Rate the Photo Above you

[vanished]

5 hours ago, cc143 said:

Here's a couple I took on Monday at university, I has some time to spare between lectures. (had to really decrease quality from LR to fit within the 20mbs, I hope they don't turn out too bad). 

 

We should start a petition with admins for larger file allowances on here. 

Remember they don't have to be at full resolution   I promise you, 20 MB is more than enough room for a maximum quality jpg at more than enough resolution to judge the photo.  But if you need more, we do allow linking to other site of course  

3 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

The third photo, with selective coloring, it's a gimmick.  If the photo doesn't have the potential to look good when it's in full color, it probably won't improve that much when selective coloring is used.

I have to agree.

[cc143]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Remember they don't have to be at full resolution   I promise you, 20 MB is more than enough room for a maximum quality jpg at more than enough resolution to judge the photo.  But if you need more, we do allow linking to other site of course  

 

It would be nice to be able to upload raw files in case someone decided to ask for help editing an image or that sort of idea thing. In that case, these days, 20mb is nowhere near enough. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

21 minutes ago, cc143 said:

It would be nice to be able to upload raw files in case someone decided to ask for help editing an image or that sort of idea thing. In that case, these days, 20mb is nowhere near enough. 

20MB is more than enough for a decent resolution JPEG file.  If you want to share something higher resolution or larger file size, use a photo sharing service like Flickr or a file transfer service like Wetransfer and post the link.  No need to upload large files to LTT servers.  I wouldn't post original sized photos to LTT, and I wouldn't want my photo RAW files to stay too long on their servers either.  A Wetransfer link stays active for like only a week.

[iamdarkyoshi]

Just now, AkiraDaarkst said:

20MB is more than enough for a decent resolution JPEG file.  If you want to share something higher resolution or larger file size, use a photo sharing service like Flickr or a file transfer service like Wetransfer and post the link.  No need to upload large files to LTT servers.  I wouldn't post original sized photos to LTT, and I wouldn't want my photo RAW files to stay too long on their servers either.  A Wetransfer link stays active for like only a week.

My main complaint is that the 20mb limit applies to all images totaled up... Really irritating on build logs

[AkiraDaarkst]

20 hours ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

My main complaint is that the 20mb limit applies to all images totaled up... Really irritating on build logs

I still say 20MB is quite sufficient.  If you want to upload more photos, upload a few at a time or one at a time if 20MB is not enough for a big batch.  Or post the photos elsewhere and paste a link or embed an album (I assume you can embed something like a Flickr album here).

[vanished]

We once had no upload limit, and people uploaded 700+ MB zips to the forum.  We're not a cloud service  

[iamdarkyoshi]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

We once had no upload limit, and people uploaded 700+ MB zips to the forum.  We're not a cloud service  

Should be a benefit for gold users  

[Lewiscpullan]

@AkiraDaarkst What about this one? I've always thought it captured the chaos he causes, would love to know what you think. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 hour ago, Lewiscpullan said:

@AkiraDaarkst What about this one? I've always thought it captured the chaos he causes, would love to know what you think. 

My thoughts on this photo?

Nice, but would be better if you had less of a side profile and more frontal.  A side profile doesn't show the expression on his face as a more frontal view would.

[pagani123]

opinions?

[vanished]

4 hours ago, Maybach123 said:

opinions?

It's not properly exposed.  It's minor enough that if you have the RAW it should be fixable without much difficulty but the bird should definitely be brighter and stand out more.

[cc143]

4 hours ago, Maybach123 said:

opinions?

 

38 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's not properly exposed.  It's minor enough that if you have the RAW it should be fixable without much difficulty but the bird should definitely be brighter and stand out more.

You exposed for the background instead of the subject. I also think that the subject is too soft, I can't really say where the focus is exactly, but it's not on the bird's head. I think your focus was on the background and so the camera's metering system exposed for the background and that's the main issue. 

[vanished]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

 

You exposed for the background instead of the subject. I also think that the subject is too soft, I can't really say where the focus is exactly, but it's not on the bird's head. I think your focus was on the background and so the camera's metering system exposed for the background and that's the main issue. 

Yeah it appears to be on the cyan feathers near the rear of the bird.  Obviously it should be on the eye.  The fact that it's not on the background around the eye suggests that it missed not because the focus point slipped off the head, but because it was either set incorrectly, or was left to auto which is never a good idea.

