Bamboo+Tracks, C&C

[aeota]

1.

2.

1. I think is too distracting with the rippling water being the majority of the picture. I'm not sure how I could've fixed this distraction issue, though.

2. Yeah, train tracks are probably -really- overdone. I did a low-sky crop to put the focus on the worn and unused tracks themselves.

I wish I could've pulled more detail from these two, but I don't know how to go about it. Also, I'm still learning exposure so bare with me.

Thanks.

 

[WilliamH]

If you hadn't told me that there was rippling water in the first shot, I never would have known. It looked like just a jumble of sticks. I thought it was a closeup of a nest or something. I kinda like the second one, but there's something about it that's a little off and I can't quite put my finger on it. Not a bad photo, though.

 

[JSD]

The tracks dont do much for me but I like the bamboo. I think it has interest as an abstract. I like the colors and patterns. I think if it were, say an 8x10 it could be very attractive, sort of like an impressionist painting.

 

[aeota]

Maybe if I'd used a slower shutter speed for the first one, the water would've blurred for a nice contrast? I still don't own a tripod, though, so it would've been difficult.

 

[Dominantly]

#1, WAY too busy.

#2 you're onto something there. A little better lighting or setup would be a step in the right direction, also try a few different angles, like shooting close to one side points towards the center of the tracks off in the horizon.

 

[aeota]

1. 1/40 f5.6

2. 1/25 f16

Both shot with a Tamren 28-300mm macro. I also own a Canon EF-S 18-55mm, but I'm not sure at all when I should use each lens. I've just been using the 28-300mm for everything.

I understand what aperture, shutter speed and ISO are - but not the typical values of each I should be using. Still unsure of how I could've pulled more detail from these two.

Thanks.

 

[Dominantly]

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Image Date: 2010:02:26 19:36:12
Focal Length: 55.0mm
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.020 s (1/50)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB


The first one shows 1/50

 

[Jeremy Z]

The first one is busy, but would have been better on film or in raw. There is no detail in the shadows, and the light part is blown out. JPG just sucks for this. I don't think there's really much that can be done for it now, unless you originally shot it in raw.

The tracks are nice, but it looks dark to me. I'd boost the gamma a bit. Also, if you cropped the top off, try putting some back. It is a little too tight on the tracks I think.

 

[KKJUN]

That's the first time I actually enjoyed looking at a track-shot. I'm a huge fan of these wide crops.

 

[aeota]

The first one is busy, but would have been better on film or in raw. There is no detail in the shadows, and the light part is blown out. JPG just sucks for this. I don't think there's really much that can be done for it now, unless you originally shot it in raw.

The tracks are nice, but it looks dark to me. I'd boost the gamma a bit. Also, if you cropped the top off, try putting some back. It is a little too tight on the tracks I think.

Should I change my camera's save format to raw? I haven't given it thought because I don't really know the pros/cons to each format.

That's the first time I actually enjoyed looking at a track-shot. I'm a huge fan of these wide crops.

Heh, thanks. I just wish the details, lighting and color had come out more. Turns out there's a whole unused trackset that runs through my city so when I improve more expect some better shots of these.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Should I change my camera's save format to raw? I haven't given it thought because I don't really know the pros/cons to each format.

Read up a little on it. Basically, raw format is uncompressed data from the camera. With the raw software that comes with your camera or with other raw editing programs, you can edit this raw data with no loss of detail or resolution. However, raw format takes a lot more room on your memory card, and more work to edit & get saved in a format that is usable elsewhere.

Where raw format really shines is in the midtones that we lose when we shoot in jpg. If you have brightly exposed elements in a photo, and shadow elements, the bright stuff will appear blown out, and the dark stuff will be black. No detail there, like we would see with our naked eyes or with film.

One piece of advice I read in a wedding photography book was to shoot in jpg as a rule. But if you're not sure if something is going to come out or it is a tricky situation, (like black & white people in the same photo) shoot in RAW + JPG.

I'm not a pro, so I just do my best in JPG and correct afterwards. My "customers" have been happy so far.

Mainly, I'm just too lazy to mess around with raw, and too cheap to buy a load more memory and spend all that time editing.