Archive for Uncle AJ's Rolex, Wrist Watch & Nature Forum A place to chill out and have some fun a forum about nothing yet also about everything. An alternative wrist watch and nature forum.
 


       Uncle AJ's Rolex, Wrist Watch & Nature Forum Forum Index -> Photography in general
jdc

Opinions please (very photo heavy)

I have been experimenting with my photos with a view to showing them in an art festival next year. Give some honest comments on some I am thinking of putting forward.













Landscapes

















Venice

















Lion

Martin, I like the landscape photos and the one's in Venice. They look like they could be used as photographs for jigsaw puzzles!!!
uncle aj

Martin, I wish you'd numbered them, then it would be easier to give views against a number.  

There's some good stuff there nevertheless.  
IDK01

Wow Martin, I love those shots, ALL of them!!!  some familiar places there :-)
East Bay Rider

Your eye looks for the same thing in your subjects as mine. Symetry. Very nice work.
GJ

Wow, truly amazing pictures....     .

I wish I could take pictures like that..
uncle aj

Martin, here are my observations.  I'm trying to look at the pictures as a judge would do in a competition.  Any criticism is meant to be constructive.

I like the first one, one like that of Southport Pier won our monthly competition at our camera club.

The second one doesn't do anything for me.

The third is nice.

Fourth one might be better if it's flipped horizontally.  At a recent competition, the judge explained we look at pictures from left to right.  Maybe this would be of more interest the other way round.  It needs to be tried to see.  

Fifth and sixth, OK.

Seventh, maybe have the horizon higher in the picture.  A good rule of thumb is 1/3 of the way up or 1/3 of the way down.  The old rule of thirds.

Eighth and ninth, very nice.  Maybe would have been even nicer with a figure down the path in the distance.

10, 11, 12, 13 14, 15 all very nice.

16 I think would be better if the horizon was straight.

17 Good

18 Too much camera shake.

19, 20 and 21 good.

If you want any large prints doing, I'd recommend DS Colour Labs.  I used them when I was home and they provide an excellent service.


DS Colour Labs Link
jdc

Thanks all. Adrian great feedback and yes I should have numbered them   I will take on your suggestions. Thanks
away36

Wow, Martin. I loved your pics. The first three are my favourite, with the first being my MOST favourite. Keep 'em coming!!  
Lisa

Well, I'm no judge but I loved them all!
Tools

All great shots..

In addition to Adrians comments, you might look at a few of them where the subject is smack in the center...  generally, the eye is more pleased if the main subject is off center, either left, right, or up and down...   Rule of thirds works for subjects as well as horizons..

Good luck..
uncle aj

This is what Larry was referring to.




And this is the one I thought might look better flipped.  I had to wait until I got home from work as I don't have the software at work.
BigBird

You had me worried for a moment Martin as I thought you were going to show those special photos of ole' RhinoHorn76 and his trusted steed.

Good pictures Maring
jdc

uncle aj wrote:
This is what Larry was referring to.




And this is the one I thought might look better flipped.  I had to wait until I got home from work as I don't have the software at work.


Thanks Adrian & Larry great advice    & thanks Adrian for showing graphically what you guys mean, quite an education  
jdc

Thanks Lisa & Nancy for your comments  
uncle aj

jdc wrote:
Thanks Lisa & Nancy for your comments  


Martin, I've moved this topic here as I thought it was better suited in the General Photography Section.  It's a good reference subject.  
jdc

thanks Adrian. I have made some changes based on the suggestions you and Larry made. See what you think

sky shortened and cropped l/hand side



cropped l/hand side to give better perspective



sky shortened



sky shortened and horizon leveled



two others I played with



uncle aj

They look a lot better but I think the one with your daughter in needs to have her more to the right.  People tend to look at the area in front of her, the area she's looking towards.  Maybe flipping this horizontally as well would make it better.  I'd be interested what others think.  
jdc

uncle aj wrote:
They look a lot better but I think the one with your daughter in needs to have her more to the right.  People tend to look at the area in front of her, the area she's looking towards.  Maybe flipping this horizontally as well would make it better.  I'd be interested what others think.  


