How do I get my shots to look like this?

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

How do I get my shots to look like this?

Postby Tommo on Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:47 am

Hi all,

Firstly, these aren't my photos. These photos are from the guy on http://www.hioctane.com.au

The below photos were taken on a D70 with a 70-200mm VR lens, so not your average lens ;) I've never been able to take this kinda photo with my kit lens, or the Tamron 70-300. Is it the lens that it making the photos so damn sharp and rich with colour? The brightness / contrast / sharpness etc etc is all absolutely awesome :shock:, and I wish I could do something like that now.... I'm just not sure whether it's settings, lens, or technique? I take all my photos in RAW and adjust in Capture, as does the guy that takes these photos.

Image
Image
Image

Cheers,
Tommo.
User avatar
Tommo
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Postby birddog114 on Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:08 am

Tommo,
What My thought is the 70-300 can produce some nice pics but not as the 70-200VR.
They're quite tack shap, the number 1 pic tells you all.
So save up your money and get that baby.
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby Rusty W. Griswald on Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:00 pm

Hi Tommo
The first one really is quite sharp. I like the colours, but the background is a bit distracting.

He wouldn't make a living from going around taking photos at these events would he?

http://www.hioctane.com.au/purchase/

Pricing is as follows:
8”x12” - $25 (slightly larger than A4 size)
12”x18” - $50
16”x24” - $80
20”x30” - $110
User avatar
Rusty W. Griswald
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:16 pm
Location: Western Manildra NSW

Postby Glen on Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:31 pm

Hi Tommo,
you don't really want to take photos of an old Mazda do you when your avatar is an Exige do you? :wink:

The good news for you is the shots were taken with a D70, though Birddy picked it correctly with a 70-200 or 80-200, not a 70-300. That doesnt mean you cant do it. The first shot was taken at 98mm at F5 1/100sec. The second two shots were also taken at F5 at 1/400 and 1/500 sec respectively, which means you can hand hold them. I would suggest a monopod if you are doing a bit with the 70-300 (I assume you have one by this thread) extended.

The first shot is taken late afternoon, you can tell by the golden light and shadows. So to replicate that shot, first find an old Mazda with a Kmac bar on the front, 30 profile tyres and ill fitting bonnet. Park in a spot where it will be evenly lit without shadows, but most importantly harsh highlights. Wait till late in the afternoon (just checked, these were taken at 5.28pm) and shoot plenty, it's digital!

A very useful tool when looking at a digital image is an exif viewer if the data is intact. That lets you know the shooting info of the photographer. I use two one from http://www.opanda.com and also viewexif. Both are good
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby Glen on Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:34 pm

Sorry, Thommo just read all the info above the photos rather than the heading and photos only. Everything still applies, just substitute Tamron 70-300 for Nikon 70-300. If you want to see how good that class of lens is just look at Killa's photos under white water rafting
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby Matt. K on Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:05 pm

The first shot has had a contrast mask applied to in Photoshop. The mask has been slightly overdone, giving it a a sort of "fake" look.
Regards

Matt. K
User avatar
Matt. K
Former Outstanding Member Of The Year and KM
 
Posts: 9981
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: North Nowra

Postby Kristine on Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:12 pm

Glen wrote:So to replicate that shot, first find an old Mazda with a Kmac bar on the front, 30 profile tyres and ill fitting bonnet.


The bonnet fits fine - it is popped.
Kristine
Member
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:02 pm
Location: Western Australia

Postby Glen on Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:36 pm

Kristine, and I thought popping was the noise those cars make when they go a bit overboard on the peripheral porting :wink:
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon

Postby Tommo on Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:58 pm

Thanks for the advice guys - I kinda figured it was the high quality lens as well ;) I should also try shooting in apature mode, I've noticed most people seem to shoot in this mode during the day, not sure why though??

Is a Tokina lens any good? :) I would like to pick up a cheap one before I go to NZ in March.

Birddog114: I dream of owning a 70-200VR, but at this point, I can't justify spending that kinda cash on a lens, haha. :)

Regards,
Tommo.
User avatar
Tommo
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Postby Mj on Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:38 pm

Tommo... whilst the 70-200VR is certainly a superior lens I think you should be able to acheive pretty similar results with your lens as long as the light is adequate. The high contrast 'pop' this guy is getting will be via post processing or perhaps high contrast settings in-camera. You can do that as well.

Michael.
User avatar
Mj
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:37 pm
Location: Breakfast Point, Sydney {Australia}

Postby Tommo on Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:24 pm

Mj wrote:Tommo... whilst the 70-200VR is certainly a superior lens I think you should be able to acheive pretty similar results with your lens as long as the light is adequate. The high contrast 'pop' this guy is getting will be via post processing or perhaps high contrast settings in-camera. You can do that as well.

Michael.

Ahhh cool - i've just tried playing around with Contrast in Photoshop, and raising it to +15 yeilds some quite good results - thanks for the tip 8)
User avatar
Tommo
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques