|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-19-2015, 02:00 PM
|
| |
Original is far better IMO I really like it. I love to black out the tops of skies too so I dig it. And it's nice when it balances out with a similar weighted region on the opposite side. Hence the bottom black out is great too. A photograph framed in it's own underexposure without being a noticeable vignette is very pleasant. Also, your subject (sun) is not dead center in the original. The subject really needs to be off center unless there is a specific and ascertainable reason to do it otherwise.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-19-2015, 01:54 PM
|
| |
I'm not sure if you get this opportunity again in the future but here are my thoughts. Whenever a subject is trying to go from one place to another you need to have that negative space in front of your subject in order to express that. Hence why the crop doesn't work. The shot is what it is now and can't be saved with a crop because subjects are too close to center; But, if shot again, put the boy and the spotter down tighter to the bottom left corner. This allows more of the straps to be present in the shot and the sense of height and negative space to be more prevalent. Your eye starts on the boy and travels up the straps creating the tension. As a bonus, the dark straps on the light wall creates a contrast that catches the eye and carries it along the image. Secondly, the "hero" of an image is almost always pictured from a low angle up creating a sense of power and prestige. So a shot from down on the floor angled up slightly would've been more dramatic. Shooting down on someone has a tendency to minimise their importance. Which is obviously not what you're going for here. Cheers.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-24-2015, 06:50 AM
|
| |
If it were my shot, I'd clone stamp that object be it a buoy or whatever it is out in the water in front of the ship. It's distracting in a minimal shot. I like it though.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 09:57 AM
|
| |
What's going on at the very bottom, slightly right of center? It looks like a huge clone stamp. You can see rocks cut off through the middle. And the colour doesn't match any of the surrounding area. Did you try to remove something there?
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 08:31 AM
|
| |
Since you say you edited with "camera software" (silkypix I assume) I'm not sure what you did, but the branches of the trees look over sharpened. Or maybe it's the trees being out of focus but then contrast being bumped too high. It seems like the shadows of the branches are more pronounced than the branches themselves. Notice how the branches play with the background and pop to an unrealistic level. The graduation from light to dark in the sky looks super grainy too. Start from the original photo and make adjustments nice and easy.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 08:20 AM
|
| |
What did you do to get that strange dark stripe patterning in the front of the building? I trust it wasn't intended as it's not a desirable look.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 07:25 AM
|
| |
I took the liberty of doing a bit on this myself for explanation. Working with a tiny jpeg in CC is not ideal but you get the idea. I used a graduated filter on the sky to make it pop a bit more. Some dodging on the light house, and burning on the pier and background hills. A little median filter on the water since water rarely looks good sharp (you could've dragged the shutter a tad longer to accomplish this in camera) and upped the contrast. I wouldn't worry too much about clipped blacks. People here seem to have a real problem with deep rich blacks for some reason. Not every part of a photo needs to contain detail. It's acts like negative space. From reading here I get the idea that people think PP is something you shouldn't have to do much of. But remember guys in the film days would spend hours on PP of their film. Ansel Adams' moonrise over hernandez looked nothing on the negative like it did when printed. Part of the art is what you do with your files after the camera does it's work and oftentimes PP technique is what separates the wannabes from the players. Cheers on a nicely composed photo.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 06:13 AM
|
| |
If you check your histogram you'll most likely find the highlights clipping HARD in the sky. Just use a graduated filter in LR. Drag it down from the top to the horizon. Crush the highlights, bump the contrast and drop exposure a stop. Voila. It'll make your clouds of interest pop more. Secondly, this is another floating in space shot. Try including a foreground element to ground it a bit.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 06:00 AM
|
| |
What are the two groups of artifacts clearly present in the bottom right corner of the edit?
