Initial Work

[zutty]

Here are examples of my initial efforts with Photomatix and experimenting with settings. I realize these are pretty extreme, but I am learning. Comments are very welcome.

 

[mmaria]

but if you said it yourself, that they're extreme, why don't you back off abit? or in the other hand, you like this extreme


jmo way too extreme

 

[SCraig]

but if you said it yourself, that they're extreme, why don't you back off abit? or in the other hand, you like this extreme


jmo way too extreme

Or, maybe, a LOT.

I've said it before and I guess I'll say it again: "To each their own", but that cartoonish HDR treatment just plain leaves me cold.

 

[JohnnyWrench]

Number 3 isn't TOO bad... It's still overdone for my taste but the others are WAY overcooked.

 

[The_Traveler]

When everything is excessive HDR, then the content/subject of the image is irrelevant.
When all one has is a hammer then everything is a nail.

 

[zutty]

I totally agree with all of your comments. I was simply fascinated with what HD could do. Remember this is a first effort and I was testing the limits of the technology that was new to me. I am fully aware of the subtlety of art and I will relook into using the hd option much more sparingly. That's why I'm here, to hear what you more experienced photographers can tell me. Perhaps it might be a good idea to concentrate on composition and hold off on the hd stuff for a bit. Thanks again!

 

[SCraig]

HDR is a valuable tool when used properly. Unfortunately it is seldom used properly and frequently used improperly.

The idea behind it is to combine images at varying exposure levels to increase detail in highlights and shadows that would otherwise be lost to the limited dynamic range of most cameras. If you take a photograph of a scene that has very dark shadows as well as very bright highlights you will have to compromise and either lose the shadows or the highlights. Using HDR to combine shots that are exposed for the shadows, the mid-tones, and the highlights once can frequently recover a lot of detail. Unfortunately someone discovered that it can also be used to generate that grungy, oversaturated, stuff that appeals to some.

Try using it as it was intended sometime. If you have to ask, "Is that HDR?" then you did it right.

 

[zutty]

In response to my totally over doing the HD processing, I'd like to present a couple of examples with No processing at all. My purpose at this point is to see if my compositional instincts are on the right track.On these initial shoots I bracketed the exposures into 3 frames with a .3 exposure difference.
As a musician I had the many years of practice and education to rely on. Here, I don't. Thanks for all your patience.

 

[zutty]

HDR is a valuable tool when used properly. Unfortunately it is seldom used properly and frequently used improperly.

The idea behind it is to combine images at varying exposure levels to increase detail in highlights and shadows that would otherwise be lost to the limited dynamic range of most cameras. If you take a photograph of a scene that has very dark shadows as well as very bright highlights you will have to compromise and either lose the shadows or the highlights. Using HDR to combine shots that are exposed for the shadows, the mid-tones, and the highlights once can frequently recover a lot of detail. Unfortunately someone discovered that it can also be used to generate that grungy, oversaturated, stuff that appeals to some.

Try using it as it was intended sometime. If you have to ask, "Is that HDR?" then you did it right.

A very insightful answer that I agree with totally! When I was on the road with a blues band, I knew that the less is more approach was called for and that the groove was critical. I need to resist using technology just for it's own sake and focus on the basics for now I think. Thanks again for your comments!

 

[SCraig]

A very insightful answer that I agree with totally! When I was on the road with a blues band, I knew that the less is more approach was called for and that the groove was critical. I need to resist using technology just for it's own sake and focus on the basics for now I think. Thanks again for your comments!

And I bet you could listen to an orchestra playing Bolero and pick out the kettle drum that was just a few milliseconds early or late. Or the string player that missed their fingering by a quarter inch or so.

Photography is much like music in that there is no substitute for experience. You can't buy it, you can't give it or take it, you can only learn it by doing and everyone starts at the beginning. Don't be afraid to try things, but learn the fundamentals first. You're on the right track. Shoot what you like, post it here or somewhere else, and let people rip it to shreds. Keep that open mind and listen to what people advise. You don't have to take all their advice since photography is personal and what one person prefers another may not, but at least listen and give it a try. Most of all, just have fun.

