What am I missing

[480sparky]

I used the Clone, Smudge and Blur tools.

Of course, doing this 'in-camera' is far better. Learning how to identify and avoid distracting backgrounds is your best tool. Work on that, then start worrying about clarity and 'pop'.

 

[zxcvb]

I used the Clone, Smudge and Blur tools.

Of course, doing this 'in-camera' is far better. Learning how to identify and avoid distracting backgrounds is your best tool. Work on that, then start worrying about clarity and 'pop'.

Thanks, I will go out again next week-ish with that in mind, and see what I can do. (In that particular instance there were just too many people around though -- this was the least populated shot I was able to get.)

 

[Derrel]

Here is my 15-second Lightroom semi-automated edit of the girl walking along the railroad tracks...if I would have spent a few minutes on it it would have been better: this is basically an auto WB and a simple vignette...

 

[zxcvb]

View attachment 129971 Here is my 15-second Lightroom semi-automated edit of the girl walking along the railroad tracks...if I would have spent a few minutes on it it would have been better: this is basically an auto WB and a simple vignette...

Thanks! While I initially liked the warm tone, on my tiny phone it looks like it pops a lot more. I'll have to take a closer look tonight (it's early afternoon right now).

 

[photo1x1.com]

First and foremost: the images you shot and the images you linked have totally different framing. Both of the linked files have the hair on top cropped. This technique gives you a somewhat intimate feeling to being very close with the model. AND: they ARE really close to the model. The closer you get, the more blurred your background will be.
The image of the indian girl was shot with 192mm at f4 (read from the exif), the other one doesn´t have the exif included, but looking at the bokeh and the depth of focus I´d say it is around 85mm, f5 or so, but I can be wrong. Try similar settings along with getting closer to your model and you will get a very similar results in regard to background blur.
And when it comes to photography, lighting in my opinion is much more important than any lens or camera. Look closely in the eyes of the two linked images. Reflections in the eyes tell you a lot about how an image was lit. The indian girl was shot with a pretty well balanced on camera flash, but there was quite some nice and soft light in the background that was the main light source. The photographer of the older girl probably didn´t use flash, there seems to be some kind of snow, etc. that is reflecting the sun that actually comes from the back of the girl (see the shoulder and the scarve are blown out - which doesn´t really matter). That big light source from the bottom gave this image a very soft look. It was probably retouched quite a bit, boosting the shadows in post (among other things ).
So much for the linked images.

Here´s my try and thoughts on yours, if you don´t mind:

as other said, it was missing direction, placing the bright spot in the middle. I liked the right part more than the left, but since you were standing right and so the road led to the right, I chose to crop this side.
I brightened up the highlights and gave it some local contrast boost, especially in the midtones.

I like the lights and colors, and the mountains.
I´m not really happy with my own edit, but I wanted to prove a point. The hiker was "competing" with the prominent dark mountain, giving the image two center points. While the hiker was well placed, so was the mountain, but both in the opposite direction so the view went left, right, left, right,... Not a smooth image. Also the clouds and the light come from this direction.
Since everything comes from this direction, rather than goes into it, it would have been better IMO if the hiker came from this direction too and was turning around.

A nice image to start with. My edit isn´t particularely great edit, just quick to prove the point again. I don´t mind busy backgrounds as long as it is not as distracting as the bright sign - people are great and add some life to the images. The panda bears are distracting, but that would have been a longer edit . I cropped the top because a - you had too much headroom and the face was in the middle (vertically), and b - I didn´t like that dark rectangular something in the top left that was very distracting once I removed the glowing sign. Finally I added a vignette around the body of your model to have the background subdued a bit to keep the focus on the girl.

Regarding your railway example: you cropped the toes of your model, and since this is the direction of her walk and the direction of the rails, you removed the direction from your image. I would have left quite some room down there, even though that would have meant even less background blur. You shot the images on the railway on a purpose - to show the girl on the railways, otherwise you could have done it somewhere else too. So you should show the railWAYs.

