Pelicans on the ocean, w/ basic PP

[_t_is_me_]

Constructive criticism and comments welcome. This is within my first 10 edited images EVER, using very basic software that came with my computer. What did I do well? What could I do better or differently? Also, feel free to edit the original and show me a better way, but please explain what you did so I could possibly try it, as well. For the record, I didn't mean to save them that small, but what's done is done. Not enough time to do it again right now.

 

[The_Traveler]

These aren't 'creative' edits as much as they are corrections of underexposed image.

 

[_t_is_me_]

These aren't 'creative' edits as much as they are corrections of underexposed image.

I appreciate your comment, but totally disagree that the original image was underexposed. Not that great, white balance off: probably. But underexposed, no.

I also feel like you're saying that I implied these were creative edits, which I didn't. Just edits to make the photo nicer looking.

 

[_t_is_me_]

These aren't 'creative' edits as much as they are corrections of underexposed image.

And for the record, I don't see the constructive part of your comments. Which is kind of discouraging for someone who is so new to the world of photography and asked specifically for it.

 

[jsecordphoto]

The first image was underexposed. The processing here was decent enough, looks a touch too contrasty and saturated for me though.

 

[limr8 6]

I actually like the level of contrast, but agree that the saturation is a tad high.

 

[Braineack]

the first image WAS underexposed. the new image IS oversaturated.

 

[The_Traveler]

You are shooting at the furthest range of your lens and at a relatively small aperture - both of which will cause degradation in the image quality.
The iso at exposure is 400 so you could shoot at 100 and this would allow you to shoot at an f stop that is better quality for that glass or maybe at a higher speed to freeze the action more.
The entire scene is bright, the meter tries to make that medium grey and so your shot is generally underexposed.
(you might look up 'expose to the right' to understand why this is better exposed more)
Nothing in the image is particularly sharp, except perhaps the trailing edge of the wings on the large bird; the head of the subject bird is out of focus and the other two objects in the scene are blurred beyond recognition. This may be due to missed focus or lens quality or motion blur but nonetheless, this should be discarded for better ones.

 

[The_Traveler]

Here is a histogram on your original image.
Yes, you have lined up the needle on the middle but the data are concentrated on the center, meaning that the image is a fairly even brightness all over.
From looking at the scene you can recognize that it is bright and low contrast, thus the camera sensor is being outsmarted by the scene.
In this situation, one should 'automatically' expose more to take advantage of getting more detail, more photons, onto the sensor and making it easier to edit.

The camera did exactly what it was asked to do.
So the scene as shot was underexposed.

 

[The_Traveler]

These aren't 'creative' edits as much as they are corrections of underexposed image.

And for the record, I don't see the constructive part of your comments. Which is kind of discouraging for someone who is so new to the world of photography and asked specifically for it.

I think you misunderstand what constructive criticism is.

What it is not is that kind of 'you did such right' blather around any negative comments to make you feel better.
Constructive criticism is pointing out what the critic thinks is wrong or incorrect in a neutral way so that the photographer can use that information as a jumping off point to learn or at least to calibrate against what his/her own opinion might be.
It might be a short comment or it might be a detailed one but, in any case, making a fuss about the manner in which the information is delivered because it isn't soothing enough runs the distinct risk of alienating the critic.

 

[Nevermore1]

I'm no expert but I think the original was underexposed and the edit is overly saturated with color. Maybe tone down the saturation a little?

Also, Lew knows what he's talking about. If you want good constructive criticism he is one of the ones on this board that does a good job of giving it. As he mentioned - try not to alienate others with comments saying that they didn't give you the type of criticism you wanted. If you do ypu will either stop getting it completely or individuals may not give "serious" criticism/comments since they will feel you will just argue with them about it anyways.

 

[_t_is_me_]

View attachment 88894

You are shooting at the furthest range of your lens and at a relatively small aperture - both of which will cause degradation in the image quality.
The iso at exposure is 400 so you could shoot at 100 and this would allow you to shoot at an f stop that is better quality for that glass or maybe at a higher speed to freeze the action more.
The entire scene is bright, the meter tries to make that medium grey and so your shot is generally underexposed.
(you might look up 'expose to the right' to understand why this is better exposed more)
Nothing in the image is particularly sharp, except perhaps the trailing edge of the wings on the large bird; the head of the subject bird is out of focus and the other two objects in the scene are blurred beyond recognition. This may be due to missed focus or lens quality or motion blur but nonetheless, this should be discarded for better ones.

Admittedly, when shooting this image, I knew nothing about ISO. I now try to shoot almost everything at 100 or 200 ISO, though some situations will obviously not allow it.

I agree that the contrast in the originals leaves something to be desired, but generally speaking, what I saw with my naked eye was much closer to the original than the edited version. It was an overcast, humid, hazy day. And sadly, the ocean was not BLUE like one hopes for.

 

[_t_is_me_]

the first image WAS underexposed. the new image IS oversaturated.

I happen to prefer my photos "oversaturated." At least for now with little knowledge of how to edit.

 

[_t_is_me_]

These aren't 'creative' edits as much as they are corrections of underexposed image.

And for the record, I don't see the constructive part of your comments. Which is kind of discouraging for someone who is so new to the world of photography and asked specifically for it.

I think you misunderstand what constructive criticism is.

What it is not is that kind of 'you did such right' blather around any negative comments to make you feel better.
Constructive criticism is pointing out what the critic thinks is wrong or incorrect in a neutral way so that the photographer can use that information as a jumping off point to learn or at least to calibrate against what his/her own opinion might be.
It might be a short comment or it might be a detailed one but, in any case, making a fuss about the manner in which the information is delivered because it isn't soothing enough runs the distinct risk of alienating the critic.

You may be right here, but when a new photographer posts one of the first photos she's ever taken, thinks it's pretty good with edits, asks for some comments, and the first one she gets is negative with little explanation it's extremely disheartening. Especially at 7 am when I'm getting ready for bed. But obviously that last bit is my cranky fault.

 

[_t_is_me_]

I definitely agree that parts of the photo are oversaturated. Maybe to an extent that is even beyond my liking. BUT: I think the pelican looks awesome in the editing, and with my very basic editing program, I had to decide if I wanted to oversaturate the ocean and make the pelican look good, or if I wanted the pelican to look so-so in order to make the ocean look better.