[rhonalou]

I would really appreciate some tips on making pics such as this just much much much better! Was trying to do a self portrait in low light as my room is being decorated and I liked the way the new lamp was reflecting in the mirror and I thought a portrait would be an interesting composition. Fiddled about with it on Flickr but it still looks a bit rubbish to me - what could I have done/can I do to make it a more interesting photo?

Aperture F4, focal length 33

Got a K 100d and a kit 18-55 lens (saving up for a 50mm F.14)

thanks for any help at all, this is my first slr and I'm trying to get my head round it all

Attached Images

 

[rmtagg]

When I looked at this pic what I saw was the ladder. It is very distracting

[rhonalou]

Ok thanks - I called it Paint and Shoot (which didn't make sense without the ladder). See what you mean though

[little laker]

rhonalou,

I'll start of by saying that from my experience. If your not planning on upgrading to a better camera soon a f1.4 lens is almost a waste of $.
The reason being is at least my K100D won't let me go below f2.8, and even while I'm using a screwmount in AV anything open further than f2.8 won't change the shutter speed.

However if your plannin g on up-grading your body soon a 50mm F1.4 is an excellent lens

About your photo.
Rosemary is right about the ladder. It's the first thing that I saw.
Plus in my opinion your better off to use a tripod for the camera, along with the 10 second timer.
And take the photo without the camera showing

[rhonalou]

Is this cropped version better? I'm not sure if it's more or less interesting

[rhonalou]

ta Stu - that's a little alarming what you say about the 1.4 ing, I was kind of counting on it..

[pasipasi]

rhonalou,

I'll start of by saying that from my experience. If your not planning on upgrading to a better camera soon a f1.4 lens is almost a waste of $.
The reason being is at least my K100D won't let me go below f2.8, and even while I'm using a screwmount in AV anything open further than f2.8 won't change the shutter speed.

All four of my 50mm f1.7 and f1.4 lenses work VERY WELL with my K100d, is your body faulty?

[ChrisA]

Without a title, you have to expect that people will see the picture in terms that are fairly conventional, and it's not conventional to have the photographer and camera in shot. It's also not conventional to have what looks like something extraneous such as the ladder - it's not quite in focus, and it's not all there. So it appears as a distraction, hence people's comments.

With the title, the presence of the photographer, camera and ladder all make perfect sense, so the criteria by which the picture is assessed have to change.

Now of course, the distractions are different. The out-of-focus light unit, reflected in the mirror, and the vertical pole behind the step-ladder are now the distractions, as are the numerous curlicues surrounding the mirror.

The ladder, being key to the message, is out-of-focus, and therefore weak as a subject. The photographer and camera are similarly weak because of their small size relative to everything else.

The trick with composition, not that I've mastered it, is to ensure that the thing you want to really draw attention to is paramount, with enough other detail to maintain interest and draw you to the subject - but not so much that it takes over, or confuses the message you're attempting to communicate.

With this in mind, perhaps you can see that although the ideas you've expressed in the title are strong, the implementation here dilutes their effect, so that the overall effect is weak - the picture is neither one thing (conventional composition, easily understood without title) nor the other (the play on words you've picked with 'paint and shoot').

I think the idea is well worth exploring with an alternate, stronger composition that makes its point without the distractions. A picture of someone photographing a painter at work for example, might do that. Or a picture of someone painting an archer.

[little laker]

They may work on your body pasipasi, but is there any difference in shutter speed between f1.7 or f1.4 and f2.8?

[rhonalou]

THanks a lot Chris, that's really helpful, my idea of composition is "oo that looks ok I'll shoot it"..I haven't really mastered getting the bits I want in focus to be in focus, and the bits I don't want, not to be (I wanted the ceiling lamp to be severely out of focus, as I thought that would look good but it just looks fuzzy for no reason..no idea how to achieve the desired effect (albeit that the outcome might turn out not to be worth the effort, it would be great to know how to get there..!!)

[pasipasi]

They may work on your body pasipasi, but is there any difference in shutter speed between f1.7 or f1.4 and f2.8?

I just tried with FA 50/1.4, 1/40 with f2.8 and 1/160 f1.4 pointing at the same wall. Now counting the difference between 1.4 and 2.8, it's two steps. My body does it correctly.

rhonalou, if you're low on cash, you could buy A50/1.7 or even cheaper M50/1.7. Both great lenses.

[rhonalou]

cool, I'll look out for those, thanks!

[ChrisA]

THanks a lot Chris, that's really helpful, my idea of composition is "oo that looks ok I'll shoot it"..

There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of with this as a starting point.

It is then natural to become discouraged by the fact that nothing seems to look in the picture how you saw it (guess how I know).

So wrestle with that, and get on with the next step, which is to start thinking carefully about why this is.

I haven't really mastered getting the bits I want in focus to be in focus, and the bits I don't want, not to be

There are two parts to this.

The first is, focus on the thing you want sharp (one method for this is, using centre-spot focus point, point at the thing, half press to focus, then reframe).

The second is, use aperture to control depth of field.*

Sadly, this requires more thinking and learning. But it's worth it

______________
* in that article, stop when you get to the scary maths. You don't need to know it. All you really need to know to get started is that the bigger the hole that the light gets in through (the smaller the F-number), the more blurry things that aren't at the precise focus distance will be. Then experiment with different apertures to get the effect you want.

[rhonalou]

ooo that focusing thing sounds very exciting, I'm going to try it almost immediately (I tried this shot in aperture priority but the exposure got shot to hell so I wimped out and stuck it on "scene" mode..amateur!! I know! Sorry!

I am genuinely excited about trying out that focus thing thank you!

[Fritz]

I'll start of by saying that from my experience. If your not planning on upgrading to a better camera soon a f1.4 lens is almost a waste of $.
The reason being is at least my K100D won't let me go below f2.8, and even while I'm using a screwmount in AV anything open further than f2.8 won't change the shutter speed.

Stu, I think there might be a problem with your particular lens or the camera itself. My M 50mm f1.4 works perfectly, as do all my other fast lenses (faster then f2.8). I definitely would not consider a f1.4 a waste of $. With your lens I would check to make sure that when you change the f-stop ring, that the iris blades in the lens move. When the lens is stopped down of course. If this is the old lens that you just serviced it is possible that you didn't quite get things lined up right when put it back together. This could cause you to be able to click the f-stop ring a few clicks before the blades start to move.

My apologies to the original poster for hijacking your thread.