Photos

[Jimmy]

Morning people i know we have quite a few people on here who are quite in to photographer and it is something i have been getting in to over the last year, i am a member of a couple of photographer forum but i want to get some feedback on the pictures from people i know will be honset to me












train track copy by jstewartwild

 

[xomer]

the second one rocks : D

 

[Wazzerphuk]

1st one is underexposed, the second one overexposed.

 

[Tom]

Being critical, as you asked:

The first suffers from poor light. If your subject was that young woman then you should have used a flash to fill her in. The second shot is over-exposed, judging by the lack of clarity I'd say a long shutter speed. It should also have been landscape rather than portrait, as what guides the eye is the top of the ramp, not the people.

The third shot is very nice, spoiled only by the girl's hand being out of frame. That one was taken with a flash, so her face is nice and bright, while everything else (unimportant) is sufficiently dark. It works quite well, although it could be sharper. Possibly a limitation of your lens/camera.

The fourth shot looks like an accidental shutter press, the fifth, I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by blurring out the edges, but it doesn't work.

 

[Edmond]

and in the first one, you forgot to draw the hopscotch numbers on the pavement

 

[Madmaxx]

I'm not a photography person, but I like the second one since I'm a fan of skateboarding

 

[Jimmy]

Being critical, as you asked:

The first suffers from poor light. If your subject was that young woman then you should have used a flash to fill her in. The second shot is over-exposed, judging by the lack of clarity I'd say a long shutter speed. It should also have been landscape rather than portrait, as what guides the eye is the top of the ramp, not the people.

The third shot is very nice, spoiled only by the girl's hand being out of frame. That one was taken with a flash, so her face is nice and bright, while everything else (unimportant) is sufficiently dark. It works quite well, although it could be sharper. Possibly a limitation of your lens/camera.

The fourth shot looks like an accidental shutter press, the fifth, I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by blurring out the edges, but it doesn't work.

thank you tom one thing i will say is thats a boy its my nephew who is quite a poser the one of the close up was ment to be a picture of him but he wanted to stick his face close to the camara, the camara i used was nikon p100 so not quite a dslr but still a nifty camara. i have now got my hands on a fuji s9500 altho 5 years old i would say a hugh improvment on what i was using before

the first one i was trying to capture how dark and moody it was but looking back it dosnt quite work

the last one i was trying to create a pinhole look which is somthing i had been trying with photoshop glad for your honsety the other forum people just sed there great

the first one i was trying to capture how dark and moody it was but looking back it dosnt quite work

 

[Jimmy]

and in the first one, you forgot to draw the hopscotch numbers on the pavement

lol she is skipping

 

[Tom]

thank you tom one thing i will say is thats a boy its my nephew who is quite a poser the one of the close up was ment to be a picture of him but he wanted to stick his face close to the camara, the camara i used was nikon p100 so not quite a dslr but still a nifty camara. i have now got my hands on a fuji s9500 altho 5 years old i would say a hugh improvment on what i was using before

the first one i was trying to capture how dark and moody it was but looking back it dosnt quite work

the last one i was trying to create a pinhole look which is somthing i had been trying with photoshop glad for your honsety the other forum people just sed there great

the first one i was trying to capture how dark and moody it was but looking back it dosnt quite work

For the first one a strong fill flash and a bit of meddling with the raw image would have exposed her correctly, while leaving the clouds dark and ominous. If you don't have any light, you're always going to struggle.

If you want to make things look like a pinhole camera, then why not make one? They're dead simple to build, we made them at primary school. You can use a matchbox, a roll of film, and a needle

 

[Jimmy]

will have to look in to making one.

the fill in flash is something iv just started to get the hang off but am enjoying all this learning

will upload somemore as iv taken a couple more people pictures today

 

[Jimmy]

so here is a couple of pictures that i took yesterday

 

[milou]

The skipping image - maybe try something different like a really long exposure so there's a sense of movement captured with the rope blurred. If you haven't filters, then sunglasses can do at a pinch.

So many photos of kids are taken from an adult's perspective e.g. looking down. Maybe get down to a kid's viewpoint e.g. photoblog: "at play on the beach #1" or just an abstract of that fab curly hair.

 

[Lamp]

 

[Shagrat]

who designed that town, Escher??

 

[Lamp]

 

[Lamp]

This Cuban tree frog has just eaten a fairy light:

 

[Lamp]

Eyjafjallajökull

 

[Moriath]

a lot of those pictars you posted lamp look too real ... if you know what i mean .. lots of post processing or something there

 

[Lamp]

I'm no expert, but I'd be a little disappointed if they were heavily edited. NG are world famous for the quality of their photography. You can get the most amazing photos with long exposures and the right lighting conditions without having to go near Photoshop

 

[Kryten]

Lightning one isn't shopped but is "enhanced" - not sure what it's called though, long exposure? I.e. all of that isn't going on at the same time hence you can get some cracking shots of lightning.

 

[Chilly]

thats not long exposure, it'd be all blurred out if so

 

[Moriath]

thats what i mean if it was long exposure you wouldnt get the smoke detail .. but if it wasnt you wouldnt get the lightening

 

[old.user4556]

Listen up bitches.

The Volcano one is most certainly a composite image; the star trails on the right hand side along with the smoke blur indicate a definite long exposure, however the smoke to the left that's lit by the lightning does not look blurred and reasonably static.

I'd say that this was made up of two images manually blended in photoshop - one long expsoure and the other not quite so long, maybe a second at most. Nothing wrong with that though, it's digital art.

The seaside town image looks like a perfectly legit long exposure, perhaps a little too saturated though.

 

[Lamp]

Autumn landscape

Photograph by Michael Melford, National Geographic

"Sunlight dapples the shoulders of Algonquin and Wright, two of the more than 40 so-called High Peaks that rise above 4,000 feet. Once blighted by logging and industry, the region has undergone a renaissance of woods and waters."

 

[Wazzerphuk]

The colours just feel wrong in that.

 

[Jimmy]

like the photos the volcano one i have seen before and like Big G said it does look like it is two photos blended together. my fliker is in my sig with what work i have been doing since last year any comments welcome.

 

[old.user4556]

The colours just feel wrong in that.

I think it's a touch too much with the Vibrance slider.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

Listen up bitches.

The Volcano one is most certainly a composite image; the star trails on the right hand side along with the smoke blur indicate a definite long exposure, however the smoke to the left that's lit by the lightning does not look blurred and reasonably static.

I'd say that this was made up of two images manually blended in photoshop - one long expsoure and the other not quite so long, maybe a second at most. Nothing wrong with that though, it's digital art.

I'm not sure. I think it could be one long exposure. What I assumed was that the lightning had acted like a flash gun and frozen the action on that side of the smoke. How else could you get such well lit detail in the smoke? You can't get more light in a short exposure than in a long one.

RB

 

[caLLous]

 

[old.user4556]

I'm not sure. I think it could be one long exposure. What I assumed was that the lightning had acted like a flash gun and frozen the action on that side of the smoke. How else could you get such well lit detail in the smoke? You can't get more light in a short exposure than in a long one.

RB

Yes that's very plausible RB, I did think of that too. One thing that makes me think it's not is that the sky behind the lightning is very dark compared to the sky on the right, but perhaps there is ash behind the lightning bolt? It doesn't look like it though, it looks like darker sky. That's what led me to think it was a blended image.