[cc143]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah it appears to be on the cyan feathers near the rear of the bird.  Obviously it should be on the eye.  The fact that it's not on the background around the eye suggests that it missed not because the focus point slipped off the head, but because it was either set incorrectly, or was left to auto which is never a good idea.

Probably on Auto, if it was set it wouldn't be that much off. Eh just do a sanity check through the viewfinder, if its not where it should move it yourself, although, on smaller/beginner cameras, the physical controls are not always adequate to allow for fast adjustments of that sort.  

[AkiraDaarkst]

16 hours ago, cc143 said:

 

 

16 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

 

 

21 hours ago, Maybach123 said:

opinions?

Were you using matrix metering, spot metering or center weighted metering (I'm assuming you used a camera that lets you switch between these modes)?  Though looking at the seemingly deep DOF it may be that you used a compact camera or a phone.

 

As others have said, you need to set the exposure setting for the foreground subject (the peacock) which you can do by adjusting exposure compensation or metering mode, or in post processing just bring up the shadows.  Also you should wait for the peacock to spread his tail feathers.  Or take a close up portrait of just his head.  Treat it like taking a photo of people, you want to capture the most interesting behavior, or the best angle that brings out the (i.e. best quality of the peacock).

 

By the way, where was this photo taken?  I'm kind of suspicious if it's where I think it may be.

[cc143]

I uploaded this same picture a month ago, but I was looking at it in LR today and believe I have improved it, I still think it is lacking as far as the reflection is concerned though. 

 

Any criticism/suggestion is as always more than welcome. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

I uploaded this same picture a month ago, but I was looking at it in LR today and believe I have improved it, I still think it is lacking as far as the reflection is concerned though. 

 

Any criticism/suggestion is as always more than welcome. 

I don't recall what your previous version looked like.  But looking at this one, the reflections on the left half of the frame appear more interesting than the reflections on the right half.  With the tower in the middle, you've sort of divided your frame into quadrants.

 

Overblown highlights in the right side above surface quadrant, can you fix it in post or it's not possible?

[cc143]

7 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I don't recall what your previous version looked like.  But looking at this one, the reflections on the left half of the frame appear more interesting than the reflections on the right half.  With the tower in the middle, you've sort of divided your frame into quadrants.

 

Overblown highlights in the right side above surface quadrant, can you fix it in post or it's not possible?

It's funny, my first version was cropped to the left of the tower and highlights where you mentioned were less prevalent. I was basically trying to get some colour into the sky and some of that detail where the overblown part is. I was playing around with LR's mask tools to see what I could get. 

 

Do you have any advice to get the bottom quarter of the frame to be less dark without affecting the rest of the image in LR? I'm trying to find its limits and where ps use is actually required, not that I have the skill to correct this image in particular in ps. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

2 minutes ago, cc143 said:

It's funny, my first version was cropped to the left of the tower and highlights where you mentioned were less prevalent. I was basically trying to get some colour into the sky and some of that detail where the overblown part is. I was playing around with LR's mask tools to see what I could get. 

 

Do you have any advice to get the bottom quarter of the frame to be less dark without affecting the rest of the image in LR? I'm trying to find its limits and where ps use is actually required, not that I have the skill to correct this image in particular in ps. 

Try LR's gradient filters.  Or adjustment brushes with a lot of feathering.

[d3sl91]

Not really sure if I am missing someone to rate, it looks like @AkiraDaarkst rated the photo above me already

 

Here is a picture from a recent wedding my Wife and I did. We are not used to using cars in photos, and we didn't have much time to experiment before the bride almost froze to death - so any tips on utilizing cars with couples (or singles) would be helpful. 

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

47 minutes ago, d3sl91 said:

Not really sure if I am missing someone to rate, it looks like @AkiraDaarkst rated the photo above me already

 

Here is a picture from a recent wedding my Wife and I did. We are not used to using cars in photos, and we didn't have much time to experiment before the bride almost froze to death - so any tips on utilizing cars with couples (or singles) would be helpful. 

 

I have some tips and some good resources for you on this, let me get back to you when I get back to my computer.

[AkiraDaarkst]

5 hours ago, d3sl91 said:

 

Ok I'm in front of my computer now with some free time.