uncle aj

I still think there's too much space behind her.  It's a dead area to me, she needs the space in front of her like my earlier crop.  
jdc

uncle aj wrote:
I still think there's too much space behind her.  It's a dead area to me, she needs the space in front of her like my earlier crop.  

and when you flip any words are reversed  

uncle aj

Oops, forgot about the words.  I think that is a lot better, there's more interest in the scene now.  
Tools

They all look much improved..

You know that you can just blur, clone, or blacken out the words on the sign.............
Jimbits76

Nice work Martin.

I think they're great...my criticisms and they are only a personal opinion is that I'm not a big fan of vignetting and the architectural pictures (arch. monuments?) have the traditional effect of the subject leaning back slightly due to perspective distortion. I know most digital SLRs have a tilt shift function but I also know that you were probably using that gorgeous Leica that I saw when we met...in that instance I'd use a distortion control on the software.

Another thing....

On the landscape pictures of the meadows/hills/valleys etc have you tried saving copies in mono and applying a yellow or orange filter to them? The cloudscapes would appear quite dramatic!

The momument pictures in particular scream out for infrared emulsion and a red filter but that's just me being a drama queen as always.

Anyway, forget my advice as I know bugger all about photography anyway!!!!!!

Great pics!

Jim
uncle aj

jdc wrote:
uncle aj wrote:
I still think there's too much space behind her.  It's a dead area to me, she needs the space in front of her like my earlier crop.  

and when you flip any words are reversed  


What words are reversed?  



OK it was a quick job.  
jdc

Jimbits76 wrote:
Nice work Martin.

I think they're great...my criticisms and they are only a personal opinion is that I'm not a big fan of vignetting and the architectural pictures (arch. monuments?) have the traditional effect of the subject leaning back slightly due to perspective distortion. I know most digital SLRs have a tilt shift function but I also know that you were probably using that gorgeous Leica that I saw when we met...in that instance I'd use a distortion control on the software.

Another thing....

On the landscape pictures of the meadows/hills/valleys etc have you tried saving copies in mono and applying a yellow or orange filter to them? The cloudscapes would appear quite dramatic!

The momument pictures in particular scream out for infrared emulsion and a red filter but that's just me being a drama queen as always.

Anyway, forget my advice as I know bugger all about photography anyway!!!!!!

Great pics!

Jim


Yes its just a point and shoot Leica. The Venice ones are much older taken with another point and shoot.
Not sure I can do those things with the Mac photo software, maybe I will have to look at getting some better .
jdc

uncle aj wrote:
jdc wrote:
uncle aj wrote:
I still think there's too much space behind her.  It's a dead area to me, she needs the space in front of her like my earlier crop.  

and when you flip any words are reversed  


What words are reversed?  



OK it was a quick job.  


very clever Adrian   The picture was taken at Littlehampton, the day I took it there was a gale force wind, high tide and no-one around. I was there today same time of day and it was sunny, still, low tide and loads of people on the pier.
Brushpup

Martin, I think there are some stunningly beautiful shots here my friend.

Absolutely gorgeous, and some far better than many a print I've seen hanging.

jdc

Brushpup wrote:
Martin, I think there are some stunningly beautiful shots here my friend.

Absolutely gorgeous, and some far better than many a print I've seen hanging.



Thanks Patrick    
slrdude

All in all, great shots.

I'll take a better look later since no numbers makes it tough to CC them...

Couple of quick observations:
The vignetting is too much and it looks like you had way too many filters on your lens. I know that's not the case, but it's distracting.
If you want to keep that effect, I suggest feathering it heavily to achieve a nice fade that will draw the eye to the subject. I use that at times, but it should never distract.

