A little input please!!!

Brooke83 · May 23, 2008

I am a very new beginner and wouldn't mind some critique... here are just a few shots...

maytay20 · May 23, 2008

I like them a lot. The only thing I would change is in the 2nd one clone out the wrinkles in the backdrop. And maybe tone down your watermark it is distracting. I love the colors in the last one cute baby!

Brooke83 · May 23, 2008

maytay20 said:
I like them a lot. The only thing I would change is in the 2nd one clone out the wrinkles in the backdrop. And maybe tone down your watermark it is distracting. I love the colors in the last one cute baby!

Oh thank you very much... I will play with it and see what I can do

Alfred D. · May 23, 2008

Agreed. I especially like the first photo because that is what photography is: catching the right moment.
But your logo – some call it a 'watermark', I call it 'grafitti'* – is indeed distracting. A lot. Plus it isn't consistent: different styles in no. 1 and no. 3.
No. 3 is also a bit too saturated for my taste. And that photo would have been better, imo, if you had applied the rule-of-thumb for photographing kids and animals: get down to their eye level! Bend your knees if you have to.

*I've never understood why people insist on defacing their images when they've first gone to pains to make them as beautiful as possible. It's as if the name is more important than the image...

Brooke83 · May 23, 2008

Alfred D. said:
Agreed. I especially like the first photo because that is what photography is: catching the right moment.
But your logo some call it a 'watermark', I call it 'grafitti'* is indeed distracting. A lot. Plus it isn't consistent: different styles in no. 1 and no. 3.
No. 3 is also a bit too saturated for my taste. And that photo would have been better, imo, if you had applied the rule-of-thumb for photographing kids and animals: get down to their eye level! Bend your knees if you have to.

*I've never understood why people insist on defacing their images when they've first gone to pains to make them as beautiful as possible. It's as if the name is more important than the image...

Oh these are just proofs... I don't put my name on the ones I give to the clients.

Alfred D. · May 23, 2008

Brooke83 said:
Oh these are just proofs... I don't put my name on the ones I give to the clients.

They deface these images nevertheless, Brooke.

Brooke83 · May 23, 2008

Alfred D. said:
They deface these images nevertheless, Brooke.

This one is pre edited and that is why it is different from the one up top!!

Is this better... Alfred???

PhotoDonkey · May 23, 2008

In the 2nd one, you could have your subject stand a little further away from the backdrop and you could blur it out with a shallow depth of field, or, you could iron the creases out of the backdrop. I'm not sure what kind of luck you'll have cloning them out.

I know when I've cloned out things with PSP that it starts to look ugly, but photoshop might be better.

Otherwise the 2nd one is my favorite.

nicfargo · May 23, 2008

personally, I say leave the watermarks up for anything posted on the web. It serves two purposes. 1) People know right away who took the picture. 2) It stops some, not all, people from stealing you image. If someone really wants your image and is good at what they do, they can clone out your watermark. However most people will not even try because they do not think it is possible. In this day and age of digital rights, I'd watermark everything that is in public view. Proofs for clients eyes only...those don't need em.

Alfred D. · May 23, 2008

Brooke83 said:
Is this better... Alfred???

Absolutely!
But now the girl's saturation bugs me, so I toned it down a bit and I tweaked the backdrop creases a little while I was at it. But it's only a Quick & Dirty, because you really need to do that to the full-size original, of course.

BTW, if you're using CS3: no. 1 could use a bit of "de-vignetting".

jdgreen92086 · May 23, 2008

Number one is my favorite. I think the vignetting helps focus the subject.

I really do love the first photo, it's very good.

Brooke83 · May 23, 2008

Alfred D. said:
Absolutely!
But now the girl's saturation bugs me, so I toned it down a bit and I tweaked the backdrop creases a little while I was at it. But it's only a Quick & Dirty, because you really need to do that to the full-size original, of course.

BTW, if you're using CS3: no. 1 could use a bit of "de-vignetting".

Thanks!!!:thumbup:

Brooke83 · May 23, 2008

nicfargo said:
personally, I say leave the watermarks up for anything posted on the web. It serves two purposes. 1) People know right away who took the picture. 2) It stops some, not all, people from stealing you image. If someone really wants your image and is good at what they do, they can clone out your watermark. However most people will not even try because they do not think it is possible. In this day and age of digital rights, I'd watermark everything that is in public view. Proofs for clients eyes only...those don't need em.

And that is exactly why I put my name on them. I also put them on the proofs because no one wants to print out pictures with someone's name on them... so it's almost a gauranteed way to get paid for the final pictures.

Thanks!!! :thumbup: