|
rockforlife
Dec 23, 2008, 9:50 PM
Post #1 of 12
(5215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 563
|
I AM NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER But i would like to know what you guys think of these shots i took this fall, I did a little photoshop. But i don;t have any experiance with it.
I would love to here from some of the better photographers on the site
Thanks
(This post was edited by rockforlife on Dec 25, 2008, 11:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Dec 23, 2008, 10:23 PM
Post #2 of 12
(5189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
What's odd is that, as climbing photos, these don't move me so much, but as portraits I quite like them. The main reason is probably because in three of the four images you have a strong yellow shift on the main subject matter, which gives them an interesting feel (in my opinion at least). I assume that this is due to a large saturation bump in post process.
The images are clear and strong (great contrast in some areas and overdone in others*) and I even feel that you get a bit of a sense of the person climbing just from their facial expressions, but the framing could use some work. It's really tight in, which isn't always bad, but it gives me a bit of a claustrophobic feel here. Also (and it's not too bad here) but if you are going to chop parts of people out of a frame it's generally a good idea no to crop out too close to body joints, especially ankles, knees, elbows and wrists.
*To clarify; if you take the second shot (vertical alignment with the bald guy climbing) the contrast is great throughout the shot except on the red shirt where it looks like you pumped the saturation way too high and the detail and texture has been blown out of large areas of the shirt. The colour certainly pops though.
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Dec 23, 2008, 10:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
Dec 23, 2008, 10:24 PM
Post #3 of 12
(5185 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
pretty cool, the ones with baldy and beardo would be better if all of them were in the shot, and the other photographer wasn't in the background. where were they taken?
|
|
|
|
|
rockforlife
Dec 23, 2008, 10:30 PM
Post #4 of 12
(5173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 563
|
rhythm164 wrote: pretty cool, the ones with baldy and beardo would be better if all of them were in the shot, and the other photographer wasn't in the background. where were they taken?
They were taken just off of the north shore of Lake Superior, its an amazing place. Its just not a place you hear about to much.
|
|
|
|
|
rockforlife
Dec 23, 2008, 10:35 PM
Post #5 of 12
(5164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 563
|
kriso9tails wrote: What's odd is that, as climbing photos, these don't move me so much, but as portraits I quite like them. The main reason is probably because in three of the four images you have a strong yellow shift on the main subject matter, which gives them an interesting feel (in my opinion at least). I assume that this is due to a large saturation bump in post process. The images are clear and strong (great contrast in some areas and overdone in others*) and I even feel that you get a bit of a sense of the person climbing just from their facial expressions, but the framing could use some work. It's really tight in, which isn't always bad, but it gives me a bit of a claustrophobic feel. Also (and it's not too bad here) but if you are going to chop parts of people out of a frame it's generally a good idea no to crop out too close to body joints, especially ankles, knees, elbows and wrists. *To clarify; if you take the second shot (vertical alignment with the bald guy climbing) the contrast is great throughout the shot except on the red shirt where it looks like you pumped the saturation way too high and the detail and texture has been blown out of large areas of the shirt. The colour certainly pops though.
thanks for the input, i can deffinatly see what you mean about cutting people off. I glad you like them even if not from a climbing perspective. It's winter here no so i guess i'll have to wait untill the spring to work on my framing. (unless there are trips to be had )
|
|
|
|
|
time2clmb
Dec 24, 2008, 12:09 AM
Post #6 of 12
(5130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 473
|
I think you should clean up your post and stack the photo's so the screen's not so friggin wide. It's a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
rockforlife
Dec 24, 2008, 4:21 AM
Post #7 of 12
(5096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 563
|
time2clmb wrote: I think you should clean up your post and stack the photo's so the screen's not so friggin wide. It's a mess.
I think so to but i tried and it wont work, HELP
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Dec 24, 2008, 4:50 AM
Post #8 of 12
(5084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I think the first image is the strongest, but i needs a little bit of level/curves/contrast or something to give it some pop. Even with the background distractions. And, I like the crop.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Dec 24, 2008, 8:21 AM
Post #9 of 12
(5045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
kriso9tails wrote: What's odd is that, as climbing photos, these don't move me so much, but as portraits I quite like them.
I was sort of thinking the same thing but couldn't put it together till I saw your post.
Yeah, as climbing shots, not really anything special, but they do make nice "action portraits" or something like that.
I noticed the color balance too, but lets assume his monitor isn't calibrated since he "is NOT a photographer" The saturation does look velvia meets drug store $1 print film.
Overall, really not bad shots considering you could easiliy improve much of them with a little better processing!
|
|
|
|
|
rockforlife
Dec 24, 2008, 3:26 PM
Post #10 of 12
(5018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 563
|
pico23 wrote: kriso9tails wrote: What's odd is that, as climbing photos, these don't move me so much, but as portraits I quite like them. I was sort of thinking the same thing but couldn't put it together till I saw your post. Yeah, as climbing shots, not really anything special, but they do make nice "action portraits" or something like that. I noticed the color balance too, but lets assume his monitor isn't calibrated since he "is NOT a photographer" The saturation does look velvia meets drug store $1 print film. Overall, really not bad shots considering you could easiliy improve much of them with a little better processing!
Hey thaks for the post yeah, like i said i am not a photagrapher and my monitor isn't calibrated. Any cheap and easy way to do this?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Dec 25, 2008, 12:15 AM
Post #11 of 12
(4982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Adobe photoshop comes with some sort of crude calibration (something called adobe gamma), it's pretty basic but better than nothing. You'd be suprised how far off most monitors are. Most are a bit cool. My Acer Netbook isn't yet calibrated, and it's at least a few hundred degrees cooler than my calibrated monitors.
This actually could be the issue with your "yellow"/warm tones. If your monitor is cool, you might have warmed the images a bit for a more natural look, but to everyone else they look too warm, and too saturated.
Not sure if there is a really cheap way. For as little as $60 you can get a Pantone Huey if you shop around.
The advantage of a calibrated monitor is that with photoshop, you can soft proof your colorspace before sending to a printer, and 99% of the time, everything comes back as you sent it (if you have a calibrated monitor, and you downloaded the profiles from the printer to soft proof, make sure to turn off "automatic color correction" )
The other advantage of course even if you don't print, is when asking other photographers for advice, you'll assume they all have calibrated monitors, and your colors and their are fairly close. Gives getting feedback a bit easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
