My pictures compared to Magazine pictures

[mol3000]

I just took pictures yesterday with a 4 megapixel cam (i hope to soon upgrade) and i want them to look like the pictures in magazines. Now i know some of it is lighting but is there any software or a filter in fireworks or photoshop that i can run a picture thru to give it that professional look?????
The reason i asked is because i heard someone mad a software that could make movies you record with regular videocamera into a regular movie like look.

[enstg8er]

you need a digital slr with manual control and then shoot in RAW mode...

[Conquest10]

Why do people think there's a magic filter in Photoshop that will fix anything? Garbage in = garbage out. Megapixels mean nothing. Most Nikon pros up until the D2X shot with a 4 megapixel camera (some still do as they see nothing wrong with their current camera). Lighting is one of THE most important things in photography (Hence the "photo" in the word).

The movie filter you talk about just changes the color balance and add motion blur and "grain" to simulate film.

[mol3000]

you need a digital slr with manual control and then shoot in RAW mode...

do all digital cams shoot in raw mode??? and when you say manual control you mean dont let the cam do auto like auto flash, auto focus and etc???????

[Abbadon]

Hi,

You will not be able to achieve the superior quality that you sometimes see in magazines with a digital camera, professional photographers use high quality cameras with lenses that can capture light and shadows beyond what the human eye can. Keep in mind also that photography is an art, you need to undertand abstract concepts such as perspective.

If you compare the price of a camera such as a Professional Camera Nikon or Canon against digital consumer oriented cameras you will notice there is a huge difference. Up to now Film is superior to the current digital tecnology

Mastering shadows and light is practically a course itself in art. Masters like Leonardo Da Vinci exploited this (Ref. book called Trattato della Pittura).

[guns1inger]

Raw mode means as the ccd captured the image. No post processing, no compression.

Manual means having control over all aspects, including zoom, focus, apeture, shutter speed, exposure, ISO settings etc. You need to understand how these things interact with each other to be able to adjust each setting to get the image that you want.

Avoid using the camera flash. If you must use flash, get a camera with a hotshoe so you can control external flash units. Bounce light around. Learn how to shoot with available light.

Learn about composition. This includes light and shadow, position, depth of field, the oft-quoted "rule of thirds' etc.

Unless you are spend $1000's on a camera, then you can get digital SLR and even high-end sub-SLR digital that will rival the film output of similarly priced film cameras. However you will never point and shoot to get professional results. As with everything, it takes time, practice, reading and skill to do something well.

[enstg8er]

Megapixels mean nothing.

mostly. for magazine work, yes. for wedding/portrait, no. the chance to sell large portraits requires more m-pix's.

do all digital cams shoot in raw mode???

no, only upscale ones do. and raw is not standardized, though adobe is trying. the ability to work with raw is more important that the ability to purchase photoshop.

and when you say manual control you mean dont let the cam do auto like auto flash, auto focus and etc???????

you are referring to snapshots. with modern cameras they can be quite good. but it is not photography and professional level. control differs with the photogrsaphy you wish to do. exposure, depth of field, composition. auto-focus has a place in prof photography, just not in all cases.

You will not be able to achieve the superior quality that you sometimes see in magazines with a digital camera, professional photographers use high quality cameras with lenses that can capture light and shadows beyond what the human eye can.

untrue. magazine reproduction is not near high qualoty enough to demand film. even work submitted on film is usually run through a drum scanner and digitized for use. the too;s you use depends on the field of work. landscapes and archetecture use large format film cameras for ultimate control, even perspective. this is a favorite of product advertising also. news/sports and wedding photo is nearly all digital. speed and convenience is king. it is now common for wedding photogs to post the shots on a hosting site and give the couple the account password. they can then select the shots for the album and friends/relatives can also make purchases. the accts remain open for additional purchases later.

i agree with the rest in its entirety...

adding to gunsl1inger,
take some classes. see what your getting into. figure out what field interests you. then start collectiong the equipment, it gets expensive.

