Amateurs Critique Thread

[M0nk3y]

I never seen someone create something like this, so I figured I would give it a shot.

Personally, I don't see myself of that good of a photographer to be posting in the Daily Picture threads...especially with Casey and the others. It just seems that my shots get drowned out by theirs.

I don't have a problem with that, they are amazing at what they do, but I hope that I can get at that level sometime as well. So I guess this might be a helpful place for people who are just starting to get into photography can get some helpful hints and tips from the pros to help better their work, so we can avoid clogging up the other thread. :hi

I'll start with something I think has been one of my best shots to date IMO

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6103/6273287929_64f0e3c105_b.jpg

[Alphatek45]

I like the idea and the photo. Simple yet interesting. Lines lead me to the door. Well done IMO.

[Oli77]

Good idea, although I can't be taken too seriously with my opinion.

The individual elements are clear and focused (the yellow of the wall, the wood of the door area the cement of the gutter) but put together, the pieces lack cohesiveness, focus, point.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Kyle, we may want to rename the thread.

I think this is more of a "beginners (amateurs) critique thread." A place where beginners can be segregated, so that we're not lost in the sea of professionals.

Agree? If so, we can rename.

[danewilson77]

Kyle...was your intention that this be your thread, or all Noob thread?

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

[M0nk3y]

Kyle, we may want to rename the thread.

I think this is more of a "beginners (amateurs) critique thread." A place where beginners can be segregated, so that we're not lost in the sea of professionals.

Agree? If so, we can rename.

Makes sense to me, Changed it around boss.

Dane. I want everyone (us noobs) to post up their work. That way I can look at the shot and learn off it as well. IMO I think that is the best way to learn...off of your mistakes and others, if that makes sense

[kayger12]

Great idea for a thread.

Droid X. Tapatalk. Use it.

[danewilson77]

Not happy with the composition....but no much I could do with it hanging on the wall.....

I think the pic has potential...as those are some interesting keys...


http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6111/6274926172_2007354997_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dw77zhpmafia/6274926172/)
Keys 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dw77zhpmafia/6274926172/) by Dane Wilson77 (http://www.flickr.com/people/dw77zhpmafia/), on Flickr

[jreyes19]

yes they are very interesting curious as to what they would open lol
I like the picture maybe if the picture frame were not in the photo idk
just an idea...
darken exterior of photo (taking out picture frame) and mess with editing software to make a spotlight on keys coming from the opposite angle of the shadow
idk, coming from the guy with a 2 megapixel phone cam. :(
still saving for a dslr :)

[M0nk3y]

Dane, do the keys have any interesting patterns like that on them? IMO the b&w photo drowns out on the potential detail of the keys

[danewilson77]

Dane, do the keys have any interesting patterns like that on them? IMO the b&w photo drowns out on the potential detail of the keys

The keys are black....hehe

Here's the original....cropped.


http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6225/6274966984_a7d28df9f9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dw77zhpmafia/6274966984/)
Keys 2 Color (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dw77zhpmafia/6274966984/) by Dane Wilson77 (http://www.flickr.com/people/dw77zhpmafia/), on Flickr

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Dane, interesting keys. Bad location. Solution? Move the keys to an interesting spot.

[UdubBadger]

even though I don't personally mind all of the photos in the other thread, be them done by newbs or pros alike, it is a good idea maybe for people who WANT the actual critiques so that we might not offend someone who doesn't want it. if the do, they can post here, if not, they can go in the other one without fear of their work being torn apart.

[UdubBadger]

dane i like the color one better personally but I would still play with the color to make it more interesting... looks a touch too yellow/orange which is probably a white balance issue.


future tip (pretty sure I've said this b4 but just wanted to throw it out there for everyone else too) B&W out of a DSLR lacks a lot of contrast compared to what it did in film so when you convert from color make sure you bump up the contrast a decent amount for proper effect.


EDIT: just noticed it looks like the B&W was an HDR (I can see the halo on the keys). This rule wouldn't apply then, just to regular 1 exposure shots.

[M0nk3y]

even though I don't personally mind all of the photos in the other thread, be them done by newbs or pros alike, it is a good idea maybe for people who WANT the actual critiques so that we might not offend someone who doesn't want it. if the do, they can post here, if not, they can go in the other one without fear of their work being torn apart.

That's what I wanted, it doesn't really have to be only subjected to amateurs...but since most people who do want the help are them...I figured the title fit the main purpose.

I took this shot intending to bring out the depth and detail of the crate (it is a fright crate). But I don't know if it's just that boring.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6104/6275216986_c3abb837ec_b.jpg

[C Withers Media]

I think this is a great thread for anybody wanting feedback on a particular shot. You guys may not see it, but I have multiple sounding boards that will and can view and break down my work in a matter of seconds if I have any questions about it. What happens is as you improve, you already know what knocks you will likely take from the people whose work and opinions you respect and fix it up front.

I do agree with Seth above. Your involvement in how you pursue photography is not a determining factor in where you can or should post.


