edited pictures for CC

stephras07 · Jun 5, 2010

These have been taken over the last 2 months, I have since learned about the rule of thirds. Thanks

1. My daughter waiting for Daddy's ship to pull in

2. Mt Baker, Wa

3. Toddler with Bubbles

4. Desi and tulips

5. Pink Tulip, Skagit Tulip Festival, Mt Vernon Wa

6. Woodpecker

stephras07 · Jun 5, 2010

Forgot - the last picture doesnt actually have any editing.

TheBoombaGnome · Jun 6, 2010

stephras07 said:
These have been taken over the last 2 months, I have since learned about the rule of thirds. Thanks

1. My daughter waiting for Daddy's ship to pull in

2. Mt Baker, Wa

3. Toddler with Bubbles

4. Desi and tulips

5. Pink Tulip, Skagit Tulip Festival, Mt Vernon Wa

6. Woodpecker

#1 - I wish you would've shot in front of the baby girl, as it would've conveyed a lot more emotion...but good shot none-the-less...

#2 - I'm glad you said you learned about the Rule of Thirds, as that had the potential to be a beautiful shot

#3 - Good shot! First, I'd say rotate it just a tad in post and get the street behind there to be as straight as you possibly can...it kinda takes a way from the shot, IMHO, having it all crooked like....and something feels off to me about the top of her head...I see that the EXIF data says the flash was fired, so I think that is what messed with her head. If you can duplicate that shot, no flash, maybe just bumping up the exposure time to say, 1/125 (on a sunny day like that), or bumping the F-Stop a little bit, you could get that picture to be perfect

#4 - Feels a bit underexposed to me, but that might just be me. Other than that, excellent shot...

#5 - Ah, the dreaded timestamp. Other than that, great shot!!! Great DOF, love the colors...maybe play around a bit in post with curves and see if you can bring those colors out even more...(or at least photoshop out that timestamp

)

#6 - seems a bit soft to me, but I did have one question for you - do you have a great zoom on your camera, or were u able to actually get really close to the bird like that??

Even though I had the most to say about #3, it's still my favorite....and also, keep in mind, I'm still pretty new, so you can take these comments with a grain of salt, but overall - VERY GOOD!!!! :thumbup::thumbup:

stephras07 · Jun 6, 2010

[

#1 - I wish you would've shot in front of the baby girl, as it would've conveyed a lot more emotion...but good shot none-the-less...

#2 - I'm glad you said you learned about the Rule of Thirds, as that had the potential to be a beautiful shot

#3 - Good shot! First, I'd say rotate it just a tad in post and get the street behind there to be as straight as you possibly can...it kinda takes a way from the shot, IMHO, having it all crooked like....and something feels off to me about the top of her head...I see that the EXIF data says the flash was fired, so I think that is what messed with her head. If you can duplicate that shot, no flash, maybe just bumping up the exposure time to say, 1/125 (on a sunny day like that), or bumping the F-Stop a little bit, you could get that picture to be perfect

#4 - Feels a bit underexposed to me, but that might just be me. Other than that, excellent shot...

#5 - Ah, the dreaded timestamp. Other than that, great shot!!! Great DOF, love the colors...maybe play around a bit in post with curves and see if you can bring those colors out even more...(or at least photoshop out that timestamp

)

#6 - seems a bit soft to me, but I did have one question for you - do you have a great zoom on your camera, or were u able to actually get really close to the bird like that??

Even though I had the most to say about #3, it's still my favorite....and also, keep in mind, I'm still pretty new, so you can take these comments with a grain of salt, but overall - VERY GOOD!!!! :thumbup::thumbup:[/QUOTE]

1. I was originally in front of her, but sge turned right as I was taking it. Something on the sidewalk caught her attention lol.

2. What could I have changed in this shot to make it better? I cropped it quite a bit to get the thirds lol.

3. I'll try to rotate it, but I don't have photoshop on my computer yet - still just using iPhoto lol. We were standing in the shade, so maybe that's why her head is weird? I can't duplicate that unfortunately, at least not anytime soon. It was taken on a trip to the states and I'm back in Japan. Is there anyway I could try and edit that in photoshop once I get it on my computer? I'm still learning about Fstops etc, so I'm not sure how I would change that.

4. Again, in the shade. It was a rainy day actually, and the sun had just peeked out for a few minutes. I can maybe try to brighten it.

5. I had to check that - my Nikon doesn't have the timestamp, so it confused me. That shot was actually taken with my Canon AS2000 point and shoot. I'm surprised that it came out so well lol. Again, once I get photoshop on here I'll try to edit that out.

6. I was only maybe two yards away from the bird, but also had a great zoom. I think I was using my 55-200VR. The bird was pretty cool about the whole deal. I got about 10 shots, but he was moving so some didnt turn out.

Thanks for the feedback

stephras07 · Jun 6, 2010

btw - what is DOF? I've seen that a couple times but I still haven't figured out what it means!

TheBoombaGnome · Jun 6, 2010

stephras07 said:
1. I was originally in front of her, but sge turned right as I was taking it. Something on the sidewalk caught her attention lol.

2. What could I have changed in this shot to make it better? I cropped it quite a bit to get the thirds lol.

3. I'll try to rotate it, but I don't have photoshop on my computer yet - still just using iPhoto lol. We were standing in the shade, so maybe that's why her head is weird? I can't duplicate that unfortunately, at least not anytime soon. It was taken on a trip to the states and I'm back in Japan. Is there anyway I could try and edit that in photoshop once I get it on my computer? I'm still learning about Fstops etc, so I'm not sure how I would change that.

4. Again, in the shade. It was a rainy day actually, and the sun had just peeked out for a few minutes. I can maybe try to brighten it.

5. I had to check that - my Nikon doesn't have the timestamp, so it confused me. That shot was actually taken with my Canon AS2000 point and shoot. I'm surprised that it came out so well lol. Again, once I get photoshop on here I'll try to edit that out.

6. I was only maybe two yards away from the bird, but also had a great zoom. I think I was using my 55-200VR. The bird was pretty cool about the whole deal. I got about 10 shots, but he was moving so some didnt turn out.

Thanks for the feedback

I think for number two there is too much sky...i'm not sure what the original shot looked like, but I would've liked to see 2/3 mountain, 1/3 sky, as the sky was (for all intensive purposes) boring that day...no clouds or anything...again, not sure what you had in the original. Also, I'd crop off the tree on the right side, as it's kind of distracting (to me). If you have the original (prior to PP), post it, and I'll try to show you what I mean with it...

I think the shade mixed with the flash that went off is what gave that strange effect to her...I use Adobe Lightroom, and it's very simple to adjust those types of things in LR. I would just mess around with rotating and cropping in photoshop. I'm not sure what to do with the colors in photoshop, as when I used it, I only used it for web design, and was never very good at photo fixing with that program.

I wish I could manage to get that close to a bird....ever. For some reason, the birds here in Michigan are wimps and VERY difficult to get closer than about 20 feet before flying off!!!

NP!

stephras07 said:
btw - what is DOF? I've seen that a couple times but I still haven't figured out what it means!

DOF is Depth of Field (I believe...either that or Depth of Focus...same idea though). It's how far you focused as opposed to what is out of focus...

Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really good basics into explaining DOF, as I know what it is...but explaining it is a totally other story :lmao:

stephras07 · Jun 6, 2010

So I just fiddled with 3, 4, and 6 to see if I could fix what you were talking about. Let me know what you think. Also added 2's original.

3.

4.

6.

2. original

TheBoombaGnome · Jun 6, 2010

stephras07 said:
So I just fiddled with 3, 4, and 6 to see if I could fix what you were talking about. Let me know what you think. Also added 2's original.

3.

4.

6.