[thecoalman]

Hi,

You will not be able to achieve the superior quality that you sometimes see in magazines with a digital camera, professional photographers use high quality cameras with lenses

I'd have to disgree with that, My sister-in-law has both a digital and film Canon SLR's and the digital is just as good if not better. Keep in mind this a professional digital camera and @ 8MP it can produce deatail superior to the film.. at least in my eyes. I know it was mentioned that megapixel means nothing which is true to some extent but it will make a huge difference when combined with a superior camera. Also note the lenses are fully interchangeable...

[lordsmurf]

Oh boy ... here goes....

I just took pictures yesterday with a 4 megapixel cam (i hope to soon upgrade) and i want them to look like the pictures in magazines. Now i know some of it is lighting but is there any software or a filter in fireworks or photoshop that i can run a picture thru to give it that professional look?????
The reason i asked is because i heard someone mad a software that could make movies you record with regular videocamera into a regular movie like look.

No. There's not much that can be said after that.

Magazine photographers primarily shoot slide film or use a pro dSLR. Megapixels mean very little, compared to lighting and glass. Real photographers don't require filters. They can help, they are often used. But true photographers use filters to tweak, nothing else.

Beyond that, all magazines style are different. A sport magazine, for example, shoots with 35mm formats. Something like Playboy shoots with large-format Polaroid (not the same as the crap consumer Polaroid you're thinking of). Others use medium format 220. It all depends on what you're doing. The camera meets the needs of the job at hand.

Why do people think there's a magic filter in Photoshop that will fix anything?

So true. So sad.

do all digital cams shoot in raw mode??? and when you say manual control you mean dont let the cam do auto like auto flash, auto focus and etc???????

No. But the good ones will, the pro dSLRs. "Raw mode" is a digital concept, it does not exist for film.

Manul control as in you do most everything yourself. Auto-focus is good enough these days that it is more of a preference than anything else. I shoot all sports manual. Even when I use auto-focus, I use it to set the shot, then turn it off again, because some of the hair triggers can change when you don't want it to.

You will not be able to achieve the superior quality that you sometimes see in magazines with a digital camera

This is not true, you cannot make that statement. Even Sports Illustrated and National Geographic are allowing some digital shots, mixed with their slide work these days. The high megapixel cameras, mixed with the filtering systems, plus the imporvements with RAW images can sometimes make digital more appealing and better suited that film.

professional photographers use high quality cameras with lenses that can capture light and shadows beyond what the human eye can.

What? I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Photographers use their eyes. There are many films and filters that can augment an image, but photographers still have to be able to "see" (in their head) the image. It is not blindly done. Special films and filters are use far less than people would imagine. The most common thing done is to use high-saturation slides, to give an extra "oomph" to the image. You see this a lot in National Geographic.

Mastering shadows and light is practically a course itself in art.

And no matter how many years you shoot, you will always learn more. Nobody knows everything. Photographers often attend each other's workshops to pick up tricks. They're really not all that expensive, a 2-day weekend of up to 10 hours each day only runs $200-400 most of the time. I know one photographer that took a group to Tahiti for 5 days for only $1000 per person.

Raw mode means as the ccd captured the image. No post processing, no compression. Manual means having control over all aspects, including zoom, focus, apeture, shutter speed, exposure, ISO settings etc. You need to understand how these things interact with each other to be able to adjust each setting to get the image that you want. Avoid using the camera flash. If you must use flash, get a camera with a hotshoe so you can control external flash units. Bounce light around. Learn how to shoot with available light. Learn about composition. This includes light and shadow, position, depth of field, the oft-quoted "rule of thirds' etc. Unless you are spend $1000's on a camera, then you can get digital SLR and even high-end sub-SLR digital that will rival the film output of similarly priced film cameras. However you will never point and shoot to get professional results. As with everything, it takes time, practice, reading and skill to do something well.

