Photo quality

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I think the guitarist/drummer picture is particularly instructive and Jeff's example of the same kind of scene shows what you should or could be looking for - before I go on, I'm also a strong advocate for assuming that post processing must always be seen as a integral component in almost every photograph we may take.</p>

<p>Back to the comparison of the 2 pictures the compositions are remarkably similar, in both our eye first lands in the first third (left to right) of the story, this is always where the brain goes looking and expects to be led nicely over to the main attraction, shown very well in in Jeff's pic. Jeff has seen the compositional usefulness of the bass player and the angle of the bass itself, aiming conveniently towards the main subject helps immensely.</p>

<p>In yours the in-focus drummer/kit doesn't quite lead the eye to your guitarist, your drummer actually occupies one of the strongest compositional zones, the Golden Section (google too much to include here) and because he's very much in focus he fights with the guitarist - personally I don't mind pictures were parts argue with each other, but its very hard to pull off effectively and must be part of the intention of the picture. The simplest way that I know is to explain composition in terms of the functions of the various elements in a picture and how each part contributes to "telling" the intended story. If you can name what each part is doing it is most likely the picture will be successful.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>In yours the in-focus drummer/kit doesn't quite lead the eye to your guitarist, your drummer actually occupies one of the strongest compositional zones, the Golden Section (google too much to include here) and because he's very much in focus he fights with the guitarist - personally I don't mind pictures were parts argue with each other, but its very hard to pull off effectively and must be part of the intention of the picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>right. the drummer is distracting and telling a different story than the guitarist, who should be the main subject, because he's soloing in an action pose. again, some of that is lighting, and some is framing/composition. this hasnt been mentioned yet, but another source of distraction is the heads of the audience members you're shooting over. if possible, i like to shoot from the very front of the stage which allows me to concentrate on the individual musicians and also get pesky body parts of crowd members out of the shot. moving closer to the guitarist and centering him in the shot probably would have resulted in a more dynamic/dramatic composition. but now that i look again at the shot you took, you could have used a faster shutter as there's a fair amount of motion blur on the guitarist.</p>

<p>to further illustrate my point about composition, i'll share a pic i took recently of singer Netta Brielle. she was playing with a full band, but i took the band completely out of the shot to focus on her. i also used a fast prime at a wide aperture to further make the subject 'pop' by isolating her from the background. that gives what i call a 3-D effect which may also fit your "juicy" criteria. this shot is 35mm, f/1.8, and something like 1/125 and ISO 4000. while your 17-50 can't quite deliver such shallow depth of field, you can get close to this by shooting at 2.8--just be sure to center your image as that lens (which i also have) is not great in the corners wide open.</p><div></div>

[clive_murray_white]

<p><img src="https://halfa.smugmug.com/photos/i-8H7jSgs/0/O/i-8H7jSgs.jpg" alt="" width="428" height="374" /></p>

<p>I also had a very quick play with this image - some obvious laziness/casualness in the masking and clumsiness in adding noise to equal what was in the original but the general idea is there, crop to make the best of the original, mask what needed to be blurred, change a few tones here and there to help get some 3D, mess up the blur with some noise - my view is that there is a much better picture to be had in your original file.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I should add - I've never had much call to explore adding pixelation in Photoshop to make a picture look as if it was taken just beyond a camera's ISO reach, I chose "add noise", a better option would have been "mosaic", of course the best result would have been to take the original picture on the widest aperture possible.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>One needs to consider the photographer's vision (the "photographer's eye"). In this case, it appears Dima wanted to include the drummer and some related paraphernalia at the background.</p>

<p>Once a vision is identified, one does all possible to clarify and present it the best way possible. This of course involves many things, such as careful composition and a conscious effort to include/exclude certain elements that does not enhance the vision, the use of lighting and the capability of the hardware (e.g., lens, aperture, shutter speed, flash...), the avoidance of mergers, the use of (or elimination/avoidance of certain) forms, lines, space, colors... too many to mention.</p>

<p>Eric, in your image of Netta Brielle, you did a nice job of isolating her from the band (which was your vision). IMO, your vision can be enhanced by bringing out the shadow details, lessening the harsh highlight to the immediate left behind her, and wait (or move) for a bit more separation between her hair and the whole mess of her hand holding the microphone. The merger looks stark to me. You can also leave some room under her elbow instead of making it look like an accidental cut off.</p>

<p>Yes, this is easier said than done - and sometimes it is impossible. I know that! :)</p>

