# Anyone got a Lumix DMC LX3?



## soulfulofsoul (Mar 11, 2010)

So based on good reviews here and elsewhere I want to buy a Lumix LX3.

The only negative is the lack of zoom so I decided to give it a couple of days and see if I changed my mind because of this point.

I haven't really decided either way though, I'm just stilll uncertain. 

I'd like to mainly take pictures of outdoor nature stuff, outdoor night parties, gigs, friends etc. 

There would also be a bit of landscape and street lifey stuff which I'm pretty sure it would be good for.

So, if you have one... is the lack of zoom an issue? Is it good for mates birthdays and stuff like that?


----------



## Kanda (Mar 11, 2010)

What lack of zoom? 

Look down the page... http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=312528


----------



## editor (Mar 11, 2010)

It's the best compact camera I've ever owned. And I've owned (and reviewed) a lot of high end compacts!


----------



## fen_boy (Mar 11, 2010)

I've got one, it's very good. I've not been kind to it though - the zoom is now a bit crunchy with sand and the zoom wheel thing is a bit stuck. The only thing I don't like about it is the settings wheel is easily knocked so you have to check what it's pointing to every time you take it out of your bag.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 11, 2010)

I recently bought one and I absolutely love it.  My dSLR hasn't seen the light of day since I bought the LX3 which is in my jacket pocket every time I go out. It does have a short zoom, but being a 24mm equivalent at the wide end means that the long end is only about 60mm equivalent so just a bit longer than 'standard' but long enough to be of use for portraits without getting distorted noses that you get with standard lenses.

Continuing on the zoom, the image quality is so impressive and sharp that you could well afford to crop quite hard on an image in post processing and still retain the quality you would get with another camera using a long zoom.

Don't forget that the LX3 will also take RAW pictures, not many compact cameras do this, and even without RAW in use, its highest quality image setting is fabulous.

It feels good in the hand because of being made of metal, and the ability to access features using buttons without much need to go into menus gives it the feel of a film camera.  The Intelligent Auto setting is also rather wonderful, it is smarter than a dolphin.

The only rival camera that I could think of would be the Canon S90 which I think was Canon's attempt to answer the LX3, it too has an _f_/2 lens and RAW but not the ultra wide angle - the killer feature of the LX3.


----------



## stowpirate (Mar 11, 2010)

There is always the Fujifilm F200exr or f70/72exr albeit you will lose that wide f2 lens and raw option. My F72 lens is f3.3 wide angle down to f5.6 on the high zoom. It is equiv to 27 - 270mm on a 35mm camera. it gets around the limitations of the lens with some clever tricks and you get a high 10x zoom.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 11, 2010)

Pigeons meet Cat.  Cat meet Pigeons


----------



## MBV (Mar 14, 2010)

I am currently trying to decide between an LX3 and Canon S90. Will that extra 4mm at the wide end really be noticeable if I go for the LX3 over the S90?

(Hope you don't mind OP)


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2010)

dfm said:


> I am currently trying to decide between an LX3 and Canon S90. Will that extra 4mm at the wide end really be noticeable if I go for the LX3 over the S90?
> 
> (Hope you don't mind OP)


Depends on what kind of photos you'll be taking, but the difference is pretty immense. The super wide angle lens of the LX3 is a massive bonus for architecture/landscape photography.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2010)

I'm still amazed by the quality of the photos I get out of my LX3.

Low light, hand held shots in Rotherhithe tunnel this weekend:

















http://www.urban75.org/railway/brunel-thames-tunnel.html


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 14, 2010)

Good pictures editor, this answers the original question.  

However the intermediate question of whether the Canon S90 might be better depends on how you intend to use the camera.  If the main factor is the 24mm wide angle lens then the LX3 is the answer.  However if the main factor is the _f/_2  wide aperture the the S90 may be the answer.  The LX3 only gives_ f._2 at the 24mm wide angle end.  In the middle of its zoom it gives _f/_2.4 and at the long(ish) end it is on_ f/_2.8.  

So if you are going to be regularly using the lens at 28mm or narrower then the S90 will be faster (more sensitive).  The choice is between wide-angle and wide aperture.  If you want both then the LX3 fits the bill but if you want mainly wide aperture and rarely need very wide-angle then the S90 is the one.


----------



## editor (Mar 14, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Good pictures editor, this answers the original question.
> 
> However the intermediate question of whether the Canon S90 might be better depends on how you intend to use the camera.  If the main factor is the 24mm wide angle lens then the LX3 is the answer.  However if the main factor is the _f/_2  wide aperture the the S90 may be the answer.  The LX3 only gives_ f._2 at the 24mm wide angle end.  In the middle of its zoom it gives _f/_2.4 and at the long(ish) end it is on_ f/_2.8. .


Hang on - the Canon S90's aperture range is f/2 al the way to a disappointing f4.9, while the Lumix has a superior f2-2.8.



> Canon S90 IS has 28-105mm f/2-4.9 lens — Panasonic Lx3 has 24-60mm f/2-2.8 lens
> Canon S90 has longer lens, but it is not as wide as LX3. S90 has f/2 maximum aperture at 28mm and LX3 has 24mm. But as the focal length progressed, S90 IS aperture become bigger than LX3. For example, at 60mm, LX3 has f/2.8 max aperture while S90 has smaller f/3.5.
> 
> http://www.radiantlite.com/2009/09/panasonic-lx3-vs-canon-s90is-compact-camera.html





> Both cameras have a maximum aperture of f/2.0 at wide angle, but for the S90 this drops to f/4.9 at the telephoto end, compared to the LX3's much faster f/2.8
> 
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2009/11/19/Canon-PowerShot-S90/p1


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2010)

Thanks for the links editor.  That hots up the debate.


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2010)

There's nothing I've seen about the S90 that would make me want to switch. It's a nice camera, but low light performance - and a fast, ultra-wide angle lens - are really important to me.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 15, 2010)

Considering this quote





> For example, at 60mm, LX3 has f/2.8 max aperture while S90 has smaller f/3.5.



This has me thinking.  If the S90 has an aperture of _f/_2 at 28mm, why does it only have an aperture of _f/_3.5 at 60mm compared to the _f/_2.8 of the Lumix?

The answer that occurs to me is that the Canon lens is optically inferior to the Lumix at 60mm and the aperture has been reduced to remove the aberrations that occur around the edge of the lens that have not been corrected by the lens design and construction.  This inferiority in the Canon would not be surprising as the Lumix lens is a Leica design.


----------



## stowpirate (Mar 15, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm still amazed by the quality of the photos I get out of my LX3.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.urban75.org/railway/brunel-thames-tunnel.html



Seeing your images of the Tunnel I wish I had visited it now. It is a lot bigger than I imagined 

That is a great set of photos but I do feel that you are over rating your camera a tad. I am sure my more mundane F72 could produce similar if not better low noise results.  Albeit more by clever trickery of combining images in camera than your f2 option. There must also be other  cameras that can nearly match this especially at these small sizes that are being posted on the web? Are you planning any reviews on cheapo digitals? I think you might be surprised


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2010)

stowpirate said:


> Seeing your images of the Tunnel I wish I had visited it now. It is a lot bigger than I imagined
> 
> That is a great set of photos but I do feel that you are over rating your camera a tad. I am sure my more mundane F72 could produce similar if not better low noise results.


I doubt that very much to be honest. The fast f2 Leica lens is excellent on the LX3, and I think you'd struggle with the _much_ slower f3.3 lens on the f72 - and with only a 27mm max wideangle you'd miss some details too.

I've used loads of cheap/mid-price digital cameras too - my girlfriend took a relatively upmarket Ixus 850 on the trip and the pictures were very hit and miss.


----------



## stowpirate (Mar 15, 2010)

editor said:


> I doubt that very much to be honest. The fast f2 Leica lens is excellent on the LX3, and I think you'd struggle with the _much_ slower f3.3 lens on the f72 - and with only a 27mm max wideangle you'd miss some details too..



I think where it might struggle is in the time it takes two/three/four photos and combines them in camera to produce a low noise image. 

In more normal use up to auto iso1600 it appears to produce great images albeit at 1600 you do not want to enlarge them that much. In the camera reviews the exr sensor  dynamic range is amongst the best but I have not really been able to test that. 



editor said:


> I've used loads of cheap/mid-price digital cameras too - my girlfriend took a relatively upmarket Ixus 850 on the trip and the pictures were very hit and miss.



We are not talking about the same sort of cameras here


----------



## editor (Mar 15, 2010)

stowpirate said:


> I think where it might struggle is in the time it takes two/three/four photos and combines them in camera to produce a low noise image.


