Lilacs- Constructive feedback needed! :)

[Carmel]

I'm just wondering what you guys think of how I'm doing so far. I'd love constructive criticisms, things that'll help me boost my art. Unfortunately, getting a different lens is just not in the books right now so I have to work with what I've got.

I have Photoshop c3 on my computer as well... any hints on saturation, levels and curves would be super. There's only one photo here that has been touched up in Photoshop. Did I do it right? Any suggestions as to better this technique?

These were taken with a Sony DSLR-a200 and the lens I bought it with, a DT 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 3.9x Zoom.

and the photoshopped version of the one above

 

[250Gimp]

Nice shots, but they seem a bit under exposed on my monitor.

Your photoshop version is a bit grainy for my liking.

I notice that you were using ISO1600. I would lower your ISO to cut down on the grain. It will slow your shutter speed, but you have plenty of speed according to the EXIF.

Cheers

 

[tpe]

Nice shots all of them, and apart from the aformentioned grain the photoshopped one is by far my fave, probably because it looks better exposed and the levels look better on my screen. I like all the water actually looks like water on the others instead of glyserine or sugar water too .

tim

 

[Carmel]

Thank you for taking the time to add some feedback. I really appreciate it.

As you have mentioned, I should cut down on the iso... I'll try that next time. I did have it cranked pretty high. What do you recommend?

 

[tpe]

Of course it depends on the amount of light around. On my old camera it was best on 100 if i could manage it, on my new it is 200 and 100 actually gives worse results. If i want a non grainy picture i have to stay below 400, if i am really pressed for action or indoor shots then 800, for night hand held 3200 or one stop either side.
Generally if you can use a flash then keep it as near 1-200 as poss i guess unless you are after a grainy effect.
On my new camera it allows me to use auto ISO that you can set the limits of, so then it works between 1-400 ISO depending on how much the anti shake is having to work. If yours has something similar it can be very usefull but annoying when the light is actually good.

tim

 

[Carmel]

Of course it depends on the amount of light around. On my old camera it was best on 100 if i could manage it, on my new it is 200 and 100 actually gives worse results. If i want a non grainy picture i have to stay below 400, if i am really pressed for action or indoor shots then 800, for night hand held 3200 or one stop either side.
Generally if you can use a flash then keep it as near 1-200 as poss i guess unless you are after a grainy effect.
On my new camera it allows me to use auto ISO that you can set the limits of, so then it works between 1-400 ISO depending on how much the anti shake is having to work. If yours has something similar it can be very usefull but annoying when the light is actually good.

tim

I'll definitely keep that in mind. I actually went out and shot a few pictures using a lower ISO and I've looked at them and they turned out beautifully. Unfortunately, it stopped raining so I couldn't get any of the rain falling off of the blossoms like I had originally wanted.

I'm not sure about setting the limits of my iso. I know it can do it automatically and usually, the flash goes off whether it's needed or not. : /

 

[tirediron]

Unfortunately, it stopped raining so I couldn't get any of the rain falling off of the blossoms like I had originally wanted.

That's what a $1.99 spray-bottle is for!

I'll agree with the comment about exposure, I'm guessing about 1/2 stop under. As well, they seem a little de-saturated to me. Were these shot as RAW files, or .jpg?

 

[Carmel]

That's what a $1.99 spray-bottle is for!

I'll agree with the comment about exposure, I'm guessing about 1/2 stop under. As well, they seem a little de-saturated to me. Were these shot as RAW files, or .jpg?

I'm so dumb, why didn't I think of a spray-bottle? Lol

They were shot as .jpeg