What's new

Clinic: Open 24 Hours

LogisticEarth

LogisticEarth

brians_myth said:
Great idea Cash. I love thee challenge and the opportunity this thread will provide. So I'll jump in. Have at 'er gents.

View attachment 625441
Click to expand...

This one is kinda interesting, as the dog has some expression going on and looks kinda..rough around the edges or something. That gives the dog some emotion/character, making it different than most other dog/pet pictures, which often are just 100% boring. You also have the background blurred out nicely.

However, there are a few big technical problems with the image. First and foremost your focus is sharp on the dog's nose, rather than it's eyes. Secondly, the dog in general is a bit underexposed, and thirdly the eyes are in deep shadows. You're shooting with a bright background, so either setting exposure for the dog's face and deal with a semi-blown out background, or using some kind of fill flash either may have been good ideas. For people as well as animals, getting the eyes right is usually key.
 
LogisticEarth

LogisticEarth

Also, as far as suggesting Flickr or other third-party hosting sites, there are a number of advantages they have over attaching them to the forum:

1) First and foremost is you have way better control over the image. You can link a thumbnail image to a full-resolution file. This allows you to view an image for review in full detail, without clogging up the thread itself with giant, table-breaking images.

2) As previously said, all the EXIF/Metadata is automatically available, which is key for helping beginners with critiques

3) Over time, you end up building a high quality photo gallery that other people can view, rather than just an amassed pile of imgur links or forum posts. Often I will look at people's other work to see what their personal style is, or any reoccurring weaknesses or strengths they have.

4) Making an account takes 60 seconds. It's very useful and makes your online presentation a bit more professional. If you actually care about your photos, you should take the time to host them properly, and Flickr, 500px, etc. are the easiest way to do that.

The downside is, someone might shift their photos around and the link will go dead....so what? We're not building a museum here. It's an active photo critique thread. If someone wants to learn about improving their photography, they shouldn't be digging through hundreds of forum posts from years ago. They should be going outside and shooting, and then posting new images for us to rip apart!:thumbup1:
 
Cash_Stronomer

Cash_Stronomer

Well that last point is a good one, hence the thread. You won't understand your problems by researching others, or at least near enough.
 
brians_myth

brians_myth

LogisticEarth said:
This one is kinda interesting, as the dog has some expression going on and looks kinda..rough around the edges or something. That gives the dog some emotion/character, making it different than most other dog/pet pictures, which often are just 100% boring. You also have the background blurred out nicely.

However, there are a few big technical problems with the image. First and foremost your focus is sharp on the dog's nose, rather than it's eyes. Secondly, the dog in general is a bit underexposed, and thirdly the eyes are in deep shadows. You're shooting with a bright background, so either setting exposure for the dog's face and deal with a semi-blown out background, or using some kind of fill flash either may have been good ideas. For people as well as animals, getting the eyes right is usually key.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback Logistic! It was a bit of a concern of mine that I was unable to get the focal point on the eyes. I definitely need practice on manually focusing with my lens in concert with the focal point settings. I will also play around a bit and work with the exposure to see if I can't get a bit more detail around the eyes and darker areas. Thank you again!
 
Cash_Stronomer

Cash_Stronomer

Here's something I took today. Went out for a bit, but the bitter cold kept me in the car too much to make the camera too worth while!

$IMG_0660.jpg

I re-sized it and used the up-loader, but under neath is a link that should hopefully work to get you to the better version.

http://imgur.com/YWCLs8m

As far as the technical stuff goes, here's what I know. I shoot on a Canon 510 point and shoot. This was in aperture mode, focus was set to 'macro', white balance was 'auto', ISO was 80, and focal was 3.4. With the 'raw' picture, I boosted the contrast 15%, darkened 10%, cropped a bit, and enhanced the color 15%. Edit if it helps to prove a point, and don't be afraid to tell me how awful it is!
 
LogisticEarth

LogisticEarth

Cash_Stronomer said:
Here's something I took today. Went out for a bit, but the bitter cold kept me in the car too much to make the camera too worth while!

