Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
paulbroad's Gallery Comments
You are aware, I think, that the quality here, negative or positive, is not going to make an acceptable image. Is the original negative fully sharp? If not, forget it. There is no point scanning, or rephotographing an image, unless it has historical value, unless it is of paramount quality. Scanning will usually reduce quality.
You have done well to get it this sharp at such a liw shutter speed and the exposure is about right, but I would have gone for f5.6 to get a faster shutter speed. Decent composition, but, for me, needs a focal point. A figure part way down that path to lock the composition.
My first car was a 1962 Anglia. Very basic compared to the current crop. A good angle and that bit different, but you are a bit under exposed I think. I suspect the yelliw was rather brighter than this looking at the sky. This is a mustard colour.
The original is close to the correct exposure with the right colours. The lighting contrast isd to great and you needed flash fill. That is why all good wedding photographers have a flash fitted. All the other images, including yours displayed, have the wrong colours. What are you doing in processing?
A good idea, an interesting view, but this looks very HDR. Rather heavy and flat with an over compressed tonal range. The buildings look a bit soft too? Is it HDR?
V4 is the best, but very flat and heavy. Are you using the meter correctly because you are under exposed. The lighting contrast is very high, but you are still under.
Mono for me, here. Reduces the distractions of the background a lot. Your technique is nearly perfect for this one, nearly. Could be good, but you really should touch the eye sockets with the dodge tool. A few seconds for a great improvement. Your technique seems to do this to shadows.
Your mono processing technique causes issues. In this case, I rather like the effect of v1, other than his Glasgow Kiss in the eye. That should not be there and you should have dealt with it. That's what the dodge tool is for.
Not bad at all. It is just a touch, over exposed, lacking image density. Amazing sharpness at 1/10 sec.
I rather like the effect here. An interesting and balanced composition. A bit more info will help.
A series of technical errors with high contrast, a degree of under exposure. Flash fill would have helped balance tones but you mustcrack that basic technique.
Good content, well taken, but you have a heavy cyan cast. Not sure if it is ambient lighting or something you have done in processing. Increased saturation? Brightening up a bit wil reduce the cyan and it is over the whole image so I would think you had the WB set at the wrong position? In my experience, auto WB is usually pretty good when there is an overall lighting effect. Much closer than this.
You cannot shoot digital without mastering sharpening. Digital images are inherently soft and almost all need an element of sharpening. Here, the girls face is sharper than the man, so we have a depth of field issue. If you want them both sharp, and you do, you need f8 or 11 and focus slightly back from her eyes to use the third/two thirds depth rule.
Yes, don't do that! I fear the depth of field is just nowhere near enough and the only bit passably sharp is the bit of wire, top left. You have good gear, capable of top class results. You must stop shooting impulsively and think through what you intend.
Not sure about this. The mono conversion is good but the shadows are blocked solid and a little detail would be nice. A little dodging?
It seems curlish to critise this, because I am rather unlikely to ever take anything like it. First rate, brave and strongly composed. I think there is mileage in a bit of judicious dodging and burning to slightly lighten the animal and add extra tone to the far hills.
A fine image in many ways and very mono suitable. You are a bit under exposed. There is nothing like a white anywhere. The old darkroom rule was a pure black, a pure white, then a full range of grey tones between. Low light, I know, but there is very little detail in the deep shadows just where some would be nice, round his hands.
Not sure why a soft blurred image should look better in mono? Your shutter speed has resulted in movement blur and the treatment, I fear, is rather harsh.
A lot of potential faults, but it is very strong with great impact. I'm not sure if the standard mods would actually improve things or remove some of the power of the umage?
Decent shots, but you are meterung incorrectly. They are all significantly under exposed. At least a stop. You need to check on your LCD, the histogram if you have time. Very bright light and reflective water, thus an incorrect meter reading.
I have been absent a bit lately. A few issues with the section, but here I go again! I rarely like HDR but this doesn't look HDR, it is far from natural. I rather like it as a strong different image with impact. A talking point.