First time shooting in RAW

[amandamartin]

I have always shot in JPEG but decided to give RAW a good old college try. I like the results I got, but with all the sliders and such in processing, I tried to just rely on my eyes and my histogram for what worked. Some feedback would be spectacular

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Never look back to JPEG. Seriously. Shoot RAW always. RAW + JPEG if necessary. Decent image. Background is distracting, but that's my only nitpick.

 

[amandamartin]

I agree with you on the bg. I desprately need a new lens. Mine only goes down to f5.6 (it's a lame kit lens). I haven't mastered blurring a bg in photoshop. Can't seem to figure out how to make it not look fake :/

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I agree with you on the bg. I desprately need a new lens. Mine only goes down to f5.6 (it's a lame kit lens). I haven't mastered blurring a bg in photoshop. Can't seem to figure out how to make it not look fake :/

Don't make a blurred background in Photoshop. It never beats the real thing anyway.

 

[amandamartin]

Which is why I dont do it. Hands down, I need a better lens. I askes my husband the other day if I should have a bakesale to raise money for one. I was only half serious

 

[Granddad]

Background aside I'd call that a decent photo. :thumbup:
Keep shooting RAW and consider a 50mm f1.8 prime lens. For Nikon and Canon they run at relatively cheap prices. A couple of bake sales might do the trick.

One nitpicky thing, it looks to me as though your focus point was on your hair and your husband's chin rather than the eyes (hard enough when it's a self portrait) ... but thinking about it I don't see how you could have improved that seeing as there are two sets of eyes. Maybe someone else can suggest a tip?

 

[TGordon]

nice

 

[Heitz]

way too much vignetting for me.

 

[CA_]

I've heard the 35mm 1.8G is the best bang for the buck for portrait work, I'd look into that lens. (I just ordered one too!).

 

[PinkDoor]

I agree with Heitz - too much vignette. . . otherwise, I like

 

[texkam]

^^ IMHO 35mm is too wide for portrait work.

 

[Alex_B]

I've heard the 35mm 1.8G is the best bang for the buck for portrait work, I'd look into that lens. (I just ordered one too!).

But 35mm is way too short for most portrait work, except the big-nose-close-ups ... if you are into that kind of thing.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I've heard the 35mm 1.8G is the best bang for the buck for portrait work, I'd look into that lens. (I just ordered one too!).

I think you mean 85mm f1.8. 35 is much to short a focal length. ON aps-c a 50mm would be a good equivalent since it would be 75mm. But an 85mm on aps-c with an equivalent or 127.5mm is even better. The added focal length intensifies the DOF and produces great results.

 

[Infidel]

This example doesn't indicate that you need a new lens, it indicates that you need to pay more attention to backgrounds and compose your shots better. Large aperture is not the be-all end-all of portraiture. With two people in your shot, you'd likely miss focus on one of them by shooting at f/1.8.


Zoom your kit lens to 55mm and open to f/5.6. Get close to your subject for a tightly framed shot and place them so that the nearest background object is pretty far away. You will blur the sh!t out of the background. It's all about managing camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distance ratios. Perhaps difficult with a kit lens on a crop body while indoors, but shouldn't be a problem to find a suitable setup while shooting outside.

 

[Ernicus]

Not a bad attempt at all. Others stated pretty much what is what.

I would maybe edit a bit to give them that "soft" feel that people seem to like these days...

The vignetting makes it a bit darker than I want...but the people look ok, and I prefer darker anyway sometimes...however I learned what I see isn't what you guys see as my monitor sucks ass badly. lol

something like this...