MarkBarbieri
Semi-retired
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,172
This thread is for people to post a picture and explain how they got it. This will allow others to learn by example. So pick a picture that was more than just a full-auto snapshot and explain what your thinking was behind the picture. The thoughts behind the picture can include anything from how you picked the location, how you handled the lighting, why you picked that composition, how you set up the camera, or anything else others might learn from.
I'll start.
This is a shot I took of my boys in the Spring of '07. My wife wanted to get a bluebonnet picture with the boys.
I waited for a cloudy day before taking the shot. On a sunny day, I would have had harsh shadows. With a cloudy day, everything was soft. Because the sky was cloudy, I had to compose the picture with no sky in it.
My wife picked yellow shirts for them because she felt that the colors would contrast, but not too harshly. I'm lousy at picking colors, so I just played along.
I wanted to maximize the number of flowers in the picture and make it look densely packed with blooms. To do that, I used a long lens (260mm in 35mm eqivalent terms) and stood pretty far back. Longer lens and longer shooting distances lead to compressed perspectives (things seem closer together) while wider lens and closer shooting distances make everything look spread out.
I picked an aperture of f/5.0 because I wanted enough depth-of-field to make the boys and flowers immediately around them sharp, but I wanted the near and far flowers to be soft. I thought this would draw more attention to the boys.
Because I was primarily concerned with the aperture, I used aperture priority mode. Because the scene was evenly lit and primarily neutral tones, I left the camera in evaluative metering mode and didn't dial in any compensation. There was plenty of light, so I tired ISO 100. That gave me a shutter speed of 1/200s. With a still subject (no breeze) and a tripod, I felt that was good enough. If it had been much slower, I would have bumped the ISO to 200.
If I was better at posing, I would have had my older son lower his legs. The knees sticking up are distracting. He also didn't give me a very good smile. I guess I wasn't as entertaining as I should have been.
I'll start.

This is a shot I took of my boys in the Spring of '07. My wife wanted to get a bluebonnet picture with the boys.
I waited for a cloudy day before taking the shot. On a sunny day, I would have had harsh shadows. With a cloudy day, everything was soft. Because the sky was cloudy, I had to compose the picture with no sky in it.
My wife picked yellow shirts for them because she felt that the colors would contrast, but not too harshly. I'm lousy at picking colors, so I just played along.
I wanted to maximize the number of flowers in the picture and make it look densely packed with blooms. To do that, I used a long lens (260mm in 35mm eqivalent terms) and stood pretty far back. Longer lens and longer shooting distances lead to compressed perspectives (things seem closer together) while wider lens and closer shooting distances make everything look spread out.
I picked an aperture of f/5.0 because I wanted enough depth-of-field to make the boys and flowers immediately around them sharp, but I wanted the near and far flowers to be soft. I thought this would draw more attention to the boys.
Because I was primarily concerned with the aperture, I used aperture priority mode. Because the scene was evenly lit and primarily neutral tones, I left the camera in evaluative metering mode and didn't dial in any compensation. There was plenty of light, so I tired ISO 100. That gave me a shutter speed of 1/200s. With a still subject (no breeze) and a tripod, I felt that was good enough. If it had been much slower, I would have bumped the ISO to 200.
If I was better at posing, I would have had my older son lower his legs. The knees sticking up are distracting. He also didn't give me a very good smile. I guess I wasn't as entertaining as I should have been.