DSLRUsers.com

Well, I don't want to be a lurker or someone who just asks questions - so I thought I'd put my first photo out for a little "C&C".

No fancy lighting setups or super cool subjects like seemingly everyone else has! Just up at Yosemite last week with some friends - here's a snapshot of a couple atop Vernal Falls.

So go ahead - tell me what I did wrong! ~(:


Thanks!
`S

Here we go Scott:

Welcome to the forum! The image seems overexposed and a tad soft on my monitor. Also, the pose by the couple seems to "put on" to me. Were they aware of your photographic intent? Not that it matters I suppose. IMHO, not a great image, but a start.

There you go, I let it rip, I give you a C- for this one. Now get out there, take a zillion more photos and post a few of them.

This forum has an amazing wealth of professional experience, people who are only too happy to share their knowledge and zeal with you. Take advantage of it.

Great to see a Californian come onboard!

Ozi

ozimax wrote:Here we go Scott:

Welcome to the forum! The image seems overexposed and a tad soft on my monitor. Also, the pose by the couple seems to "put on" to me. Were they aware of your photographic intent? Not that it matters I suppose. IMHO, not a great image, but a start.

There you go, I let it rip, I give you a C- for this one. Now get out there, take a zillion more photos and post a few of them.

Ha.. thanks for the honest C-

I did increase the exposure in PS - perhaps too much. What exactly does it mean when you say the photo appears soft? What are you referring to the subject or surroundings? Or am I taking that statement too literally?

The couple didn't know I took the photo, in fact, they still don't.. (: We just made it to the top so everyone was genuinely ready for a rest.. Look forward to other's thoughts, thanks.

`S

scottvd wrote:

ozimax wrote:What exactly does it mean when you say the photo appears soft? What are you referring to the subject or surroundings? Or am I taking that statement too literally?

By soft I mean 'not sharp", at least on my monitor, which is incidentally a low quality, uncalibrated monitor. The image may be sharper on a different monitor.

Having said that, sharpness is not everything. Composition, colour, crop etc are all important too. Some amazing photos are soft on purpose.

Keep 'em coming!

Ozi

By soft I mean 'not sharp"

I guess you think I'm a C- in the English language too? j/k! ~(:

Ok, I get it - 'not sharp' - so when a photo is not sharp is that a result of poor focus? What causes something to be soft: lens, photographer, wrong settings, etc. And can it be fixed to any reasonable degree in PP - when I choose to "sharpen" an image, it just seems to increase stepping and decrease dithering. Thanks for putting up with me!

`S

Let's lern gooder engrish!

A soft image usually comes about by wrong focus, or camera shake, or it can be intended as such. A lens with a very narrow depth of field produces only a small of the image that is sharp, and the rest will be out of focus to varying degrees.

As a general rule, the larger the aperture (ie the smaller the "F" stop), the less depth of field. Conversely, the smaller the aperture (ie the larger the "F" stop) means more depth of field which in turn means more of the image will sharp and in focus.

Landscapes, waterfalls etc usually mean using smaller apertures to get greater depth of field, which in turn requires longer shutter speeds to let in the available light.

Am I confusing you? I think it's time for tucker (sorry, lunch).

Ozi.

I think you may have used the lens quite wide open and cropped the image quite a bit.

Did you take the photo when you perhaps had a little shake from the trek up the mountain?

Did you add any sharpening to the image at all?

I think you may have used the lens quite wide open and cropped the image quite a bit.

Did you take the photo when you perhaps had a little shake from the trek up the mountain?

Did you add any sharpening to the image at all?

The aperture was open as wide as the lens would allow (5.6) at the focal length (85mm) - it may have been stopped down once - I was using my 18-135mm. Extra hand shake due to climbing could have been a factor but the shutter was 1/100 - so I was following the 1:1 shutter:focal rule of thumb. I shot in RAW and converted the untouched image to jpg - uploaded here for your review: http://scottvd.smugmug.com/gallery/3641250 - as you can see not much cropping. Removed the girl in red next to his chin though. (:

`S