How is great photography...done? (My stupid question!) - General

A stupid question, I'm aware. But I've always pondered this; how is great photography really done? Obviously it takes a good photographer, I realize this. But how do they get such sharp pictures, with those amazing colors that just pop? Is it the editing? The lens? The Camera? I've tried taking good pictures. I have an at least semi-decent camera with a semi-decent lens. I even use the stand so I can get it as sharp as possible. I can't seem to get it. What is the secret to amazing pictures? [b]Some examples (In my opinion):[/b] [url]http://browse.deviantart.com/photography/?order=9&offset=0&offset=48#/denh5b[/url] [url]http://browse.deviantart.com/photography/?order=9&offset=24&offset=24#/d13yqfd[/url] [url]http://browse.deviantart.com/photography/?order=9&offset=24&offset=24#/d13ylap[/url] [url]http://browse.deviantart.com/photography/?order=9&offset=24&offset=24#/d1jfiv[/url] [url]http://browse.deviantart.com/photography/?order=9&offset=0&offset=48#/d1w7hsx[/url] It's a relatively stupid question, I know. :v:

Composition and being at the right place at the right time, mainly, if you take a look at the examples, they're all interesting, with an event someone wouldn't normally see captured.

Another question, what is more important for a good picture, the lens or the camera?

Lens. It's just something you get better at as you keep doing it. [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] Don't go off buying new lenses thinking it will make you better, though.

To me, getting the perfect photo is ofcourse knowing how to get it right and having the right camera/lens and all that. But a huge part is also with being at the right place at the right time, and you'll also have to sacrifice stuff in order to get good photos, and take risks. [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] And as bopie said, photographing is something you get better with time.

A lot of the shots I spend a long time thinking about end up disappointing, and the ones I barely even remember taking turn out great. Not all the time of course, but keep in mind it's partially just happening to capture the perfect moment, one that you would never see coming.

That's a dumb question, please never question anything again! Just kidding. Like the others said, learning the rules of composition, colour, structure, and how to frame a picture. When you've got a grip of those and how to use your camera, it's about learning how to bend those rules and experimenting. Practice often. It also doesn't matter what equipment you have. As long as you can take nice pictures in thumbnail size, that's all anyone will really care about.

Good gear won't exactly make you a better photographer or anything, but as Bopie said it sure as hell wouldn't hurt. At least, he's said something like that a few times for beginners! Some of those examples look more heavily edited than others. Great photography is first in the know how of what makes a good photo, less so about how to use the camera. People I share this with always find it helpful: [url]http://www.photographymad.com/pages/view/10-top-photography-composition-rules[/url] With a lot of post processing you can either rape a photo (overdone HDR), or really turn it into something rad. Get yourself a trial of photoshop or lightroom (30 days free) and mess around with the sliders to see what you like and don't like, everyone starts out like that.

I have both Photoshop and Lightroom. Which one is better suited for Photography?

Both are fine, it really depends on which one you're comfortable in.

I think Lightroom, Bridge, and similar products are easier for working with larger numbers of photos, no?

[QUOTE=exhale77;30359140]I have both Photoshop and Lightroom. Which one is better suited for Photography?[/QUOTE] Whatever your comfortable with. If you are just doing adjustments, Lightroom fits the bill while Photoshop is great for more extensive editing, such as cloning and other wacky things.

Just don't over edit your photos [B]too[/B] much. No one likes that.

[QUOTE=booster;30360898]Just don't over edit your photos [B]too[/B] much. No one likes that.[/QUOTE] The edits in my photos are extremely dramatic.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;30361070]The edits in my photos are extremely dramatic.[/QUOTE] With "too much" I meant stuff like this [img]http://rolandlim.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gross_hdr2.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=booster;30361271]With "too much" I meant stuff like this [img]http://rolandlim.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gross_hdr2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] :barf:

[QUOTE=Skyhawk;30359719]I think Lightroom, Bridge, and similar products are easier for working with larger numbers of photos, no?[/QUOTE] The benefit of Lightroom is the cataloguing of photos and it keeps them all in one place. For individual editing photoshop is better simply because it has the most extensive repertoire of features. Lightroom is ridiculously good though for the exact thing I said earlier. It's perfect for sorting out your pictures, comparing them, and doing things quickly. The single largest problem with photoshop is that you have to load images individually and you can only really work on a single photo at a time. It's also why it's always been so hard for me just using Lightroom. I have both on a student license, but I've almost exclusively moved to Lightroom, and then I'll boot up photoshop once and a while with a photograph and realize I could make a photograph 100 times better by using tools in photoshop.

