I'm a stereotypical smartphone-wielding expert beginner photographer. I've developed a knack for serendipitous timing and framing, to the point where I'm the designated photographer for family pictures and such. That being said, I have no particular knowledge, skills, tools or affinity for photography, I just pull out my smartphone when I see something neat.
Given my level (or lack thereof), my only advice is to stop worrying. As long as you take pictures, some of them will be great and some of them will be shitty. Experience and luck will merely improve your odds of making a great picture instead of a shitty one.
Rule of thirds is a big one. The camera grid is the single most important tool to help frame a picture, always have it enabled. You can use cropping to fine-tune it later if needed, but the picture should have a decent starting point.
If you want to practice composition, use a static landscape. Static removes timing from the equation and the relative size difference between you and a landscape make adjustments (both in location and aiming) less sensitive.
Try doodling/sketching. Not necessarily as an end-goal to learn drawing, but to exercise your artistic skills in general. I've spent years drawing in class out of sheer boredom during my tertiary education, starting out as a complete neophyte. I didn't realize it at the time, but I trained my artistic vision in the process beyond just drawing, which is probably why I'm also good at taking pictures. Practice improves your artistic skills, regardless of medium.
These days, it's a physical exertion issue, thanks to long covid. 8(
The biggest problem I had with taking pictures was dealing with them after the fact. I made a few python scripts to build folders of the formula photos/yyyy/yyyymmdd/ to put the days results into, which helped.
I used to love Picassa, until it got killed, and unfortunately, the last version has a bug where it swaps face tags randomly, corrupting otherwise well chosen tags.
I've been a DSLR user for a long time, and ever since I realized the net cost of a photo was zero, I love taking photos. The key to getting better is just to get out there and keep taking pictures, throw most of them away. You will get better over time.
All that said... my Bride is much, MUCH better than I am at framing... I try to get too clever all the time, she's a natural.
Framing and colouring both take a long time to get the hang of, since there aren’t any really consistent rules and. I’m a hobbyist who’s started putting a lot more time in over the last year or two, and it’s been a journey.
It took me a long time to internalize “fitting the whole subject in the frame”, which sounds simple in theory but often isn’t once you get away from just taking portraits of people. And also, just cause you can shoot a shallow depth of field doesn’t mean you can stop paying attention to what’s behind your subject, it still takes work and thought.
Colouring, and I guess editing in general, has been a lot of trying different tools, being generally unsatisfied, and eventually ending up with Lightroom even though it has its own problems. You’d think straightening and cropping an image would be a solved problem at this point, but all (yes, all) of the free or cheap options have serious shortcomings that make them anywhere from quirky to completely unusable. Even more so with colouring. The most powerful options are the least intuitive. rawtherapee has the worst curve editing widgets ever in history. Darktable has the most nonsensical organizing and naming of its panels.
The market desperately needs an alternative to Lightroom that isn’t Adobe, with halfway usable library management baked in. I guess this turned into a bit of a software rant, but that’s been my experience so far trying to learn how to take photos I’m really happy with.
Food photography is a great genre to build these muscles. Photographing food incorrectly makes it look unappetising and alienating, so there’s a dramatic reward-gradient for framing correctly and understanding light. A small number of techniques go a long way. Successfully deploy those can be an encouraging precedent for tackling other genres of photography.
I go through phases of feeling like I've mastered photography and other phases where I have a lot to learn.
Last summer I took a lot of flower pictures and posted them to Mastodon because people liked them. I thought it was easy to do but a little boring. I found though that other people were making photos where all the parts of the flower were "tack sharp" but even when I was around f/7.0 or so I found the depth of field was small enough that the disc and ray flowers of a composite usually weren't both as sharp as the CCD could show.
I found other the other guys were using this technique
I got the equipment to do it but never really got started because the project that took over for me was this: I made a picture of a field of flowers that a friend wanted to print on fabric and make a dress out of, that got me thinking "gee, what if I never had any problems with repeats and seams?" and figured it would be possible to photograph 50 or so flowers, cut them out, and then have the computer put them together to fill whatever space I want. So now I am setting up a studio to do this and will be improving my software that emulates Disney's multiplane camera for this project.
I got into sports photography last year and also had times when I came back from a game defeated, particularly when it was volleyball or basketball or something played in doors. In those cases I would go to dpreview and ask my photog friends for help and usually get good advice.
One area where I feel like I'm on my own is in mastering stereo photography which I do with this little guy
and the problem has so many dimensions from "how do I undo the pincushion distortion?" to "what kind of scene has colors that will do well with a red-cyan anaglyph on paper?", "what makes a good stereo composition?", "how could I sell group stereograms taken against a striking backdrop?" etc.
When the going gets tough the tough get going.
I always thought that I should put as many people in the photo as possible in group settings, because more lively energy = better right? but my brother is a trained photographer and he encouraged me to focus on one or two people at most, to create a more interesting photo. it becomes a character study instead of a bunch of people where you don't know where to look.
In a past life, I really enjoyed amateur photography and had a small but nice set of lenses to go with a DSLR. Having high manual control (that only a few phones have) combined with much bigger sensors and specialty lenses (ultrawide, super fast, etc.) gave me a lot of creative options. These days a lot of that can be faked in software or AI, but the results aren't quite perfect.
For me, learning photography at a local community college was a lot of fun, not just in acquiring technical skills but also learning from seasoned professionals on topics like subject matter, time of day, lighting, focus, composition, color, etc.
You can probably get a lot of that through videos today, but it's better when someone experienced can review your actual work and offer real time feedback.
Yes, as in that I do struggle, and ~98-99.9% of my photos are junk. Solution here is saturation: take 50-1000 photos to get a good one, and also plan.
No, as in I take photos separately for documentation purposes (I want a photo of something as record), and for artistic purposes ( The personal and social satisfaction of taking a good photo of wildlife is very large). I don't expect my documentation smartphone photo of a cool building to be award winning, but I will also go out of my way to be in the right place and time to get good lighting and angle for decent composition with a tripod and mirrorless camera.
I used to hire models to pose me, or have people volunteer. I'd expect to take maybe 500 pictures an hour, and out of that get ten average results and one perfect image.
Taking more images is absolutely a valid approach to photography! Of course it gets harder if you're shooting children or animals, where you need to react and be in the moment, anticipating.
It's also something that can't be done if you're planning to be constrained by analog film, or plotting and planning every shot in advance. But those styles never worked for me anyway - too much planning and trying to craft-in-advance just feels sterile and fake to me.
I mostly just take pics of my kid, dog, and family. They used to be quite bad, but the latest iPhone just takes good pics 95% of the time unless the lighting is really bad.
The camera software is really good - it captures the face looking at the camera when the person is moving which makes it so much easier to take good pics of the kid.
I suck at taking photos in many conventional aspects (bad framing, no posing, bad distance/angle, etc) and I've worked on that, but one thing I still seem to have a knack for is always pressing the capture button at the exact instant the subject blinks. I can't seem to stop doing it at rates that feel more than random. We can usually pull a better picture from the accompanying motion photo, I guess.
I reckon a good knowledge of photography (and experience) helps to obtain better results. Knowing `depth of field' can give only the main subject in sharp focus.
Examining the background and/or resting the camera on/against physical object before taking the snap could achieve a better result. The quality of the lens system in the `camera' is also very important!
Yes, i'm a millenial and no good at posing. I want my phone to act as a professional photographer and tell me to turn to the side, lean in etc... maybe even throw some compliments :)
The only issue when taking pics of people would be to make sure they are all smiling and have their eyes open and are looking at the camera. I take many pics in sequence.
I take photos of anything-except-humans. I do photowalks in cities that I live/lived/visited. I can take 200-1000 (in case I want to capture that very moment the horse's tail in the Royal Guard moved) photos in a photowalk. They don't 'make sense' as I will take 20 photos of cats playing and right after a roof showered with light, and then at a lazy cafe, some half-faded/half-covered graffiti (that I photographed on my previous trip 10 years ago).
I don't do much to 'improve'. I do this because I like it. I don't care about what other people think. It is my hobby and it will die with me :)
I have improved though my angles/zoom/light, but it is more so I minimize editing/corrections/etc.
EDIT: I swear I didn't read the response of 'free energy' above, but he/she also wrote angles/zoom/light in the very same order.. great minds think alike!!
One strategy for better pictures is not to worry so much about what the camera points at (or where the focus should be in the frame); instead focus on the edges of the picture. By shifting your focus from the "focus" to everything else, you end up with pictures that contain a lot more of what you want.
Given my level (or lack thereof), my only advice is to stop worrying. As long as you take pictures, some of them will be great and some of them will be shitty. Experience and luck will merely improve your odds of making a great picture instead of a shitty one.