Monkey...on your shot above. The subject of a flat surface is typically just that. Flat. Take advantage of those ripples in the surface, find an angle and use the texture of the rail car to your advantage. Give the shot a dimensional feel. Shoot it high to low, low to high, down the side....See what you like best, but give yourself options. The shot is clean, its properly exposed, its in focus, the white balance is correct....the rest is interpretation. Think of how you want it to look and think about your audience you want it to appeal to and then shoot it to create what you see in your head.

[UdubBadger]

I agree with CW, cool looking shot but give it more depth. How is it being lit? If it's a flash or your lighting, move it out of the 0-45 degree angle from the camera and get it off to the extreme right or left, it'll make some deeper shadows and really display the texture and everything. If it is naturally lit then just simply shoot it at a time when the light source is to the extreme left or right but still lights the entire subject evenly. Hard shadows bring out depth in a surface.

Also what CW said about the angle you're shooting at... I agree. While it's interesting, make it more interesting by shooting it from a vantage point most people wouldn't stand in front of it and see it from, that makes it engaging.

Nice work so far, really excited to see how it turns out again with some tweaking.

[M0nk3y]

Ok, I finally had a chance to go back and re-shoot.

I got these 2 shots:

1.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6222/6289074811_af0b83d226_b.jpg

2.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6101/6289076137_77fa7c1b15_b.jpg

C&C as needed

[UdubBadger]

I really think you lose the awesomeness of the subject as a whole with those two shots. Sure you've forced in depth with the angle you shot them at but I think you could have accomplished it just as well if not better by just adding a single light source (flash, car lights, anything...) to the original shot from the extreme left or right to make some shadows pop out.

Thanks just my straight personal take on it.

[C Withers Media]

I agree with Seth even though you did exactly what I suggested. I will be the oddball though and say that the second shot is awesome for me.

"It's already in motion. You can't stop it now." - Sent using Tapatalk

[UdubBadger]

cracking paint is always interesting for some odd reason isn't it?

[M0nk3y]

Thanks Guys for the comments, I'll continue to try and get the formula right

[M0nk3y]

Went to the Kentucky Bourbon Trail yesterday. Caught these 2 shots of a storage facility that was 9 stories tall of Jim Bean. Lighting Sucked and flash wasn't helping...so had to shoot handheld with high ISO

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6219/6340726007_df6b57f5fc_b.jpg







http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6060/6340729159_1253a88a0d_b.jpg

[Oli77]

Bourbon trail = win.
I like the pic a lot but why not leave it vertical?

[M0nk3y]

Bourbon trail = win.
I like the pic a lot but why not leave it vertical?

It is shot looking straight up 9 stories. Photo wasn't rotated or anything

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[jreyes19]

I like the first picture Monkey, was any editing done or are these straight from the camera?

here is one i would like every one to critique for me, did some photoshop to it
(my Girlfriend's Shoulder Tat)
http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/d5100/tattoo.jpg

[M0nk3y]

I like the first picture Monkey, was any editing done or are these straight from the camera?


I tried to reduce the noise from the high ISO and bring out the natural color of the wood. So yes, I did some color selection on PP.

I can't really comment on your photos, because I don't have a critique eye yet...but here is a color selection I did on a overexposed shot.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6236/6341469743_f8a7418f4c_b.jpg

[danewilson77]

Love it. Get rid of red dot....hehe

[danewilson77]

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/ZKylesShot.jpg

[M0nk3y]

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/ZKylesShot.jpg

That seems REALLY sharp for some reason.

Thanks for the suggestion, fixed it

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6098/6342449984_d1da0a0268_b.jpg

[danewilson77]

It's super sharp...hehe. IDK....I think its how you wanna see the pic. Yours is softer.....but those clouds are BA.....

I was just throwing up a highly contrasted shot....with boosted clarity, contrast and sharpness, as comparison....

[M0nk3y]

It's super sharp...hehe. IDK....I think its how you wanna see the pic. Yours is softer.....but those clouds are BA.....

I was just throwing up a highly contrasted shot....with boosted clarity, contrast and sharpness, as comparison....

Thanks dude...I'm going to keep on trying to try and sharpen up the clouds...I like that

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[danewilson77]

Cool. It seems like I can go back days later and edit a picture better than I did the first time. Just learning I guess.

[jreyes19]

I suck at editing in Photoshop (first time using it was 2 days ago)
but i took this opportunity to practice a quick edit and this came of it

I am sorry monkey if this ruined your photo I can delete if you dislike it, let me know
http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/6342449984_d1da0a0268_bcopy.jpg

[imola red zhp]

25592560

My first shots with new Canon T2i, I'm a real noob, stock photo with no filter yet... some will be with Digital photo professional and Zoom Browser First pic is stock setting with portrait second is tweaked with Canon digital professional messed with contrast and hue a little sharpness

[M0nk3y]

What ISO are you shooting at? Looks really noisy.

[imola red zhp]

What ISO are you shooting at? Looks really noisy.

F5.6 ISO 3200 was using auto focus set on close up

[UdubBadger]

I'm guessing your shutter speed was too high...?

[imola red zhp]

I'm guessing your shutter speed was too high...?