Pretty much, you've got it.
But you know what? Unlike 35mm cameras, the dSLRs can be "obsolete" (it really sucks), and re-sale value is almost nothing. You can grab a used Nikon D1 or D1X/D1H for as little as $500 sometimes (original price $5000). Simply amazing. Lenses, however, do not devalue much. A good f/2.8 lens will run you about $500-1000 apiece, used. As well it should.

untrue. magazine reproduction is not near high qualoty enough to demand film. even work submitted on film is usually run through a drum scanner and digitized for use.

This is not true. Slidefilm is a must for many magazines, especially cover work.

news/sports and wedding photo is nearly all digital. speed and convenience is king. .

Yes and no. More and more are converting, some are fully converted. But many places still require film, especially in situations where you need to push shoot/process. High ISO work is still the pits for a dSLR. And wedding images will look better on silver halide, so they shoot with this in mind. Usually some of each are done, especially the ones that are expected (family poses, trading rings, etc). It's the receptions that are digital, but the ceremony and posed shots are usually still filmed.

it gets expensive.

Congratulations. You win the understatement of the year award. Many photographers own cameras and lenses that are worth more than their cars.

[enstg8er]

i agree with l-smurf in nearly its entirety. he has the best background of posters i've seen. my only addition is-
as smurf clearly offered, pro equipment is very expensive. it is also specialized. an 8X10 view camera is essential for landscapes but impractical for sports. without knowing the field of interest you will spend valued resources on equipment poorly suited for the work.

the trend is moving in the direction of digital where possible. film still has its place and is unlikely to be displaced soon.

Kodak said in January it would cut 2,500 to 3,500 jobs worldwide this year as part of a restructuring that would eliminate 12,000 to 15,000 jobs by 2007. The company said Wednesday it now will cut 3,500 to 4,000 jobs this year; including an undetermined number in Rochester.

Kodak had said it would accelerate downsizing if film sales were to decline faster than expected. That is now coming to pass. The company initially projected a 7 to 9 percent drop worldwide; it now sees a 10 percent to 12 percent decline this year.

The decline in the United States may reach 20 percent, Kodak said.

this means that alature films will become increasingly difficult to obtain and pro films will become more expensive. this is ok if your a pro, but onerous to learners.
http://www.rochesterdandc.com/biznews/0722V54VVJK_business.shtml.
this is a fact not lost on publishers as smurf noted-

Even Sports Illustrated and National Geographic are allowing some digital shots, mixed with their slide work these days.

this will only increase.

[Conquest10]

Of course, if you know you are going to print large, medium format digital or large format film is what you need.

A link that shows its the photographer, not the camera.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

[Grimey]

There's all this discussion about the techincal aspect of camera's and photography, but what makes photos good as well is the photographer, as Conquest10 pointed out. most photographs in magazines look the way they do because the photographer saw some landscape, person, etc, and thought it would make a good picture, then posed the person, found the perfect angle, played with white balance, exposure settings, lighting effects, fill-flash, etc, etc, etc, and eneded up with a quality photograph. Just using a small digital camera with not to many manual settings and just pointing and shooting probably won't give you the same results as a professional photographer. As well, professional photographers take tons and tons of pictures. They may take dozens and dozens of shots of one thing to make sure they get one they like.


i'm not trying to scare you or belittle you, just pointing out that expecting professional quality photo's out of a point and shoot camera and not too much experience will probably only leave you discouraged. But keep at it and I garauntee you'll end up with some memorable shots.


ps. i'm not just pulling this advice out of my ass :P , I do have some experience with camera's, plus this is about the same advice that has been given to me several times.

[drewzor]

deleted

[ZAPPER]

Just a little dig at all of the photojournalist out there.


It's not the photographer, its the editor that makes the shots famous!


Zapper ducks for cover...