 

First of all, let me give my thoughts about the photo posted.  I would rate it a 7/10 at best, for reasons I will specify below.  But keep in mind they will be my personal viewpoints as I will compare them to works by other wedding and fashion photographers.  If the couple in the photo are happy with your photo, it should be good enough though I feel you are the kind of tog who likes to improve.  Here are the reasons why I think your photo has room for improvement.

• The background is boring, though it does appear out of focus I think if you had gone for a lens with a wider aperture you can blur it out even more.  This will also be affected by the focal length of the lens, but with a long focal length the question becomes do you have enough space to move back away from the couple to fill the same frame?  Something like an 85mm 1.4 or 200-300mm 2.8. would be a lens I'd use.
• Additionally you could use a speedlight or strobe light, especially with high speed sync.  Further isolating the couple and the vehicle from the background.  You can also fake low key lighting with a strobe and high speed sync in overcast days.
• Having a flash unit or strobe light can also help you fake the golden hour or sunlight on an overcast day like this.  There are accessories called Gobos that you can purchase for mounting in front of flash units and strobes.  Or you can make your own.
• Which brings up another point, the shadows around the eyes of the couple.  When taking portraits, the first thing people tend to look at are the eyes of the subject(s).  You can try to fill them with light using a flash or strobe, or a reflector, or bring up the shadows around the eyes in post with an adjustment brush.

Now, I'm fairly certain this is not the only photo you took of the couple, and I hope not the only one with the couple and car.  Like all event photographers (weddings being a special type of event), I'm sure you took a series of photos.  Some wide like this where you try to capture as much of the scene as possible and some closeups for a more intimate look.  But you didn't post any of them so I have no idea what your other photos look like.

 

You have a classic car as a prop.  If you have a wedding couple as subjects with a classic car like this, don't take just exterior shots where they stand and pose in front of the car.  Use the car as a prop or scene setting.  Take photos of them inside (I'm assuming this is their car).  Don't just make them stand as a couple and take photos similar to countless thousands of other similar photos.  Try to create something artistic looking.

 

Maybe a photo of them sitting together, being intimate in the backseat (I don't mean intimate in the R-rated way), with you taking the photo from the front seat.  Or photos of the couple staring out the back window of the car with you taking the photo from outside.  Maybe the couple in the front seats, you taking a photo of them from the back seat or from out the window.  Reflections of them through the rear view mirrors or side mirrors.

 

Also, photos of the couple looking at the camera are usually boring.  Make them look at each other in an intimate manner and take a photo that captures their shared feelings.  The photo you took to me looks more like a memento photo.  Capture something that makes them look at the photo and reminds them of their love for each other.

 

I'll leave you for now with some videos that will give you ideas for the next time.

An old video from one of my favorite wedding/fashion photographers.  You should also check his website.

 

 

 

Here's a video that shows what you can do with Gobos.

 

https://petapixel.com/2017/03/07/4-lighting-principles-wish-id-known-started-photography/

 

Oh and another tip, if you're going to take outdoor photos on cold days, stock some hand warmers and perhaps a canteen of something warm to drink (coffee, cocoa, tea).  Your clients will be grateful.  Photographers don't just carry photography equipment in their kit bags.

[d3sl91]

On 3/7/2017 at 1:10 PM, AkiraDaarkst said:

Ok I'm in front of my computer now with some free time.

 

First of all, let me give my thoughts about the photo posted.  I would rate it a 7/10 at best, for reasons I will specify below.  

• The background is boring, though it does appear out of focus I think if you had gone for a lens with a wider aperture you can blur it out even more.  This will also be affected by the focal length of the lens, but with a long focal length the question becomes do you have enough space to move back away from the couple to fill the same frame?  Something like an 85mm 1.4 or 200-300mm 2.8. would be a lens I'd use.
• Additionally you could use a speedlight or strobe light, especially with high speed sync.  Further isolating the couple and the vehicle from the background.  You can also fake low key lighting with a strobe and high speed sync in overcast days.
• Having a flash unit or strobe light can also help you fake the golden hour or sunlight on an overcast day like this.  There are accessories called Gobos that you can purchase for mounting in front of flash units and strobes.  Or you can make your own.
• Which brings up another point, the shadows around the eyes of the couple.  When taking portraits, the first thing people tend to look at are the eyes of the subject(s).  You can try to fill them with light using a flash or strobe, or a reflector, or bring up the shadows around the eyes in post with an adjustment brush.

 

 

Thanks for the rating and resources!

