To become a professional photographer it take time and experience will on count it. As you mention you are new in this field so you can try for training course or be an assistant for some good photographer or go around you and capture the best moments and emotions and post it . On These post you got so many comment this will surely help and motivate you.
Thank you Yes, i understand that i need time But as everybody i want to do great photos and i want to know what to do to develop myself as fast as possible And yes, i found here some help and motivation)
Photography and motion do have a lot of similarity but they are also just as much dissimilar. The main difference is in how each is perceived buy the viewer.
All you can really do is trust your eye and shoot as you see it , a photograph is a representation of a photographers mind and how they see something and the only way to develop a unique style is to shoot as you see it , shoot to please you only cos if you try to please every one else all you will do in run around in circles getting nowhere.
As for Cameras it can depend on what you need and can use , there is nothing wrong with film and for a small investment of well under 600 you could set up with a good 35mm film camera and a scanner to go with it , recommended cameras are Canon AE-1P of witch I use one or there are several very nice cameras made in the 70s from Nikon and Richo and Pentax and I have seen nice examples of these on eBay for less than $100. If you realy want something that is beautiful ,classic, collectable and just plain sexy then get a Kodak retina 35mm rangefinder cameras from the 40s and 50s , a member on here FallisPhoto is an expert in restoring these cameras and he sells them as fully working models [link] If you realy want quality then you could go to medium format , I Use a Bronica SQ-Ai 6x6 , you can set up one of these systems now for around $1000 and the quality is better than most digital cameras under $10K Of course there is a lot more work involved in using film.
Thee are so many digital cameras on the market now I have no idea what would be a good one for you
Sometimes what i see and what i get is not the same, like on this photo: In real everything was sparkling, now i have a photo, but with no magic of this scene. And there is a lot of such a situation, i see something, but there is no sign of it on my photo.
I don't think i will change my camera. I use Nikon D70s, and for now it's enought, still with better camera i wouldn't achieve what i want, because i'm not sure how. And the film photography is too expensive for me, not because of the camera, but because of the film, processing.
Your eye is far more advanced and sensitive than your camera and will see variations in colour and shade that no camera could ever record without specialized techniques such as HDR.
I dont think changing your camera would realy benefit you greatly as I think the D70 is a fine camera.
Film does have a greater capacity for capturing subtle changes in highlights however it does take some skill and practice to achieve this and the difference from digital is marginal unless you shoot in medium or large format.
Unfortunately I am no expert on digital so I am not to sure what you could do to improve the images or how to tweak your camera for optimum results.
georgewjohnsonFeatured By OwnerNov 19, 2012Hobbyist Photographer
As Shurakai-Stock says it will not happen overnight. It's probably not what you want to hear but it's no BS, it's a craft and it takes lots of practice and lots of time. Learning on my own with no outside help apart from books and videos it has taken me roughly 4-5 years, roughly a minimum of 8 hours a week shooting, to finally start to see the pictures I've always wanted to take. Courses and training will help speed it up but it still takes you practising it every day. Even when I have no camera with me I still practice spotting compositions while I'm out and about.
You can't expect anything to magically start getting better. Musicians practice scales to better understand the core components that hold songs together. Photographers practice the understanding and application of the composition and exposure.
Don't just study information about photography's technical details study books and articles on art and design. Photographers and artists seek a common goal of understanding effective composition, the artist has more leeway with what they do and do not include but still we both need to understand what makes someone's jaw drop to the floor.
Always, always, always practice with a purpose. It's very rare to simply go out with a camera and spot the perfect image and take it. It might seem like that's what the professionals do but they've had years of training and practice and they can spot and shoot good images almost on auto-pilot because their ability to see good images where others can't is so well practiced.
I have a bit practise in drawing, and i know that it was a hours of work to see good effect, but there it was easy for me, i attend a course, had a homework and know what i should and need to do. And when i did something bad somebody corrceted me. With photography is harder, i do it on my own, and it's much harder. "jaw drop to the floor" it's the effect that everybody want but not so easy to achieve And i will try to think what i want to achieve when i pracitse, have this purpose You are right, i thought aways that's so easy, just go out and do photos, but i see that it don't work like that usually. But i'm not sure how it work But i will try to think earlier what i want to do, and then go out with camera
How long have you been working at it? I know this is going to sound flip, but nobody gets good overnight. It takes time, practice, and study. Keep reading, keep looking at other folks photos, and keep trying things on your own. But most importantly, ask questions that are specific, rather than general. Instead of asking “How do I get good pictures?” ask “What are some good techniques for photographing architectural exteriors?” for instance. Then put the answers to use. Try the techniques and see how you do, then ask for feedback on those shots.