Didn't check speed maybe 1/60

[UdubBadger]

if you were at 1/60, f 5.6 and 3200 ISO on a T2i you could essentially shoot in the dark and the photos should look like above (well maybe).

I suggest going back and take notice of your settings. Try to shoot in M mode (not auto) as your photos will not only look better but you will have to learn how to control the camera to get the shots you want.

For starters have a read of this -



TAKEN FROM E90POST.COM

Photography is all about light, as basic as it seems. Too much light in = an overexposed/whiter picture, too little light = underexposed/blacker picture. This light talk, which is affected by a variety of inputs, is called Exposure

How does this light enter into the camera? Apeture and shutter speed (ISO does too but Im not 100% on its effect, I just know I need more if its darker)

-Apeture: This is the "F.#" (f1.2, f5, f11, f20, etc...). Think of it like a circle that opens a closes...the lower the "f.#" (f.1.2) the more open the apeture/wide circle is, thus letting more light in. The higher the "f.#" (f.24), the more closed the apeture is/tighter circle, thus letting less light in. The setting of the apeture are called "F-stops".

Here is a visual demonstration on the apeture opening/closing: http://asia.olympus-global.com/imsg/webmanual/dslr_function/aperture_priority/index.html

The apeture often controls the Depth of Field...DoF. DoF, basically, is what is in focus in the picture; a shallow DoF means the closer objects are in focus and the background is blurry...a larger DoF means to more of the picture is in focus. The lower the apeture (lower number/larger opening) the more shallow the DoF/fewer objects will be in focus, with either the foreground or background being blurry . The higher the apeture (higher number/smaller opening) the more the entire picture is in focus.

DoF Example...remember, the lower the F stop/F#, the shallower the DoF, the higher the Fstop, the deeper the DoF
http://www.twin-pixels.com/wp-content/uploads/exposure-tutorial-5.jpg

-Shutter Speed This is the "1/#" 1/1 would be a slow shutter speed, while 1/1000 would be a fast shutter speed. The LONGER the shutter stays open (the slower the shutter/smaller denominator), the MORE light enters the camera. The SHORTER the amount of time the shutter is open (faster shutter/higher denominator), the LESS light enters the camera.

Shutter speed is used to determine the "motion" of the subject. If a subject is moving you want a faster shutter to "freeze" the subject (like a flying football). If the shutter is too slow on a moving object, it will result in blurry pictures. Slower shutter are used to capture motion (those cool firework shots/tail light shots on the highway that reach the entire length of the highway)

edit(6/29/2009): Just remembered something about the length of time the shutter is open/closed. The slower the shutter speed (remember, the lower denominator), the more vulnerable the pictures are to blurriness due to the natural shake of your hand (think about it, the longer the shutter stays open, the slower the camera takes the picture, thus allowing more movement from your hand to effect/blur the picture)

-Apeture vs shutter speed The more open the apeture (think lower F.#) the more light entering into the camera, thus you need a faster shutter (think higher number) to keep light out so your pictures are not overexposed...The more closed the apeture (think higher F.#) the less light enters the camera, thus you need a slower shutter (think lower number) to compensate for the little light entering the camera so your pictures are not underexposed.


Now that your confused, lets talk about Apeture Priority and Shutter Priority; very useful settings.

-A-Priority You control/set the apeture and the camera figures out the rest. An example when you want to control the Apeture would be taking portraits, flower pics, front wheel shots, etc...so that the close object is in focus and the background is blurry. Remember how to do this??? A lower F.#.

-S-Priority You control/set the shutter speed and the camera figures out the rest. You would want this when the action is moving around. Remember, a faster shutter (higher denominator 1/1000) will "freeze" and object in motion. Adjust your Shutter depending on the speed of your object.

Compliments of TurboFan:

ISO

The ISO number defines just how sensitive the sensor is to light. The degree of sensitivity any given “ISO” delivers is difficult to put your finger on, as it is a standard created by scientists and not something intuitive to the eye or mind. It is stated as a number, with ISO 100 being the lowest in most digital camera systems (ISO 200 in some Nikons). The term “ISO 100,” for example, means nothing onto itself, but in the context of the scene, brightness, aperture and shutter speed values it is a very key element in determining exposure and exposure values. It is part of an elegant, balanced system of exposure.

When the light gets low and the shutter speed gets slow it is a good idea to ensure a steady shot by using a high ISO setting. One of the real advantages of digital is that you can change ISO on every frame. This twilight shot was made on the docks at ISO 1000.

ISO poses part of an exposure solution to a given light level. For example, at ISO 100 on a bright day the correct exposure is usually around f/16 at 1/125 sec, or the so-called “sunny 16” rule. (This says that if your meter is broken and you have to set exposure yourself and it’s sunny out with the sun coming over your shoulder you can set the ISO at 100 and have a great exposure at f/16 at 1/125 sec—and it works!)

The sensitivity of the sensor is calibrated by your setting an ISO number. In round numbers, many cameras offer a range between ISO 100 and 1600, with some going up to ISO 3200 and beyond. Every time you double the speed, or ISO, you are in effect doubling the sensitivity of the sensor, or adding a “stop” of sensitivity to light. But this doubling of sensitivity only makes sense in the context of the aperture and shutter speed settings, which control the amount of light reaching the sensor.

There are times when flash is not allowed or would ruin the character of the shot, and that’s when high ISO comes into play. This photo inside a New Orleans curio shop was made at ISO 2400 handheld.

So, if for any reason you need more or less light to affect how the aperture and shutter speed are set, you simply raise or lower the ISO setting in the camera. Go to a higher number for more light sensitivity (when you need a faster shutter speed or narrower aperture) or a lower ISO for less light sensitivity (when you want a wider aperture or slower shutter speed).

You might think all shots made in low light or after sunset require a high ISO, but that’s only if you shoot handheld. Mount the camera on a tripod and you can shoot at lower ISO settings, which generally yield much less “noise.” That’s the case with these low-light shots. The classic Las Vegas neon cowboy was photographed at ISO 200 and the fireworks at ISO 100, both on tripod, albeit with slow shutter speeds.

In general, you will usually need a higher ISO setting in low light and want a lower ISO setting in bright light. Why not just set the highest ISO for every shot? Another rule to keep in mind is: the lower the ISO setting the better the quality of the image, all else being equal. That’s because to get more light sensitivity a gain, or additional charge is applied across the sensor. As you go higher in ISO this gain adds more noise to the image.
White balance

Many people choose to leave this in auto, but I think that is a terrible mistake. White balance gives me as much creative control of my images as any other setting on the camera. White balance simply tells the camera what is supposed to be white, and everything else is scaled from there.

Back in the days of film, you had to either select a film for your application, or use a filter to adjust the lighting coming into the camera. As a beginning photographer, it's important to know that not all light is created equally. Your typical light bulb has a very severe yellow tint to it. Fluorescent lighting has a very blue hue. Flash? Different still. Sunny day? This is considered to be true "white light" by most, having an equal concentration of each color of the spectrum.

If you take a picture that is illuminated by an incandescent lamp, and you have your white balance set to fluorescent, the image will appear very yellow. The camera will try and shift the color spectrum to yellow, because you told it the light source is very blue. Since the light source is already very yellow, it makes the problem that much worse.

If you take a picture in an office, where everything is illuminated by fluorescent lamps, and you are set for incandescent (regular light bulb) it will all be very blue.

If you are set for auto white balance, the camera does an OK job picking out the light color, but the camera still has to guess what is supposed to be white. If you don't have a good range of color in the picture, the camera may not guess right. I don't use auto white balance, ever.

Many cameras have additional settings for white balance. One is where you can set the color of your light source (expressed in degrees Kelvin, or K). A typical number would range from 2500k to 10000k. The higher the number, the more blue the source. Lower, more yellow. Another common setting is a pre-defined white balance. In this case, you take a picture of a white card under your light source, effectively telling the camera "this is white today". This is a very useful setting if you are shooting in controlled light, such as a studio.


Many photographers stress the 3 factors: Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO so much because these factors cannot usually be rescued by post processing:

Aperture: if your DOF is too shallow hence creating desire area to be out of focus, there is no perfect way to get them back on focus again.

Shutter Speed: if there is motion blur to the camera, there's also no perfect way to fix them 100%

ISO: the graininess introduce by high ISO would also be non-fixable during post-processing.

[Stu]

Well, here're some of my favorite shots I've done.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69904711@N08/sets/72157628012794609/

[imola red zhp]

Thanks Seth, I will work on it, it makes sense just got to try it and apply.......

[UdubBadger]

:)

[UdubBadger]

Well, here're some of my favorite shots I've done.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4915/ddsdfsdf.jpg
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6990/img2534w.jpg
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/9072/img2552d.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3453/img2527se.jpg
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7666/img0267s.jpg
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/5421/img1678.jpg

Images are real big, and for some reason a thumbnail option won't show up.

u ever think of getting a flickr account?

[danewilson77]

Well, here're some of my favorite shots I've done.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4915/ddsdfsdf.jpg
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6990/img2534w.jpg
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/9072/img2552d.jpg
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3453/img2527se.jpg
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7666/img0267s.jpg
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/5421/img1678.jpg

Images are real big, and for some reason a thumbnail option won't show up.

Loved the pics Zell. Took me a bit to look at em.....lol.

[Stu]

u ever think of getting a flickr account?

Probably not a bad idea :p I totally forgot about that. I think I'll do that.

Edit: just got one. Much easier than imageshack. Post updated.

[danewilson77]

Probably not a bad idea :p I totally forgot about that. I think I'll do that.

You'll wanna go Pro.

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

[UdubBadger]

i lasted about a year on a non pro account only posting what I considered my "best" shots. Then I had too many to choose from so I upgraded to a Pro account. Worth every penny.

[C Withers Media]

Definitely Flickr pro.....

Seth, you should be checking into 500px for portfolio type work.

[jreyes19]

love the pictures especially the eye picture :)

[UdubBadger]

Definitely Flickr pro.....

Seth, you should be checking into 500px for portfolio type work.

what do you mean?


