Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Sooty_1's Gallery Comments
I would say, the only real way to compare the lenses is a side-by-side test, using the same settings on both.
A nice intimate portrait, but quite a lot of contrast. Both subjects wearing white is difficult to meter, and while it's very bright, there looks to be some detail left in the bright highlights. Not sure if it came out of the camera this contrasty, but toning it down would really help take the edge off the brightness.
A nice restful image, in which the flat light is offset somewhat by the mist. Not much to critique, but I can't help feel something is missing on the left to balance the image. Not something large like a boat, but something small like a twig poking up out of the water, or something on the surface.
An unusual perspective, so good marks for trying it, unfortunately you lose a few for the fact the horse is so shadowed. You might be able to locally brighten it, but there looks to be a lot of darkness. A blip of flash would have worked wonders here and would have kept the sky detail as well.
Not sure why it's picked your focal length up at 105mm.
You definitely need a backdrop, especially for full length shots. Half length and head shots can be worked around, but distractions like the floor and uneven backgrounds affect the picture quite a lot, and it's not an environmental portrait!
I would say that to capture good skies, you need to shoot with that in mind, rather than just converting other shots.
If he's willing to let you repeat it, I'd adjust the lighting slightly. There isn't enough light on the background, hence the grey result and the slight shadows, and slightly too much on one side of his face causing a bit of burnout. This can be partially remedied by adding a reflector to his left, which would even the lighting on his face and lessen the shadows on his shoulder.
Why shouldn't you? The sea horizon is a constant absolute reference, and if it is out of true, it makes the rest of the picture out as well.
For me, the problem lies with the lighting initially. There isn't enough of it. I'm guessing the lights are quite a way from the subject, causing uneven illumination (hotspots on the child's head) and lack of wrap round (blotchy skin tones), plus a dull grey backdrop. The camera is compensating for the white background, so if you can use spot metering, it will be more accurate as long as you use a mid-toned target, eg the babygro here.
I would have preferred not to see the human element at all.
I'm guessing they're some sort of antirrhinum (commonly, snapdragon).
The photographer makes the picture, the camera just facilitates the capture.
I agree...there is no sense of context, just a shot of a bin with stuff in it.
In film days, we would have used a blue filter to really bring out the contrast and weathered lines in the subject's face. I think this just needs the same thing, digitally. The subject is great, plenty sharp enough and there is no extraneous detail, it just needs tweaking as it's a little flat, tonally.
I feel this ought to tell a story, but somehow it just doesn't come out. I can't even make out what is behind the fence in the recess, and that is attracting my attention more than the whole picture.
By using HDR, you are compressing the tonal range, rather than extending it, so if your previous lacked depth, an HDR version will lack more. It allows more colours to be seen, at the expense of making them all similar brightness, and thus more flat-looking.
This is the best scenario for the use of a polarising filter. It would intensify the colours and get rid of most of the reflections on the water, from this angle. It would give the image a lot more "bite".
It's a step up from a record shot. You've obviously thought about how you are going to process it, and how you want it to appear, and the HDR is competently done, but not overdone like so many others.
As Paul says, a decent record shot. Not overly exciting, and while the black and white treatment removes any dating clues, I'm not sure it suits the subject particularly well here, as there isn't much hard definition, or anything else, to give it a "wow" factor.
I think you might be limited by your software.
Whatever your intentions with the sky, I'm afraid it just looks overexposed, and as a result, somewhat dull and uninteresting. The peak would look more imposing if it was exposed better, and most of this is due to the flat lighting. There is no real drama, nor majesty in it, and looking at your exif, the overexposure isn't deliberate, more a byproduct of the high dynamic range between the sky and the shadows.
The colours are caused by the stresses in the perspex material of the window, and slight polarisation of the light. You can exaggerate it by using a polariser, but I don't think it was caused by one here. You can see the effects much more clearly by using cross-polarisation with clear plastic objects, and by flexing them which causes the patterns to change.
While it's a lovely scene and well worth shooting, the problem for me is the sharpness. There's too much of it.
A pretty good effort considering the modest equipment. It looks like you're starting to get ambient light interfering with your darkness, and maybe you've changed the colour balance to counter it, hence the slightly odd purple colour.
A couple of Lightroom pointers:
And here's the problem with hip shooting. A decent enough candid photo spoiled by poor framing.