Zoo pics for C&C

[robertwsimpson]

meh, maybe it's just me, but I like the original better.

thanks all the same though, you did give me some stuff to think about. I am kind of a purist in that I don't like editing my pictures all that much. it kind of forces me to see the shot when I am taking it and contemplate how to make it as good as I possibly can, given the circumstances. I mainly mess with brightness, contrast, saturation, and then I take out stuff that is distracting. for example, stray branches, crap in the water, etc. I am really not good with the dodge and burn tools yet. maybe that is what I will start practicing next. I am very nit picky in that I don't want people to be able to tell that a picture is post processed. If it looks even the least bit processed, I instantly hate it. I am somewhat of a perfectionist though.

 

[itznfb]

Are you saying sabbath999's edit looks over processed? His edit looks like a properly exposed shot to me. There is a small halo over the paw but that's just due to a rush job on the blur.

 

[robertwsimpson]

maybe it's my monitor, but it looks over saturated to me. also, the blur job looks second rate. I'm sure with more than 28 seconds, you could do something better. also, the eye looks jacked up.

I would have spent 10 more seconds and cloned out the grass on the left side. I didn't even notice that before.

I'm sure all of this is just personal preference.

 

[Overread]

If somebody like Overread says something about one of my pictures, I pay attention and try to look at it through new eyes... because I KNOW the excellent quality of Overread's stuff.

!!!! I er -- Thanks!
(((but I don't think I am that good yet - now in a few years )))

If it looks even the least bit processed, I instantly hate it. I am somewhat of a perfectionist though.

Always remember that any image in a camera is already processed by the camera itself (those contrast, sharpening, saturation etc settings in camera are editing too). Of course if/when you move to shooting in RAW mode you won't get these edits applied and you also have to set your own white balance for each shot as well (in editing).
I understand what you mean, but never think that professionals (or just really good amateurs) get the shots they do with just incamera - in camera is a big part certainly, but good editing is also a major part of getting that look you want in a shot.

Also it might be an idea to look into getting a screen calibrator - like a Spyde - since I have a feeling that your using an LCD (flatscreen) moniter for editing. Most LCDs run very bright and when it comes ot shots this means that you can often end up with them looking far darker to others or especailly in prints, than they do look on your screen. Its well worth considering in a screen calibrator if your taking things seriously with your photography.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I wish that everyone in the world had the exact same monitor with the exact same settings so that we would all be seeing the exact same photo. my brightness is all the way up, and I know pictures look different on this monitor than they do on others.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I shoot in raw already

I do need to calibrate my monitor probably, but here is my problem: this is my work computer, and if I turn down the brightness, it is hard for me to read my excel spreadsheets. Work comes first, unfortunately.

 

[Overread]

maybe it's my monitor, but it looks over saturated to me. also, the blur job looks second rate. I'm sure with more than 28 seconds, you could do something better. also, the eye looks jacked up.

I would have spent 10 more seconds and cloned out the grass on the left side. I didn't even notice that before.

I'm sure all of this is just personal preference.

Don't get too paranoid about blades of grass all the time - though by all means if you can remove it well do so - just don't let it drive you mad (there is grass in them wilds).

As for saturation I do think a screen calibrator is in order - the colours look fairly tame to me.

edit - when you use the screen calibrator you get a screen profile - you can turn this on and off - so you can turn it on for editing your photos and then turn it off for working on your work stuff. I would seriously recomend it does seem that you might be seeing vastly different onscreen to what the rest of us are - and its going to affect directly, how you edit your shots

 

[robertwsimpson]

I might have to check into that. maybe if I ever stop using my TV for my computer at home.

 

[sabbath999]

Your colors are all quite flat on my calibrated monitor, I agree with the others that you might want to calibrate your monitor... it really made a difference with how mine look, especially when comparing prints to the screen. Having taken literally thousands of big cat pictures, I am pretty familiar with the proper tones for one of those critters.

Once you are calibrated, you can reproduce colors exactly every time... the good news is that calibration devices are extremely cheap compared to what they used to cost ($75 gets you a good one).

Yes, that was just a simple quick rush job on a low-res print... when I actually try to do that, it looks better Also, obviously, I make my edits on the full size prints.

Everybody has their own thing, their own style... and that is a good thing.

 

[robertwsimpson]

yeah I know if you spent more time it would have looked better... I dunno. I guess I could print a few and see how they end up. I do want to eventually make some large prints of good pictures that I have taken. I would be upset if they showed up and looked flat and dark. cest la vie I guess.

 

[sabbath999]

yeah I know if you spent more time it would have looked better... I dunno. I guess I could print a few and see how they end up. I do want to eventually make some large prints of good pictures that I have taken. I would be upset if they showed up and looked flat and dark. cest la vie I guess.

Ya, prints are where you see more of issues of uncelebrated monitors... additionally, different printers or different printing sources (snapfish, mpix, etc) will react differently to images...

Color profile management is kind of an advanced topic, but it is something worth spending a bit of time to find out about early on in your hobby.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I'd better celebrate my monitor as soon as possible!

 

[robertwsimpson]

welp, I just did a beginners monitor calibration... I printed my pictures out, and then compared the print out to what I see on the screen... it was definitely darker, but I think the color was even more saturated on the print out than it is on my screen. Anyway, my monitor does not have very much adjustment (pretty much only brightness/contrast), so I just wrote down the settings since it doesn't have the ability to save different profiles and it was like not usable for me at the settings that were needed. maybe all these years of staring at computer screens are finally catching up with me. I can see that all my pictures are a little darker than I was intending though. always food for thought...

 

[Overread]

A beginners modification?
You mean one of the online ones where you compare things to the colours on the screen? The problem with them is that your eyes are highly subjective and adaptive - so they give a bias result. That is why the professional setups (like a spyder) are better since they have hardware based light sensors which are not subjective - thus they give consistant and more accurate results

 

[itznfb]

Also... if you're comparing to a print out how do you know your printer is calibrated correctly?