EDIT: oh the website....


when I see photos like THIS (http://500px.com/photo/3222866?from=popular)... I want to go break my camera on the curb and never use it again. I am no where near this yet.

[imola red zhp]

Here's a few after reading the article
1. 1/15 f5.6 iso200
2. 1/20 5.6 iso200

[UdubBadger]

ok well #1 I suspect you didn't resize these images since it clogged up the loading of this page, took over a minute on my computer. maybe try to go 800px or smaller next time? Or make sure you save as a jpg or png... if these are PSD files they are 12x the file size needed. Could just be my comp though. :dunno

anyway, about the images. I see a loss of focus in some of them - did you shoot on a tripod? anything under 1/60 needs to be shot on a tripod or else an unsteady hand will start to blur the photos. You want crisp images, not blurry ones - at least until you get to your artsy fartsy stage.
the exposures look pretty good, I'd suggest going up to ISO 400 so you can hit that 1/60th shutter speed though.
As for the composition this is where you need to let your creative side jump out of the box. Really get a "focus" of each photo. What are you shooting? What do you want the viewer to see? In all 3 (even though the bokeh looks good) there is a tiny little subject and a whole lot of nothing around it. Now if you're going for a minimalist look thats fine but it needs to be done with intent and in the proper process. Even a minimalistic photo has a defined subject. These wouldn't qualify because there is too much going on in the background. For plants, I usually want to try and fill the frame more with the subject. Just make sure to clearly define the subject. If it's a single flower, get up close and fill up the majority of the frame with it, if its a group of flowers, again, fill the frame with the group. If its an entire garden, then fill the frame with the garden... see what I'm getting at? I too had to teach myself how to "focus" in on a subject because the tendancy of most people is to give a way more overall view of things than is photographically appealing.

Keep it up, go out and shoot more and have fun.

Another good idea (that has helped me a lot). Go on flickr or whatever image site you want and just look at photos of other peoples approaches to what you want to shoot, you'll get some good ideas. Just replicate them. Right now its not about "stealing someones style" but more finding different ways to express your own.

[imola red zhp]

Seth thanks for the tips and advice, I will take them to heart and keep working at it. I do have flickr.....:thumbup

[UdubBadger]

yeah start linking from flickr, that way you can choose the size you want to link in and the file size will also be compressed.

the page once again took me like 90 sec to fully load.

[UdubBadger]

gotta try to post to get to a new page...

[UdubBadger]

oh and 1 other thing,

check this out for ideas on shooting the nature stuff.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/chicago-botanic-garden/

[UdubBadger]

still?

[UdubBadger]

c'moooooooooooooooooooon 7

[UdubBadger]

:(

[danewilson77]

It's better now though...oooops....no it isn't.

[imola red zhp]

Try it now Seth edited

[C Withers Media]

page 6 of this thread is not C Withers Media approved.

try to keep the images at a reasonable size guys.... 1024x768 is about as large as it needs to be for web based viewing.

The shots are fine and we love it when people share, but huge file sizes hurt us all. I don't want the boss putting bandwidth limits on the media section, so be concious of your file sizes.

:caseyshrug

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Dennis, I stripped the attachments out of your post. Do me a favor and resize them. I'm on a pretty fast connection and it took a while to load. The pictures were 5000 pixels by about 3000 pixels.

Ideally, they should be 1024x1024 (or smaller).

Thanks, sir.

[imola red zhp]

Dennis, I stripped the attachments out of your post. Do me a favor and resize them. I'm on a pretty fast connection and it took a while to load. The pictures were 5000 pixels by about 3000 pixels.

Ideally, they should be 1024x1024 (or smaller).

Thanks, sir.

My apologies, Casey and Marcus, Ill resize or post Flickr link.


Sorry

sent from Dennis' Droid using tapatalk

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Not a problem at all, Dennis.

[danewilson77]

Not a problem at all, Dennis.

Just for the record...he asked me if he should change it (PM). I said leave it....as It wasn't a huge deal to me.....and the page would be past soon enough.....

My fault if anyone is to blame. Like you said Boss.....no biggie.

[Oli77]

I thought our server automatically downsized.

Is this not the case?

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Our settings do downsize. These pictures were attachments (not being hosted on a site outside of ZHPMafia.com). It was taking some time to render the picture, even though the downsizing still took place.

[imola red zhp]

Just for the record...he asked me if he should change it (PM). I said leave it....as It wasn't a huge deal to me.....and the page would be past soon enough.....

My fault if anyone is to blame. Like you said Boss.....no biggie.


Thanks DW

:respect

[danewilson77]

Just practicing. Night shots....kind of. Ugh....

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/2004%20Imola%20DSLR/TuckedintheShopImola.jpg

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/2004%20Imola%20DSLR/TuckedinImola.jpg

[kayger12]

Miss that garage...

[danewilson77]

Miss that garage...

Soon my friend, soon.

HTC Thunderbolt+TT

[Marcus-SanDiego]

:chuck

[M0nk3y]

You use flash in the first shot? I can tell...