[drewzor]

deleted

[ZAPPER]

I still have contact sheets with shots that were cropped in red grease pencil by varius editors. And as much as I hated them SOBs, they were always right.
The one thing that got drilled into my thick skull, was get as much information on film as possible, it can be cropped down to the detail later. By information I mean good film, good light, good focus and good depth of feild. Composition is an artsy thing, horizon out of level can be corrected by crop and rotate, an elbow in the foreground can be corrected by cropping and so on. What can't be corrected is out of focus, poor light and bad depth of feild. The image has to have the information to be worked with, the art is subjective, the mechanics are not.



Oh why did I ever pick up a camera?

[lordsmurf]

A link that shows its the photographer, not the camera.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

That's not necessarily true either. It's a fragile balance.
CRUX 1 = You must have a photographic eye.
CRUX 2 = You must know how to use photography equipment.
CRUX 3 = Your photo equipment must not impose limitations on your abilities.

It's the 3rd statement there, which is the problem to a general statement along the lines of "it's the person, not the camera". The technology in your hands makes the image in your mind materialize in print. One cannot exist without the other.

I too have shot many a great image with a P&S camera, either because it's all I could sneak in (yes, SNEAK in!), or because the terrain was too hard to carry the SLR, or because the SLR was damaged and the P&S backup was the only thing left in the bag, or whatever. But the question here is, could the SLR have made a better image than the P&S? Undoubtedly. The P&S was fine, but the SLR in the same situation would have improved the shot.

most photographs in magazines look the way they do because the photographer saw some landscape, person, etc, and thought it would make a good picture, .

"People take pictures, photographers take photographs." I love that quote.

And actually, it's not so much that you see the image, but rather that you were looking for it. Take football. A sports photographer knows when to look for the interception or the exact moment the ball is caught. If you wait to see it, you'll miss it. It's about anticipating what is to come, and then catching it on film. You will miss the best shot of a sunrise or sunset if you wait to see it before shooting. Anticipate and be proactive, not reactive. Reaction misses the moment.

It's not the photographer, its the editor that makes the shots famous!

With some exceptions (New York Times is one of them, AP can do this too) photographers have a large say in imagery, more than most would think. Photography editors tend to respect the choices of their staff. And then the photo editor has a large weight in the overall content of the publication.

#1 is ads. They deem length of publication, and you must fit them as per contract (certain page, placement, or just general).
#2 is your art. Photos, illustrations, etc.
#3 is your words. Words fill the space around ads and images. Your news editor may be able to arrange story and help decide which comes after the lead, but he/she has almost no say over which photo goes. Stories are often written longer than needed and then arbitrarily chopped off to fit the space, and is why reverse pyramid is the writing structure (that and reading habits).

Even the editor-in-chief can be pressed hard by a photo editor (and by proxy his photo staff) over which image (if any) needs to run. And when there are arguments between photographers/editors or between editors, run. Doors slam, voices raise, and it can almost come to blows.

i want them to look like the pictures in magazines.

Can you show me some magazine images, and tell me which magazine they are from? Post some images, and I can do my best to guess at what they used to create the scenario. At very least, I could tell you what I would do to try and re-create the scenario.

A sunset, a child playing, a baseball game, a model in the nude or lingerie, a dog running, stars, animals, plants, bugs ... each has it's own style and needs.

I also suggest this as excellent reading material:
http://product.half.ebay.com/National-Geographic-Photography-Field-Guide_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ2461513
The book is sold new and used all over the place. It runs anywhere from $1 to $30.

Kodak had said it would accelerate downsizing if film sales were to decline faster than expected.

Kodak has been suffering since before I first picked up a camera. They have long been battered by competitors. Fuji films are really a top choice anyway, so until Fuji announces they are quitting, there's nothing to panic over. Agfa is pretty popular too, especially outside of North America.

As far as price goes, it's always been expensive. Most of the upper line of films have always been limited in production. A roll of infrared film, for example, runs about $25 to buy and then about $20 more to special process. E6 process films and centers are not hurting.