That wouldn't have been possible on a walking tour of a tunnel. It really was quite dark in there.

I've owned three or four Fuji cameras, and although the results have been good, I've never really liked the interface, but each to their own.


----------



## stowpirate (Mar 15, 2010)

editor said:


> That wouldn't have been possible on a walking tour of a tunnel. It really was quite dark in there.
> 
> I've owned three or four Fuji cameras, and although the results have been good, I've never really liked the interface, but each to their own.



I don't really get on with digital. I am more a classic folding camera user with manual mechanical controls and old shutters that actually make the sound.


----------



## MBV (Mar 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Depends on what kind of photos you'll be taking, but the difference is pretty immense. The super wide angle lens of the LX3 is a massive bonus for architecture/landscape photography.



I'll be using it for a bit of everything and I am trying to think where I'll miss the reach of the S90. I explained my dilemma to my Dad who said to go with the LX3 pure for the wide angle. There is no news of an LX4 either which seems odd.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2010)

Some of the greatest photos in the world were taken without any zoom at all, so I'll stick with Capa's philosophy: 


> If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Mar 22, 2010)

Alright! I'm gonna get one, cheers.

I'm pretty sure it does have a tiny zoom 





> Optical zoom: 2.5x


. But then again I don't understand any of this... 


> Extra optical zoom: 4:3 aspect ratio: 3.0x for 7 megapixels, 3.6x for 5 megapixels, 4.5x for 3 megapixels, 2 megapixels, and 0.3 megapixels; 3:2 aspect ratio: 3.0x for 6.5 megapixels, 3.6x for 4.5 megapixels, 4.5x for 3 megapixels, 2.5 megapixels; 16:9 aspect ratio: 3.0x for 6 megapixels, 3.6x for 4.5 megapixels, 4.5x for 2.5 megapixels and 2 megapixels


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 22, 2010)

Optical zoom is a bit of a con. It basically means cropping your photos.


----------



## bmd (Mar 22, 2010)

I love the LX3 for the low light capability and wide-angle lens. My gf took it to New York recently and got some cracking shots in the history museum there (can't think of the name now). There's no flash allowed but it just worked really well. And her shots of the skyline and places like the Flatiron were spot on with the wide-angle lens. I'll probably get a good chance to try it out now the better weather is coming, on the beach and in the woods. Will post up some pics soon.


----------



## editor (Mar 22, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Optical zoom is a bit of a con. It basically means cropping your photos.


You've got that the wrong way around. Digital zoom is the 'con.'


----------



## grimble (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm nearly convinced.  One thing though - the thing that prevents me from buying any new technology, ever.  Is there a newer/better version of this, or something similar, coming out soon?!


----------



## editor (Mar 22, 2010)

grimble said:


> I'm nearly convinced.  One thing though - the thing that prevents me from buying any new technology, ever.  Is there a newer/better version of this, or something similar, coming out soon?!


There'll always be a better version' coming out 'soon' but I certainly wouldn't hold back from buying this now.

I've got a far more expensive (and new) Lumix GF-1, and the LX3 is still my #1 choice.


----------



## grimble (Mar 22, 2010)

Thanks, will try and get a closer look at one - the word-of-mouth positivity on this camera is brilliant.


----------



## dweller (Mar 29, 2010)

according to a recent interview with a top panasonic camera dude in a spanish dslr magazine, 
 there will be further firmware updates to the lx3 and so maybe not an lx4 in the short term

"D SLR Magazine
With some wink ... You can see that we do not ask for the "LX4" ...
PANASONIC (Mr. Shozo Katagiri)
Following the game ....: "yes, that is related to the above question in a way. Although it has no interchangeable lens, the LX3 is, somehow, that kind of prestige camera. For this camera we do not like to be continually introducing new models "evolved", but firmware updates that introduce corrections not functioning, but improvements in function, sometimes based on suggestions from users. Thus, from time to time offer to holders of the camera (LX3) a kind of new camera ˝ ˝ .. Free. "

http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010/03/panasonic-interview-with-dslrmagazine-in-spanish.html


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2010)

That speaks volumes of the quality of the camera. It's still da top dawg!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

editor said:


> You've got that the wrong way around. Digital zoom is the 'con.'