View attachment 625790

I re-sized it and used the up-loader, but under neath is a link that should hopefully work to get you to the better version.

http://imgur.com/YWCLs8m

As far as the technical stuff goes, here's what I know. I shoot on a Canon 510 point and shoot. This was in aperture mode, focus was set to 'macro', white balance was 'auto', ISO was 80, and focal was 3.4. With the 'raw' picture, I boosted the contrast 15%, darkened 10%, cropped a bit, and enhanced the color 15%. Edit if it helps to prove a point, and don't be afraid to tell me how awful it is!
Click to expand...

The general composition is good, although I would have shot maybe a bit lower and wider so the sign had a bit of room to breath. The sky looks overcast (?) so no reason to give it too much space.

Lots of stuff though:
1) Why are you shooting in macro mode? That is for up-close images. On point-and-shoots it will just have the camera focus closer. For wide shots like this, all it will do is potentially mess up the focus. The statues in the pond look like they're slightly out of focus, although it's hard to tell from the smaller-resolution files here.
2) The sky is blown out, and the trees and foreground are underexposed. In cases like this, if your camera is lacking the range, I would expose for the landscape.
3) Relevant to #2 , darkening and boosting the contrast was kinda the opposite to what I would have done. You lose so much detail in the shadows by pushing an already dark photo darker. Not a problem if you're going for a silhouette, but not a good idea here.

Also, a few vocabulary points, sorry if you already know any of this:

"focal was 3.4": I'm assuming you're talking about the aperture, not focal length. This is measured in an "f-number", so that can be confusing. "Focal length" is another important factor, but totally different than aperture.
"With the 'raw' picture": Just to be clear, when most photographers talk about "raw", they're referring to a "RAW" file format, which is a totally different format than your standard .jpeg. When a camera generates a .jpeg file, it clips off a lot of information, including some highlights and shadows, as well as setting the color-balance (or white balance) in stone. If you have a camera that shoots RAW, it basically is saving every bit of information the sensor picks up. This allows you to push the shadows and highlights a bit further in editing, and also means you can fully adjust white-balance in post.

I checked, and unfortunately I don't think your camera has the ability to save as a RAW file. This isn't a huge problem, but just be aware of it. This means that you need to pay more attention to the white balance settings in your camera. Experiment with the "sunny", "cloudy", "portrait" modes, etc and see what each does. Take that into account when you line up a shot, maybe even take multiple shots, each under a different setting.

EDIT:
I did a quick and dirty edit in Lightroom to adjust some of the shadows and highlights, you can see how much detail you lost in the trees by darkening it. Note that I'm not saying this is "how it should look", as I probably pushed the highlights down too much, making the sky a bit ugly. I'm trying to show how much information is in the picture on the "edges" of dark and light. With RAW, you'd have a bit more range. One consideration for cloudy days like this: Think about going black-and-white. Drab cloudy skies can seem like nice, bright skies if it's in B&W.
proxy.php
 
Last edited:
Cash_Stronomer

Cash_Stronomer

That's what I battled in the contrast setting. Trying to get my sign to 'pop out', but not lose my trees. I lost my trees :tongue_sm
I say 'raw' just in reference to my original shot, not meaning raw as in what raw means, just my un-edited original. I like how you brought my trees back though. As for macro mode, I was originally just out taking some shave of the day pictures, and forgot the adjustment. I tried my cloudy setting, but it was too bright for some reason. Good to know I may have over cropped too, which is why I keep the original's. Here's a file shrunken version of what I started with, right from the camera:

$122107.jpg
 
LogisticEarth

LogisticEarth

Got a remote trigger for Christmas, so I'm finally able to experiment a bit with longer exposures. I think this one is a big yawn subject wise, and it's kinda a mess compositionally, but I really liked the light, and the color contrast between the sodium vapor and pre-dawn sky:


Fog Study by Nate Pritchard, on Flickr
 
redrider_99

redrider_99

[MENTION=63505]LogisticEarth[/MENTION], I'm in love with the light and colors as well.

Why f8? The sharp trees and sign are awesome but the house is distracting me. I don't know if there could be been a balance of not but my brain is begging for it.

I'm also left wanting a mild vignette so the top branches don't pull me so far out but that might feel off with the background so sharp.
 
Cash_Stronomer

Cash_Stronomer

I do like how the trees dominate the picture. Now, is it the lower focal that would drown out the house and other background a bit more? As far as I've come to understand, a higher focal is how you bring a whole picture more into focus and with less background blur?
 
LogisticEarth

LogisticEarth

redrider_99 said:
@LogisticEarth, I'm in love with the light and colors as well.

Why f8? The sharp trees and sign are awesome but the house is distracting me. I don't know if there could be been a balance of not but my brain is begging for it.
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't think too hard about it, and usually default to f/8 through f/16, depending on circumstances, for general sharpness. I agree it would have been nice to somehow blur the house out. However, I was shooting on a crop sensor at 28mm focal length (28-75mm, I think the EXIF defaults to 50mm for that lens for some reason) and even if I had my lens wide open (f/2.8) the house would have been only very slightly blurred. At the same time, it was getting pretty light pretty quickly, five minutes later the sky was not nearly as moody.

I'm also left wanting a mild vignette so the top branches don't pull me so far out but that might feel off with the background so sharp.
Click to expand...

I tried this a little bit, and it may be a good idea in the future. Very mild though, I tried it in lightroom just now and cranking the vignette too far (like more than 1/3 of a stop) mutes a lot of the blue in the sky.
 
LogisticEarth

LogisticEarth

Cash_Stronomer said:
I do like how the trees dominate the picture. Now, is it the lower focal that would drown out the house and other background a bit more? As far as I've come to understand, a higher focal is how you bring a whole picture more into focus and with less background blur?
Click to expand...

I missed this post earlier. What are you talking about when you say "focal"? I'm talking about re you talking about the "f-number/f-stop/focal ratio"? If so, then yes, generally a loser f-stop will mean a smaller depth-of-field, meaning there's more blur (or "bokeh") for portions of the picture that are not in focus. It's not a cut and dry measurement, and each lens is a bid different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
 
LogisticEarth

LogisticEarth

Greg the Hammer said:
A few shots from a snowy day last week. Shot with Canon Rebel T3 1/400, F5.6, ISO 800. Note: No editing has been done (yet).
View attachment 628484View attachment 628485View attachment 628486View attachment 628487
Click to expand...

I think all four of these would benefit greatly from a black & white treatment. The snow, overcast sky, and flat light are just a bit too drab for color. Also, generally none of them really have a strong subject with the notable exception of the stream/bridge shot. The rest are just kind of...generic trail shots and landscapes. What interested you specifically about these locations? The frozen lake, the trees, etc? Texture in tree knots and bark can be quite interesting, but in shots #3 and #4 , the trees just sort of seemed to be plopped in the shot to satisfy "the rule of thirds", which is a mistake, in my opinion.

Take a bit more time and think "What exactly is it that made me want to take a photo here?" Is it the shape of the trail, the texture of the tree bark (#4 ), the expanse of the frozen lake (#3 ), the lines of snow on the rock (#1), or something else? Think about how to best compose those elements. It may be a wide shot, it may be a close up. It may have a long or shallow depth of field. Again, the Rule of Thirds can be very misleading, don't feel that you have to follow it in every shot.

EDIT: For example, in the fall I came upon an old tree I really liked, and I stood back and thought about how best to take a shot of it. What I decided that I enjoyed about it was the contrast of a bare piece of "wounded" wood contrasted with the bark and lines in the low-angle sunlight that was present at the time. I ended up with this shot:


Bark and Scar by Nate Pritchard, on Flickr

Now, to be clear, this is just a quick study shot I took wandering along a trail. But behind the tree, you have a flowing river, a bunch of other smaller trees, and the tree in this shot is about twice as wide of a man's torso. But I decided that what I liked about the tree wasn't the size of the tree itself, nor the river or forest behind it, but the textures of it's surface as brought out by the light. Again, it's not a masterpiece, but it's a photo taken deliberately. Taking that time to consider for several moments, maybe several minutes, will really help your shots.
 
Last edited:
strop

strop

Now half as wise
Take a bit more time and think "What exactly is it that made me want to take a photo here?" Is it the shape of the trail, the texture of the tree bark (#4 ), the expanse of the frozen lake (#3 ), the lines of snow on the rock (#1), or something else? Think about how to best compose those elements. It may be a wide shot, it may be a close up. It may have a long or shallow depth of field. Again, the Rule of Thirds can be very misleading, don't feel that you have to follow it in every shot.
Click to expand...

