Just started trying some PP, cc please

[herrkiser]

I'm new to digital photography and this is my first shot at pp. Would greatly appreciate CC please.

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[tirediron]

The images look fine; to give you critique on your post-processing we really need to know what you've done. Ideally post before and after images.

 

[herrkiser]

new i forgot something, these are the originals

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[sam_justice]

Number 1 is nice, learn to use depth of field though to make your subject stand out, would've definitely helped number 1

 

[KmH]

What is the vertical pixel dimension of your monitor? Can you see all of a vertical, 1023 pixel, photo on it?

My display is 1440 x 900 pixels and even the auto reduce image resizing TPF does doesn't allow me to see the entirety of one of your vertical images before i expand it to the full size you uploaded.

Actually TPF asks that you resize images before you post them, in this sticky thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...forum-functions-pictoral-guide-using-tpf.html

You might also read:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-gallery/183599-notice-image-sizes-forum.html

You could have just edited your OP, by adding the before edit images.

The originals look generally underexposed, and a quick glance back at the edits indicated a couple still are. A couple could stand to be straightened too.

I am going to open a couple of them in Photoshop to check more accurately.

I'll be back.

 

[herrkiser]

Sam,
I was using a 17-55mm, and i don't think i shot much over f4-5, i was probably about a block from the sign in the photo. Think i could have gotten much blur going down to the 2.8, or was a too limited by the distance from subject/focal length of the lens? I may be incorrect on the aperture of the shot, any way to find that out from the raw file?

I found the info in the raw file. #1 was iso100, aperture3.5, ss1/1600 at 43mm

 

[hallsgator]

Sweet pics! I'm from Knoxville too.

That's all I have to add, lol.

 

[herrkiser]

yea, sorry about that, when i resized i didn't pay attention and just made them 2000px on the long side. I will fix that in the future

 

[KmH]

Ok, I'm back.

What image editing software did you use?

You did pretty good on the editing, but they are still all somewhat underexposed,
#1 by 0.5 of a stop
#2 by 2 full stops (but the underexposure really saturates the sky).
#3 is 0.6 stops
and #4 is still 1.25 stops under for the main subject, the foreground. Some fill flash would have helped there.

They could also benefit from some mid-tone contrast adjustment, and local exposure and sharpening.

I would guess your only doing global edits so far, and/or don't have selection tools available to do local editing?

Many image editing applications have a way to add fill light.

 

[herrkiser]

Thanks for taking the time to look at these Keith. I have Gimp and plan to learn it, but for these it was just the editor that came with my camera, so yes, only global editing for now. It was so bright that day, i was afraid of blowing the sky and i think that is why they are all underexposed.