On the one with the green walls and the see behind, I would darken the green walls. My eyes jump back and forth and are not sure where to look.

On the girl pics, do not flip it. The writing is now mirrored and it kinda jumps at you. Her pose is also unnatural looking due to the flip and your eyes and brain sense that.
As far as composition, like AJ said, there is a bit too much space and that makes it hard to figure out what it is. Is it a pier shot with a girl in it? Is it a girl on the pier? Is it one of those "I've been there" shots? Don't let subjects fight for attention.

All in all, very very good shots buddy!
jdc

slrdude wrote:
All in all, great shots.

I'll take a better look later since no numbers makes it tough to CC them...

Couple of quick observations:
The vignetting is too much and it looks like you had way too many filters on your lens. I know that's not the case, but it's distracting.
If you want to keep that effect, I suggest feathering it heavily to achieve a nice fade that will draw the eye to the subject. I use that at times, but it should never distract.

On the one with the green walls and the see behind, I would darken the green walls. My eyes jump back and forth and are not sure where to look.

On the girl pics, do not flip it. The writing is now mirrored and it kinda jumps at you. Her pose is also unnatural looking due to the flip and your eyes and brain sense that.
As far as composition, like AJ said, there is a bit too much space and that makes it hard to figure out what it is. Is it a pier shot with a girl in it? Is it a girl on the pier? Is it one of those "I've been there" shots? Don't let subjects fight for attention.

All in all, very very good shots buddy!


great comments and insight, thanks    
Jimbits76

slrdude wrote:
All in all, great shots.

I'll take a better look later since no numbers makes it tough to CC them...

Couple of quick observations:
The vignetting is too much and it looks like you had way too many filters on your lens. I know that's not the case, but it's distracting.
If you want to keep that effect, I suggest feathering it heavily to achieve a nice fade that will draw the eye to the subject. I use that at times, but it should never distract.

On the one with the green walls and the see behind, I would darken the green walls. My eyes jump back and forth and are not sure where to look.

On the girl pics, do not flip it. The writing is now mirrored and it kinda jumps at you. Her pose is also unnatural looking due to the flip and your eyes and brain sense that.
As far as composition, like AJ said, there is a bit too much space and that makes it hard to figure out what it is. Is it a pier shot with a girl in it? Is it a girl on the pier? Is it one of those "I've been there" shots? Don't let subjects fight for attention.

All in all, very very good shots buddy!


See that's why I should keep my gob shut...good work!!!!!!!!!!!!

J
slrdude

Another thing, have you ever played with curves?
Curves are critical at making an image "pop" and they are the proper way to achieve that look. Most people do that by messing with contrast or brightness, which is not the best option as it results in blown areas and/or loss of details.

Here is a quick example.
I am not saying that my version is better than yours, it is simply a one minute job to see what curves can do to your image.

Before.



After a quick curves adjustment.

uncle aj

The last time I tried playing with curves, she slapped me.  
slrdude

uncle aj wrote:
The last time I tried playing with curves, she slapped me.  


I hear you buddy...
I tend to get much luckier with PS curves!!  
jdc

slrdude wrote:
Another thing, have you ever played with curves?
Curves are critical at making an image "pop" and they are the proper way to achieve that look. Most people do that by messing with contrast or brightness, which is not the best option as it results in blown areas and/or loss of details.

Here is a quick example.
I am not saying that my version is better than yours, it is simply a one minute job to see what curves can do to your image.

Before.





After a quick curves adjustment.



interesting is curves a software programme on Photoshop?. I have a Mac so my software is limited to that,

This colour adjustment is very interesting. My wife thinks many of the images I have adjusted are over saturated and does not like them as they don't look natural. But it does make them pop more.

The example you have given gives a totally different look. I took the photo just after sunrise when there was a slight mist. Its food for thought though. Thanks for taking the time to give input I am finding all of this very interesting
Jimbits76

I'd post a pic but my polaroid is still waiting to develop.

