Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Claim 10% off PortraitPro with code TQ1434 now!

Activity

Sooty_1

...Read More
Profile

A quick view of Sooty_1's recent activity.

  • Fallen tree

    I feel this falls between several stools.
    The subject has many planes and projections, so from this range, very little will be in focus. If you increase the depth of field, the background will also be sharper and distract from the subject. Whilst narrow fields can emphasise the subject, here the out of focus parts detract, and the muted colour palette means your eye wanders around aimlessly looking for something to fix on.
    The textures on the log bear a closer examination, but aren't well enough defined to hold my attention, and the bright background dominates the foreground.

    On the positive side, it's a hard subject to do justice to, and the exposure isn't far out for the log, but overexposed for the background. Maybe a better angle to crop out the background and emphasise the textures more would have made a more successful image. Maybe moving back and showing the log more in context might also have worked.

    Nick
    • 24 Apr 2017 9:50PM
  • tommy

    This is a much nicer image. The mud and grass is more natural as a base, and the background is more subtle. More ethereal. The sepia suits the subject too.

    A lot of images are converted to mono on the pretext that it is more artistic or more worthy. Or that a rubbishy image can be rescued by it. The truth is, some images lend themselves to mono, some to colour, and very few, to both. To me, this is a mono image.

    Nick
    • 24 Apr 2017 9:35PM
  • Portland Bill Lighthouse

    Two issues spring to mind from your comments. Firstly, the moon is very bright compared to the low lit scene. It is after all a bright sunlit subject (like a midday shot), and would likely have an exposure somewhere around 1/500 @ f/5.6-8, ISO 100. Here, you are using an ISO of 6400 (6 stops more) and a shutter speed of 1/6 sec (over 6 stops more), so for the same aperture, you are overexposing by 12+ stops.
    Add to that, the moon is veiled by hazy clouds, and you have no chance whatsoever of exposing both moon and scene properly in one image.

    You can take two images at different exposures and combine them later (with the camera on a tripod so it doesn't move between shots), but tbh the effect is hard to make realistic as we know the moon is comparatively bright.

    A tripod would be a good idea anyway, as you can see using such a high ISO has flattened the contrast and generated a lot of noise (the speckle effect in areas of smooth tone). If you could immobilise your camera, you could use a much lower ISO for better quality, and a long shutter speed would not matter.

    The image could do with a small anti-clockwise rotation too, as the lighthouse is leaning a little.

    Not an easy subject to tackle without the right gear, and a bit ambitious, but you will only improve these shots by doing them and tweaking the settings. Shooting raw will help pull as much detail from the scene as is possible, but you can experiment at the time to see what is the right exposure for various parts of the image.

    Nick
    • 24 Apr 2017 9:20PM
  • Flamborough Head Lighthouse

    I also think I see what you were after. For me, the extra buildings are a bit of clutter, and if possible I would have got closer and wider, and concentrated on the lighthouse only. Not sure of the timing or wind direction, but I feel a shot with the clouds more over the lighthouse would have had more drama. Either that, or use a slightly longer focal length from where you were and exclude the sun altogether. It's caused some ugly flare and further flattened the contrast.
    You have got a decent silhouette, and I guess you wanted that, rather than light and detail in the buildings, but the sky could do with a little more exposure to lose the slightly muddy tones.

    There is a picture in there somewhere, and I guess timing and the changing conditions dictated your actions, but I wonder what the sky looked like 5 mins, 10 mins, 30 mins later? Even after the sun set?

    Nick
    • 24 Apr 2017 7:47PM
  • Daffodil White Daffodil Yellow

    As above for the points about texture and dark centre, but I'd suggest using a (large) white reflector to bounce light back into areas that require it at the taking stage. The danger is that too much manipulation can destroy the delicacy of the petals, whereas a better overall exposure will reduce the amount of processing required. For small localised dark areas, a compact mirror can serve as as well.

    Nick
    • 18 Apr 2017 11:14PM
  • Glamour Studio Shot

    There appears to be light on her back as well, which can't come from the snoot, so perhaps a reflector was used or she was close to a white wall?

    The snoot has also caused a high contrast look on her face, which is not at all flattering and acts like a rim light, accentuating any flaw in the skin.

    For 'glamour' shots, more light from a larger source like a softbox (close to the model) gives a much better effect. Unless you are going for an artistic effect or low-key image, of course.

    I too keep thinking her behind looks massive, and the crop suggested in Dudler's mod is much better, as is the softening and colour adjustment.

    If you're going to use a snoot as a main light, it has to be aimed carefully for a particular reason, but it must be on the model's face if that's what you want to draw attention to. Here, it needed to be a little higher too, as the overall effect is a little like 'horror movie' lighting....often lit from a low angle.

    Most studio flashes have a good modelling light, so before shooting use it to see the effect the flash will have....the main light will do the same, only usually more! Keep trying, but beware that people setting up the lighting may possible not know any more than you!!

    Nick
    • 6 Apr 2017 5:16PM
  • Der auto

    You don't appear to have changed the colour as much as desaturated it. It might be better to try changing the colour altogether and maintain the vibrancy. Perhaps a nice bright blue or green..

    You can do this by adjusting the hue and saturation, or the channel mixer if your software has either of those, to give just a couple of ways.
    It would then be a better way to tell if it's effective or not.

    And, it's "es tut mir leid", or just "tut mir leid".

    Nick
    • 21 Mar 2017 7:39PM

No profile comments.