A question for photographers

[Deleted User]

beanfarmer wrote: »

Thank you Tarambor, so on the balance of probability and considering this is the only time it's happened eg one location would it most likely be the fact I used automatic settings?

Almost certainly, a polarising filter and/or a lens hood wouldn't do any harm when shooting either into the sun or with big reflective surfaces. It doesn't have to be Summer for the sun to be a menace when photographing anything.

System

Thanks Colin

Can I just throw this question out to the room:

How long does it take to get proficient with a camera? I've always wanted to be able to take beautiful pictures but never really knew an aperture from an ISO and even when using film cameras I always went for the instant type of cameras

When you see really good photography it shows what can be achieved.

I find it fascinating that there are professional photographers who prefer to use film cameras for certain types of pictures therefore insinuating that in some instances film is superior to digital although I'm not sure how true that is or if it's more of a personal preference

boliston

film is just different to digital rather than better or worse - it also costs to be developed but a decent film camera can be purchased for a fraction of the cost of a decent digital

System

beanfarmer wrote: »

Thanks Colin

Can I just throw this question out to the room:

How long does it take to get proficient with a camera? I've always wanted to be able to take beautiful pictures but never really knew an aperture from an ISO and even when using film cameras I always went for the instant type of cameras

When you see really good photography it shows what can be achieved.

I find it fascinating that there are professional photographers who prefer to use film cameras for certain types of pictures therefore insinuating that in some instances film is superior to digital although I'm not sure how true that is or if it's more of a personal preference

Film,digital, camera bodies and lenses are just tools that help you create the image that you want to convey. It’s a personal decision on what tools you use to get the job done or the art you want to create.

Farway

Slightly OT, but I saw some taken by the likes of David Bailey, the commissioning people just gave them all the chuck away film cameras, the sort handed out at wedding receptions

Some of the result truly showed it is the photographer more than the camera

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4334dd/heres-what-happens-when-pro-photographers-shoot-on-disposable-cameras

onomatopoeia99

beanfarmer wrote: »

Thanks Colin

Can I just throw this question out to the room:

How long does it take to get proficient with a camera? I've always wanted to be able to take beautiful pictures but never really knew an aperture from an ISO and even when using film cameras I always went for the instant type of cameras

It is a truism that the photographer creates a good picture, not the camera. But the photographer needs to understand the technical aspects or they will end up with something like you posted.


The relationship between shutter speed, aperture and ISO is important, both in terms of ensuring the light level is correct and understanding the effect each of those things have on the resulting shot. It takes little more than some reading to understand each element, followed by some practice to see the effects. After you have the basics you never stop learning though.

arciere

No need of any filters, at this stage, IMO.
That photo is clearly overexposed because of different possible reasons:
- ISO setting was too high, so the camera's automatic settings couldn't balance it with a fast shutter speed
- It was a combination of wrong settings (aperture, shutter speed and ISO)
- The camera was calculating the best exposure using a very dark spot

Before thinking about spending any more money, learn the basics and what makes a photograph the way it looks, learn what the f/1.8 means, for example, and how different settings can give you the same result, in terms of exposure, depending on how you combine them.

That being said, although I never use the automatic settings on my Nikon, if I do I am still able to tweak the ISO settings for example (if I remember correctly). So, if for example I set ISO1600 on a very bright day, the camera will struggle to balance that, and you will always see overexposed photographs.

[Deleted User]

beanfarmer wrote: »

How long does it take to get proficient with a camera? I've always wanted to be able to take beautiful pictures but never really knew an aperture from an ISO and even when using film cameras I always went for the instant type of cameras

Go to your local book shop and buy yourself a good beginners photography book, you do need to understand the relationship between all of the settings and what an experienced photographer looks for in a photo.

Johnmcl7

Something has gone very wrong with that photo as even in automatic it shouldn't have done that and you shouldn't have been able to select a wrong setting as in auto on the RX100 most of the settings are locked out. I can't see any of the EXIF camera data on that photo so it's difficult to tell what's happened.

I'd try taking some similar photos and see how the camera behaves because it's possible it's a fault with the camera if it keeps doing that on automatic.

In addition to the advice up above I'd also recommend looking into using the raw file format which the RX100 can do, this is essentially a digital negative that captures much more information that is thrown away in a normal jpeg photo. You can set the camera to take a jpeg and raw file each time which takes up more space but these days storage isn't much of an issue so you get the convenience of jpeg when you need it or process raw files when you have the time.

The advantage of the raw photo is that you can extract better image quality than the camera produced itself, in particular you can set the white balance after (it's amazing how much of a difference a little WB adjustment can make) and you can bring more detail back in dark and bright areas. It's amazing how much you can transform a photo with just flicking a few sliders.

Heedtheadvice

Beanfarmer, given the errors from a fault or overexposure (whatever the reason) and the pictures you posted for your brickwork query -that clearly show very similar problems without the 'strong' sunlight reflections - you clearly have a problem that is not due to lack of flash (that was a silly suggestion) and ,despite John being correct about raw images, but is much more basicbasic than tweaking for high quality.


Suggest you get into settings and check the ISO speed. If it is not in the range 200 to 400 then change it even as low as 100 initially.


Take a picture in a garden with a wide range of colours and with a face in the picture in reasonable daylight preferably with something white too. If you can display during recording of afterwards note the f number and shutter speed down.

That picture really ought to be quite good with virtually all digital cameras on automatic working properly. It will be a good quick check of exposure, colour rendition/balance and for faults.


If you download the file to Windows or similar if you right click on the file and select properties and advance you will get the EXIF information that will give us useful insight into the settings.




Post the picture on here.


I still suspect a fault or erroneous settings!