Shenandoah pics for C&C please...let's try this again

[vivalavieboheme]

My first post on this got no replies but C&C wasn't in the title, so let's try this again.

#1:


#2:


#3:


Also when I clicked on the "Insert Picture" icon and chose "From URL," it told me my URL was invalid. And it wouldn't let me upload them.

 

[WesternGuy]

You asked for C&C - so my comments FWIW...first - it would a help those commenting, if you would number your images when you post them...

#1. Interesting image - little underexposed inside the tree - I might try a bit of exposure compensation to see if I could make this work and the colour of the bark looks strange to me, but then this could be my monitor (it's calibrated), or it could be that the tree has a reddish tinge to its bark - my trees usually have a bark that has a more grey tone to it - different trees - different parts of the world - different lighting???

#2. This does nothing for me - sorry - just a snapshot with the horizon dead in the middle...not somthing you want to do - check out "rule of thirds" for composition. Colours seem to be a bit oversaturated also.

#3 Again, does nothing for me - your images need to elicit emotion or tell a story to be effective - also, I think that the "stump" is crooked and needs to be straightened - your trees seem to be all leaning to the right...not sure why...and again, colours seem to be a bit oversaturated.

My 0.02¢...

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[vivalavieboheme]

You asked for C&C - so my comments FWIW...first - it would a help those commenting, if you would number your images when you post them...

#1. Interesting image - little underexposed inside the tree - I might try a bit of exposure compensation to see if I could make this work and the colour of the bark looks strange to me, but then this could be my monitor (it's calibrated), or it could be that the tree has a reddish tinge to its bark - my trees usually have a bark that has a more grey tone to it - different trees - different parts of the world - different lighting??? Yeah, that's just the color the bark was...

#2. This does nothing for me - sorry - just a snapshot with the horizon dead in the middle...not somthing you want to do - check out "rule of thirds" for composition. Colours seem to be a bit oversaturated also.

#3 Again, does nothing for me - your images need to elicit emotion or tell a story to be effective - also, I think that the "stump" is crooked and needs to be straightened - your trees seem to be all leaning to the right...not sure why...and again, colours seem to be a bit oversaturated. In #2 and #3, they are on a hill and that's the way they naturally were because of the way the hill was. If it's possible/preferred to straighten things that are crooked in nature, how do you do this in PP?

My 0.02¢...

Cheers,

WesternGuy

Also I added the numbers like you suggested.

 

[clanthar]

The first photo is great fun -- a surprise novelty of nature.

Skyline drive is the best bike ride in the lower 48; I love the Shenandoah Valley. Your overlook photo is nicely done. Including the road and wall in the shot I think was a good choice -- sets the location.

You've got color balance and tone trouble with these. For example the overlook photo has a strong blue cast and the tone response is compressed. Try this for starters:

I pulled out the blue and raised the contrast.

Another note: Your files have the ICC profiles and EXIF data stripped out. The ICC profile is a critical component of the photo and you don't want to lose that. So you should find out where that's happening and stop it in the future.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[EmMcCon]

1) I'm not sure why I like it but I do

2) It's a nice picture but it's too busy I like Clanthar's edit more

3) It's a nice photo but it's a nice photo of a stump I'm sorry but it does nothing for me

 

[D-B-J]

The first and third shots are very warm, cool them down in post. The first has the most potential i think, i just don't like the composition. Too centered for my taste.

 

[vivalavieboheme]

The first photo is great fun -- a surprise novelty of nature.

Skyline drive is the best bike ride in the lower 48; I love the Shenandoah Valley. Your overlook photo is nicely done. Including the road and wall in the shot I think was a good choice -- sets the location.

You've got color balance and tone trouble with these. For example the overlook photo has a strong blue cast and the tone response is compressed. Try this for starters:

I pulled out the blue and raised the contrast.

Another note: Your files have the ICC profiles and EXIF data stripped out. The ICC profile is a critical component of the photo and you don't want to lose that. So you should find out where that's happening and stop it in the future.

Take Care,
Joe

What did you use to edit? And how do you figure out about the ICC profile and EXIF data? I've heard of them before but don't even know what they are or how they got removed. Is that something that's on the camera, or on the computer? Also I do like your edit...just don't know how to do it...

 

[clanthar]

What did you use to edit? And how do you figure out about the ICC profile and EXIF data? I've heard of them before but don't even know what they are or how they got removed. Is that something that's on the camera, or on the computer? Also I do like your edit...just don't know how to do it...

I copied your photo from your Flickr page into Photoshop where I then altered the color and tone. At that time I noticed the missing ICC profile and EXIF data. Once I know more about what you're doing I'd be happy to detail how I altered your photo.

You posted JPEG files to the forum via a link back to a Flickr account. Those JPEG files came into existence from your camera either as 1. original camera JPEGs or 2. RAW files that you then converted to JPEGs. In either case they would have ICC profiles and EXIF data embedded in the files. I'm going to assume option 1. Your camera delivered JPEG files that you copied to your computer. When your camera creates a finished JPEG file it embeds a data fork to the file. That data fork contains all the details about when and how the photo was taken; date, time, shutter speed, ISO, f/stop, etc. right down to the serial number of your camera in many cases.

One critical item embedded in that data fork is the photo's ICC profile. This identifies the photo's color space and allows software to accurately decode the photo's RGB color values. This is critical data. Unfortunately there's lots of software out there designed for the consumer market that ignores and even dumps this data (it also dumps the EXIF data). There's no camera out there that doesn't place that data when the photo is created so if it's lost it has to happen in process -- somewhere in the chain from camera to web server. If you like we can help you hunt down where it's happening and help you stop it.

