A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
First Showable ImagesModerators: 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.
Previous topic • Next topic
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
First Showable Images
Shot some photos of my eldest the other day, just mucking around with the Tamron 70-300 that I got with the camera.
They didn't come out half bad (in my books) so I thought I would post them here for some input. The post processing was minor level changes and some usm. Sean was under/in a tree, so there are many shadows in play.....do you think the shadow/highlight option in CS would have been a better way to go? Any ideas on better processing techniques? 
This one was heavily cropped. Cheers Deb
Re: First Showable Images
hi Deb, NIce shots, but I am going to be brutally honest with you and tell you what I have learnt from experience. Unforunately where you have your son in relation to the tree and STARK sunlight coming through and hitting him detracts signigicantly from the images and unforunately in my opinion this is almost impossible to 'fix' in post processing. Do you own the SB-800 speed light yet? This may have helped eliminate the harsh shadows caused by such areas of direct sunlight with the fil flash idea? If not, did you use the onboard flash, it might be worthwhile taking the same shots again (at the same time of day) whilst experimenting with the flash, and see how much difference it makes. Please don't take this the wrong way, I think they are good shots, but could do with a little improvement and I hope my comments help 
Geoff. Last edited by Geoff on Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deb,
Well done! Thanx for posting. What you've probably realised here is the diffiulty of shooting in leafy backyards; the mottled lighting on the first two can be a nice effect, but at the same time some might consider that it detracts from the portrait. Let's deal with the third image first: the driveway (or is it a footpath) is heavily blown, but that's fine; you're shooting your son.I would like to pull the exposure up a tad more, lightening his face. You could use a mask in PS to pull the path back down. To address the problems while shooting (usually the best way, IMHO) I would have either used the on-camera flash to add light within the shadows (adding more light to your son's face) or a smallish reflector to pull some sunlight in to do much the same job. A suitable reflector can be made from, say, a piece of white foam core board, either as it is, or else covered in well crinkled but flattenned aluminium foil. The deal is that you want to have a reflective, but not bright or shiny, surface. Your assistant (gotta get your man involved, haven't we?) would be out of view, and holding the reflector so that a small amount of additional light can be directed onto your son's face. The first two images are much more difficult to deal with, because the mottling is right through your son's face. Relocating him to a less difficult position might, or might not, be a viable option. Presuming it's not, use the reflectors again (see why I did that image first?) and take a spot meter reading off your son's face (or neck or shirt, based on these images) from the areas getting the brightest light. Use that reading as the starting point for your exposure, as you really don't want to burn that part of the image out. Your goal is not to get a constant exposure across the image - the mottling indicates that won't really be possible - but more to try to reduce the effective contrast range that the image traverses. After taking the first image, use your histogram and move the exposure range one way (or the other) a little bit to try to utilise as much of the available contrast range as you can. Please feel free to pull me up if there's stuff here you don't understand; and thanx for posting and sharing. You have a handsome young man there; I'm sure he'll become a real handful over time. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Just wanted to echo Geoffs comments about fill flash being a good option if there are harsh shadows, and just say that the last shot is a corker. Very nice shot and no noise (grain) visible even after heavy cropping. Well Done! ...... oh, but his shirt tag is out
 Craig
First thing, fill-flash would have worked in bringing your son's features right out, I don't think the on-board speedlight may have been up to the task but would have been worth trying.
I like the composition on the first photo it does work, except for the shadows. The second one doesn't work for me and the third one, I think would have been better with the tree either in the frame (so you can see the trunk) or completely cut out, but I like that one too, and you could almost save that one with some PP. Would love to see more of your work, and it looks like you've got a willing subject to photograph which is always good. Cheers Brett PS I noticed Geoff beat me to a reply and I've probably repeated some of his comments...
Fantastic replies, just what I needed.
The shots were completely unprepared (as if you couldn't tell), I was sitting on the front steps taking pot shots of things on the various settings of the lens to see what length I could safely hold it at... ....Sean was just climbing in the tree and I aimed it at him and shot away, he wasn't even aware it was him I was photographing. But yes, he and the rest of his siblings are very willing models.....to the point of being painful because everytime I try to shoot something they jump in front of the camera...shy little butterflies they are not! Again, thanks for the honest pointes, I will definently be printing them out to digest at a later time (read when the rugrats have finally fallen asleep). I've arranged with my man to go to the zoo this weekend sans the kids, so I hope to get some "better" shots there. Cheers Deb
Brett,
One of the beauties of the on-board flash is that it is somewhat limited in power. You don't really need a lot in this sorts of situations, and I think it would have been a perfect foil against the mottling that we're seeing here. And the fact that we have FEC available means that we can truly fiddle with its power, kicking it up or pulling it back to help ensure that we get a balance that is workable within the context of the image that we're trying to create. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Deb, the guys have given you all sorts of useful input, so I will just say that I really like the moment captured in #3 - that is a great expression on a young kid.
Actually, I will say more - if you darken the white area in #3, Sean will look much more prominent in the frame. Thanks for sharing - look forward to seeing more. Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Deb, aside from the use of fill flash mentioned by others above, the use of a lower contrast tone curve could also help. If these were RAW, you could try reprocess the images using the medium low contrast tone curve, all else being equal - and you'll see less difference in light levels between the light and dark patches of sunlight filtering through the trees. Digital DEE function of Capture also helps in this regard. This is also the domain of custom tone curves - another area of experimentation for some other time. I use Fuji Astia, it's a low contrast curve which IMO would be perfect for just these situations.
Deb - to add my twopennyworth in addition to the above comments a bracket set would help immensely (Gary did mention this I believe). It can be set on camera and would enable you to assess exposure after the event.
Chris Chris
-------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
Thanks Onyx
Unfortunately I have neither the flash unit, nor the capabilities to process RAW images (very old computer). I have yet to load up a curve into the camera, but will certainly do some more reading about them. Thanks for your help.
Deb
I agree with all that's been said so far. I find it helpful to have the LCD set to display the blown highlights, that way you can see exactly what is blown out by the flashing areas on the LCD. __________
Phillip **Nikon D7000**
Previous topic • Next topic
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