How embarrassing. Yes you're quite right. Posting while rat-arsed is rarely wise.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 5, 2010)

Is this camera usable by beginners? Or can you only get the best out of it if you're a more advanced photographer? I've seen a lot of sample images and they look great, but I fear I wouldn't be able to make the most of the camera.


----------



## Spion (Apr 5, 2010)

mk12 said:


> Is this camera usable by beginners? Or can you only get the best out of it if you're a more advanced photographer? I've seen a lot of sample images and they look great, but I fear I wouldn't be able to make the most of the camera.


Anyone can use it. It has a fully automatic mode that takes care of everything.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2010)

Spion said:


> Anyone can use it. It has a fully automatic mode that takes care of everything.


It's also the best auto mode I've ever used on any camera I've owned.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 6, 2010)

But if I wanted to customize the settings, would it be fairly easy to pick up? Good night shots are important for me.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2010)

mk12 said:


> But if I wanted to customize the settings, would it be fairly easy to pick up? Good night shots are important for me.


Yes - and you can program in two presets too, with your own ISO/focussing/exposure etc options.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 6, 2010)

Oh cool. And it's definitely good at taking night shots?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2010)

mk12 said:


> Oh cool. And it's definitely good at taking night shots?


It's not as good as an SLR, but I've been pleased with the results. 


















Look through my photo section for more examples.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 6, 2010)

mk12 said:


> Oh cool. And it's definitely good at taking night shots?














http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/self_healer/P1010258.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/self_healer/P1010253.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/self_healer/P1010268.jpg


----------



## mk12 (Apr 6, 2010)

Good pics. Are these taken with customized settings?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 6, 2010)

I think I took those on the "P" setting, which is "programmed Auto". So it chooses the shutter speed/aperture and you an fiddle with it if you want to.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 8, 2010)

OK, I think you (and the pictures i've seen taken with it) have convinced me to get one. What's the cheapest I can get if for? I have seen ones for £300?


----------



## keithy (Apr 14, 2010)

I'm going to save up for this one  I've been putting off buying a new camera for ages because I'm too picky


----------



## mk12 (Apr 14, 2010)

What case do LX3 owners have?


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2010)

mk12 said:


> What case do LX3 owners have?


I've never used one - it's quite a tough camera - but an absolute 'must buy' is the Ricoh 'exploding' lens cap.


----------



## maldwyn (Apr 14, 2010)

mk12 said:


> What case do LX3 owners have?



I'm liking this, but at £75 no fecking way.






I use a leather pouch (one that came with a Psion organiser in '89) when it's in my courier bag - otherwise it's naked in my pocket.

I like having to remember to take off/replace the lens cap


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 15, 2010)

I use a little pouch I made out of bubble wrap when I keep my LX3 in my pocket.  Unfortunately I have already got a visible scratch on the LCD from trustingly putting it in my pocket wrapped in a piece of kitchen paper.  I have also put on a sticky backed protective sheet over the LCD, but it is peeling off at the corners.  My camera looks rather rubbishy as a result.

I have an old general purpose Lowepro camera pouch for when I want to carry the camera on my belt.

I have found a fix for the lens dangling on its long thread when removed from the camera.  If you put the thread over the flash bracket you can tuck it under the left ledge and the lens hangs down a much shorter distance.

At the moment I am walking around with my DSLR and two lenses in my small rucksack and the LX3 in my jacket pocket.  The LX3 is getting most use.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2010)

I quite like it when the paint gets rubbed off on my digital cameras and it gets to look a bit tatty because that's how proper cameras should look.

I use my LX3 loads more than my GF-1 and Nikon D300 SLR.


----------



## Kanda (Apr 15, 2010)

maldwyn said:


> I'm liking this, but at £75 no fecking way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I use this one ^^


----------



## Pie 1 (Apr 15, 2010)

maldwyn said:


> I like having to remember to take off/replace the lens cap




So do I


----------



## MBV (Apr 15, 2010)

I've bagged a year old one for £215 delivered  I can't wait for it to arrive now. Thanks for the info people have given.


----------



## dweller (Apr 17, 2010)

maldwyn said:


> I'm liking this, but at £75 no fecking way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you can get cheap copies of that case and still made from leather about £20 on ebay - I have one myself the reddish brown, it is nice but the thing is still fiddly, 
I'm sure they could come up with a better design


----------



## soulfulofsoul (Apr 26, 2010)

Well I finally got one. It's good. Very good. 

I haven't used it much but the wide angle and low light quality have made me  so far.


