I have a problem...I suck at limiting what I post to the blog/facebook. I feel like I should be posting many fewer images, but I always post a ton (just like when I write, I feel like I should be more brief, but I tend to ramble on).
Anyway...C&C is always very welcome. if you see images you think are better left out of the set, please let me know! The bride is not coming by the studio to see these until next week, so until then, this is the only place they will be visible. Thanks!
and oh yeah...10 minutes after we left the reception we were rear ended. The entire rear end of the car had to be replaced...Shannon and I are both receiving treatment for whiplash still. Great way to end the night
hey buddy. didnt get a chance to look through them, but just wanted to let you know that i'm seeing some really pixelated files here. its like you saved them at a very very low resolution/quality.
You could probably reserve 2, 3, 4, and 12. The rest are great from a story-telling perspective.
#2 because people looking at the set probably know who it's about, or if not, they won't know much more by seeing the invitation.
#3 is cute and they'll like it, -- oh, hell, maybe keep this one, but my first reaction was it didn't need to be there with that great opening shot of the dress. I see this is about the girl, but it's similar enough to be a toss-up on first glance.
#4 is too similar to #1 composition-wise, and I think weakens the impact of the first shot.
#12 duplicates the data in 15 for most purposes. Expression is the same, he's looking at the same thing.
I'd certainly deliver all of these, but you asked whether we could identify any that didn't need to be in the blog, and these are the ones I could stand to lose. ...Which tells you something -- I could only get rid of three or four out of 69.
canerino wrote:
hey buddy. didnt get a chance to look through them, but just wanted to let you know that i'm seeing some really pixelated files here. its like you saved them at a very very low resolution/quality.
is anyone else seeing this?
To me it looks like they're artifacts from sharpening.
Hmmmm....is it on most the images you are seeing it or just a few? For whatever reason, they look fairly normal on my screen. Now that I look at it, I can see a little pixelation around the logo, but that is all that is showing up on my screen :/
Ian Ivey wrote:
You could probably reserve 2, 3, 4, and 12. The rest are great from a story-telling perspective.
#2 because people looking at the set probably know who it's about, or if not, they won't know much more by seeing the invitation.
#3 is cute and they'll like it, -- oh, hell, maybe keep this one, but my first reaction was it didn't need to be there with that great opening shot of the dress. I see this is about the girl, but it's similar enough to be a toss-up on first glance.
#4 is too similar to #1 composition-wise, and I think weakens the impact of the first shot.
#12 duplicates the data in 15 for most purposes. Expression is the same, he's looking at the same thing.
I'd certainly deliver all of these, but you asked whether we could identify any that didn't need to be in the blog, and these are the ones I could stand to lose. ...Which tells you something -- I could only get rid of three or four out of 69. ...Show more →
Thanks, mate. I have a feeling she is going to want me to drop #4 along with the one of her chugging the beer (#53), which is part of the reason why both 1 and 4 were in there (she is a teacher of little kids). I was wondering about those first ones, though...they did seem a bit repetitive. As for 12, the main reason I included it was that I thought that many people might miss the groom in number 11 in the bottom right corner, and seeing that image right below it might make them realize. But, yeah...it is way similar to 15 in expression. It get's the axe!
joelconner wrote:
Hmmmm....is it on most the images you are seeing it or just a few? For whatever reason, they look fairly normal on my screen. Now that I look at it, I can see a little pixelation around the logo, but that is all that is showing up on my screen :/
i see it on every image. it seems like maybe you saved it at a lower quality? i can literally see pixels. not really sure, but it doesnt look right.
your coverage, however, looks very very right! nice shooting man!
Can you look at these and tell me where the pixelation starts? I have these 5 images at various stages (1-LR export no sharpening, 2 LR export w/ sharpening, 3-blogstomped, 4-logo added, 5-batch optimization)
joelconner wrote:
Can you look at these and tell me where the pixelation starts? I have these 5 images at various stages (1-LR export no sharpening, 2 LR export w/ sharpening, 3-blogstomped, 4-logo added, 5-batch optimization)
I was going to comment on the compression/sharpening artifacts as well.
Steps 3-5 are doing some for me, although that is not a very good sample shot. In that shot, step 5 has a big effect to my eye.
I see it too. The sample you post makes it harder to find the pixelation because the subject is so big. But looking at the logo in the corner, I can really see it at #5. It would be better if you did the samples using a more standard shot maybe?
So odd. I'm not seeing anything that looks like pixelization. Viewing on Google Chrome, 27" monitor here. Could it be browser-specific? I just have no idea what the rest of you are referring to.
I'm seeing artifacts in step 5 that weren't there in step 4, but I'm not seeing the 'pixellation' that others have mentioned
Great set though
- I particularly like 35, the door reflection really adds to it
If you're looking to reserve a few, I think some of the weaker shots are
16 (expression)
37 (doesn't say much)
46? (chopped heads)
Also the plastic cups in 62 and 64 are a bit distracting, you could think about desaturating them (minor nit). Not a fan of cheap-looking plastic cups.
Yeah....no grain added at all. I worked on a new expiring workflow today. I think it was the sharpening in blog stomp combined with the optimizer I was using. Thanks for the feedback!