2. original

they all look much better!!! #3 bothers me less in the head area with the background being straight!!

After looking at it, you did crop it the best you could. I thought maybe that you had more ground, instead of building...and it's especially rough because the focus is more on the building and tree, rather then out into forever to get that mountain...try to be more conscience next time you have a chance to do a mountain shot of a.) your DOF (try a setting like Landscape or or something like that...that will give you an infinite focal length...

creisinger · Jun 6, 2010

I don't understand why you did not post one picture with a person looking at the camera or at least facing the camera.

Especially when taking pictures of babies and kids, their facial expressions can be priceless.

#1 Let's forget about why you didn't get a chance to take a picture when the baby was looking at you.

Why did you put her on the concrete floor like that? There is no reference point as to where the image was taken. If it was indeed at the harbor/port why wouldn't you incorporate that background into the shot? The viewer would be able to understand instantly where the image was taken.

At first sight it looks like someone dropped a baby on the road.

Her foot is cut off. Flash is too harsh.

I don't see the rule of thirds applied in this image at all.

#2 I bet the view at the time you shot this was breath taking but the shot just doesn't capture that. It all seems soft.

Shooting this at a focal length of 200mm (probably the very end of your zoom lens) at f/5.6 with ISO 800 and 1/80 sec is ALL working against you. The lens will become very soft at 200mm.

Shooting with ISO 800 and 1/80 just leaves too much room for error/camera shake/vibration/noise.

The colors aren't striking which is most likely a result of the quality of the lens.

#3 Very harsh flash from behind. What is floating over her head that looks like some piece of knitted cloth? It's majorly distracting.

The shot is not leveled and there is someone's hand in the right lower corner.

Rule of thirds? What were you trying to compose using the rule of thirds?

#4 Under exposed. I hope you can see that this image would be perfect if the baby was placed behind that little fence actually looking at the camera. Framing looks fine.

#5 The flower appears very soft. Don't cut off so much of the stem. Rather lose some space on the top and show a bit more stem.

Exposure is good.

With a tripod and your 200mm lens at f/5.6 this shot would have been much better in terms of shallow depth of field. It would have helped to seperate the flower more from the background/blur the background more.

#6 Lantern in the background is distracting. Focus is to close on the little metal cage and not on the bird's head or eyes. I understand that this is a tough shot but it's not a keeper IMO.

Learn the limits of your equipment. Check when your D5000 is producing noticeable noise and stay in the lower ISO range. Take test shots with your zoom to understand what makes sense to shoot and what not in terms of sharpness and color. Many lenses have their "sweet" spot around f/9-f/11. I wouldn't bother with PP of any of them. Try to re-shoot.

I hope this is constructive enough without sounding rude. I really just wonder why we couldn't see the faces of your little models...

stephras07 · Jun 6, 2010

[/quote]

they all look much better!!! #3 bothers me less in the head area with the background being straight!!

After looking at it, you did crop it the best you could. I thought maybe that you had more ground, instead of building...and it's especially rough because the focus is more on the building and tree, rather then out into forever to get that mountain...try to be more conscience next time you have a chance to do a mountain shot of a.) your DOF (try a setting like Landscape or or something like that...that will give you an infinite focal length...[/QUOTE]

I was actually headed out on a run when I saw that sunset reflected on the mountain and ran back inside for my camera. I didn't have time to switch lenses, so it was taken with my 18-55. I had also only had the camera for about a week lol.

stephras07 · Jun 6, 2010

creisinger said:
I don't understand why you did not post one picture with a person looking at the camera or at least facing the camera.

Especially when taking pictures of babies and kids, their facial expressions can be priceless.

#1 Let's forget about why you didn't get a chance to take a picture when the baby was looking at you.

Why did you put her on the concrete floor like that? There is no reference point as to where the image was taken. If it was indeed at the harbor/port why wouldn't you incorporate that background into the shot? The viewer would be able to understand instantly where the image was taken.

At first sight it looks like someone dropped a baby on the road.