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 04:23 AM
|
| |
I wouldn't have done a global exposure edit on this image. A little dodging on the subject would've exposed her more and left the moody background. Much like what could've been achieved in camera with fill flash as a previous poster mentioned.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 04:19 AM
|
| |
The edits further down are dreadful. Stick with the original and take some blue out. It's overpowering.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
02-18-2015, 03:50 AM
|
| |
There is no clear subject here. I look at this and wonder what I'm supposed to be looking at. A subject should pop. This is a tricky focal length to be shooting in as you're not close enough to render fine details that could serve as the subject (as in macro) but not a wide enough angle to open up the possibility of other subjects of interest entering the frame. Does the path lead to something of interest? Maybe try a shot in portrait so you can get more of it frame with a subject further down the path. Let the eye travel down the path. If the path could be made in to a sort of arabesque, that would be even better. Starting on an intersection of thirds and drawing the eye through the photo. Hope this helps.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
02-11-2015, 06:14 AM
|
| |
I like this one, the black sky contrasted with the bright shimmer of the water. Reminds me of an Ansell Adams.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
02-07-2015, 06:59 AM
|
| |
Not sure if it was said yet or not; but what about the K-3s? Much like the difference between a Canon 1D and a 1Ds. Or perhaps that would lead to confusion since Pentax's use of s in the K-5ii was to signify lack of AA filter.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
04-16-2013, 06:07 PM
|
| |
Yes indeed. That would be nice. Though it's more of a "live with it" sort of thing at this point. haha. Though LR5 is in beta and maybe this issue will be addressed. Time will tell.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
04-14-2013, 07:31 PM
|
| |
Yes, I have a horrible habit of saying catalog instead of library. My apologies. Thanks for the help. We exported one of the images in question as a jpeg to see if the final photo would indicate this loss of sharpness and it did not. So I guess I'll just work around this annoyance and understand the final image will not reflect that. Thanks again.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
04-14-2013, 07:12 PM
|
| |
If I zoom in on the image it does sharpen up. When I zoom back out it sometimes goes back to less sharp and sometimes decides it would rather just remain sharp. Which I find very odd. LR4>CS3 was what I was using before but not now. Now I am current. The edits in CS6 have been minor adjustments not requiring layers. I did one mask which was merged down before leaving the program.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
04-14-2013, 05:33 PM
|
| |
UPDATE: Just found the process and it's set to 2012.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
04-14-2013, 05:30 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the input. I'll do my best to help. None of the images have been exported from the suite of software so they are still DNG. I would upload from my memory card to LR and then select edit in>photoshop. I am running a PC. My color space used was adobe RGB.The preference setting is set to apply sharpening to all images. As for the "2012 process" I'm afraid i need further clarification on that one.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
04-14-2013, 01:45 PM
|
| |
This problem has perplexed me and a friend and I have not been able to find this problem described elsewhere. Actually I have seen people have just the opposite problem. When I load LR4 and am looking at photos that have had work done in PS CS6 13.0.1 (with camera raw 7.1) in the LR4 (4.3 and 4.3) catalog, the photos look tack sharp in the library and as soon as I switch over to develop mode, they're sharp for about 2 seconds and then they lose sharpness. If I switch back to catalog, they look sharp again. Again, this only happens to the photos I have adjusted in PS and the rest are stable with their sharpness. What is the deal with this? I have read about people having the problems with losing sharpness going from develop to library, but not the way I'm experiencing this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. As a side note, this problem did not happen when I was using LR4 (4.2) with CS3. I would like to not have to revert back to the older software to correct this problem.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-03-2013, 11:57 AM
|
| |
HUZZAH!!! Thankyou! That was the issue. Works like a charm now. :)
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-02-2013, 10:00 PM
|
| |
Yes, I enabled it in the custom menu.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-01-2013, 06:28 PM
|
| |
Hi everyone. I apologize in advance if this has been covered but I'm at a loss. I have a K-5 and I'm trying to do self portraits with my pentax remote control. I have the AF with the remote option enabled in the custom menu. The auto focus mode is set to auto. I depress the button and click! Out of focus photo. The manual offers no help. It say to half press the shutter button hen use the remote. Pretty pointless for what I'm doing. Am I missing something? Also, I know I can set up an object to get the focus set than stand in it's place. But I'm looking for the ability to click off multiple shots at varying distances so I'd like the camera to do what it is supposed to be able to do. Thanks in advance for the help.
|
