Critique My Image

Paperman

So just curious .... One takes RAW from camera and converts it to JPEG in PC without doing anything else.

What WB does he see in the JPEG file ... It must surely have a value so what is it ?

From the link ( by the way, Italic button not working ..... )

" 5) White Balance Presets

Most current DSLR and point and shoot cameras have white balance presets that are set to a certain Kelvin number by the manufacturer. These presets also vary depending on the manufacturer and camera model. Here is the list of presets for most Nikon DSLR cameras:

Auto (A) – Default WB setting and what I use all the time when I shoot RAW. The camera automatically guesses the WB depending on ambient light and use of flash."

What I get from what Nasim is saying is that even though one can tweak it to whatever he wants, the WB choice is not totally irrelevant even when shooting raw. Otherwise he would have said "just choose any setting " .

Saves time probably, if camera got it right ....

WestEndFoto

A lot of time. I use a grey card whenever I can. But ironheart is right about shooting with two different WB settings. If you adjust one to the other in Lightroom, they look the same. But don't forget about tint.

daveznspace

The way I would shoot that (like i'm anyone to talk) but when I live in Fl I shoot these kinds of situations a lot. First thing is at least get your ev back to at least 0 or slightly in the + range, Drop your shutter speed down a bit to say 1/1200 and raise iso to 400 which will bring out background better without increasing noise instead of dropping ev which actually creates noise and learn to time your shots so you shoot when they are moving less (ex: wings flapping) so they will come out sharper or at least look it

Now the secret I have found is to switch your picture style to neutral and drop contrast down 1 or 2 clicks, increase sharpening a bit and increase saturation 1 or 2 clicks. What that does is obviously brings out a bit more details and colors but dropping the contrast will "lighten up the underside of the the bird, whereas most settings have increased contrast which darkens it more and creates noise in those shadows. I actually made my own preset for this by messing around with a few of my pics in nikons picture control utility.. If you haven't used it DO IT! You learn a lot when you add your pix then try different styles or mess with settings.

I almost always shoot bif with spot metering too (plus it's always worth watching my friends that shoot canon instantly start to uncontrollably drool all over themselves at this haha). After all you're trying to expose the bird usually but most every camera will expose for the sky in matrix metering. With Nikons raw files the skies recover nicely... not the case with my old canon lol.

Here's a couple taken in similar situation but sun setting behind me and I have no way of properly getting getting into the right shooting situation as I was on a point of a river with bridges behind me and the sun setting from behind over tampa bay. This for me is where spot metering really shines.

(I don't need critiqued ! just showing a few examples )
And I'm not a sooc kinda guy but these were minimal.

Shot with a D700 and nikkor 70-300mm vr (yes two of my now now broken collection from tripod incident) and I'm just grabbing off fb so I hope it shrinks them here.








One thing i'm really learning lately too is that rising iso doesn't automatically mean more noise, you gotta learn how to trade off settings to get a good signal to noise ratio.


dave

michael66 said:

It was a dreary and overcast day, but the ducks and sea gulls were in full attendance at a local lake. I haven't been having much luck with capturing birds in flight, so it was practice time. This was shot with a D7100 and a 55-300 @ 195mm, 1/1600, f/8.0, ISO200, -2/3EV and it was cropped about a third. I think I flubbed the EV setting, but everything was so dark, except the sky itself. I'd like to try this again, but with a good 300mm. Is the fixed F/4 going to give me better sharpness?

rmp

Check out the color of the concrete wall at the left in Msmoto's train shot. In the not-post-processed shot the color is way off. In the post-processed shot the concrete looks like concrete. The white balance "eye-dropper" tool in Lightroom should adjust that color easily.

WestEndFoto

I like MSMOTO's post processed shot more, but I think the unprocessed shot is more realistic. This was shot at golden hour when everything looks "golden". I am not sure the unprocessed shot is exactly right, but the processed shot certainly isn't. To me, concrete looks yellow at golden hour. Not grey as if it was taken on a cloudy day.

Msmoto

For sure, each image has its benefits...and I think this could be processed in multiple directions, all quite acceptable to me. And, the "golden morning" version.....

rmp

What? We have three people and only 4 opinions as what the color of concrete should be -- how can that be?

Paperman

Some like it hot ( warm ) ....

Capt_Spaulding

Folks,

I've hit a steeper spot on the learning curve and hope you don't mind if I bend a rule or two to get some feedback. My wife (the Colonel) and I took a trip up to central Texas and one of the things that caught my eye was an abandoned house with 5 lightning rods lining the roof and some well used out buildings. I'm trying to figure out what I want to do with it in post. I've tried a couple of things.

First, I did some minor tweaking on the saturation and luminance bars in LR.



Second, I converted it to B&W and, again, made some adjustments on the B&W mix.



I've done some experimenting with the Clarity slider with results that seem (to me) interesting so I backed it down quite a bit. It seems to me to give an ethereal cast to the image. I left the mix pretty much the same, just a few small tweaks.




Finally, did the same thing to the color version. Backed the clarity slider down for the same reasons as above.