 

[The_Traveler]

The first and most important step to take in improving is to learn to be objective about your own work.
This is difficult but can be done in a methodical way by asking yourself a series of questions about the photo and then answering them.

• Are there one or more centers of visual interest?
• Is(are) the center(s) of interest - the main subject(s) - well placed within the frame and does the placement relate well to the rest of the content so that the viewer’s eye is drawn to, rather than away?
• Is there excess space that pulls the eye away and drains any tension or drama from the picture?
• Is there enough space so that nothing feels cramped or cut off?
• Are there geometric issues? e.g. are the horizontals and vertical correct, and is that important?
• Is the composition appropriate for the content?
• Are important areas too dark?, or light?
• Is the color or tonality appropriate for the content? Saturation or lack of it? Correct hues, white balance?
• Does the color make the point that the photographer wants?
• Is the sharpness or lack of sharpness appropriate?
• Is everything that should be in focus and sharp, actually so?
• In the reverse, is there so much depth of field, that attention is drawn away from the real object of interest?
• Are there individual small defects - points of motion, dirt on the lens/sensor, out-of-focus spots that hurt the image, unduly bright areas that draw the eye?

Clearly, learning how to even answer these questions will require some effort, but these 'answers' are what will coalesce into an understanding of composition.

 

[mmaria]

Oh.... who would tell at first but I ended up really enjoying this thread!


not that I have something smart to add....

 

[zutty]

The first and most important step to take in improving is to learn to be objective about your own work.
This is difficult but can be done in a methodical way by asking yourself a series of questions about the photo and then answering them.

• Are there one or more centers of visual interest?
• Is(are) the center(s) of interest - the main subject(s) - well placed within the frame and does the placement relate well to the rest of the content so that the viewer’s eye is drawn to, rather than away?
• Is there excess space that pulls the eye away and drains any tension or drama from the picture?
• Is there enough space so that nothing feels cramped or cut off?
• Are there geometric issues? e.g. are the horizontals and vertical correct, and is that important?
• Is the composition appropriate for the content?
• Are important areas too dark?, or light?
• Is the color or tonality appropriate for the content? Saturation or lack of it? Correct hues, white balance?
• Does the color make the point that the photographer wants?
• Is the sharpness or lack of sharpness appropriate?
• Is everything that should be in focus and sharp, actually so?
• In the reverse, is there so much depth of field, that attention is drawn away from the real object of interest?
• Are there individual small defects - points of motion, dirt on the lens/sensor, out-of-focus spots that hurt the image, unduly bright areas that draw the eye?

Clearly, learning how to even answer these questions will require some effort, but these 'answers' are what will coalesce into an understanding of composition.

Excellents points Traveler. But the subjectivity involved in deciding the answers to your list makes it so difficult to see what you point out. My lack of experience is the key in me trying to not get frustrated in my beginning efforts. 50 years ago..YIKES!!..When I was learning to play music, my age made it much easier to get past the hurdles of this, but now it is easier to be impatient. I intend to try my best though and this invaluable site is really helpful.

 

[The_Traveler]

Yes, difficult but doable.

the downside is that one never stops improving critical abilities.

the plus is that you don't have to hone your abilities only on your own work; you can look at other people's work - and the critiques - and learn from each of them.
look at 50 pictures a day and try to decide whether they are well done or not, read the critiques if there are any - at the end of a month your ability to 'see' the defects in your own work will be vastly improved.

I wrote these two articles (they are essentially the same so I won't charge you double) Lew Lorton Photography | How to improve your photography: your own twelve step program and Lew Lorton Photography | 11 Tips for Beginning Photographers - How to Start Taking Pictures.

See if anything in there might be helpful.

 

[The_Traveler]

I'd like to present a couple of examples with No processing at all. My purpose at this point is to see if my compositional instincts are on the right track.On these initial shoots I bracketed the exposures into 3 frames with a .3 exposure difference.

.3 of a stop difference makes no sense because you are adding only a tiny bit of dynamic range at either end. Typically one brackets at least one or two stops on either end so the dynamic range is extended significantly.