I'm interested in perhaps getting Lightroom soon for general editing. Is it at least as powerful as Bridge? I've used that in my photography class and it's a thousand times better than the crappy ViewNX2 software Nikon gives you for free.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;30461543]The benefit of Lightroom is the cataloguing of photos and it keeps them all in one place. For individual editing photoshop is better simply because it has the most extensive repertoire of features. Lightroom is ridiculously good though for the exact thing I said earlier. It's perfect for sorting out your pictures, comparing them, and doing things quickly. The single largest problem with photoshop is that you have to load images individually and you can only really work on a single photo at a time. It's also why it's always been so hard for me just using Lightroom. I have both on a student license, but I've almost exclusively moved to Lightroom, and then I'll boot up photoshop once and a while with a photograph and realize I could make a photograph 100 times better by using tools in photoshop.[/QUOTE] this. I've wound up doing it this way- > dump photos from card to archive harddrive > sort through everything in lightroom, mark potentially good shots with a star or color or whatever > filter out non-marked photos so I'm just working with only the ones I want > do quick and dirty "looks natural" lightroom RAW adjusting, running through all the settings. > export everything to PNG or JPG or whatever in an 'edits' folder in the set's archive location > pick through the edits one by one in photoshop > several days and 500 shots are naturally wittled down to ten photos and a tiny blurb of text. :frown: [editline]14th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Skyhawk;30461745]I'm interested in perhaps getting Lightroom soon for general editing. Is it at least as powerful as Bridge? I've used that in my photography class and it's a thousand times better than the crappy ViewNX2 software Nikon gives you for free.[/QUOTE] it has all the organizing power of bridge, plus RAW editing without having to launch into photoshop.

My bad, now that I think of it Bridge opened RAW files in "Camera Raw" for us... which I guess is just a mini-application/plugin/whatever in Photoshop (it didn't require Photoshop to be up, but you could open it that way if you wanted to)? Would Lightroom have the editing power that does?

[QUOTE=Skyhawk;30462027]My bad, now that I think of it Bridge opened RAW files in "Camera Raw" for us... which I guess is just a mini-application in Photoshop (it didn't require Photoshop to be up, but you could open it that way if you wanted to)? Would Lightroom have the editing power that does?[/QUOTE] Lightroom is literally the Camera Raw interface in Photoshop with the added ability of being able to manage photos ridiculously well. [editline]14th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=daijitsu;30461820]this. I've wound up doing it this way- > dump photos from card to archive harddrive > sort through everything in lightroom, mark potentially good shots with a star or color or whatever > filter out non-marked photos so I'm just working with only the ones I want > do quick and dirty "looks natural" lightroom RAW adjusting, running through all the settings. > export everything to PNG or JPG or whatever in an 'edits' folder in the set's archive location > pick through the edits one by one in photoshop > several days and 500 shots are naturally wittled down to ten photos and a tiny blurb of text. :frown:[/QUOTE] I usually do this, but I also have a hard time simply because having to export and switch to an entirely different program gets a bit tedious. It's a relatively quick process, but I get particularly lazy after editing and sorting through hundreds of photographs. If only Adobe merged both programs. That would be the best news ever.

Just take a picture of a lawn chair or a rubber duck and increase the contrast a bit then make it greyscale and you're gold.

[QUOTE=BigOwl;30462484]Just take a picture of a lawn chair or a rubber duck and increase the contrast a bit then make it greyscale and you're gold.[/QUOTE] Don't forget always shooting with a wide open aperture, and that the quality of the bokeh itself is always more important than the subject.