Some of the small places that deal with consumers are closing, yes. But that was long expected, with competition from shit-shacks like Walgreens and Walmart. But I've recently spoken to a few of the labs around me, and they're not hurting for business. In fact, a few of them have seen an increase in film business thanks to the closings of smaller locations. They also said film prices are not expected to change much, if at all. Nor the pricing on chemicals and process services.

Funny enough, I still have bulk loaders and DX-stamped cassettes. And I just took a peek in my loader. It has film in it. I imagine it's 10-year-old B&W stock.

[mol3000]

thanks for all your help so far.... there was a couple of things i did want noted... i have been reading some on this subject but its not gonna be a full time thing or even a hobby. Basically i will be taking pictures mostly of people. I want to do it because i dont have the money to pay anyone else and really dont like paying everytime i need to take pictures of people for a website so i want to do it myself. Which leads to the next thing and thats i dont want to spend to much.

[Grimey]

For just taking pictures of people for websites, you don't need to spend a tone of money to make them look good. Taking the picture then playing with colours and levels until it looks good to you should suffice for what you need(if I'm understanding you correctly). I'd reccomend Photoshop Elements, it's got all the features you would need for a fraction of the price of CS2. Or if you want to go even cheaper, Picasa from Google can do a bit of post-processing, and it's free.

Basically, if you don't want to spend too much time, money or effort, just take the photo, play around with it a bit until it looks good to you, then save it and call it a day. As long as it looks good to you then it's a good photo.

[guns1inger]

I recently found myself looking for a new camera. I could not afford a full digital SLR, but I wanted something with good optics and a good range of manual controls, and raw output. In short, dSLR features for a much lower than dSLR price. I ended up getting the Fuji Finepix S5600 (S5200 in the US), and am very happy with it. It does not have interchangeable lens, but it does have a great range of manual controls (ISO from 64 - 1600, shutter spped from 15 seconds - 1/2000 sec, apeture from f 3.2 - f 8), a full set of priority modes, manual and auto focus, and 38 - 380mm zoom (10 x optical) and more). It can also take 55mm filters and conversion lenses. It is also very battery friendly. It came with a set of Everyready Energizer batteries that gave me well over 500 shots, including some very long exposure night shots, a fair few flash shots, and a lot of zooming/focusing. I expect to get well over this from 2500mAh rechargables.

You can read the review at Steve's Digicams here : http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/fuji_s5200.html

And more technical details and review links here
http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/reviews/fuji/fujifilm_finepix_s5600_s5200.php

For the money you get great features, a lot of flexibility, and an optically sound camera.

As much as I love film, I just don't have the budget to play around, and cheap digital cameras are often constraining. This seems to be a happy, budget satisfying medium.

[mol3000]

I recently found myself looking for a new camera. I could not afford a full digital SLR, but I wanted something with good optics and a good range of manual controls, and raw output. In short, dSLR features for a much lower than dSLR price. I ended up getting the Fuji Finepix S5600 (S5200 in the US), and am very happy with it. It does not have interchangeable lens, but it does have a great range of manual controls (ISO from 64 - 1600, shutter spped from 15 seconds - 1/2000 sec, apeture from f 3.2 - f 8), a full set of priority modes, manual and auto focus, and 38 - 380mm zoom (10 x optical) and more). It can also take 55mm filters and conversion lenses. It is also very battery friendly. It came with a set of Everyready Energizer batteries that gave me well over 500 shots, including some very long exposure night shots, a fair few flash shots, and a lot of zooming/focusing. I expect to get well over this from 2500mAh rechargables.

You can read the review at Steve's Digicams here : http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/fuji_s5200.html

And more technical details and review links here
http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/reviews/fuji/fujifilm_finepix_s5600_s5200.php

For the money you get great features, a lot of flexibility, and an optically sound camera.

As much as I love film, I just don't have the budget to play around, and cheap digital cameras are often constraining. This seems to be a happy, budget satisfying medium.

thanks man, i will give it a look