----------



## leftistangel (Apr 27, 2010)

Anyone here use the LX3 for long exposures? Fiancée got me a very portable tripod which I carry around and can fully extend in a matter of seconds and fancied experimenting with some coastal shots early or late in the day. Got a 46mm adapter tube with a panasonic ND filter, but cant really slow the lens down enough. Wonder if I'll have to maybe attach a second filter. Is the longest possible exposure 60 seconds?


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2010)

You need to use the Starry sky mode for extra long exposures of 15, 30, or 60 seconds.


----------



## bmd (Apr 27, 2010)

editor said:


> I've never used one - it's quite a tough camera - but an absolute 'must buy' is the Ricoh 'exploding' lens cap.



Yeah I've got one of these, I can't be faffed with the dangly lens cap on a bit of string.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 27, 2010)

soulfulofsoul said:


> Well I finally got one. It's good. Very good.
> 
> I haven't used it much but the wide angle and low light quality have made me  so far.



What settings do you use when taking night shots? I have tried the IA mode and there's a lot of noise in the sky.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 28, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> Yeah I've got one of these, I can't be faffed with the dangly lens cap on a bit of string.



You can reduce the 'bit of string' by about 50% by tying it up and it is still long enough to allow the lens cap to be attached to the lens and the dangle factor on the reduced length is not too bad.


----------



## nicksonic (Apr 28, 2010)

i have an LX3 which i bought last year, but i'm kinda caught in a twilight zone of not wanting to constantly use the auto mode, but being slightly overawed by the options (even though i bought a rather good book about exposure etc).

i guess i should just get out and take more photos.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 28, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> i have an LX3 which i bought last year, but i'm kinda caught in a twilight zone of not wanting to constantly use the auto mode, but being slightly overawed by the options (even though i bought a rather good book about exposure etc).
> 
> i guess i should just get out and take more photos.



I have just bought one and i'm in this mode. I really want to take brilliant pictures which I know the camera is capable of, but the options are pretty daunting for a beginner like me. I guess experimentation is the best way of learning. I'm off to watch some motor racing this weekend so i'll see what shots I can take. Fast shutter speed for less blur, right?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 28, 2010)

Yes, fast shutter speed for less blur.  But who wants less blur?  Use a slow shutter speed and pan the camera with the movement of the car so that you get a streaky background and a sharp car.  Experiment with different shutter speeds and practise the panning.  The camera will do its own focussing.  Have a practise run by the side of the road where you live.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 28, 2010)

Am I right in thinking aperture relates to the blur/sharpeness of the background?


----------



## mincepie (Apr 28, 2010)

Yes. And also  in ternms of the amount of light let in. A larger aperure (smaller F number!) will let more light in to the camera, so you can take the picture quicker, freezing say a moving subject (else it will be blurry) but a larger aperture has a shorter depth of field  - the amount of the subject that will be in focous is smaller - so you get blurry backgrounds. Nice for portraits. Not nice for say a 'technical' shot showing detail in something- say a car - if half the car is out of focus.


----------



## cybertect (Apr 28, 2010)

mincepie said:


> A larger aperure (smaller F number!) will let more light in to the camera, so you can take the picture quicker, freezing say a moving subject (else it will be blurry) but a larger aperture has a shorter depth of field  - the amount of the subject that will be in focous is smaller - so you get blurry backgrounds. Nice for portraits.



How much can the LX-3 actually really throw the background out of focus in a normal portrait though? 

I've just had a browse through the LX-3 Flickr group and I can't see much of it except in macro shots.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

reckons the LX-3 will give a total of 0.83m in focus with f/2.8 at a distance of 2m with 13mm focal length (the far end of its zoom). That doesn't leave much room for a real background blur beyond 2.5m.

I'm not knocking the LX-3. It seems to be a fine camera, but it sounds a bit hopeful with a sensor that small.


----------



## leftistangel (Apr 28, 2010)

editor said:


> You need to use the Starry sky mode for extra long exposures of 15, 30, or 60 seconds.



I usually avoid scene mode because of its limited options and no raw.

I'm tempted by stacking a second DMW-LND46 ND filter (there only £20) in addition to one ive got with of course the lens adapter and using manual shutter or aperature. One on its own doesnt really slow it down enough for me, even stopped down to F8.


