Seeking some C&C

[KmH]

A quick and dirty edit:

 

[fjrabon]

This is not good advice. The original poster has no idea where her skill-set will be a year from now.

I just want to second this. Unless you have serious storage issues, there's absolutely no reason not to shoot RAW. If you're afraid to do anything at all with RAW right now, then shoot JPEG + RAW, store the RAW files and use the JPEGs. I've gone back to old photos many times in the past and I'm glad I started shooting RAW before I was even doing a lot of processing. As your skill set develops, you'll be able to go back to your older photos and do a lot more with them.

Again, if storage is an issue or you don't ever plan to PP, go ahead and shoot JPEG. Otherwise there's no reason not to shoot RAW.

You really go back and edit pictures you took years ago? I guess I didn't really consider that people would do that. One thing to consider though is that most cameras add contrast and a bit of saturation if you shoot in JPEG, since most every RAW shot anyone ever takes needs that. So, purely unedited, JPEG will actually generally look a little better. Pure, untouched RAW images tend to look a little flat and almost always require at least a little contrast and saturation. I think the point still remains that if you're just not going to edit a picture in PP, then you not only will save space, but your pictures often actually look better in JPEG. I think this is another issue to be considered, RAW images are made to be edited. Which is the main point I was addressing, it's not just an issue of 'get it right in the camera'. The two are tools that work in concert, not opposition. Almost every photo you see in any magazine or taken by any pro has been enhanced in post production.

I think a lot of newbies fall into this idea of RAW = better image quality than JPEG, which isn't really true. I remember when I first switched to RAW, nobody told me about this and I was staring at all these completely flat, undercontrasted, undersaturated images. I was pretty confused.

edit: just to be clear, I'm not saying don't shoot RAW, I'm saying RAW images need to be edited. THis is just as much a part of the process as taking the picture in the first place.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Let me add that your apparent openness to criticism is refreshing. It doesn't feel as good but you learn more from the critics. Keep practicing, keep looking at photographs better than your own. Look at other crappy photographs and see if you can explain why they suck. You learn a good deal from doing that, too. Keep at it.

And another +1 for RAW.

 

[AntwanRTTG]

Let me add that your apparent openness to criticism is refreshing. It doesn't feel as good but you learn more from the critics. Keep practicing, keep looking at photographs better than your own. Look at other crappy photographs and see if you can explain why they suck. You learn a good deal from doing that, too. Keep at it.

And another +1 for RAW.

I know what a good photo looks like. And I know when mine are crappy. However, like you say, I am trying to learn why.

Thank you,
Anthony

 

[MTVision]

Thank you.

My apologies, Megan. I figured I didn't answer your question or I misunderstood.

I do process my pictures. I just posted this picture before PP.

Am I wrong in trying to obtain better exposure initially, rather than adjusting it later? Or am I thoroughly confused?

No you are right to want to get it right in camera but the way I read it - you were just converting and not doing any processing. The things with RAW files is they do need to be processed but if you get it right in camera you will only have to do minimal editing.

 

[AntwanRTTG]

There seems to be quite a bit of concern for the PP that will go into this photo. So here is a 5 minute attempt to try and correct a couple of the things that have been mentioned here. Unfortunately I can't help the background. I mostly concentrated on the WB and exposure issue. I still have the "raccoon eyes" on my little man, but I think they are a little better now.

So with the assumption that I would normally spend a lot more time processing this, now where do I need to go (besides home from work and stop wasting work hours)?

Be gentle ...


Gavin_P by anthonyRTTG, on Flickr

 

[bazooka]

It is a drastic improvement. It's still a very busy image, but much better than it was.

 

[SoonerBJJ]

Agreed that is an improvement. Illuminating the eyes and allowing them to "pop" would still make a world of difference. Next time...

 

[AntwanRTTG]

Agreed that is an improvement. Illuminating the eyes and allowing them to "pop" would still make a world of difference. Next time...

Seeing as how my "noob-ness" is not a mystery, I feel comfortable asking a potentially dumb question: "... Illuminating the eyes ..." -- are you referring to utilizing the flash? I know there are several ways I could have taken this picture better, but given the actual circumstances for this picture, what could have helped?

 

[AntwanRTTG]

PS ... I plan to do this frequently (post my "work" looking for feedback). Am I using the right section of this forum?

 

[Proteus617]

You really go back and edit pictures you took years ago? I guess I didn't really consider that people would do that.

I recently had an opportunity to show a few of my images at my local. I went through 5 years of archives and selected 20 for printing. In those 5 years what I consider to be an acceptable image has changed, my tastes have changed, and my printing process has changed. This required a re-edit. If I did not have an original source to go back to, I would have been SOL.

 

[rambler]

I see light bouncing off the forehead and bridge of the nose washing out skin tone. Can you diffuse the flash? Put some gold tissue over the flash. (I am a novice with flash myself).
I remember thinking I won't PP much, but wow what a great resource. Ansel Adams spent hours with chemicals and different types of film to accomplish what we can do with a click of a mouse. The cameras cannot see what we can, they do not see colors the same way. They often need our help. They cannot see detail in dark areas like we can for instance, but processing can get light into those areas so we can see the details.
There are not rules in how to do it right, but there are many rules of thumb that will help us achieve the images that appeal more to us. People have been observed spending more time looking at photos when the image is not directly in the middle. So, keep your subjects out of the middle most of the time. Read, take a course online, take a lot of photos and critique them. Think of all the different angles we can take of one subject and click away, with digital, images are free!

 

[KmH]

Gavin_P by anthonyRTTG, on Flickr