Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Get on1's Perfect Effects 9.5 for FREE! (£48 value)

Connect to User


Sooty_1's Activity

Sooty_1 > Sooty_1's Activity

Quick Stats

Stats are refreshed every 24 hours
Forum Topics:2
Forum Comments:1379
Photo Comments:1307
Competition Entries: 0
Modification Uploaded: 146
Early morning mist

Early morning mist by peterjay78

Most of the comments have already been made, but the reason you are better to shoot in colour and convert to black and white, is that you may need the colour information to adjust the relative tonality in the mono image.
In olden days, we used a coloured filter with mono film: it lightened its own colour and darkened complementary ones (check out the 'colour wheel'), so a yellow filter lightened grass and foliage slightly and darkened blue sky. Orange and red had more intense effect, yet left clouds white for a real contrast. Blue was often used to increase the contrast on male faces, increasing the "ruggedness" of the subject.

Unfortunately, some colours look very different, yet when you remove the colour, they are similar tones, and so you sometimes need to change the tones by using a filter to separate them in a photo. You can use the colour information in a digital file to do this, eg in the channel mixer, so if you use just the b&w jpg and discard the colour information, you negate your ability to alter it later.


Sitting fairy

Sitting fairy by marosmitro

The problem here is one of balance.
All the 'weight' of the image is on the right side, and the large lantern draws my attention away from the girl. There are four prominent lanterns on the right, against two less so on the left side.
A pleasant image though slightly surreal, and the pastel feel makes it dream-like. I think redistributing the lanterns more evenly (maybe losing the closest one altogether) would improve it tremendously.


What happened to the view?

What happened to the view? by Canonshots

Unfortunately, all you have is a picture of some tufts of grass. I'm sure you will agree, not the most captivating of subjects unless you are an agrostologist.
It probably means more to you as a memory of the place, than as a standalone image.

With weather like this, it lends itself to other forms of photography than landscapes. The soft even light is great for still life (plants, people, small details), or as Willie says, the others in your group. There is no subject here, and the lack of drama robs the image of anything you want to fix your attention on. Even close ups of the grass or flora would have more interesting details to see.

I can see what the pro meant, but there isn't much in the weather to work with, here.



Hope! by paulbroad

Quite nice, I find my eye drawn to the red and white stones on the left.
I can't process at the moment, but maybe a slight crop from the left, and clone those two rocks out, might be something I'd try. That and reversing the image horizontally.


Low Summer Sun !

Low Summer Sun ! by TornadoTys

I don't have the facility to photoshop at the moment, but as there is the 'wrong' amount of body in the shot, I'd consider straightening as much as possible, then cropping so the free hand is on the lower third and the upper hand is on the upper third. That makes the composition more dynamic IMHO, which would counterpoint the image then being square.

If you can have another go at this, it might be worth trying to get the whole body shadow in (by jumping perhaps), and squaring up the camera, but maybe jumping at an angle for a different dynamic?


Storm on the Vestmann

Storm on the Vestmann by jerryiron

While the image is very descriptive of the harsh conditions where the land meets the North Atlantic, there are a couple of technical things that strike me.

First, there seems to be a bit of lateral chromatic fringing, particularly on the rock edges to the left. If this is like this straight from the camera, you will need to use the lens profile, or reduce it in the RAW processing stage. If it is an artefact caused by your processing, you will again need to find a way to reduce it afterwards. If it is the Nikkor 12-24, there are profiles out there that will automatically remove known fringing issues.

Second, I'd remove the seabirds. They are too small in the frame to have any impact, and just look like imperfections at first glance. More of them, but larger, would round this shot off well.

I like the vertical elements, thrusting into the stormy sky, but I would like to see the foreground lightened a little. I find the shadows losing definition as they are quite blocky, and I think lightening it a little wouldn't detract from the dark brooding rock, but would allow more texture to show. At the same time, the darkening sky needn't lose any of its menace, so it would need to be localised dodging.

Otherwise, I think it's pretty good.


PS: how long before a black and white version appears? It would need some tonal adjustments and some more localised work, but it could be stunning.


Magnolias by EveLine1

Apart from the under exposure, the problem I have is that it's just full of distracting detail. I'm afraid that I spend as long looking at the out of focus statue and tree as I do the main subject.

Sorry, but for me, a simple plain coloured subject shouldn't have a busy and distracting background. None of it really works, IMHO, a plainer background, or one that is completely blurred (so as to be unrecognisable as anything) would be much better. Then I'd be free to concentrate on the shape and form of the subject itself.



Shhhh by jhaslam4

Judging by the depth of field, I'd say a wide to middle aperture. The light is pretty good, it just needs a small reflector to bounce light back into the shaded side of the face. The shutter speed is fast enough to not display any shake, and the plane of focus is pretty much around the eye and fingers, where it should be.

Being asleep, she's not going anywhere fast, so get the banker shot and then you can try different things! Reflectors are useful for babies, as their delicate skin shows better when well lit. It can even be slightly translucent in some lighting.

Filling the frame excludes any distractions, just leaving you to concentrate on the subject. Exactly what you want with a baby picture.


Colours of the wind

Colours of the wind by DB_Photography

Most of it's been covered above: a pleasant scene that really needs something else to lift it.

I agree the colours are worth shooting, but you need to be more proficient with your burning in. There is a tell tale halo round the treetops, which you didn't really need. The trees are silhouetted anyway, so brushing over the trees won't darken them any more, but darkening the lighter patches behind the branches will make the sky look more consistent.

