Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 16, 2006, 9:00 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Ollie77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 358
Default

G'day,

you know the more I look at the very 1st shot the less I like it. It was one of the only portrait style shots of the dock that I took, and I am thinking I should have moved so that the sun wasn't in the shot at all. I will have to head down there and redo it.

As for the sharpness/overprocessed comment, well no sharpening done just colour removal and highlights/shadows played with. Everytime I tried playing with the sharpening tool or the USM, I didn't like it.

Anyway thanks for the comments always welcome.

Ollie
Ollie77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 9:26 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
kefln's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 122
Default

I think I'll hop in here in defence of the first shot!

Its different. If a sun is included in an image it usually dominates. Its interesting to see a shot where the sun is only partly there, its dominance reduced, but not ignored.


kefln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 12:46 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

Great pics.I like #2 and 3 the best.As I like the longer look of the backgroung myself and the 1st rail shot better than the second 1 because I think the closeness ramp takes away from the rail.Other than that they are all very nice pictures.
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 4:13 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

G'day Ollie....

Thanks for your further updates of photos. I hope I wasn't sounding too harsh on ya first time round... I do like the photos.

You wrote: "you know the more I look at the very 1st shot the less I like it. It was one of the only portrait style shots of the dock that I took, and I am thinking I should have moved so that the sun wasn't in the shot at all. I will have to head down there and redo it."

Yeah, that was what I meant (or was getting at too). Of course many things in photography are personal and subjective, but for me I really like the 2nd photo (of the first set) and the sun and boat shiloutetted (spelling?) in the sun on water is great.

The (close up) tree in the right (first photo of 2nd set) is a bit distracting, but I REALLY like the background trees, and the way the sun shines on them (side on) thus producing a lovely in sunlight / in shadow contrast. I think this especially works well in B&W.

The third photo of 2nd shot has a special quality about it. And it's sort of cool how the sun almost looks like a lamp on top of a lamppost due to that power pole or whatever it is.

I have 2 little pieces of advice (hope you don't mind!)

1. please put a NUMBER above all your posted photos in 1 thread (e..g #1, #2, etc) that way it's easier for people to say which photo (rather than, 2nd photo of first set).

2. I like your photos so much, isn't there any way you could post them a bit LARGER? Coz I think they would be even more impressive that way for us to see!! (this is a compliment, dude!)

well... it's after midnight here... you might be getting up in Kingston about now (7 hours time difference, Tassie's ahead!) Or are you having a Saturday lie-in? :blah:

As always I'm looking forward to your further posts.

Say g'day to my brothers if you bump into them in Kingston (I'm a twin.... so if you think you recognise me.... it's not me :lol:but we're not identical at all!) My younger brother looks different again.

Paul

pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 5:04 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Ollie77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 358
Default

G'day Paul and all,

ok firstly, got it all sorted, there are now numbers above each shot. Secondly about ther sizes, umm yeah easily done I guess. I do have all the shots in a higher resolution if you want to see them on my flickr Gallery. I just felt that it would be bad etiquette to post too big here. The flickr gallery does have different sizes and this is small because the next size up I thought was too big I think.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Another thing I really should have put up when I posted the last three shots is that the tree shot was the shot I did alot of editing to. And if anyone guess which part of the shot I did edit and why, gets umm a smiley face.:shock::shock::shock:

And if you can feel free to tell me if the edit really was necessary, because if not then I will post up the original without the edit.

As mentioned about size, here is the shot that you like Paul but the next size up. The original btw is with 1cm border(taken away when printed) 6380x4320pixels. or 27x18cm.

Large- Shot#1


Ollie
Ollie77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 5:32 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

The larger picture looks even better than the smaller 1.Thanks
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 5:38 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Thanks Ollie!!!

Strider you just beat me to it.. I was typing a PM to Ollie when your reply came up.

Anyway, Ollie, the bigger photo looks just GREAT on my screen. It fits PERFECT. But then again, I have a 17inch LCD at 1280 x 1024 resolution, so I realise not everyone has this amount of playing space on their computer screen... :roll:

Thanks for numbering also and explaining about edits, etc. I guess you did some edit work on the LEFT side of the tree which is on the right (close up).... that's why those background trees look so cool? (do I win a smiley face?! :?

Do post up the original (uneditted version) for a comparison, that's always a good thing to see!!

You said the original is: 6380x4320pixels!!!!??? What? Do you have a super camera? Or is this a scanned (film) photo? Or what? I don't understand. That's something like 25 megapixels, and I'm sure a lot of megabytes too!

OK, see you later. I've really gotta go to bed now... Yawn!! Thanks again Ollie.

And g'day!

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2006, 6:36 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Ollie77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 358
Default

G'day again,

ok lets see some explanations. Firstly I don't know alot about how editing software or RAW camera files work. However I am told by some authouritive folk that a raw file is just that raw data. And that once processes into an actual file will and can be any megapixel you want. Or I should say the program is capable of doing. I also know that some programs when they take a raw do some algorithim to get the best quality pic and some will even double up on pixels and do other things to make it look high res. Now when I take my raw camera files they are around 6meg in size on average. I then open up photoshop CS2 which I have like most the RAW 3.3 plugin. From the size//megapixel drop down menu at the bottom I always choose 25.1MP(4085x6144). Now you might be thinking that this will just make the shot look like crap or some other explanation that you will have, but from what I have seen the is quite the difference in quality of shot from the standard 2000x30086MP shot to the higher res one. So much so that if you open up the same shot with both settings, one for each, and then enlarge to say 100% then 200% and even upto 400% you will start to see pixelation on the smaller sized MP shot. Same shot two different choices and I assume two different ways of reading the RAW data from the camera. I am sure someone will clarify this for me later. But as far as I am concerned whether it be magic trickery of the program or the algorithim that it uses it is definately better to open in the largest possible size.

I am also told that the 2000x3008 is really just the jpg size that the camera has. Just like a 25MP cameras native jpg size is 4085x6144. Of course an actual 25MP camera would look even crisper and cleaner than my D50, but I shot my blue seagulls, where is it shot, and printed A3 size after processing the way I do, and it came out great. Not grainy or pixelated at all. Just how I saw it on the monitor.

Hope all that long winded explanation explains it all for you guys. If there is someone in the know out there that can give proper specs and information as to how the program reads raw files etc etc that would be great. But as far as I am concerned I will keep doing it that way because it gives the best results.

Now this original pic. Ok here it is in colour unedited. You will notice what I did to the tree. You get half a smiley face Paul as it was the right hand side of the tree not the left that was edited. And of course levels and lighting/shadows were played with. I seemed to not touch the sharpness tool with most of these B&W shots as it wasn't really all that necessary due to the sunny day and fast shutter speed. I don't have the steadiest of hands either.

Tell me what you think and tell me if I should have left the sun bits in.

Ollie



Attached Images
 
Ollie77 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:59 AM.