----------



## leftistangel (Apr 28, 2010)

cybertect said:


> How much can the LX-3 actually really throw the background out of focus in a normal portrait though?
> 
> I've just had a browse through the LX-3 Flickr group and I can't see much of it except in macro shots.
> 
> ...



For me, thats the only slight niggle and area of improvement if they ever did replace it. If only it stretched to 70mm, as even at 60mm at F2.8 you get little bokeh. Though it still, depending on the distance of the background,provides some blur.


----------



## mincepie (Apr 29, 2010)

cybertect said:


> How much can the LX-3 actually really throw the background out of focus in a normal portrait though?
> 
> I've just had a browse through the LX-3 Flickr group and I can't see much of it except in macro shots.
> 
> ...



This is the truth I suspect.... The LX3 is on my shopping list next month ahead of a trip away, to go with my 40d DSLR - I did look at the GF1 - but its expensive and bigger.  It's going to give the same sort of shots as my 17-55 f2.8

You can maximise the "short dof" expereince by getting the subject close to the camera, using the maximum zoom and having the background far away.


----------



## nicksonic (Apr 30, 2010)

mk12 said:


> What case do LX3 owners have?



i've got a lowepro d-res 8, cost me about £8 off ebay. 









a perfect fit plus you can get another battery in too


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 30, 2010)

Here is my pouch for the LX3.  It is as mentioned elsewhere made of bubblewrap but you can't see that because it is covered in the ever useful gaffer tape.  Cost: a few pence worth, off a roll of gaffer tape.






The image on the screen is life-size (on my computer)

I also own an old Lowpro pouch that fits on a belt but mostly my camera is in its bubblewrap pouch in my pocket


----------



## nicksonic (May 7, 2010)

here are some pics i took on a walk in wiltshire/hampshire/dorset last weekend using the iA mode -

















they're ok i guess, it was an overcast day, they just don't really jump out at me.

i used to have a lomo which gave me really saturated colours, i suppose i just need to get to know the lx3 better


----------



## editor (May 7, 2010)

To be honest, a field of green, a pylon and a white sky are never going to produce great shots. The signpost pic could have had been given more punch by using macro - e.g.


----------



## nicksonic (May 7, 2010)

i realise it's as much about shot selection as anything else...


----------



## editor (May 7, 2010)

I don't want to be critical but you could have taken the same shots with a really expensive SLR and I doubt if you'd be too impressed with the results.


----------



## nicksonic (May 7, 2010)

editor said:


> I don't want to be critical but you could have taken the same shots with a really expensive SLR and I doubt if you'd be too impressed with the results.



no be critical. as i said it's about shot selection, i need to take more photos.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 8, 2010)

Nicksonic I think you could save a couple of those pictures in Photoshop or similar software.  The one with the pylon would be most difficult so I wouldn't bother with that one.  

However the second one with the bluebells has sufficient variety of colours and textures to make a decent picture.  It needs a bit more contrast which means that the bleached out white sky on the left would have to be cropped out before doing so.  I would crop right through the middle of the leftmost tree trunk.  To balance the picture I would sacrifice a bit of the foreground leafy bit.  This means that tonally the next lightest bit - the sky through the tree branches would not look too bright when you brightened up the lightest tones while simultaneously darkening the darkest part slightly.  I use 'levels' for this because Elements doesn't have 'curves'.  I would also increase the hue saturation and perhaps give a bit of 'unsharp mask'.

As for the Cranborne signpost picture that would benefit from similar treatment.  The lightest part of the picture is the signpost, so it would be appropriate to lighten it further to make it white without bleaching it out again using 'levels' or 'curves'.  This will simultaneously lighten the grey sky which will still be fairly dark and moody.  I think I would also crop a bit off the left of the picture between the letter G and the E and maybe a bit off the top for balance and to lose some of that very dark right hand corner that looks like vignetting - or a stray finger.  Once again a bit of unsharp mask will bring life to edges of shapes in the picture.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2010)

I don't think there's much hope for the signpost photo to be honest - the composition just isn't up to much, but if I _had_ to work with it, I'd crop it like this:


(Oh and be sure to look up work by Cartier Bresson and Andre Kertesz for tips about composition - they're the _masters!)_


----------



## nicksonic (May 9, 2010)

thanks for taking the time to make comments... what i'd like is to have more control over my pics rather than just pointing and shooting.

ed - i'll take a look at bresson and kertesz.


----------