AND FINALLY:
all this is theory. Analizing images after they are shot is pretty easy. Your images are definitely good and to be honest, I think hardly any professional photographer nails every single shot. Not in digital age. In film days, much more thought went into every single image - not that it was better, I´m not a nostalgic person. But I think if we are honest, we all tend to shoot too quick, and post production has become much more important because it is easier, better and you have many more images in the web to compare your own work to.

 

[Didereaux]

I would work on shooting closer to ISO 100 than to ISO 1,600, and also on creating lighting that has more drama.

I shoot outside almost always. I happen to have two flashguns with remotes that I could bring along, but then I have to bring lightstands, at least a gorilla pod, maybe an umbrella (I once had one, not sure if I still do) or the light will be too harsh, etc.. A fun day out just became a tiring event. :\
Probably there are ways to get more out of natural light too, though.

You are under the misconception that you are somehow in charge. In photography the CONDITIONS dictate the methods, not the photographer. The photographer can lay claim to technique both in the camera and in post. But bad light is bad light unless you do something to change it, and simply upping the ISO is not changing it.

 

[zxcvb]

First and foremost: the images you shot and the images you linked have totally different framing. Both of the linked files have the hair on top cropped. This technique gives you a somewhat intimate feeling to being very close with the model. AND: they ARE really close to the model. The closer you get, the more blurred your background will be.

I was not trying to get the same kind of picture. I just like that kind of pop, clarity and tone, and searched some random examples up this morning.

Here´s my try and thoughts on yours, if you don´t mind:
View attachment 129972
as other said, it was missing direction, placing the bright spot in the middle. I liked the right part more than the left, but since you were standing right and so the road led to the right, I chose to crop this side.
I brightened up the highlights and gave it some local contrast boost, especially in the midtones.

Again, I was kind of going for having it in the middle. But I didn't really get the lines straight, which would help pronounce that I believe.

View attachment 129973
I like the lights and colors, and the mountains.
I´m not really happy with my own edit, but I wanted to prove a point. The hiker was "competing" with the prominent dark mountain, giving the image two center points. While the hiker was well placed, so was the mountain, but both in the opposite direction so the view went left, right, left, right,... Not a smooth image. Also the clouds and the light come from this direction.
Since everything comes from this direction, rather than goes into it, it would have been better IMO if the hiker came from this direction too and was turning around.

Ha! Hilarious. I was not aware how easily such things can be changed to a believable degree in PS. I like it with the hiker at that position.

Regarding your railway example: you cropped the toes of your model, and since this is the direction of her walk and the direction of the rails, you removed the direction from your image. I would have left quite some room down there, even though that would have meant even less background blur. You shot the images on the railway on a purpose - to show the girl on the railways, otherwise you could have done it somewhere else too. So you should show the railWAYs.

As I said earlier, I was having trouble with the autofocus, and thus not able to properly frame the shot..[/QUOTE]

 

[480sparky]

As I said earlier, I was having trouble with the autofocus, and thus not able to properly frame the shot..

Again...... technique. Photography is not "push the button and everything can be fixed in post." If you realize that AF us not getting you the results you want, then it is up to you to know how to overcome this. Perhaps it is the mode you are using. Or focus points. Maybe back-button focus would have worked best. Or even (gasp!) manual focus.

You may not be in command of some things, but you certainly are in total control of what light reaches your camera sensor.

 

[zxcvb]

As I said earlier, I was having trouble with the autofocus, and thus not able to properly frame the shot..

Again...... technique. Photography is not "push the button and everything can be fixed in post." If you realize that AF us not getting you the results you want, then it is up to you to know how to overcome this. Perhaps it is the mode you are using. Or focus points. Maybe back-button focus would have worked best. Or even (gasp!) manual focus.

You may not be in command of some things, but you certainly are in total control of what light reaches your camera sensor.

Yes, with all the time in the world, you are right. But this was not a photo shoot; it was a day out, she walked towards me exactly once on those rails, and I had about fifteen seconds where she was walking towards me to get everything right. I did set up the autofocus mode to follow, but as that did not work as expected, I was not able to overcome the problem in the ~ten seconds left. With more practice I'm sure that might have gone better. Also, back-button focus sounds great! I was not aware that the 600d can do this. Going to set this up tomorrow.

