A couple more for comments and thoughts

Discussion in 'Critique Forum Archives' started by medic001918, Dec 30, 2006.

  1. medic001918

    medic001918 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Hartford, CT
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I was looking through some other photos that I had taken after reading the advice given on my first attempt at posting a photo. While doing so, I found these two pictures of my mom's dogs that seem to have already taken some of the advice given into account without me ever realizing it. Or maybe I just got lucky and these photos came out a little sharper. The only thing that I really don't like about them is the "glazed" (for lack of a better word) over look in the eyes that I'm assuming came from the flash. I tried to shoot with the flash bounced, but it seems as though the flast wasn't bounced enough. I just recently picked up a diffuser, so hopefully that will help on the next time around.

    The first photo:
    F5.6
    1/50
    ISO 800

    [​IMG]

    And the second image.

    f5.6
    1/60
    ISO 800

    [​IMG]

    Thanks again in advance for any comments or suggestions. And also for dealing with countless people like myself who are new to photography and ask many questions that have probably already been answered repeatedly.

    Shane
     
  2. LaFoto

    LaFoto Just Corinna in real life Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    34,814
    Likes Received:
    814
    Location:
    Lower Saxony, Germany
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yes, the "glare" in their eyes is from ... and here comes my new knowledge and new word added to my vocabulary, yay :cheer:, acquired no where else but on TPF (!) .. the tapetum at the back of a dog's (cat's etc.) eyes. And yes, it is the flash that reflects on there (car lights do the same, for that matter), and yes, it seems like bouncing it didn't help the problem completely.

    That said, I still think that these two are two very nice dog portraits, and the bit of reflected flash in their eyes is so mild and subtle -- it is not really that distracting.

    The light used is very nice, from the side, I like it!!! And an f5.6 aperture nicely blurred out anything that wasn't necessary for the portraits.
     
  3. The_Traveler

    The_Traveler Completely Counter-dependent Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    18,111
    Likes Received:
    7,458
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic US
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    While these pictures are nicely composed, pretty sharp with good DOF, they are, IMO, underexposed.

    Here are the histograms from these 2 pictures that show there are no real highlights, or close to it, in these pictures. By underexposing, you sacrfice whites and details in the shadows.

    [​IMG]

    You might want to look at this link that talks in a very clear way about how to use the histogram on the LCD at the back of your camera for exposure help.
     

Share This Page