Comments for GeoffLawrence.com

Comment on Photographers need no skill at all! by Lorraine

Lorraine — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:41:29 +0000

Totally agree. I’m just getting into photography and people tell me that I have an eye for it and my composition is terrific. However, I’m still working on the technical end. I have friends who have more expensive cameras than I do and really have the technical knowledge but the composition isn’t quite there. A photographer leading a workshop once said, a good photographer can take a terrific photo with their cell phone….so it’s not just the equipment.

Comment on Photographers need no skill at all! by Geoff Lawrence

Geoff Lawrence — Sat, 12 May 2012 05:31:27 +0000

Oh yes! I didn’t mean to imply that there was no difference between cheap and expensive cameras. There is loads, and as you say, a good sensor makes a world of difference. So good photographers usually have good cameras which, unfortunately, just reinforces the connection in people’s minds between good cameras and good pictures and they assume that it is the camera doing all the work.

Comment on Photographers need no skill at all! by Deepak

Deepak — Sat, 12 May 2012 03:59:06 +0000

Your are absolutely right, I was new to photography a year back, I purchased a Nikon D3100 after seeing the add and some of my friends told me about, later I realised that there is a lot of difference between camera sensors and so on.
Its really the person who makes the difference not the camera, but still i some times believe that even a good sensor makes some difference.

Comment on Using your Mobile Phone for Photography by Geoff

Geoff — Sun, 06 May 2012 15:02:31 +0000

Thanks for the comments Keith.

Comment on Using your Mobile Phone for Photography by Keith Walker

Keith Walker — Sat, 05 May 2012 23:27:24 +0000

I have Sony Ericsson C905 phone with a Cybershop f/2.8 camera. It has some adjustments, different presets for white balance, landcapes, sunsets, portraits, snow scenes, macro, documents which will vary things like aperture and shutter speed if you know what’s happening ‘under the bonnet’. Actually, it’s not too bad a camera when you get the hang of it although a zoom would be handy. However it takes me back to the 1950s when I was learnig with a Voigtlander Vito II, a fixed 50mm lens, no zoom, no autofocus, no auto exposure. You worked everything out for yourself! The camera was not much bigger than a modern ‘point and shoot’ and produced some excellent images. Remember the second hand 1930s Retina Type 118 camera that Ed Hillary took up Mt Everest in 1953 and took those amazing shots of the summit and the views from it? That was an all manual camera with a poky little viewfinder.

Comment on When The Wind Blows by Kev

Kev — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:26:40 +0000

Hi Geoff, Yes I completely agree with you regarding both sunrises or sunsets. In photographs they do tend to look rather ‘old hat’ or even boring…IF there is no interesting cloud pattern to give them a unique twist and/or colour enhancement. It’s interesting to note tho, that this 2 dimentional image capture perception cannot be said when it comes to the ‘real’ 3D human experience of such an event. Every time I stand at the beach to watch a Pacific sunset it’s nearlly always a spectactular sight, clouds present or not. It just goes to show that what we ‘feel’ when we are actually there (with all senses fired up)…is quite different to what we get out of a flat, 2D image after the fact.

Comment on When The Wind Blows by Geoff

Geoff — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:31:08 +0000

Good article, as usual, Kev. Full of useful stuff. Here in the Mediterranean winter is also the best time to shoot landscapes, the air is much clearer and the sunrises and sunsets are so much better. Actually I find most of the time sunrises are a little boring when there are no clouds in the sky. It is the cloud pattern that makes one sunrise different to another. Otherwise they are just orange rectangles with a horizon one third from the bottom.

Comment on Sharpness, the concept by Kev

Kev — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:15:45 +0000

I pretty much have the same approach. It all depends upon the subject matter, and one generally knows (intuitively senses) when the right amount has been applied. When it’s too much, it takes on a “fake” type of persona, and when it’s too soft, it’s equally annoying. This is obviously a very subjective thing and each individual will have their own taste. This is probably the reason why I see so many pictures on the web that I think are blurry and/or completely out of focus.

Comment on Sharpness, the concept by Geoff

Geoff — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:05:47 +0000

Interesting stuff Kev. I think one of us needs to do a bit on the ‘circle of confusion’ soon to go with this.

I’d like to add a couple of thoughts which have struck me during my day to day photography. I find that more and more I use the sharpening filter in Photoshop, not as a way to save an out of focus picture, but as an ‘effect’. The amount of sharpening I want to apply depends very much on the subject matter, I would be more inclined to sharpen a picture of a building than a baby portrait. As to the amount of sharpening to apply, I know when I have got it right when it ceases to annoy me that the picture is either too soft or too sharp. In other words, it is right when I cease to see it.

The other thing I have noticed is that the ‘apparent sharpness’ of a picture can be greatly enhanced by including an out of focus area next to it. For instance, throwing the background out of focus makes the foreground look sharper by contrast.

Comment on Photographers Can’t Draw by Geoff

Geoff — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:50:23 +0000

Yep, and best of all, a model release is no longer an issue provided that you don’t make the face too recognisable.