Two sawns pictures for C&C

[BLD_007]

Converted into BW with lgihtroom3

IMG1

IMG2:

**EDIT**
Fixed one of the images: What do you think?

**/edit**

I like IMG2 better....

Let me know what you think?


I know my watermark is ugly, its put on my photos on upload automatically...

 

[pbelarge]

Wow...LR does not allow you to control your watermark???

 

[LCARSx32]

Ah! Swans! I was wondering what a sawn was.

Both pictures have blown out areas in the swans themselves. A faster shutter or higher f/# would have fixed that.

I think you missed the focus on the second picture. It's close, but just a bit off.

 

[BLD_007]

Wow...LR does not allow you to control your watermark???

I have it set to place a watermark on all photos uploaded to flickr and facebook. I rather have an ugly watermark on my images then have them somewhere else without credit.

I'm still playing with it to make it tasteful but that is for another thread.

Granted, my images are not to a point that they are worth stealing but someday they will be =)

 

[BLD_007]

Ah! Swans! I was wondering what a sawn was.

Both pictures have blown out areas in the swans themselves. A faster shutter or higher f/# would have fixed that.

I think you missed the focus on the second picture. It's close, but just a bit off.

Yea, I would have spent more time with them but I saw them on a lake near the road and stopped and jumped out. They are on a private lake that the owner has called the police on people before. I was trying to be quick....

No excuse for crappy photos though...

Could LR correct the blown out part?

 

[BLD_007]

I uploaded one of the images again with edit...

 

[LCARSx32]

I'm not that familiar with LightRoom, but if they were shot in RAW, you have a chance. In photoshop, I was able to lower the brightness and contrast and could see more detail where it's currently blown out, but it was also pretty rough looking. It's worth a try, though.

 

[LCARSx32]

I uploaded one of the images again with edit...

The second's definitely better, but still a bit over exposed.

 

[BLD_007]

I'm not that familiar with LightRoom, but if they were shot in RAW, you have a chance. In photoshop, I was able to lower the brightness and contrast and could see more detail where it's currently blown out, but it was also pretty rough looking. It's worth a try, though.

Yea, I'm going back tomorrow and I'm going to ask the owner if I can take pictures. I hope they let me because they have a baby swan too...

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Seems a little *grey*... and exposures off somewhere... just my opinion.

 

[Flash Harry]

Ah! Swans! I was wondering what a sawn was.

Both pictures have blown out areas in the swans themselves. A faster shutter or higher f/# would have fixed that.

I think you missed the focus on the second picture. It's close, but just a bit off.

They are white, a slower shutter speed would have helped and a higher F number would only have increased DOF, they are underexposed and have been PP, to get detail in whites you should intentionally overexpose, as you do with snow shots etc. H

 

[LCARSx32]

How would a slower shutter speed have helped? Wouldn't a slower shutter speed over expose the swans even more? And the higher the f/#, the less light. The less light, the darker the exposure. Yes it affects DOF as well, but it would only have increased the DOF, putting more of the image in focus. I understand the exposure triangle.

Am I missing something? :meh:

*Edit*
Since you edited your post:

How does over exposing something that's bright give detail? Do you mean under expose? Under expose = darker, Over expose = brighter? Am I going crazy? Did I learn everything about exposure backwards?!

 

[oldmacman]

Ah! Swans! I was wondering what a sawn was.

Both pictures have blown out areas in the swans themselves. A faster shutter or higher f/# would have fixed that.

I think you missed the focus on the second picture. It's close, but just a bit off.

They are white, a slower shutter speed would have helped and a higher F number would only have increased DOF, they are underexposed and have been PP, to get detail in whites you should intentionally overexpose, as you do with snow shots etc. H

The swans are over exposed already. There is no detail in the whites. I think you are assuming that the OP metered the whites, in which case he would have to compensate the exposure because the camera will try to render the white as 18% gray. In that case your recommendation would be a good one.

My guess is that the OP metered the water which, in contrast, is much darker than the swans causing their detail to be washed out.

Either way, with the disparity in contrast, compensation needs to be made to get the shot looking better.

 

[BLD_007]

If I go back today, I should meeter the water and the the object? I should use a slower shutter but increase the fstop as not to blow things out? Also, for shots like this, should I have any kind of DOF?

Also, should I shoot in BW or color?

 

[LCARSx32]

Here's what *I* would do. Hopefully, I don't get my head bitten off for not knowing what I'm talking about.

-Get down to the level with the swans
-Try to give them somewhere to swim in the frame. I.E. If they're facing left, put them on the right side of the frame so you have some water to the left for them to swim into. So they don't look like they're swimming off the edge of the picture
-If you don't already, shoot in raw--it gives you a lot more control in PP
-Meter for the swans, but I would under expose the picture by a stop. You can up the exposure in PP.
-DOF depends on composition, IMO.

Remember, I'm pretty noobish myself, so I can only tell you what *I* would do. :er: