I really don't get it...

[ashleyc8705]

Actually I was using a UV filter. I just got it a couple weeks ago. I haven't noticed much of a difference in my photos though.

 

[ashleyc8705]

I played around with another picture and here is what I got.

Before:

After:

 

[JerryPH]

Now I think you've gone a touch too far. Over-saturated and the vignetting is too strong.

 

[Uglulyx Takes Photos Too]

Now I think you've gone a touch too far. Over-saturated and the vignetting is too strong.

Just a tad less saturation and it would be pretty good.

 

[Jedo_03]

Actually I was using a UV filter. I just got it a couple weeks ago. I haven't noticed much of a difference in my photos though.

Hmmm
Using your UV may account for the underexposure... The more bits and bobs you hang on the front of your lens - the less light gets through to the sensor... When I 'do' use a UV (very rare) I up the exp comp by +2/3 to +1.0 to increase the light - yeah... a full stop...
IMHO, UV filters are only good on mountain tops... there is very little UV left in the light by the time it reaches sea level and has been 'filtered' by all the haze, dust, smoke, fumes and fog - other people have different views... UV might "warm" up some pictures...
Jedo

 

[manaheim]

Here's a trick I learned ...

1. Do your adjustments.
2. Leave picture up on your screen.
3. Walk away and look at something else for 5 minutes.
4. Come back and judge your reaction as you first look at the pic on your screen.

I found a lot of times I would come back and go "Oh god, way too much X" and turn that down.

[EDIT] BTW... as long as your shots are exposed pretty well (which I think yours are), you generally are going to want a LIGHT touch to tune them up. A small bump here and there should make it all fit. (if you are using photoshop, think in terms of small bumps on contrast and saturation... like less than 10 most likely) Sharpness (unsharp mask) I usually range +50-75%, 2.2 radius, threshold 2.

BTW, your friend's shots are good, but she (IMO) is generally way too contrasty and frequently washes her shots out a lot. This may be just a style thing, but I guess my larger point is to keep in mind that a part of this is always about your tastes. I'm sure many people LOVE her shots... I didn't. <shrug>

As someone else said... to each their own.

 

[JCphoto]

I beg to differ on the exposure, but to each his own.

Though its true that to some an underexposed picture can look perfectly fine, the fact is, if a picture is underexposed, so are the colours in the image, which can give it an almost "hazy" look.

The pictures you've posted are all sharp enough to make fairly crisp with a bit of post processing, but if you were to up your ISO a bit if necessary to be sure you have proper exposure (I rely on my histogram to be exact) then your photos will look that much sharper.

Everything else is completely up to the lighting, and that in my opinion is the hard part of photography, finding the best light. (or creating it yourself)

JC

 

[Early]

Actually I was using a UV filter. I just got it a couple weeks ago. I haven't noticed much of a difference in my photos though.

There's something I read from a web site a couple of days ago about this subject. It stated that the Tiffen UV doesn't do a thing to remove the cyan cast, but their UV haze filter is tops for it.

 

[Senor Hound]

I played around with another picture and here is what I got.

Before:

After:

You have the right idea. But even though I know very little about photoshop, I can still tell this photo has been worked on. That's okay though, cause its all fixable. Do what you did from the original to the new one, but only do about half of whatever you did (for each modification, unless half isn't an option). That should take it from that natural, yet bland feeling of the first one, but not go too far and make it look, interesting, yet unrealistic. I guess what I'm saying is your second photo needs a little less makeup (cause in reality, that's all Post-Processing is, makeup for the photo).

Other than that, you look like you do a good job. I'll agree that your images do look a little less sharp than your professional counterpart, but a lot of that is dynamics (contrast, lighting, etc.) How much I hate to say it, I believe the answer of how to make your photos more detailed is the ultimate question to photography. There isn't really one answer, and the people who can get their images to "pop" get paid, while people like me who haven't figured it out yet learn and learn and learn until maybe someday they can. But you're way better than I am, and your understanding for photography tells me that it won't take long before you get it. Then you can give me some advice (please?)

 

[DWS]

I believe the single greatest factor is a difference in glass......when you step to a f/2.8 and especially a f/1.4, you see a marked improvement using the same parameters.....

 

[husky_mom]

can I say I LOVE YOUR DOGS!!.... they are so freaking cute!!.. hence I love the pics with them in them..

I think just as has ben said... to play a lil more with lights... just a bit more.. and your friends web is nice but some pics DO seem way way light and bright... no way those are untouched pics...

keep on snapping.. and I won´t mind seeing more of your cuties!! pass on some bellyrubs

 

[ashleyc8705]

can I say I LOVE YOUR DOGS!!.... they are so freaking cute!!.. hence I love the pics with them in them..

I think just as has ben said... to play a lil more with lights... just a bit more.. and your friends web is nice but some pics DO seem way way light and bright... no way those are untouched pics...

keep on snapping.. and I won´t mind seeing more of your cuties!! pass on some bellyrubs

That's actually my sister and law with her dogs. They have four and all of them are too cute! Little monsters they are lol!

 

[husky_mom]

I think I have seen pics before of the bieyed spotted dog before somewhere else... by any chance does she know a dog named Kiara?? (kinda like Dobie looking)