The reflection in the license plate kinda gets distracting IMO. That's just me though

[jreyes19]

hey guys could you critique this picture
trying to take pictures, edit them and post my favorites :)
http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/d5100/rose1.jpg

[danewilson77]

You use flash in the first shot? I can tell...

The reflection in the license plate kinda gets distracting IMO. That's just me though

I did......just messing around. I was trying to light up the tree in the foreground. I couldn't light the tree, and keep the flask off the plate. I was like 60 feet away as well.

[jreyes19]

bump for some suggestions on my rose picture :)

[UdubBadger]

personally the fake flower kills it for me. lighting on the ring needs to be less blown out and I think the editing is a little 'hard' for the photo. I mean it can be depending on what you're going for, thats just my opinion - i woulda gone softer if it was mine. more blur and less contrast maybe. i suppose the more contrast feel could be seen as romantic too. or maybe its not even the contrast that bugs me, could it be over saturated?

[jreyes19]

I did try to achieve a dark romantic feel in the picture
I used the fake flower due to the story behind it connected to the ring

and I was having trouble getting the ring to shine or sparkle, tried to brighten it

also could you expand more on the more blur and less contrast, in what areas?

thank you for your help, i really appreciate the criticism :)

[UdubBadger]

Just meant I woulda gone for a softer look meaning less hard black or bright color. I like to use gaussian blur on stuff like that to give it a sort of angelic feeling. again, if you have a story behind this, shoot for that... thats artistic expression but it might be hard to convey that story without some text or something to go with it.

I'd try to rework the ring a bit either way.

[Rovert]

I'm thinking I should have raised the shallow depth of field because my rice mound is a circle so that only a part of it would be on focus? I ran it at F5.6 at max zoom which is equivalent to 84mm full frame. Maybe I needed F11 or something...Too late I ate it. LOL. I also bounced the flash up against the white ceiling to provide a burst of colour in a the dark setting.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/632/p1010128r.jpg

[UdubBadger]

I agree, go higher f 11 or maybe even 16. maybe also try a little more plate on 3 sides for presentation. Your photos are really good, if you're an amateur, I'm in big trouble.

[Rovert]

I was going for the eat it off your screen big screen effect. LOL

Funny I was zoomed out before, but my plate was so ghetto I didn't want to get it in the picture. Hahaha Thank you for your compliment. Those are what drives me to do better every single day and to help others too.

[UdubBadger]

ghetto plate might be interesting though...

A photographer by the name of Stephen Shore did large a series on the southwest that had all these things, such as a traditional american meal on these weird looking native american pattered plates, as well as other native american symbols on stuff that was kind of ironic. the strangeness and kind of hidden irony was what made them stand out.

ugly plates can sometimes make a point if you see what i'm getting at.

http://pberra.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/shorepancakeup4.jpg?w=580
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q-W0flfRgWk/Tt-i4cf2fBI/AAAAAAAAR6E/Xqltblv-xxA/s1600/stephen_shore_03.jpg

[Rovert]

I think I kinda got it!! I took 20 pictures last night....this is the last picture:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7513/p1010150ss.jpg

[imola red zhp]

At home Xmas party
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6552798121_42c0dc6ee1_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18128055@N03/6552798121/)
IMG_0974 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18128055@N03/6552798121/) by da94450 (http://www.flickr.com/people/18128055@N03/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6552803577_dbc228dbda_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18128055@N03/6552803577/)
IMG_0975 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18128055@N03/6552803577/) by da94450 (http://www.flickr.com/people/18128055@N03/), on Flickr

[UdubBadger]

I won't comment since I'm Jewish ;)

[imola red zhp]

Ok Happy Birthday Seth!!!!

[UdubBadger]

:rofl I was just messin anyway.


My 30th birthday is actually next week. ;)

[imola red zhp]

Copy that Seth I thought it was this week.... Enjoy!!

[UdubBadger]

oh I'll try... :)

[jreyes19]

Hey guys I would like some advice on where to go with this picture
I like it but not sure what to do in the sense of editing, looking to get some ideas, (or even if it is worth keeping)

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/DSC_0891.jpg

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/DSC_0891copy.jpg

[UdubBadger]

id just try adding more contrast for deeper tones. Maybe copy/paste a layer and use overlay blending, bring it down to like 30-50%?

did you shoot like that or is it cropped?

[jreyes19]

thanks i will try that :)
i actually shot that, and now that you ask that
in retrospect i should have probably shot further out then cropped it where i would have liked it correct?

[UdubBadger]

yeah or when you get comfortable you'll see it in frame and shoot it the way you want it cropped.

its not bad, just was curious on your intent.

[jreyes19]

uploaded new photo in Original post
I messed with the contrast
but not sure how to copy and paste the layers
I copied the layer then i merged them a couple times with default blend settings to get my current picture

[danewilson77]

Yup....looks better.

[Rovert]

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4673/sdogdsc0891pew.jpg

This picture may have too much colour on your monitor...I'm not sure but I've always been used to the slightly saturated colour of Canon cameras and loved how colour shows off certain subjects. Your dog deserves nothing but some extra colour and vibrance to his/her personality.

