but finally quit drugs"
The problem is that quitters never win.
Get new friends, friends who have big bags of drugs. This way, if their photography sucks, you won't care.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:25:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh, and I'll get to work on that THNIKing thing you speak of...OK?
Does it have anything to do with penetrating your hole?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:24:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Is your friend blind or just the worst photographer in history?
Fucking Ray Charles could take better pictures than this.
I couldn't read the text because my eyes are still trying to adjust after viewing those fucking snapshots.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:22:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh for fuck's sake Shlongy, I DIDN'T TAKE THE SHOTS.
Jebus, I know you can read! Stop... THNIK... then speak.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:19:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Are you blind or just the worst photographer in history?
Fucking Ray Charles could take better pictures than this.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:04:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I would guess bad photography, bad development, or a combo of both.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 11:02:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
She held the button, apparently fancy Nikkons don't come with timers...
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2007-09-28 10:57:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
a lot of them look overexposed. the shaky time lapse shots.... did she use the timer or push the shutter button herself? i'm guessing the latter.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 10:57:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
She used a very fancy Nikkon with a handful of changable lenses. I think the underwater camera may have been an improvement.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-09-28 10:54:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Well they arent very good photos. I have no idea why. Maybe she used an underwater camera by accident?
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2007-09-28 10:54:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Chaos, I'll do the physics story on Monday... unless I forget.