Took this picture of this young man at a friends wedding. I didn't take my time really because it was more of a shot of opportunity than anything else. C&C welcome as always!

jamesD90 wrote:
Took this picture of this young man at a friends wedding. I didn't take my time really because it was more of a shot of opportunity than anything else. C&C welcome as always!

You got the shot. What do you want to know? How to shoot it over again?

i guess i just don't know if my post processing was done ok?

First of all, ignore pilles -- he's the proverbial "grumpy old man" around here.

As you say, the image was opportunistic rather than planned, so it has a "snapshot" feel to it. The processing is okay, though it seems a bit too contrasty and perhaps a little underexposed. The white balance is quite warm.

IMO the best way to improve this shot would be to crop off most of the left half of the image, to get rid of the extraneous elements that pull the eye away from the young man. --c

James,

First off: Anyone who posts on these forums, and puts "Tell me what you think" in the title, deserves the utmost respect. It's a tough crowd around here, and you sir have cast iron cajones!

As for the pic. Well, yeah just a fast-composed snapshot, basically, so it's not fair to jump on it.

BUT:

First, you should use a little less DOF. Some folks always go with the widest aperture they have, and that can also be a mistake, but you have WAY too much detail in this very busy background.

2: It looks like you don't have a very good lens. You are in focus, but it's still quite soft, and the colors are rather lackluster. (I just checked your profile. Egads, if I had to use that Siggy I'd quit photography.) Folks are fond of saying "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer" - but those same folks always have really nice equipment! Consider a decent prime bewtween 50 & 100 mm. You don't need the best. Almost ANY prime will probably slay that Sigma zoom.

3: You might benefit from better lighting, though this pic isn't bad. I Speedlight bounced off the cieling (with a white card or simple diffusor that send some of the light forward) would make things "pop" a bit more. Also, that would give you some catchlights in his eyes, which would make a huge difference. Also I would have gone one click slower on the shutter. The pic is a hair dark, overall.

Last, as Charles says, with this one DEFINITELY crop off the left side, and make it a vertical pic instead.

PS - Don't let Pilles get to you. He's just, well, Pilles.

jamesD90 wrote:
i guess i just don't know if my post processing was done ok?

So why didn't you say it in the beginning?

Cableaddict wrote:
James,

First off: Anyone who posts on these forums, and puts "Tell me what you think" in the title, deserves the utmost respect. It's a tough crowd around here, and you sir have cast iron cajones!

As for the pic. Well, yeah just a fast-composed snapshot, basically, so it's not fair to jump on it.

BUT:

First, you should use a little less DOF. Some folks always go with the widest aperture they have, and that can also be a mistake, but you have WAY too much detail in this very busy background.

2: It looks like you don't have a very good lens. You are in focus, but it's still quite soft, and the colors are rather lackluster. (I just checked your profile. Egads, if I had to use that Siggy I'd quit photography.) Folks are fond of saying "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer" - but those same folks always have really nice equipment! Consider a decent prime bewtween 50 & 100 mm. You don't need the best. Almost ANY prime will probably slay that Sigma zoom.

3: You might benefit from better lighting, though this pic isn't bad. I Speedlight bounced off the cieling (with a white card or simple diffusor that send some of the light forward) would make things "pop" a bit more. Also, that would give you some catchlights in his eyes, which would make a huge difference. Also I would have gone one click slower on the shutter. The pic is a hair dark, overall.

Last, as Charles says, with this one DEFINITELY crop off the left side, and make it a vertical pic instead.

PS - Don't let Pilles get to you. He's just, well, Pilles.




Too late to change now!
pilles

pilles wrote:
Too late to change now!
pilles

Him, or you.

TrojanHorse wrote:
pilles wrote:
Too late to change now!
pilles

Him, or you.


Me, of course.

charlesk wrote:
First of all, ignore pilles -- he's the proverbial "grumpy old man" around here.

As you say, the image was opportunistic rather than planned, so it has a "snapshot" feel to it. The processing is okay, though it seems a bit too contrasty and perhaps a little underexposed. The white balance is quite warm.

IMO the best way to improve this shot would be to crop off most of the left half of the image, to get rid of the extraneous elements that pull the eye away from the young man. --c

Not just grumpy, realistic!

Everybody is realistic about you Paul. You're just a grumpy old fart. Fun sometimes. But still grumpy.

I think I've dogged you in more than one thread in the last few weeks, pilles... but I appreciate a sense of humor.

There's something to be said for consistency as well...

Pandacat wrote:
Everybody is realistic about you Paul. You're just a grumpy old fart. Fun sometimes. But still grumpy.

That's mighty peculiar. He quoted me when I said underexposed, and I"M the grumpy one? What kind of reasoning are you using? The Duh kind?

Paul, nowhere in this thread have you said anything about the picture being underexposed.

I think you need to take your pill and go lay down now.

Pandacat wrote:
Paul, nowhere in this thread have you said anything about the picture being underexposed.

I think you need to take your pill and go lay down now.



Well. If you're going to get into it. Be more specific. What do you want me to lay down? Or did you mean I should lie down? Hah!

Cableaddict wrote:
James,

First off: Anyone who posts on these forums, and puts "Tell me what you think" in the title, deserves the utmost respect. It's a tough crowd around here, and you sir have cast iron cajones!

As for the pic. Well, yeah just a fast-composed snapshot, basically, so it's not fair to jump on it.

BUT:

First, you should use a little less DOF. Some folks always go with the widest aperture they have, and that can also be a mistake, but you have WAY too much detail in this very busy background.

2: It looks like you don't have a very good lens. You are in focus, but it's still quite soft, and the colors are rather lackluster. (I just checked your profile. Egads, if I had to use that Siggy I'd quit photography.) Folks are fond of saying "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer" - but those same folks always have really nice equipment! Consider a decent prime bewtween 50 & 100 mm. You don't need the best. Almost ANY prime will probably slay that Sigma zoom.

3: You might benefit from better lighting, though this pic isn't bad. I Speedlight bounced off the cieling (with a white card or simple diffusor that send some of the light forward) would make things "pop" a bit more. Also, that would give you some catchlights in his eyes, which would make a huge difference. Also I would have gone one click slower on the shutter. The pic is a hair dark, overall.

Last, as Charles says, with this one DEFINITELY crop off the left side, and make it a vertical pic instead.

PS - Don't let Pilles get to you. He's just, well, Pilles.




There, there, little man. Feel better now? Just drink a little more of this hot milk and go to sleep now.

You guys are very funny, and I take comments with a grain of salt. I expect nothing but what I "should" have done and judging by some of your reputations I am just happy that someone with such a background would even take the time to give me the proper beat down. Anyways, I got a prime, 50mm to be exact and will post up two pictures that I did take my time on...and Pilles I almost expect your comments. Thanks all hopefully I only get better, you don't get ahead in life by people being nice all the time.

jamesD90 wrote:
You guys are very funny, and I take comments with a grain of salt. I expect nothing but what I "should" have done and judging by some of your reputations I am just happy that someone with such a background would even take the time to give me the proper beat down. Anyways, I got a prime, 50mm to be exact and will post up two pictures that I did take my time on...and Pilles I almost expect your comments. Thanks all hopefully I only get better, you don't get ahead in life by people being nice all the time.

Goddamn!! There;s a real, sensible human being on this board, after all. Oh I like you.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/790196

pics from the prime as promised

Paul, just for your edification... Webster's..

lay.. 1_To cause to come down... as from an erect position.. 2_Place or put so as to be in a resting or recumbent position.

lie.. 1_a) To make a statement that one knows is false, b) To make such statements habitually.

Maybe you need to take two pills and go lay down.

It does seem a little overexposed and yellow cast. There are alot of things you "could" have done. but if you simply want to improve what you "did" get. I would say cropping the left and a simple vignette will pull the child into the focal point. It is a wedding pic after all...

good idea...i have a lot of work to do.

Pandacat wrote:
Paul, just for your edification... Webster's..

lay.. 1_To cause to come down... as from an erect position.. 2_Place or put so as to be in a resting or recumbent position.

lie.. 1_a) To make a statement that one knows is false, b) To make such statements habitually.

Maybe you need to take two pills and go lay down.

Look in any grammar primer, and you will see that the proper use is lie down. Lay is to put down. But of course you probably never studied that.

It is what it is...

James, here is what I did. Not great but it's a start.