Time to do a bit more flapping and blowing...

Then once I'm done with Bubbsy I'll see if my picture came out!!!!

J
uncle aj

jdc wrote:

interesting is curves a software programme on Photoshop?. I have a Mac so my software is limited to that,

This colour adjustment is very interesting. My wife thinks many of the images I have adjusted are over saturated and does not like them as they don't look natural. But it does make them pop more.

The example you have given gives a totally different look. I took the photo just after sunrise when there was a slight mist. Its food for thought though. Thanks for taking the time to give input I am finding all of this very interesting


Curves are in Photoshop, I alter levels a lot to get the same results.  I downloaded Photoshop Elements 8 yesterday and installed it on my MacBook.  I'd say it has 90% of what I use in Photoshop CS4 and I'd recommend it.  
slrdude

Martin,

I could actually tell that it was a misty morning, and to be honest, it made me want to be there instead of surrounded by the Dallas skyscrapers.    

Mist is an interesting phenomenon, and it works best when it is localized. And by that I mean just in certain parts of the image. Mist all over like you have in your image can easily come across as a foggy lens to the untrained eye. When on location, your brain knows what it is, compensates for it and tells you that is a wonder of nature and it is a picture worth taking.
Too bad the sensor is dumb and it will just capture a beautiful landscape through what might look as a foggy lens.

It's one of those decisions you have to make when you do your post processing.

If you use Photoshop, curves are located in the Image-->Adjustments menu and once you open it it looks like a square with a line going diagonally through it from bottom left to top right and it should be straight as an arrow. Flat. As shot.

What you want to do is make it look like a bit on an S. Grab the line about half way between the mid point and top right corner and drag it UP slightly to where it looks pleasing. This will increase your detail, especially in the dark areas.
Do the same thing with the bottom half, but drag it DOWN. That will increase the tonal range and the overall contrast of the image and give it that pop.

If you think about it, you eye compensates for all those things when you look at the scene while the camera can not. And this is why many times when you look at the image you wonder... is this the same scene? What happened to... (insert missing element here).

Those are just some general observations. The vast majority of your pictures are outstanding and it does not take a rocket scientist to see that you have a great eye, and you should never give this up.        
slrdude

uncle aj wrote:


Curves are in Photoshop, I alter levels a lot to get the same results.  I downloaded Photoshop Elements 8 yesterday and installed it on my MacBook.  I'd say it has 90% of what I use in Photoshop CS4 and I'd recommend it.  


Levels are critical as well, but they give a slightly different result.
You want to always check your levels in order to ensure a proper exposure and to a certain extent, colour balance.

This is what I do to every picture:
Levels.
Curves.
Saturation.
Unsharp Mask.
uncle aj

slrdude wrote:
uncle aj wrote:


Curves are in Photoshop, I alter levels a lot to get the same results.  I downloaded Photoshop Elements 8 yesterday and installed it on my MacBook.  I'd say it has 90% of what I use in Photoshop CS4 and I'd recommend it.  


Levels are critical as well, but they give a slightly different result.
You want to always check your levels in order to ensure a proper exposure and to a certain extent, colour balance.

This is what I do to every picture:
Levels.
Curves.
Saturation.
Unsharp Mask.


That's very close to what I do, except I have not got the hang of curves yet but I'll practise more.  
slrdude

Adrian,

I am a big fan of never altering the original image due to the data loss that occurs every time a change is made.

The proper way to do this is to go to Layer--> New-->Adjustment Layer and make all your changes this way. Make a new layer for levels... one for curves... one for saturation... one for luminosity etc. Flatten ONCE and apply the Unsharp Mask. That's always the LAST thing you do to an image.

I think you will like playing with curves!    
uncle aj

slrdude wrote:
Adrian,

I am a big fan of never altering the original image due to the data loss that occurs every time a change is made.

