Please review my pictures (first time on forums)

[Buckster]

I like the bumble. a bit over exposed for my liking, still cool though.

? Doesn't look overexposed to me, and the histogram doesn't indicate it either. When's the last time you calibrated?

The issue wasn't with exposure, it was the calibration. I forgot to make the change in Adobe to use my camera's landscape color calibration.

LOLWUT? "Landscape color calibration"? That's a new one on me...

 

[USNaturePhotos]

? Doesn't look overexposed to me, and the histogram doesn't indicate it either. When's the last time you calibrated?

The issue wasn't with exposure, it was the calibration. I forgot to make the change in Adobe to use my camera's landscape color calibration.

LOLWUT? "Landscape color calibration"? That's a new one on me...

Its a setting in Adobe Lightroom, it correlates with the picture style settings on my Canon

 

[Buckster]

The issue wasn't with exposure, it was the calibration. I forgot to make the change in Adobe to use my camera's landscape color calibration.

LOLWUT? "Landscape color calibration"? That's a new one on me...

Its a setting in Adobe Lightroom, it correlates with the picture style settings on my Canon

I'm looking at Lightroom on another monitor, and I don't see that anywhere. Help me out - where should I be looking?

By the way, it still doesn't look overexposed to me on my calibrated monitors, and the histogram still doesn't indicate that it's overexposed either.

 

[USNaturePhotos]

LOLWUT? "Landscape color calibration"? That's a new one on me...

Its a setting in Adobe Lightroom, it correlates with the picture style settings on my Canon

I'm looking at Lightroom on another monitor, and I don't see that anywhere. Help me out - where should I be looking?

By the way, it still doesn't look overexposed to me on my calibrated monitors, and the histogram still doesn't indicate that it's overexposed either.

Open Lightroom 4, click on develop, go to camera calibration, then click on profile. It'll grab all the color calibrations for the profile selected based off of the picture style you choose on your camera.

 

[pgriz]

I would be honored that a skilled, intelligent and discerning photographer such as yourself thinks so. :lmao:

You flatter me. But I flatter easy, mainly because I'd like to believe it.

I've been using these three 'rules' as the basis of a presentation I have give to several (actually three but 'several' sounds more impressive) local camera clubs and have been struggling with the idea of writing the 'lecture' as a document with illustrations. The presentation also includes a part of how to look at images and understand why they don't work and how to chart a post-processing path to improve them.

It will be a lot of work (because I have to get permission to use examples I've just clipped from the web) and I am a little hesitant because I am concerned that, in blind egotism, I am over-estimating my abilities in analysis and critique (large yell of agreement from crowd along with cries of 'you are a jerk').

Well, I've observed that being called a "jerk" doesn't even need to have any cause. So, that kind of response can be sloughed off easily enough.

Joking aside, here's an idea that may help get your point across. Flash an image to your audience and allow it to be visible for only 5 seconds. Then have each person write down their impressions - what did they see first, where did they look after, what got their attention. Have them compare their impressions. I am willing to bet that the majority will have fairly similar reactions, and will describe more or less the same sequence, in the case of good images. Poor images, on the other hand, will have much more of a scatter of reactions. This will reinforce the idea that good images are usually simple, with a clear visual flow, and few distractions. Oh, and don't use one of Guiness Man's images. THOSE will have very predictable responses from most of the guys, and no-one will learn much.

Some time back, I was fortunate to participate in a workshop by a very talented photographer, who specializes in studio and glamour work. She had her participants take a series of photos and then each participant showed their best shot. That was deconstructed to determine if the objective of the photographer was communicated. Then, based on this feedback, a second series of photos was taken. Again, the same process of deconstruction and examination. By the time the third series was taken, the images were light-years ahead of what was taken in the morning, in terms of polish, clarity, and effectiveness. She focused on essentially the same set of rules that you did, and emphasized that the vision needs to guide the construction of the image. It was one of the best workshops I ever witnessed. I have tried to apply her ideas in my own work, and it is so tempting to jump the process and press that shutter and capture the image. But taking the time to study the image, and grinding away the stuff that doesn't need to be there takes time and a lof of focus.

 

[Buckster]

Its a setting in Adobe Lightroom, it correlates with the picture style settings on my Canon

I'm looking at Lightroom on another monitor, and I don't see that anywhere. Help me out - where should I be looking?

By the way, it still doesn't look overexposed to me on my calibrated monitors, and the histogram still doesn't indicate that it's overexposed either.

Open Lightroom 4, click on develop, go to camera calibration, then click on profile. It'll grab all the color calibrations for the profile selected based off of the picture style you choose on your camera.

Ahhh... Okay, thanks!

 

[ChristianGrattan]

#1 is in reasonable focus (I think) but, the bumblebee draws my eye and the rest of the image just hangs around.
why not get in tighter to make the image more dynamic?

View attachment 9800

I agree that cropping like the image above would make for a clearer composition.

I have to say that I am into #3. I find it a bit subversive and almost dark. Was this intentional. I am guessing not so much seeing the other shots. The thing that I am interested in in #3 is the space behind the flowers, the woods where the solar flare is. There is a tension to this shot that draws me in.

 

[Ernicus]

I like the bumble. a bit over exposed for my liking, still cool though.

? Doesn't look overexposed to me, and the histogram doesn't indicate it either. When's the last time you calibrated?

on a laptop...so never. lol

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I agree with CG. #3 is a wall hanger!

 

[Joel_W]

The Traveler gave you some rock solid advice, and it was for free :thumbup:

Each of your 3 posted pictures have basic compositional problems. Your re-edit of picture #1 is better, but your crop is a little too much. I would leave a little more "breathing room" around the bee.

 

[Ernicus]

LOLWUT? "Landscape color calibration"? That's a new one on me...

Its a setting in Adobe Lightroom, it correlates with the picture style settings on my Canon

I'm looking at Lightroom on another monitor, and I don't see that anywhere. Help me out - where should I be looking?

By the way, it still doesn't look overexposed to me on my calibrated monitors, and the histogram still doesn't indicate that it's overexposed either.

I agree on teh outlook of the histrogram. I often confuse "overexposed" with something that's too "bright" for my liking or just too bright in general. I just used the wrong word in my original reply.

 

[Overread]

Your photo has been nominated for Photo of the Month
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...may-2012-photo-month-nomination-thread-3.html