 

Someday, we hope that we will be booked with a couple who actually cares tremendously about the photos, and be willing to spend hours of their wedding day with us so we can set up a proper shoot. I feel like that is a big difference between what we have done so far and what others may have the ability to do. Getting started, (this is our 3rd wedding since our first this fall) we are cheaper photographers who take photos of cheaper weddings. It's a goal to grow from here, and every shoot we do is better and better in what we are able to do, and what we know to ask before the shoot (aka, recommend more time for the shoot, etc).

 

This shot, for example, was (as you guessed) one of many of the two, done with a variety of lenses and perspectives. However we had 30-45min with them total between the time when the church was open to us and them and the time we needed to shoot some bridal party shots. Not ideal, and can be very frustrating to have ideas, plans, etc that get axed because of time. However, they didn't seem to mind - and if they did its a simple fact of you get what you pay for (in terms of dollars and time). 

 

Good point on the eyes too, I'll pass that on to my wife as we process this shoot.

 

 

 

 

[cc143]

@d3sl91 Just a small suggestion, even though I am by no means an authority, the one thing that really takes my attention is that empty space on the top left of the frame, perhaps you could try bracketing shots and combining them in LR afterwards to avoid getting this effect on overcast days. 

 

Also, because I'm kind of a car nut as well, I believe placing the couple to the left of the A pillar (so that the bride is to the left of the wing mirror) would make the car have more of an impact in the image. I didn't notice that in akiraadast's post. 

[AkiraDaarkst]

19 hours ago, d3sl91 said:

 

Thanks for the rating and resources!

 

Someday, we hope that we will be booked with a couple who actually cares tremendously about the photos, and be willing to spend hours of their wedding day with us so we can set up a proper shoot. I feel like that is a big difference between what we have done so far and what others may have the ability to do. Getting started, (this is our 3rd wedding since our first this fall) we are cheaper photographers who take photos of cheaper weddings. It's a goal to grow from here, and every shoot we do is better and better in what we are able to do, and what we know to ask before the shoot (aka, recommend more time for the shoot, etc).

 

This shot, for example, was (as you guessed) one of many of the two, done with a variety of lenses and perspectives. However we had 30-45min with them total between the time when the church was open to us and them and the time we needed to shoot some bridal party shots. Not ideal, and can be very frustrating to have ideas, plans, etc that get axed because of time. However, they didn't seem to mind - and if they did its a simple fact of you get what you pay for (in terms of dollars and time). 

 

Good point on the eyes too, I'll pass that on to my wife as we process this shoot.

 

 

 

I understand the issues about time and budget, because if you're getting paid a small budget level you don't necessarily want to have to provide a big budget level result.  Especially if you're also strapped for time.  I have a few friends who are budget wedding photographers.

 

What sort of wedding photography service/packages do you offer?  Perhaps you can have Basic, Mid-Range and Premium level packages that the clients can choose from, with different budget levels.

 

Another thing is practice and planning.  Even if your clients can only afford a low budget level package, with the experience that you have/will gain, and a bit of pre-planning you can probably create something special that the client(s) will look at and say "WOW!".  Part of working as a photographer involves gaining reputation and having your business spread via word of mouth.

 

Of course, remember that even the best laid plans of mice and men...

I've done photo/video shoots where I planned everything ahead, even though the client(s) could not afford a higher budget, to create some special shots but plans change or they get railroaded or require modification.

 

 

18 hours ago, cc143 said:

@d3sl91 Just a small suggestion, even though I am by no means an authority, the one thing that really takes my attention is that empty space on the top left of the frame, perhaps you could try bracketing shots and combining them in LR afterwards to avoid getting this effect on overcast days. 

 

Also, because I'm kind of a car nut as well, I believe placing the couple to the left of the A pillar (so that the bride is to the left of the wing mirror) would make the car have more of an impact in the image. I didn't notice that in akiraadast's post. 

You make two good points, one which I forgot to mention and the other which I overlooked.

 

I forgot to mention in my previous post to see if PS manipulation can be done to make an overcast day look better.  There are online tutorials and guides on this, in manners such as "how to make the sky blue on an overcast day".

 

As for standing positions of the couples, you make a good point that I completely overlooked.  But I also hesitate to agree with you completely because in a wedding photo the main subjects are the couple that is getting/is married.  You may not want to make them less prominent by making something else stand out more.  It's something that the photographer(s) at the scene, the one(s) doing the job, have to decide for themselves.