The logo has drawn some comment, but you really don't need one when showing your pictures. If you wished to sell your work, and you printed it for someone, you wouldn't include it in the frame as it spoils the image. By all means include a very small or unobtrusive one on a website, but including it here smacks of someone just pretending to be a professional.


Dinorwic quarry

Dinorwic quarry by lespaul

You have used settings that are entirely reasonable, but the light is the real problem. Shooting at midday rarely works as the light is harsh, unflattering to the landscape and fro too high a position. It means undulating landscape has no modelling, no real detail is revealed about its shape and form. It looks like the sun is pretty much above the scene in front of you, judging by the shadows on the hills, and thus a polariser will have very little effect. It will do more of the sun is lower and at right angles to you

Whilst the reflections are ok, they will be there regardless of the Suns position, so shooting at midday won't make them any better. In fact, there is a hazy feel that robs the scene of a lot of its colour and contrast, and the dark tones are a result of the shade, rather than the texture.

If possible, it would be better to shoot early or late in the day, with more side lighting, that should really bring out the texture and form of the landscape.


Why doesn't this appear vertical? update: Issue fixed!

Why doesn't this appear vertical? update: Issue fixed! by pablophotographer

If you want to bring out the colour of the nontranslucent parts, ie the heads, you will need to light the front a little.
Add a silver or white reflector in front of the flowers to bounce light back into them. The danger if you add more exposure is the you will get bleed round the flowers spoiling the edges of the subject, but you do need a little more if you want to eliminate the curtain patterns.



Lilly by eskimo

A project is a good way to stimulate creativity, as long as you don't fall into the trap of shooting everything the same way!

Flowers are a good subject, because there are a multitude of different shapes, textures and colours to show off, and even restricting yourself to monochrome you will have great choice in how to shoot various subjects.

This main image, I find a little heavy. The predominance of mid tone detracts from the varied shades of white that the original displays, and it looks a bit like an underexposed high key image. It might be better a purer colour, either white (and lit better) for a high key delicate shot, or black as a contrast to the paleness go the petals. If you shoot high key, you can expand the lighter tones digitally to achieve more detail in highlight areas, particularly useful for very light subjects.

The handy thing with digital is that you can move your light around to see the effects of different angles, and if you make notes, you can go back to successful images and avoid wasting time when you do shoot film. Then you can tailor a lighting set up to the particular subject matter.

As lilies go, this is neither a particular delicate species (muscular is a good analogy), nor in particularly good condition, but you've captured the detail in the petals and kept virtually all the highlights intact. I too prefer the mono version, but the main image, if lightened significantly, could be much better, IMHO. Compositionally, this kind of shot is a matter of taste, and will depend on what you want to show of the flower.


Economic divide

Economic divide by olamii97

A noble cause indeed, though I'm not sure the partial colour really works here. You would normally use selective colour to emphasise a subject, make it stand out from the background, but is your subject the people or the building?

I don't think the people's clothes are bright enough to stand out if the rest were monochrome, and the building doesn't appear to be particularly special, so maybe just having the whole thing in colour or mono would be better. The partial colour just looks incongruous.
Unfortunately, the person in the background is in the way too, it would be better without them there.

These sort of pictures often look better with the people larger in the frame, and the background to give context rather than be a main part of the image. Their appearance and expressions often tell you so much more than a general view.


Colibri hovering [almost]

Colibri hovering [almost] by WimpyIskandar

Quote: I increase the speed at 1/1250,is it still blurry ???

1. No you didn't. It's still showing as 1/1000.
2. You have the original. Can't you tell? I can see it on my phone screen.


Edmondthorpe Church

Edmondthorpe Church by Stevecarr2010

Not really sure what you intended using a tilt effect on this picture? It is split into three parts naturally, and all you're doing is blurring the foreground. Tilt really works best when you change the plane of sharp focus to make something sharp that wouldn't be (or vice versa). Here it will naturally be the church, which is on a plane parallel to the camera back already.

The whole thing is a bit heavy, and the sky just adds to that. Willie goes some way to lightening the feel of the image, but tbh it isn't really that good a conversion.
Looking at the screenshot, considering its a fairly bright day, it's underexposed by some way, and doesn't exhibit a full range of tones - hence the muddiness of the conversion. Add to that, there is a lot of similar tone in the image, and it's all pretty dark. Converting to black and white requires more thought than just desaturating....you need to think about tonal separation to make a mono image really pop. Lots of foliage, lots of grass and now a heavily burned in sky gives an image almost entirely composed of dark mid-tones. Perhaps revisit this and try changing the tonal relationships using "channel mixer", or even a preset, depending on your chosen software. You should be able to make the church stand out much more, and the sky might be more dramatic without the heaviness.

Perhaps upload the original image to see where you've worked from?

I say this a lot too: when it's bright, the light at midday is poor for landscapes and architecture due to harsh shadows and a lack of modelling. Early on or late in the day are better - when the sun is lower in the sky you get much better sculpting light to show detail and texture, and it brings stonework to life. You can get away with more when the light is overcast, as it operates like a giant softbox, but the you don't get the drama of directional light, which is what most people prefer in this kind of shot.



general by shydallah

I'm afraid it's the same old portrait, with the same old faults.

You've made no attempt to modify the lighting (the main problem with your flash portraits), the composition and pose are the same, it's just a different person.

All you're doing is letting the camera make the decisions, without thinking about how to improve things, despite repeated advice in this forum. You will never improve if you don't take control, because you shoot the same way, the camera makes the same decisions, your pictures all come out the same.



TopicDate Made
Critique Gallery26/04/2012 - 10:23 AM
I hate the phrase "Tog"24/05/2011 - 10:25 PM
PortfolioAdded Date/Comment