The proper way to do this is to go to Layer--> New-->Adjustment Layer and make all your changes this way. Make a new layer for levels... one for curves... one for saturation... one for luminosity etc. Flatten ONCE and apply the Unsharp Mask. That's always the LAST thing you do to an image.

I think you will like playing with curves!    


I work on RAW files Chip so the image loss does not occur and I learned very early on to use unsharp mask last.  I must admit, I have not tried making different layers for saturation, luminosity etc.  Thanks for the tip.
slrdude

I also work in RAW and I do 90% of my work in Lightroom.
Honestly, Lightroom has no equal when it comes to what it can do and it is a dream come true.
My work flow takes 80% less time than it does with PS.
About the only time I use PS is... well... I hardly ever use PS anymore   .

I am at work now and I all I have here is PS 7, which is a relic.  
uncle aj

slrdude wrote:
I also work in RAW and I do 90% of my work in Lightroom.
Honestly, Lightroom has no equal when it comes to what it can do and it is a dream come true.
My work flow takes 80% less time than it does with PS.
About the only time I use PS is... well... I hardly ever use PS anymore   .

I am at work now and I all I have here is PS 7, which is a relic.  


Funny, I tried Lightroom and didn't like it.  I didn't like the way it imported all you pictures and then there was no save as function.  I like to work on each picture individually so I binned it.  
slrdude

uncle aj wrote:

Funny, I tried Lightroom and didn't like it.  I didn't like the way it imported all you pictures and then there was no save as function.  I like to work on each picture individually so I binned it.  


There is a save as function.  
It's under Image --> Export.
All you do is specify a folder and it sends it over there when u are done processing.

The little brush is sheer magic and fixing WB is a breeze. Do it once, then select all images taken under the same conditions and hit Sync.
uncle aj

slrdude wrote:
uncle aj wrote:

Funny, I tried Lightroom and didn't like it.  I didn't like the way it imported all you pictures and then there was no save as function.  I like to work on each picture individually so I binned it.  


There is a save as function.  
It's under Image --> Export.
All you do is specify a folder and it sends it over there when u are done processing.

The little brush is sheer magic and fixing WB is a breeze. Do it once, then select all images taken under the same conditions and hit Sync.


Maybe I'll try it again some day.  
jdc

slrdude wrote:
Martin,

I could actually tell that it was a misty morning, and to be honest, it made me want to be there instead of surrounded by the Dallas skyscrapers.    

Mist is an interesting phenomenon, and it works best when it is localized. And by that I mean just in certain parts of the image. Mist all over like you have in your image can easily come across as a foggy lens to the untrained eye. When on location, your brain knows what it is, compensates for it and tells you that is a wonder of nature and it is a picture worth taking.
Too bad the sensor is dumb and it will just capture a beautiful landscape through what might look as a foggy lens.

It's one of those decisions you have to make when you do your post processing.

If you use Photoshop, curves are located in the Image-->Adjustments menu and once you open it it looks like a square with a line going diagonally through it from bottom left to top right and it should be straight as an arrow. Flat. As shot.

What you want to do is make it look like a bit on an S. Grab the line about half way between the mid point and top right corner and drag it UP slightly to where it looks pleasing. This will increase your detail, especially in the dark areas.
Do the same thing with the bottom half, but drag it DOWN. That will increase the tonal range and the overall contrast of the image and give it that pop.

If you think about it, you eye compensates for all those things when you look at the scene while the camera can not. And this is why many times when you look at the image you wonder... is this the same scene? What happened to... (insert missing element here).

Those are just some general observations. The vast majority of your pictures are outstanding and it does not take a rocket scientist to see that you have a great eye, and you should never give this up.        


Thanks Chip and I really do appreciate the input. I have not got photoshop so will have to look into it. Thanks again  
       Uncle AJ's Rolex, Wrist Watch & Nature Forum Forum Index -> Photography in general
Page 1 of 1
Debt Consolidation|2008 Air Jordan Release Dates