There's some very capable people here on the forum who can and will gladly help -- to do a good and efficient job we need that data. So if you'd like further assistance we need a detailed account of what we call your workflow.

1. Your camera make and model.
2. Do you shoot camera JPEGs or do you shoot RAW files.
3. How do your photos transfer from the camera to computer?
4. What computer and software are you using?
5. Outline the steps you followed to move these photos from your computer to Flickr.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[WesternGuy]

You asked for C&C - so my comments FWIW...first - it would a help those commenting, if you would number your images when you post them...

#1. Interesting image - little underexposed inside the tree - I might try a bit of exposure compensation to see if I could make this work and the colour of the bark looks strange to me, but then this could be my monitor (it's calibrated), or it could be that the tree has a reddish tinge to its bark - my trees usually have a bark that has a more grey tone to it - different trees - different parts of the world - different lighting??? Yeah, that's just the color the bark was...

#2. This does nothing for me - sorry - just a snapshot with the horizon dead in the middle...not something you want to do - check out "rule of thirds" for composition. Colours seem to be a bit oversaturated also.

#3 Again, does nothing for me - your images need to elicit emotion or tell a story to be effective - also, I think that the "stump" is crooked and needs to be straightened - your trees seem to be all leaning to the right...not sure why...and again, colours seem to be a bit oversaturated. In #2 and #3, they are on a hill and that's the way they naturally were because of the way the hill was. If it's possible/preferred to straighten things that are crooked in nature, how do you do this in PP?

My 0.02¢...

Cheers,

WesternGuy

Also I added the numbers like you suggested.

Well I got back to responding to your response...so here goes...

#1. If that is the colour the bark was, then that's the colour it is...no problem....still seems a little red though...

#3. If they are on a hill, then they will, of course, be bent, however, it was not obvious from the image that the trees were on a hill as they were in image #2. To straighten in Photoshop, if that is what you have, you need to find the "Ruler" tool - it is located with the "Eye Dropper" tool underneath the Crop tool. Once you have selected the tool, move your cursor onto your image and the cursor should change to a little + sign...put this cursor at the bottom of a tree, or the stump and run the cursor up the side of the tree/trunk and stop when you get near the top - this will leave a little thin line...go to the menu at the top and click on "Straighten" and it should be done. As this action will rotate your image slightly, "Content Aware Fill" will automatically "refit" or rework your image so that all the "white" stuff from the rotated image is gone. You should now have an image where the stump and the tree trunk are vertical. This same approach works with both horizontal "corrections", e.g., making horizons level, and vertical things that lean such as buildings, trees, etc. Hope this helps.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[vivalavieboheme]

1. I'm using a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP1
2. Camera JPEGs - I think this is the only thing it can do. It's a kind of frustrating point and shoot, but is what I can afford
3. The given cable to link the camera to my PC through the USB outlet - then I transfer them from the camera's folder to my own photo folder
4. Macbook Pro
5. After saving them to my photo folder, I just upload to Flickr by using the choose file option

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[clanthar]

Panasonic makes pretty good cameras -- I've seen lots of excellent photos from them.

Camera JPEGs would be your only option. In that case you have to accept the processing that the camera's software delivers. You can learn to do better than the software in the camera but it's lot of time and effort.

If you want to start down that road your next step is to get software on your computer that will permit you to edit the photos you get from your camera. For example in the overlook photo above the biggest change I made was to remove the excess blue that came from the camera's software.

Appropriate software for you would be something like Photoshop ELements which you should be able to find for a little under $100.00: Newegg.com - Adobe Photoshop Elements 9

Before spending that much you could try some free software. GIMP is pretty good and given the price it's excellent: GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program

Take Care,
Joe

 

[Robin Usagani]

make #1 black and white

 

[vivalavieboheme]

Then, how do you know what PP to do on what photo? I'm new at that part of it...

 

[clanthar]

Then, how do you know what PP to do on what photo? I'm new at that part of it...

That is the $64,000 question.

Here's the answer: You have to learn to see. You say you're new at this. That's great; you're to be envied for the opportunity to experience the excitement of a new endeavour. I was new at this about 35 years ago. I was able to learn and you are too.

Learning takes some patience and effort. You'll get better. The software in your camera and computer won't so eventually, if you keep at this, you'll become dissatisfied with the camera and more and more learn to rely on yourself.

Let's look at an example: This is a photo of a sidalcea from my wife's garden. It's a straight from the camera JPEG and I've posted it here untouched. This is typical of what you can expect from a modern digital camera. The overwhelming majority of people would find this photo acceptable. They would look at it and see nothing wrong. If it was from their garden and their camera they'd be very happy with this photo.

Look at it hard:

It sucks. The most important technical characteristic of a good photo is tone response. The camera botched it and the tone response is compressed. We use the term flat -- the photo lacks contrast. Again, the average person won't see it. The color is off. Like your landscape above it's seriously blue. Again the camera's fault. Finally the photo could use some sharpening.

You want to reach the point where you can look at a photo like this and see and describe each of those faults. When you can do that then it's easy enough to lean to use software to correct the faults. You can't fix something if you don't know it's broke. You'll learn to see with practice and help. The help you can get here, the practice is up to you.

Look again at the photo and try and memorize it. Then here's a link to a version with each of the three faults corrected: http://photojoes.org/sidalcea2.jpg

Joe

P.S. Practice and help: post more photos.

 

[The_Traveler]

You need to look at the picture, decide what is not contributing and make it less obvious.
Then take what is left and improve it any way you can think of.

Look at the first picture.
Why do we need all that bark, it isn't important.
As long as we have the rim of the niche intact, the rest is excess.