Her foot is cut off. Flash is too harsh.

I don't see the rule of thirds applied in this image at all.

#2 I bet the view at the time you shot this was breath taking but the shot just doesn't capture that. It all seems soft.

Shooting this at a focal length of 200mm (probably the very end of your zoom lens) at f/5.6 with ISO 800 and 1/80 sec is ALL working against you. The lens will become very soft at 200mm.

Shooting with ISO 800 and 1/80 just leaves too much room for error/camera shake/vibration/noise.

The colors aren't striking which is most likely a result of the quality of the lens.

#3 Very harsh flash from behind. What is floating over her head that looks like some piece of knitted cloth? It's majorly distracting.

The shot is not leveled and there is someone's hand in the right lower corner.

Rule of thirds? What were you trying to compose using the rule of thirds?

#4 Under exposed. I hope you can see that this image would be perfect if the baby was placed behind that little fence actually looking at the camera. Framing looks fine.

#5 The flower appears very soft. Don't cut off so much of the stem. Rather lose some space on the top and show a bit more stem.

Exposure is good.

With a tripod and your 200mm lens at f/5.6 this shot would have been much better in terms of shallow depth of field. It would have helped to seperate the flower more from the background/blur the background more.

#6 Lantern in the background is distracting. Focus is to close on the little metal cage and not on the bird's head or eyes. I understand that this is a tough shot but it's not a keeper IMO.

Learn the limits of your equipment. Check when your D5000 is producing noticeable noise and stay in the lower ISO range. Take test shots with your zoom to understand what makes sense to shoot and what not in terms of sharpness and color. Many lenses have their "sweet" spot around f/9-f/11. I wouldn't bother with PP of any of them. Try to re-shoot.

I hope this is constructive enough without sounding rude. I really just wonder why we couldn't see the faces of your little models...

These were just a few shots I had taken, the best of what I had at the time. I hadn't originally taken them with posting in mind, and none of them were posed. Also, I did say I have SINCE learned the rule of thirds, I did not say it was applied to all previous shots.

1. That is actually the pier, and if I had been more level with her and gotten background, it would have been very distracting. There were about 300+ people there that day, plus machinery to unload the ship. It is an industrial area, not the pretty harbors that you are probably used to in the states. It was a very bright day, no flash used. Summer in Japan is bright and HOT. As to why she's on the concrete, it was because she is a toddler and very busy - the stroller just wasn't doing it for keeping her happy, and we still had a bit of a wait for the ship to get in.

2. As I posted above, this was a spur of the moment shot, taken with my 18-55 as I didn't have time to change my lens, and about 1 week after getting the camera. That should explain all the issues you find with this picture. I don't have a tripod yet either, working on that. The colors are better in the second edit.

3. She has a sequin tiara on, that's probably what you see. If you check the second version, you will see that I straightened it out.

4. I get that its underexposed. Check the second version. Actually, I prefer the way this shot is to the way you are describing it. It is not posed at all, she was crawling and pulled herself up on the fence to see the flowers. One of the first times she did that too, so it was exciting.

5. The flower actually was taken (again, as I posted above) with my old point and shoot. I had forgotten that when I posted it. I'll keep your suggestion in mind next time I shoot a flower though.

6. The lantern is another bird feeder, but I understand that it is distracting. Again, this was shortly after I got the camera and was still learning to use it. This was taken with my 18-55, I was MAYBE two yards away from the bird. I'm sure part of the focus problem may be that I was shooting through a window.

I am still learning what all the technical stuff means - I am so used to my point and shoot, and have not yet had time to finish reading the manual to understand what the camera can really do. Most of this is me playing trying to figure stuff out, since concentration for reading went out the window when my daughter started crawling 5 months ago. None of these are really possible to reshoot - all but the first one were taken on a visit to the states, and I won't be back there for probably another year. The first one - I won't be able to get back on that pier with a camera due to security.

Thanks for the comments.