This may be the advice of the day/week/month and year. I have dozens of shots that I could show you that were taken because something caught my eye, but the end result isn't very pleasing to me, because they are too busy and didn't really define what caught my eye. Some I can edit and crop to get there, but some are just pictorial documentation of a location.
 
Greg the Hammer

Greg the Hammer

LogisticEarth said:
I think all four of these would benefit greatly from a black & white treatment. The snow, overcast sky, and flat light are just a bit too drab for color. Also, generally none of them really have a strong subject with the notable exception of the stream/bridge shot. The rest are just kind of...generic trail shots and landscapes. What interested you specifically about these locations? The frozen lake, the trees, etc? Texture in tree knots and bark can be quite interesting, but in shots #3 and #4 , the trees just sort of seemed to be plopped in the shot to satisfy "the rule of thirds", which is a mistake, in my opinion.

Take a bit more time and think "What exactly is it that made me want to take a photo here?" Is it the shape of the trail, the texture of the tree bark (#4 ), the expanse of the frozen lake (#3 ), the lines of snow on the rock (#1), or something else? Think about how to best compose those elements. It may be a wide shot, it may be a close up. It may have a long or shallow depth of field. Again, the Rule of Thirds can be very misleading, don't feel that you have to follow it in every shot.

EDIT: For example, in the fall I came upon an old tree I really liked, and I stood back and thought about how best to take a shot of it. What I decided that I enjoyed about it was the contrast of a bare piece of "wounded" wood contrasted with the bark and lines in the low-angle sunlight that was present at the time. I ended up with this shot:


Bark and Scar by Nate Pritchard, on Flickr

Now, to be clear, this is just a quick study shot I took wandering along a trail. But behind the tree, you have a flowing river, a bunch of other smaller trees, and the tree in this shot is about twice as wide of a man's torso. But I decided that what I liked about the tree wasn't the size of the tree itself, nor the river or forest behind it, but the textures of it's surface as brought out by the light. Again, it's not a masterpiece, but it's a photo taken deliberately. Taking that time to consider for several moments, maybe several minutes, will really help your shots.
Click to expand...
I had to look up the "rule of thirds", I guess I was doing it subconsciously haha. This was sort of an opportunistic photo session. I drive by this pond almost every day. It was snowing and I had some errands to run so I thought I'd bring the camera and see what happens. For the shots of the trail/rocks/trees, I guess I was trying to catch a tree/rock in-focus and show some depth by having the other rocks/trees and the trail out-of-focus. Didn't quite turn out like I thought which is why I posted them here. I did want to capture the expanse of the frozen lake, but again, it didn't quite turn out right. Those are some great tips you gave me, I appreciate it! Maybe I'll revisit next time it snows.
I love your photo, by the way. It reminds me of this one I snapped a few years ago. (again, by a lake) I think I got lucky with this one, I hardly knew anything about my new camera when I shot this.
$IMG_2568.jpg
 
Cash_Stronomer

Cash_Stronomer

Alright Gentlemen, here's one I grabbed Saturday. I know it's not perfect because I was freezing and shaky and had been walking. If i remember right it was about -20ish. Anyway, how is it? Pick at it, tell me what's wrong or right, edit it, whatever.

By the way:
F/8 - 1/250 Exp. - 1250 ISO - 129mm FL - Zoomed in about 20X:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joezamboni
The heck and want to do
Replies
11
Views
2K
H4nk
H4nk
purecro
Superior Cuts 3-D Printed Razor
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
11K
Dools
Dools
EdHeart
GIVEAWAY! PAA Filament & Strangelet PIF
Replies
5
Views
1K
Big_T
Big_T
Guido75
Razor wars - Blackland Blackbird versus Greencult 2.0 II
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Guido75
Guido75
The Count of Merkur Cristo
Hmmm...Why Would The State Of Tennessee Make Hot Coleslaw Its State Food? ;-)
Replies
3
Views
1K
ErkRusselReserve
E
Top Bottom