 

[KmH]

You are missing effective control of the light.

'Pop' is usually all about there being a lighting ratio between the subject and the background.
Visual artists figured it out over 1000 years ago and the concept is now codified in the axiom: Light advances, dark recedes.
In other words, a subject that is brighter than the background 'pops' because it has way more visual weight in a visual image, be it a painting or a photograph.

Take the 2 flash units, just 1 light stand and the umbrella bungee corded together.
A backpack can be used to carry that stuff.
Often a good place for the second flash unit is on the camera hot shoe.
Handhold the second flash unit, or put the little plastic stand on it and set it somewhere.
Or get a selection of clamps used on location to attach lights to a variety of things.
Manfrotto 035RL Super Clamp with 2908 Standard Stud
Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Location Photography

Note too that by using flash you have control of the ambient light separately from the light from the flash. That gives you a way to create a subject/background lighting ratio with a single shutter release.

 

[Advanced Photo]

Increasing the contrast will increase the visual depth of an image. Contrast can be in tone, value, hue or texture.
It can also be what's termed as perceptual contrast between and within elements of the image.

 

[photo1x1.com]

People, I´m not sure if all those very well meant suggestions and opinions (including mine) are perceived as that. The images of the OP are actually good, there is just a little missing here and there but many, many photographers would be happy to create these kind of images. Reading all our lines sounds a little discouraging to me. I think our posts should read more motivating and maybe a bit more friendly. We are here to share our love for photography. What do you think?

 

[The_Traveler]

When I look at these pictures, I can understand what you want me to see but the placement of the subjects and the control of how i see them, the framing, doesn't tell me that.

The first picture is taken in a landscape orientation yet the interesting and useful part of the image is in portrait aspect.

The second photo - I assume you want me to see your companion looking at the vista. By placing her at the corner, facing the vista, I think the meaning comes across. The brightness of her coat really stands out and is jarring.

The third image is very bright, tilted and sort of cold.
By correcting all of that, and slightly darkening the right side, the image of her looking away becomes stronger and the two other people have a sensible role in the picture. She has some texture and more impact.

What I think you are 'missing' is being able to look at the situation, understand how the placement impacts what the viewers make of the situation.

You might know what is important but the viewers only get hints from placement, framing and color.

 

[Derrel]

People, I´m not sure if all those very well meant suggestions and opinions (including mine) are perceived as that. The images of the OP are actually good, there is just a little missing here and there but many, many photographers would be happy to create these kind of images. Reading all our lines sounds a little discouraging to me. I think our posts should read more motivating and maybe a bit more friendly. We are here to share our love for photography. What do you think?

I think the OP just needs more experience or more guidance in post-processing his images, which seem to be mostly "okay", as-shown. I think the "Pop!" he desires could easily be added by giving a little more time toward processing his captures.

 

[zxcvb]

People, I´m not sure if all those very well meant suggestions and opinions (including mine) are perceived as that. The images of the OP are actually good, there is just a little missing here and there but many, many photographers would be happy to create these kind of images. Reading all our lines sounds a little discouraging to me. I think our posts should read more motivating and maybe a bit more friendly. We are here to share our love for photography. What do you think?

Thank you for the consideration. However, from all these I can extract a lot of information on what could be done differently. This thread really helped me a lot! I will spend a week or so learning darktable more in-depth (hate booting into windows just for lightroom...), try to touch up my favourite three or so pictures, and most importantly take a few new ones. Then I will get back to this thread, or open a new one in "gallery" and post a link here.

The first picture is taken in a landscape orientation yet the interesting and useful part of the image is in portrait aspect.

In fact what made the picture work for me was the way it is 1) dead center and 2) "at the end of the tunnel". But I did dislike how the lines were not straight (top mostly)

The second photo - I assume you want me to see your companion looking at the vista. By placing her at the corner, facing the vista, I think the meaning comes across. The brightness of her coat really stands out and is jarring.

Yes, I thought about it that way too. While the she looks great when together with that mountain, I also kind of like the "distress" caused throughout the image when she is in "nowhere", facing the mountain.