I find things I like about all of them. And things I don't, really. What do you guys think? Again, Tommie, I apologize for dumping four images into one post. In my (meager) defense, I'll argue it's just one image, four times. No? OK.

Many thanks in advance.

donaldejose

The rule of just one image in a day applies to PAD only and not to threads such as this. Am I correct moderators?

Sports

If you have a handful (or more) images of abandoned or old stuff, then sharp and contrasty B & W versions would make a good "collection", if you ask me.

If the image is on it's own, I think your idea of adding a much more "painting like" look is good, making something beautiful from something "just old". I'm certainly no expert, but I've been impressed :-) by the Topaz Impressions package, which does just that. I guess there are trial versions, and even a brand new versions with a discount right now ... because you're already trying to go in this direction.

spraynpray

You are indeed Donald.

@Capt_Spaulding: If I were you, I would consider reducing the negative space in front of the buildings, and if you have cropped the overall shot to where it is now, show us the shot before crop as it is a bit too tight at the sides for my taste. It is hard to see the point of the shot as is IMHO.

Paperman

Agreeing with Spraynpray ... I find the framing a bit awkward with the main building being cut in half and the tree on the right missing some sections where as there is way, way too much foreground/ grass . The fact that it is a standard to tele focal length also not helping with creating the depth and open space the eye looks for in a landscape. Clarity-wise, I am not fan of artistic looks and I use clarity for the opposite purpose - for enhancing an image & creating more contrast/details ...

Rx4Photo

Similar to others. I would have composed wider (for the entire white barn) and higher for less foreground, and let that cloud above the red roof resolve itself instead of being cut off.

Capt_Spaulding

Many thanks. This is "as shot," but I have a couple of different compositions of the buildings. In this instance I guess I was attracted to varying textures and shadings in the grass foreground as well as the structures. One of the problems was, I think, I was trying to do too many things in one exposure. I appreciate your help.

Capt_Spaulding

This is the same complex from a bit wider angle. As an aside, one of the more interesting things to me is the elaborate grounding scheme somebody put together for the lightning rods. It looks like they used half inch cable with stand offs in at least three locations I can see. Given that the house has a wing extending to the rear, I suspect there are more.

Thanks again.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Looking for CC on the Light.

NOTE: My original Vision was to have the sun rim light the subject left side. HE was late and I didn't have another light to setup or change location.

One CC that was given was for the key light to be in the direction of the ambient. In this case the sun is on the left so my key should have been on the left and a fill on the right. I can see why this CC was given is because of the shadows on the background are on the right and in this photo its on the subjects left. Had he not been late this would not be an issue.

What do you guys think about that. Or does even matter and it works the way it is.

Rx4Photo

@Vipmediastar_JZ I think it kind of works although I would like to have seen what the overall photo would look like with him angled in the other direction. To my eyes for some reason, the light looks a little too "flashed" imparting that artificial light source look. Also, to me, the crop is a bit too tight. All my opinion.

Msmoto

@Vipmediastar_JZ....what was the final use or the goal of shooting this image?

Vipmediastar_JZ

@msmoto Test a new softbox modifier and also his "senior" photos.

spraynpray

I'd prefer a touch more fill on the dark side and move him up in the frame to reduce the gap above his head to half or crop the top off to the same degree.

donaldejose

I would crop the top a bit like spraynpray says and I would also lighten the dark tones in the photo a bit. I think it will make him look stronger. Try a general overall lightening of the image, try lightening just the darker tones and try cropping the top off a bit and a small bit off the left side. Three ideas. Just try each of them to see what you get and then you will be able to judge whether any one of the three is better or the original was better in the first place. Just ideas to try; not criticisms. The bokeh is great. Unusual to use a 300mm f4 lens for a 3/4 portrait but I think it works very well. I am going to try this myself. Usually, I shoot from 85 to 200mm for this type of portrait. Also, you might want to consider the ratio since this is a senior photo. This ratio looks like about 4x6. Usually, prints are 5x7 or 8x10. You might want to make some crops of the image in standard sizes for ease in printing. Otherwise, the printer will simply center the photo cutting off equal amounts of top and bottom to convert sensor size to 5x7 size and thereby change your composition.

WestEndFoto

Actually, I like composing this type of photo in 5 by 4. In this case you want end up with a tight crop on the head with some negative space on the side. I might move the negative space from camera left to camera right in this case. Then maybe add a couple of inches on the bottom.

And then after doing this I might go back to the original, but it is worth a try.

MegapixelSchnitzel

Vipmediastar_JZ said:

Does the guy with the head down add or distract to the image. My subject is the smoking person. D800 sigma 35mm. Any other c c is welcomed.

To me it seemed obvious that the smoker is the subject at hand. The person with head down doesn't bother me - in fact, its interesting as a yang to the smoker's yen. The only crop I would've done on this street scene would be the removal of the half-person walking on the far left. I like this scene a la Cartier-Bresson!

IanG

Vipmediastar_JZ said:

Looking for CC on the Light.

IMHO it's round the wrong way - tradition states that the model looks into the image, not out as in this example. Give a little more space to the right, and consequently less to the left and it would look better.