But I did a minor adjust of the levels, then I bumped up the curve to bring out some of the darker spots while trying to keep the bright spots tame. Then I adjust the shadows to come out further to show off the definition of the ears while toning down very minority the highlights in the picture. Then I readjusted the camera's distortion to because the subject looked a little wide with full wide lens, restoring what you dog actually looks like. The live green and dried grass within the fur and at the bottom of the picture were removed as to not lose attention to what was really important...the face. Then I bumped up the image clarity to bring out a deeper blue sky while smart sharpening so the whiskers came out sharp as a wire. Saturation was automatically applied with clarity to really show off the color of the low sun at the hour you took the pic. :) There is a bit of extra green tint at the bottom that I didn't want to get rid of at the cost of losing the background greenery.

And that is my Photoshop of the day. LOL

[UdubBadger]

yellows/golds look ok, i'd cut down the blues/greens a touch... personal taste. youre gonna get a lot of chromatic aberration on the tree branches.

[jreyes19]

wow thank you so much
I am definitely learning a lot from you guys
all the way from taking pictures to editing them, you guys blow my mind every time

I am still learning but im glad you guys are all here to help me along
I will be practicing more on the subjects everyone has mentioned, i have much to learn :)
thank you

[Rovert]

I took this on the plane today.....I like the black and white version more because the color one seems to pull the attention away from the bright spots where the focus was meant to be:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1086/p1020308x.jpg http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/6342/p1020308bw.jpg

[UdubBadger]

totally agree

[johnrando]

Agree. Cool shot, especially getting the person looking out the window... definitely gives it that feel of a journey, and wondering what's coming. b&w helps that feel, beyond just helping to highlight the focal point.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

And I like the abstract of the propeller.

In the color picture, I was distracted by the seat and man. With the black and white, my focus is back where it should be: the propeller.

[Rovert]

Thanks guys!! I hardly have time to take any decent pics here....it's been all video for my client. Oh well maybe next time! Time to jump on a plane to go home in a few more hours.

[Rovert]

Sandstorm in Vegas!

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2466/p1020388f.jpg

[UdubBadger]

thats a really interesting shot

[jreyes19]

ok it has been a little while but i took some pictures today and edited these
let me know what you guys think

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/editbopet.jpg

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/editbo.jpg

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/editjump.jpg

[jreyes19]

any comments on these pictures?

[Oli77]

I don't dig the hypercolor on the first one too much.

2 is cool and 3 is awesome with ideal timing. You realize quick with shadow that kid is in mid air, I would crop that ball in the foreground.

Maybe also cropped extensively without the fence in back - but keep shadow.

Cool beans.

[UdubBadger]

i can tell you're getting good in post techniques but none of it is my style TBH

[jreyes19]

I don't dig the hypercolor on the first one too much.

2 is cool and 3 is awesome with ideal timing. You realize quick with shadow that kid is in mid air, I would crop that ball in the foreground.

Maybe also cropped extensively without the fence in back - but keep shadow.

Cool beans.

ok I see

so what ideas do you have for the first picture

and thanks for the suggestions I will be working on those



i can tell you're getting good in post techniques but none of it is my style TBH

thank you
can i ask what suggestions you may have

I have been getting a little too crazy with the saturation function lol


And overall, (please be very honest) are these good pictures, and what things could i do to make them more professional
I can post the original up if anyone would like

[UdubBadger]

***these opinions are totally subjective - please don't get offended***

youre getting the contrast idea which separates your work from true noobs which is good but here are a few comments




http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/editbopet.jpg

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/editbo.jpg

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc385/jreyes19/editjump.jpg


image 1 - youre creating DOF by using blur but its almost a little too obvious that its unnatural. I try to keep to subtle in this respect, add a little if needed but it shouldn't be as dramatic unless its SUPER artistic. Also its not blended as well as it would need to be, use a soft brush instead of trying to make it look cut out - if you want it cut out look, you need to be more precise with the brush cuz the edges don't look good. Its over saturated IMO which is a common thing with guys just starting out in PS, I did it too. For color correction I prefer some vibrance adjustments over saturation because its more realistic. Photo wise its not horrible but I would work more on your framing/timing. Would love to see more dog, less guy in chair. as mark and casey would likely agree with me saying - fundamentals in taking the shot far exceed the post processing done.

image 2 -better image on the framing, its a nice portrait. would have probably shot this one landscape but thats me. the subject is right dead center and kinda smaller in frame, if the shot is about the dog, pull in, if its about the dog and its surroundings, pull out. youre right in the middle which just looks general and not having a purpose or story to tell me. again, the blur doesnt work for me, learn how to get big DOF in camera instead of in post. The single color/b&w trick is well known in art school as "the wedding photographer" trick and not to put you down personally but its laughed at because its a gimmick. brides might want it but most photographers wont do it unless asked and paid well. nothing wrong with a b&w photo here, when you shoot for b&w make sure you bump your contrast for a traditional film look, you want those black a little softer though, in film most often there is no solid black but only something really close to it and lots of bright white so adjust accordingly.

image 3 - most natural of the 3. love the jumping, not the saturation though. i would love to see this one washed out TBH. framing isn't bad, the angle hurts the action though, get low (on your knees) when you shoot kids to bring the viewer down to their perspective level. plus youd see more "air" under his feet. also the fence is either dropping about a foot every 10 ft across or you need to straighten up the photo.


hope that helps.

[jreyes19]

***these opinions are totally subjective - please don't get offended***

youre getting the contrast idea which separates your work from true noobs which is good but here are a few comments




image 1 - youre creating DOF by using blur but its almost a little too obvious that its unnatural. I try to keep to subtle in this respect, add a little if needed but it shouldn't be as dramatic unless its SUPER artistic. Also its not blended as well as it would need to be, use a soft brush instead of trying to make it look cut out - if you want it cut out look, you need to be more precise with the brush cuz the edges don't look good. Its over saturated IMO which is a common thing with guys just starting out in PS, I did it too. For color correction I prefer some vibrance adjustments over saturation because its more realistic. Photo wise its not horrible but I would work more on your framing/timing. Would love to see more dog, less guy in chair. as mark and casey would likely agree with me saying - fundamentals in taking the shot far exceed the post processing done.

image 2 -better image on the framing, its a nice portrait. would have probably shot this one landscape but thats me. the subject is right dead center and kinda smaller in frame, if the shot is about the dog, pull in, if its about the dog and its surroundings, pull out. youre right in the middle which just looks general and not having a purpose or story to tell me. again, the blur doesnt work for me, learn how to get big DOF in camera instead of in post. The single color/b&w trick is well known in art school as "the wedding photographer" trick and not to put you down personally but its laughed at because its a gimmick. brides might want it but most photographers wont do it unless asked and paid well. nothing wrong with a b&w photo here, when you shoot for b&w make sure you bump your contrast for a traditional film look, you want those black a little softer though, in film most often there is no solid black but only something really close to it and lots of bright white so adjust accordingly.

image 3 - most natural of the 3. love the jumping, not the saturation though. i would love to see this one washed out TBH. framing isn't bad, the angle hurts the action though, get low (on your knees) when you shoot kids to bring the viewer down to their perspective level. plus youd see more "air" under his feet. also the fence is either dropping about a foot every 10 ft across or you need to straighten up the photo.


hope that helps.

Awesome thank you

this is exactly what I am looking for

ok so general things i need to work on

over saturated photos (should use vibrance not saturation as much)
Work on natural DOF (had to google this lol, depth of field)
make blurs more natural
tread very cautiously when using B&W function
Create a story by making sure subject is not in the center of the picture (which i should have known :( )
get on knees when taking pictures of children


Now for the questions I have

How to use the soft brush function you mentioned?
How to make my pictures stand out in a professional way, without only using the contract, vibrant, and saturation functions?
How did Casey do your Sig? it is awesome!!!!
how do i create a better natural lens blur or DOF (both while taking picture and in PS)?
on this matter I am under the assumption that the further the lens is zoomed in when taking picture the more natural blur will appear is this - assumption correct?


and lastly comment on the fence in third picture, that is an actual dip in the ground and the fence follows it, is there a way to fix that pictorially other than cropping it out

[UdubBadger]

Now for the questions I have

How to use the soft brush function you mentioned?

at the top left you have 2 boxs for the brushes when using any cloning, healing, painting ect... brush. the one with the number controls the size and shape of the brush. adjusting the "hardness" of this controls this. 0 hardness is soft, 100 is precise. use accordingly.

How to make my pictures stand out in a professional way, without only using the contract, vibrant, and saturation functions?
its about your style which is up to you, but the best way is to master the fundamentals of the shooting aspect of photography first. you can dress up a turd in a tux and top hat but at the end of the day its still a turd... same thing applies in photography, a fully photoshopped bad photo is still just a bad photo.

How did Casey do your Sig? it is awesome!!!! I shot and did this. I am a C Withers Media photog... CWMG-Chicago to be exact. You probably mistook my watermark for Casey's. Thanks.

how do i create a better natural lens blur or DOF (both while taking picture and in PS)? on this matter I am under the assumption that the further the lens is zoomed in when taking picture the more natural blur will appear is this - assumption correct?

read up on how to create DOF. Its a combination of the aperture you shoot at (lower number = less depth of field = more blur), distance from the subject (closer = more DOF = more blur) and a small amount of your focal length comes into play also.


and lastly comment on the fence in third picture, that is an actual dip in the ground and the fence follows it, is there a way to fix that pictorially other than cropping it out

yes, you can use the cropping tool and tilt the crop (in the corner of the cropping box you can rotate the image right or left) to straighten out the fence line.

:cheers

[jreyes19]

awesome thank you so much
I really want everyone to be honest and up front with me about these things because I am here to learn

and I am sorry i mistook the watermark and assumed Casey did it
it is an amazing photo (how did you get that effect)

[UdubBadger]

There really isn't any "effect", its just $80k worth of lighting knowledge in the form of a B.F.A. in photography combined with a few trips out to San Diego to shoot with Mark and Cdub.