a few random photos

[JahLynJie]

I would absolutley love some feedback on these. Let me know how I can improve.

Thaks for looking

 

[aammoore]

1. Only interesting part to me, is the reflection of the tree in the water...
2. Left top branches are distracting and DOF is off. Love the old tree stump!
3. Good idea, move the grass in front next time and focus more on the shrooms..
4. LOVE IT. Period. ( Although it seems out of focus, it looks like fog in the early morning)

 

[JahLynJie]

Thanks so much for you comments. You pointed out several things that I hadn't even noticed.

The last photo was taken during morning fog.

Thanks again

 

[RKW3]

#1 is great, but would look even better with photoshop.

#2 REALLY needs a border, it would look 10x better.

#3 Good idea

#4 You should try photoshopping that. It will looks less-faded.

 

[RKW3]

#4 with only minor edits in brightness, saturation, and contrast. Just editing it slightly can make a big difference.

Original:

Edited:

 

[NJMAN]

1. Only interesting part to me, is the reflection of the tree in the water...
2. Left top branches are distracting and DOF is off. Love the old tree stump!
3. Good idea, move the grass in front next time and focus more on the shrooms..
4. LOVE IT. Period. ( Although it seems out of focus, it looks like fog in the early morning)

Good analysis aammoore.

My take on it:

#1, I like it. The subtle color of the water and sky is nice.
#2, The sky is blown out.
#3, Agree, move the grass and get close.
#4, The edited version is okay, but I like this one better with the mist/fog. Gives it more of a mystique.

NJ

 

[JahLynJie]

Thanks everyone. You're all full of great advice and suggestions. You've given me some ideas.

RKW3- I like your edit a lot. Though I'm a little undecided if I like the edit or original better. I'll have to play around with it a little.

Thanks everyone

 

[JahLynJie]

NJMAN- is there a way to make the sky better in #2? I don't have Photoshop, I have PhotoFinish. The program seems similar to Photoshop.
Is there a way to darken it or am I stuck with what I have?

Can you tell I'm still a little unfamiliar with my editing program? lol

 

[LaFoto]

I'm afraid the sky in 2 is lost and there is no way to re-gain what is no longer there. The data is lost. It is always easier to recover data from shadow areas (that data often is still there) than to recover that from blown areas (mostly it is all gone). So you go a lot less wrong with slightly underexposed photos than you do with overexposed ones (or overexposed parts). I fear that the dynamic range in Photo 2 was just too wide for your camera to capture it. In exposing for the trunk, you lost the sky and it just GOT lost... you'd have to wait for some different light to pull that one off successfully.

I like the leaning tree in 1 and the subtle colours in both sky and water, but I would have liked to see the entire tree inside the frame. I miss the parts that are missing... :cry:

I feel your camera switched open the flash for 3?
Now the grass is highlighted and quite in the way ... tear it out next time and rest the camera firmly, use a longer exposure and maybe work with the timer to have the camera take the pic without your touching it. Works fine with long exposures and if you haven't got remote release. (Is that the word?)

The sky in the last is blown, too, which is a pity, for all in all it is a lovely, atmospheric scene (and I would do all to keep that misty atmosphere and not photoshop it out by adding contrasts).

 

[JahLynJie]

Thanks so much LaFoto. You're always full of such great advice.
It's a shame the blown sky can't be recovered. I'll have to keep that in mind when I'm out shooting next time.
I don't believe I used the flash for #3. If I remember right, it was just natural sunlight (I took it last summer so I'm not entirely sure)
Thanks for all your help.

 

[aammoore]

I prefer your version of the last photo. Sky & all

Thanks, NJMAN!

 

[NJMAN]

I'm afraid the sky in 2 is lost and there is no way to re-gain what is no longer there. The data is lost. It is always easier to recover data from shadow areas (that data often is still there) than to recover that from blown areas (mostly it is all gone). So you go a lot less wrong with slightly underexposed photos than you do with overexposed ones (or overexposed parts). I fear that the dynamic range in Photo 2 was just too wide for your camera to capture it. In exposing for the trunk, you lost the sky and it just GOT lost... you'd have to wait for some different light to pull that one off successfully.

I like the leaning tree in 1 and the subtle colours in both sky and water, but I would have liked to see the entire tree inside the frame. I miss the parts that are missing... :cry:

I feel your camera switched open the flash for 3?
Now the grass is highlighted and quite in the way ... tear it out next time and rest the camera firmly, use a longer exposure and maybe work with the timer to have the camera take the pic without your touching it. Works fine with long exposures and if you haven't got remote release. (Is that the word?)

The sky in the last is blown, too, which is a pity, for all in all it is a lovely, atmospheric scene (and I would do all to keep that misty atmosphere and not photoshop it out by adding contrasts).

Getting back to you JahLynJie, yes, LaFoto is exactly correct. Unfortunately, that data is gone from your photo. Not that I am an expert, but you want to watch out for dynamic range next time you shoot. Thats especially true when you are dealing with a bright sky. In this kind of situation, other posters in this forum have suggested to take 2 photos; one exposed for the sky, and one exposed for the grass (or bottom part of the picture). Then edit and blend the 2 together in post processing. Some even take 3 or 4 exposures for the same shot for even better dynamic range (mind you, I dont do this very much and need more practice myself ). To make it easier and get the exact same setting, be sure to use a tripod and dont move it until you are done shooting your set. If you have photoshop, you will be able to see dynamic range of a certain photo with the histogram in Levels. It will show a huge gap where highlights should have been. I suggest getting familiar with some good post processing software. It will save you so many headaches later and really increase your level of quality. By the way, if you really want to get creative, you could duplicate your image, and try painting some blue in the sky on one version (subtlely), and then blend the 2 photos, and see where that gets you. Keep trying and keep posting.

NJ

 

[NJMAN]

The image was a little small to work with, but just to give you an idea, I did a quick edit on #2 just to show you that you can paint in a sky on a duplicate image and blend the 2 together, if thats what you want to do. I used the Multiply blending mode in this instance and touched up the contrast and sharpness a little. This could be done better with a little more effort. Of course, the goal would be to get the photos you want beforehand and do as little post processing as possible.

NJ

 

[LeighAnn]

Nice work, Jahlyn

 

[JahLynJie]

The image was a little small to work with, but just to give you an idea, I did a quick edit on #2 just to show you that you can paint in a sky on a duplicate image and blend the 2 together, if thats what you want to do. I used the Multiply blending mode in this instance and touched up the contrast and sharpness a little. This could be done better with a little more effort. Of course, the goal would be to get the photos you want beforehand and do as little post processing as possible.

NJ

Wow NJ, your quick edit looks pretty good!
I have an editing program (called PhotoFinish) but I'm still pretty new to it and there are a lot of things I still need to learn with it.

Thanks everyone for your comments. You've all been so helpful and informative. I'm learning a lot from you and hopefully soon my images will show this.

Thanks again. Much appreciated!