<p>I need to go to dinner now. Happy New [Photographic] Year!</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I am wondering if the flatness you reference is the third dimension you feel is lacking from the image. Painters have faced this challenge for centuries. If you are seeking to extend the impression of depth in an image, not compress it, which lens would you choose. A shorter one. Not a long lens that will compress. Then you aperture comes into play in isolating the singer, wider aperture that will also help with the often low light conditions. Starting with basic compositional decision, note how Jeff's image is much less cluttered. I find the drum kit distracting. I think the edit throwing he background out of focus helps. His use of a leading line from the guitar behind helps steer the viewers eye to the subject. Note how the lines of light also lead there. I find the eye entering the image at the upper not only because it is where westerners eye enters a page or image typically, but because it is reinforced with the lights there that lead the eye to the two blue round lights that lead to the face. The photographer is responsible for every element in the image. The implied lines through the round lights point to the subject. He is shooting looking up at his subject giving power and the I pose and clinched fist add to the intensity. The eye goes to the brightest/area of highest contrast in the image. I think Jeff wants the eye to concentrate on the singers face, torso and arms and note how that looks to be in the spot light while the legs are either out of the spot or have been burned to keep the eye where it belongs. As one poster mentioned, cool recedes warm advances and note the cool blue background. Note the size perspective in Jeff's shot as well. Subject larger and more important in the foreground. Some stands to the right are smaller telling the mind it is a distance behind and the guitarist in the bg is much smaller all contributing to depth. Overlapping subject and stand tell you there is depth. Lighting wise, Jeff has kicker lights separating subj from the background while your guitarist's black shirt blends with the black bg. Note on his singers face how the main light is coming from upper L casting shadows that give shape and form to the face. Your guitarist has high front that has his eye sockets in shade and flattens out his contours. i guess what I am getting at is yes, some folks do have a natural eye, but only a fraction that think they do. A good image like Jeff's has a message, and the wording on the tank top echos the grittiness here. Then you as the photographer pull from your tools the elements that maximize it. If you are just starting out, realize you need to learn composition, lighting, posing, editing and what the camera and lenses can do to an image to paint the image you want to convey. Sorry to say, it doesn't happen in a couple of months. It takes work, good practice and constant evaluation. You are on your way because you recognized something was lacking and asked how you can progress in what for most of us is always a work in progress. As Clive demonstrates, you can try to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and often times there is a part of an image that allows that, but unless you like spending hours in front of the computer rather than behind the camera, try to get it as good as possible in camera. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>...it doesn't happen in a couple of months. It takes work, good practice and constant evaluation. You are on your way because you recognized something was lacking and asked how you can progress in what for most of us is always a work in progress. As Clive demonstrates, you can try to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and often times there is a part of an image that allows that, but unless you like spending hours in front of the computer rather than behind the camera, try to get it as good as possible in camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well said Bill. <br>

<br>

Eric, I hope you didn't mind my using part of your image for discussion.I am sure you are aware that many photographers submit their photos for critiques to hear others' point of view. The beauty of art is, while there are some basic common standards, each may see something differently.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I think this thread brings up some interesting points. To avoid "flatness," there are several techniques mentioned which I'll summarize here:</p>

<p>• Use the foreshortening effect of wide-angle lenses to effect scale (i.e., closer objects appear larger).<br>

• Employ shallow depth-of-field to improve subject-isolation.<br>

• Exploit lighting and color contrast when available.</p>

<p>I'll add one of my own: Avoid shooting subjects straight-on. I always try to shoot from an angle, especially if shooting a group. While not the best examples of "juicy," I thought I'd add a couple of performance shots as well. The "stage" lighting shown below was pretty bland, lacking the kind of color contrast usually associated with typical stage lighting, so I augmented it by throwing up two Speedlights, balancing the camera to tungsten, and letting the Speedlights photograph blue. The lead vocalist was shot from an angle, as was the group shot:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/Nylon-5A-tele-700.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/Nylon-3-wide-700.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[studio460]

<p>Another thing I forgot to include in the summary . . . using an ISO closest to your camera's base-ISO (e.g., ISO 100) also supplements the "juicy" effect, since the lower your camera's ISO, the greater the camera's color fidelity. Color rendition becomes severely constrained at higher ISOs, making images look "thin" (in addition to robbing your images of resolution).</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Hi Dima, As you have probably noticed your thread has engaged quite a few of us - there are 2 more things that have popped into my mind, this one should really be ignored, it'll send you broke. In the pantheon of photographic equipment one brand stands out in relation to being able to produce really "juicy" pictures and that's Leica, it's worth taking a look at as many examples of Leica pictures as you can just so you know what the thing they call the Leica "pop" is all about - and then check the prices of the gear to get a reality check.</p>

<p>On a much more practical and reasonable level, the easiest way to improve your chances of getting the kind of results that you seek is to go into serious training by setting yourself tasks. Sure you can't go to concerts everyday so you have to think of a scenario that in some way duplicates the issues involved. Then experiment fairly objectively by taking many versions of the same picture at different apertures, zooms and focus points, you'll quickly start to see things that you find exciting, you should note the camera settings and then take more pictures with the camera set up that way just to see if, in line with your own taste, you are getting closer to what you really like. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Clive, I bet in a "blind" - not really an apposite word here - test, and using web images as the viewed media, not one person could reliably pick out pictures taken with a Leica and Leitz lenses from those taken with any other quality digital camera using lenses costing half the price or less. Probably not even from the original files or large prints either.</p>

<p>I really get sick of this claim to Leica magic, which of course can only be seen by acolytes and priests of the cult of Leitzology.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Ah Rodeo Joe there's always one game enough to hop head first into the hoary Lieca vs the rest debate - "blind" most certainly was an apposite word. All I suggested was that Dima should go looking at what is claimed to be the Leica look. Maybe you should do it too because it actually exists. Check out Ziess too for same reason.</p>

<p>To put things straight, I sold all my Leica (and Olympus) gear and moved over to Nikon (D800), long story not needed here, so clearly I was able to forsake Leica magic for an infinitely more usable system.</p>

<p>The key to this whole question is about learning to notice how different lenses from different companies "render" subjects - what is even more interesting is that often lens designers have slightly different ideas about what characteristics a great lens should have - even ideas about bokeh differ, just as they should. The mistake is to think that all camera co's are trying to do exactly the same thing, they are not, they are putting forward their own philosophies about photographic ideals. Similarly, and much more relevant to this thread, lenses, as we all know, rarely maintain a consistent "rendering" through all apertures, hence the concept of a lens having "sweet spot", the setting where it comes closest to producing magic results, in a way the best advice for Dima is to go looking for the "sweet spot" on the lens he finds a bit flat.</p>

<p> </p>

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I really get sick of this claim to Leica magic, which of course can only be seen by acolytes and priests of the cult of Leitzology.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>+1</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I recently saw some images by one of our members medium format Leica. Fantastic. I noticed immediately, not on line but on his monitor. I can't speak for their 35mm. Ernst Haas in Yosemite once got tired of the Leica accolades from a student and said: Leica, schmeica. The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you see. But you have to see." And he was a Leica user. I really don't get too concerned about my camera body. It is just a recorder that records light. The lens, that is more important to me. The end image for me depends on so much more than camera/lens. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Bob, with all due respect, you are highjacking this thread. The OP has a d7000 and sigma 17-50. how would you suggest achieving better results with that gear setup?</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p><em>The OP has a d7000 and sigma 17-50. how would you suggest achieving better results with that gear setup?</em><br /> <br /> I'd go looking for the sweet spot here's a chat about it -<br>

https://www.flickr.com/groups/1449225@N25/discuss/72157634326021804/<br /><br /><br>

sorry link didn't seem to connect properly</p>

 

[bob_bill]

<p>Eric, I'm not sure how responding to the previous several comments re Leica is my hijacking a thread? As to my other post, OP asked: "Is it anything, I am doing wrong? My one guess on what is going on, is that "I do not know" how to focus properly" (autofucus combinations, range selecting, etc...) can it be? If so, are there resources to read/watch to study this?" He used terms like juicyness, shallow, depth and photos not coming out that tend to indicate a novice and who was courageous and desiring to improve enough to admit his lack of a solution. <em>The OP has a d7000 and sigma 17-50. how would you suggest achieving better results with that gear setup? </em>He did not ask how to achieve the results with this gear, just said what he used. I think you are changing his question. As my old civil procedure prof used to say, if you change the question, I may have to change the answer. His real issue isn't with gear, it is mastery of the craft and that is what I was pointing out from the above. Since he asked for anything he was doing wrong then commenting on using gear was only a partial answer to his question. Composition, lighting, posing expression are gear independent and something he can do with that gear and without spending another penny for additional gear. I took the time to write that post because I wanted him to be aware of some things he could do to improve his image and give him some things to try. I hope he will try some of the concepts. If so, it made my time investment worthwhile. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>+1 Bob. I appreciate the many thoughtful contributions on this thread, which is really about a tough and subjective <em>subject</em>. Hopefully it is of some benefit to the OP. </p>