Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2011 · My website portfolio C&C
  
 
deklol
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · My website portfolio C&C


Hi guys.
I do not post often. I do read alot though, and I know there are some really good photographers in here and I'm asking you to give me some critique on my portfolios as a whole.

First out is the Pet-photography portfolio:
pet portfolio
Second, my couple-photo:
couple portfolio
Third, Portrait:
portrait portfolio
Fourth, Family sessions:
family portfolio
Fifth, the one I call "Fantasy":
"Fantasy" portfolio

I'd like to know what you think of the photos themselves ofcourse, but also which ones are "selling" and which are not. And I know there is probably some pictures that do not "fit". I would like to know those too.



Dec 20, 2011 at 06:45 PM
JHut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · My website portfolio C&C


You may get a better response if you post a few pictures here. I took a brief look at your pictures and alot seem to be "washed out". I am not sure if it is a monitor calibration issue. Some of the indoor and outdoor pictures had this same over exposed look. Great start and good luck!

Here is one of your site pictures:






I made a few quick adjustments in PS curves:







Dec 21, 2011 at 03:23 AM
GeorgeM
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · My website portfolio C&C


You've got some very nice images there. Well done.

I do have to agree with John though. Most of them appear washed out, too bright.

George



Dec 21, 2011 at 03:33 AM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · My website portfolio C&C


General comments: Posing fairly good. With the pets, often insufficient DOF, rending the muzzles or, for at least one, a whole kitten's face, too soft. Also, with pets and people, in addition to over-exposed or rendered too light, many had too much lighting - they did not use light and shadow to gently sculpt a three dimensional to each face. Flat light is simple, but it's not too interesting. Some of the portrait lighting wasn't flat, but neither was it flattering.


Dec 21, 2011 at 04:17 AM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · My website portfolio C&C


I rarely follow links or look at portfolios. There is just too much to see directly on FM.
I did take a quick glance. Rather than detailed feedback, a couple of impressions.
Many fine images. Sharpness of the subjects is excellent and I like the low to the ground POV you have chosen in many of your images. I agree with Karen on needing a bit more DOF on some of the pets.
As far as the over-exposure issue, I have a different reaction. Probably because I see you are from Sweden, I am thinking the bright even blown light might be an appealing stylistic choice, rather than a technical short-coming. You certainly should compare the different exposure looks. I find it hard to believe these were technical errors, however, given the overall quality of your work.
Overall, portfolios of which I would be proud!
Scott



Dec 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · My website portfolio C&C


Nice work overall but as with others I find the blown highlights detract from the overall quality of the work.

Here's an example. Opening the image in Levels and holding down the opt/alt key while clicking the cursor on the highlight slider will reveal any clipping channels in their respective colors and color combinations. It the photo below all the faces are clipping in the red channel overall in the skin highlights which give them a flat yellowish waxy look...







it can't be fixed effectively in PP because there is no detail gradient to modify, only flat 255 in the red. The appearance in that Levels test tells me from experience that the highlights are about 2/3 stops overexposed.

Not sure if you are capturing them that way in camera or pushing the highlights to clipping in PP for stylistic reasons. If the latter you have the option to render the file normally or "hot white" but if you capture overexposed there's no way to make it look normal.

Assuming you want correctly exposed highlights in faces and white fur on your web site you need to anticipate how the highlights will change during the workflow, especially at the stage were the images are converted from 16 bit in a larger editing space to 8-bit JPG for the web page. To allow for the changes at that stage you need to err slightly on the side of underexposing the highlights at capture. Then in PP adjust them as necessary for print and screen as each workflow and your stylistic preferences dictate.



Dec 21, 2011 at 02:32 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



deklol
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · My website portfolio C&C


First, thank you all so much for replying in such a constructive and well way. I really appreciate that!

Since you all are experiencing the photos to be overexposed I think that I have to deal with that matter first.
I am using a NEC multisync PA241w freshly calibrated with Spectraview II and a Spyder 3 hardware calibrator.
When the first poster said that many photos were overexposed I just shrug my neck and thought that he was the one with bad monitor/bad calibration. But when I read further down and noticed that pretty much all of you are experiencing the same thing, I started to do some google-researching.

As Cgardner said, I am editing in 16-bit mode and just shrink the image and ctrl+alt+shift+S in adobe photoshop CS5 when I export for web. So with this file and my 16-bit master TIFF-file in full resolution I did a little test.

I copied the photo of the many people with many dogs on my website and imported it into PS. Then I imported my TIFF-file and made it 900px. Flipped from first image to next image, couldn't see any difference in light at all.

Then I made a "Levels" filter and hold alt to see the clipping, as cgardner did. And well, in my tiff file there were no clipping at all, but in the web-file it was.

So this may be obvious for you guys, but I did not know that the levels were changed when saved for web with Photoshops save for web function.

But the problem persisted, I can not see any visual differences in these photos! And I do have a hardware-calibrated NEC-screen for christ sake!?

My next move: I looked at the two photos JHut posted. The above one seems fairly correct to me. A little fresh-bright but not even close to "overexposed". So I dragged the browser to my uncalibrated samsung syncmaster-monitor next to my NEC and finally realised what you guys was talking about. The above photo was waaaay to bright and the photo below was more correct.

This is confusing me alot. I have used my NEC-screen with same calibration for many, many prints. And they have come out really good. Almost as viewed on screen.

My theory;
My calibration in SpectraView II is set to "Photo editing sRGB". This would mean that my nec monitor is calibrated for prints, right? And apparently there is another calibration for web, which you guys are using?
I cannot find and matching settings in SpectraView for web-calibration...
Am I right or am I way off?

Conclusion:
I thought I knew something about monitor calibration. Apparently I barely know anything...

I would really apprieciate someone to help me out on this one. My brain is pretty messed up now xD
And ye, sorry for my bad english...

/Deklol



Dec 21, 2011 at 09:56 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · My website portfolio C&C


Strange. What color space was the original?

( FWIW, I'm using an NEC LCD2690WUXi with SpectraView II and an old X-Rite DTP94. )



Dec 21, 2011 at 11:05 PM
deklol
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · My website portfolio C&C


What "Target setting" are you using in SpectraView? Mine is set to "Photo editing". Could it possibly even have something to do with that btw? :P


Dec 21, 2011 at 11:08 PM
JHut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · My website portfolio C&C


deklol..... Others may want to jump in for advice. The Post Processing and Printing forum has alot of GREAT threads on color profiling and monitor calibration. There is also a very nice workflow article at the top of that forum page.


Dec 21, 2011 at 11:38 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · My website portfolio C&C


I am not sure what the issue is.
I have the PA241-SV and use both Spectraview software and calibration tool and the Mulitiprofiler program NEC offers. I am set to Photo Editing with brightness at 140. My prints tend to be a tad dark so I sometimes reset the brightness to 110 to proof prior to printing. I process in aRGB or ProPhoto but convert to sRGB for web, post and view in Firefox (color-managed). I am not sure what the issue is for you, but perhaps check the monitor brightness settings you are using when processing.
I agree with John above: post also to Post-Processing. A bunch of folks very knowledgeable there. SkiBum, among others, also has this monitor and is much more sophisticated than I am.
Scott



Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26 AM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · My website portfolio C&C


Just re-calibrated. Mine's now Photo Editing, white point D65, gamma 2.2 and intensity 100.0 cd/m^2. Had problems calibrating and had to drop the intensity to calibrate. Used to be 140 cd. Not certain why the calibration failed at that level.


Dec 22, 2011 at 04:37 AM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password