[Darrell Raw]

First some info about equipment...My K5 has a shutter problem and is in for repair, so I borrowed an old K100D. The built in flash doesn't work on this camera so I was using a basic Pentax TTL flash (fires at full strength all the time due to not being PTTL, hence the f22 aperture setting). I also can't find a way to change the ISO to 100 when using flash, but that's probably because I don't have the manual The lens is manual aperture, manual focus and the camera was set to manual. No tripod. The frog is the European Common Frog Rana temporaria which I found hopping at speed across my lawn late at night.

Considering all these limitations, I'd like to see what you all think of these pictures. I had three settings, in a pond, on a rock and on a smoky coloured mirror tile. All pictures have been minimally processed in Lightroom, although I did do some extensive cloning using Photoshop on the mirror shot to remove imperfections and light spots from the glass. Any tips to improve on these would be greatly appreciated.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Boker]

Like them all ,2 the best

[pbancr]

Great job. I like 2 the best also...nice capture!

[loco]

The third shot is great! Nice job!

[dmbaile2]

Gorgeous, I cant pic a fav.

Edit to say. I recently picked up a k100d as well as a backup for my k-r, and i have been pleasantly surprised with it.

[D4rknezz]

I read the limitation paragraph last, after viewing the picture. The thing is, in terms of a critique, I feel that the criticizer should not be swayed one way or another by anything other than elements in the picture. Its like making a statement with a piece of art - but if you had to stand there and explain what your statement is; then the art in itself has failed. The only reason you'd want to state your limitation is when you are sharing your picture for enjoyment - and stories by fireplace, i think.

I was just sitting behind 3 juries for accreditation in a photography club - while they dissected my image. They didnt like the black greyish background I had, and they felt that i had processed it wrong or gotten the wrong white balance or had tried to bring back the exposure. I had actually had a smoke machine going for that shot. I could defend my picture by shouting from behind (they didnt know it was my picture they were staring at), but I didnt. Obviously, the smoke machine was why the black turns greyish. However, its also obvious that at the end, the smoke machine didnt add anything extra to the picture.

That said, I love the 2nd shot...can still be sharpened a little more, and the dark space enlarged just a bit in PP. But awesome shot. And now, knowing the limitation you had - thats a really pretty great shot

[Darrell Raw]

Thanks all, it's nice to know other people like them! I'll try sharpening the 2nd one a bit more and I can increase the black space a bit as it's slightly cropped, there's a cm or so of extra black to play with in the original. I'm also going to try increasing blacks a bit as I've just noticed the pupils seem to have a slight grey tint, that should also improve the mirror surface where there is no reflection. My personal favourite is the 3rd, mainly because I like wildlife shots to show a natural background. How about the lighting? One common criticism I usually get is harsh lighting, which I've tried to avoid, and these shots were taken without a diffuser on the flash. But I'm not sure I really understand what the pros mean by harsh lighting!

[D4rknezz]

Harsh is when the presence of light is obvious. Take a 12 o'clock shoot in full sun, and it will be harsh lighting, even though you did not use any other light source.
Easy telltale to harsh lighting is uncontrolled shadows. Or uncontrolled overexposed/blown highlights.

That said, in my opinion a controlled shadows and controlled overexposed highlights are fine. It just depends on what you are shooting, what you had in mind, etc. Sometimes, you want lighting to accentuate stuff - like...body oil on a bikini model, so...

In your case, the shadows are controlled - and the highlights (glistening skin) on the 2nd and third picture of the frog only accentuates the...slimy nature of the creature. It works.
I like number 3, but I feel that you can pop the colour of the frog a little more so, so that it completely separates from the rock its standing on. Compare the richer colour of #1 to the muted colour of #3. I'd go even more richer - and showcases it alone.

Again, great job - if the issue is PP, then you have no issue - I have revisited images I created 2 years ago and reworked them from scratch and they are immensely better.
If the issue is the actual original file, then you have an issue - no matter what you do, you are limited by the original file.

These are great pictures!

[Darrell Raw]

Thanks for the explanation on harsh lighting, that makes a lot of sense and now I know what to look out for. I think I can even fix some of my older pics in PP, using fill light and recovery - which might rescue some otherwise good pictures that have been slammed for harsh lighting.
I've taken your advice and increased the vibrancy on the rock pic, and also warmed it up a touch to enhance the rich yellows and oranges on the frog, do you think this is an improvement?

[Darrell Raw]

I've made another attempt at the mirror shot, but I think possibly I went a bit over the top on vibrancy - what do you think? I've increased the black area as suggested and made it more "black" as well.

[D4rknezz]

Hi,

I think its an improvement. I feel that it can stand just a little more, but we are getting to personal preference here .

The 2nd picture is also better - but I'd like to draw you to a little problem area that is common when extending blacks or whites :




As you can see, in my monitor, I can see all the spots that the blacks arent really black - and the transition between the blacks. I've highlighted it. Fixing it is an easy matter once you can spot them, you can literally take a black brush and go on it

The vibrance saturation was a little much at the beginning, but i am starting to think thats because I was staring at the other two pictures, which was more muted. If you look at it by itself, it seems really nice. Again, personal preference.

[Darrell Raw]

I can't get my screen to display it that bright, but I tried a paint bucket and it seems to have worked, would you mind checking it on your screen again?

[D4rknezz]

Basically, why the original is an issue is if you were to see it from a bright monitor, or to print it with a high quality printer, you will see that the blacks arent black. However, you have cleaned it quite nicely.

Very clean! Except on one spot its too clean, and removed part of the frog's reflection.

See here :






While the areas surrounding the frog has to be clean, the areas close to its webbed foot can be a little muddy - to show where the foot is standing on. Otherwise, it will look like the frog is floating or pasted into the picture. (take a look at its front right leg, in the original unclean picture)
Also, the paint bucket has removed part of its torso (area I circled).

What are you using to edit?

[MSL]

I've taken your advice and increased the vibrancy on the rock pic, and also warmed it up a touch to enhance the rich yellows and oranges on the frog, do you think this is an improvement?

Yes it is an improvement. I liked all three of the shots, but thought the third was a little bright or uniform in tone. The changes you made make it a warmer picture.

[Darrell Raw]

Photoshop. I guess I should stop being lazy and just use a brush! I can see some of the detail when I over-expose the image, but no where near what you're getting, so it's hard to see the dirty areas properly. I'll try again tomorrow on my work monitor, my home PC is hooked up to a TV screen.