Oh, i didn't want to sound that i want to change overnight by magic. I only want to know the best way to improve, maybe i something do bad etc. or maybe i only waste my time and there is no talent in me I do photos more for serious (not just a holiday photos) for about half a year. I don't think it's a lot of time. And you are right, the question may be to much general to get the usefull answerws. But it's good idea with this trying the technic and then asked about feedback, thank you
It seems for me that my photos are flat, i know that it is something about light. As in this photo: everything was sparkling, the scene was amazing, but the photo is usual, the same here: in real it looked well, on my photo look only like some chaos.
In the first instance, I can see quite clearly why you took the picture: I love that sort of light combination (dark, heavy overcast with a surprising dash of late-afternoon sunlight). But it’s a shot of a tree. The way you’ve framed it, it has no context and next to no contrast. The division line between the lit portion of the tree and the shadowed portion is at pretty much the halfway point. From the viewer’s perspective, you’ve told me that the light and shadow share roughly equal prominence. What would have made this more dramatic would be to actually make the tree smaller in the frame (I know that goes against a lot of what you may have heard about filling the frame with your subject, but honestly that’s something we tell beginning photographers, and you’re past that point now). If you had pulled back, turned the camera so that you were shooting landscape, and aimed a little up and to the right, you would have captured more of the ominous clouds (and your photo is called “Before the storm” – don’t you think there should be some indication of that?) and you would have made the splash of sunlight just that much more prominent by the fact that it would be the only bright thing in a large sea of dark. When photographers talk about “contrast”, we don’t just mean the range of light and dark tones, we mean all sorts of contrasts – between different shapes, different sizes of things, different colours, different emotions, even. Having a small bright tree surrounded by a large mass of dark grey makes it not just a photo about a tree, but a photo that is saying something. Maybe the message is about hope, maybe it’s about isolation, maybe it’s about standing up to oppression. Maybe it’s just a nice visual contrast between a large, dull grey mass and a tiny, bright, colourful one. Also, putting the tree off to one side or the other creates inherent visual tension by unbalancing the image. Which side you put it on also creates a subtle psychological effect in the viewer as well. Since the light in the photo is coming from the right side of the frame, putting the tree on the right effectively puts it closer to the light in the viewer’s mind. Putting it on the left moves it farther from the light. On the right side (closer to the light source), the viewer imagines a swell of instrumental music as the movie ends on a hopeful note. On the left (farther from the light source), the viewer hears the minor keys of violins and cellos as they imagine the bright leaves struggling to reach out to the sun.
Technically, the shot is fine just the way it is. If you wanted to add more drama, you could try burning the sky above the tip of the tree just a little, or possibly burn in the sky at the bottom, where it’s not so dark and ominous-looking. You could push the overall contrast a hair, to get the sky even darker, without changing the tones in the bright leaves, but you should be careful not to overdo it.
Now, as for the second shot, that actually is a case where I’d suggest filling the frame, or cropping this shot. The top right corner (about a quarter of the way over to the left and halfway down) is, to me, the best part of this shot. In that section you have three contrasts: sharp vs. soft (the sharpness of the needles vs. the softness of the out-of-focus background), light vs. dark (and you have them in the proper order – light things in the foreground, where they belong: remember that our brains are wired so that we are drawn to light things and tend to ignore dark things), and red vs. green (approximately 180º from each other on the colour wheel). You could throw a fourth contrast in there by warming up the reds (adding just a bit more yellow) and cooling the greens (subtracting a bit of yellow) but that might be going just a bit too far.
Unfortunately, the angle of the light in the second shot is less than optimal, but when you’re out in the field shooting with available light, sometimes you just get what you get and you try to make the most of it. Back lighting on the water droplets (which would have meant photographing the bush from the opposite side) would have made them sparkle more, but you might not have been able to get a nice, dark, out-of-focus background to contrast them against, the way you did here.
I’ve mentioned lighting direction a couple of times, and I hope you’re taking note. The reason a lot of landscape photographers like to go out and shoot at the “golden hours” at dawn and dusk isn’t only because the light is rather golden/orange, but also because it’s relatively low in the sky, which gives you the opportunity to side-light or back-light your subjects.
Go back and look at your favourite photos of plants and landscapes you see here on dA and elsewhere, and try to picture in your mind where the light is coming from in the scene. In a lot of cases, I’m going to bet that the sun (if that’s the only light source) was not at azimuth (the highest point in the sky). Then go out and try it yourself. And remember to keep in mind the idea of contrast as well: contrast in size, contrast in shape, contrast in brightness, contrast in colour, contrast in focus. Look for those things, and if you don’t see at least one of them, don’t take the photo.