Official Photography Thread

[tooblue]

You can post elsewhere and link it, which is what I try to do most of the time, Flickr, Facebook, Google photos, etc.

It's a great scene with the reflected grasses and sky. Looks like it could be slightly rotated to get the horizon flat, but that may just be the way the edge of the lake/pond bends. I've got to stop editing pictures, now every time I look at something I think what I would change, instead of just enjoying it.

I like Flickr because it's share functionality will auto-generate the code to insert that will link the image in multiple sizes, and allow a reader to click on the image to take them to Flickr to view the full size.

I could put them on my own Web server, but I should just to set up a Flickr account ... it's just one more thing to keep track of. I recently have been using drones for capturing footage/experimentation. The one I have shoots stills in RAW, and the footage is pretty amazing for how small the lens is (not to mention the drone itself). When I get a chance, I will link some stuff.

[Katy Lied]

Ever since Swamp mentioned the crooked horizon, that's all that I see now.

[mtnbiker]

Ever since Swamp mentioned the crooked horizon, that's all that I see now.

It's only fair. I posted a picture a few years ago, and the first comment was about the crooked horizon. So at least I'm not the only one. Now if it was posted sideways like HFN's specialty, nobody would notice the horizon.

[tooblue]

It's only fair. I posted a picture a few years ago, and the first comment was about the crooked horizon. So at least I'm not the only one. Now if it was posted sideways like HFN's specialty, nobody would notice the horizon.

There's a fisheye bend to the image I really like; the grasses coming out of the water bend as their growth pattern leads to the dock. It's not so much crooked, but rather causes a bit of a visual illusion ... though I could rotate it and straighten it out so to speak. Not sure it would make much difference?

[swampfrog]

Ever since Swamp mentioned the crooked horizon, that's all that I see now.

Apologies. As I said, I've been editing way too many pictures the past few weeks, a lot of them seascapes shot at 10mm. Once you start rotating every image, not rotating sticks out.

It's only fair. I posted a picture a few years ago, and the first comment was about the crooked horizon. So at least I'm not the only one. Now if it was posted sideways like HFN's specialty, nobody would notice the horizon.

Was it me? I can be pretty anal about some of these things and can be overly critical. Like a lot of things, you learn the tools of the trade so you know when to break them.

For a while a participated in a photographic critique site. Two of the first things I learned about successful landscapes is level the horizon and a clean lower edge. Do those two things (when shooting if you can), and most eyes will find the image more pleasing, almost without fault.

There's a fisheye bend to the image I really like; the grasses coming out of the water bend as their growth pattern leads to the dock. It's not so much crooked, but rather causes a bit of a visual illusion ... though I could rotate it and straighten it out so to speak. Not sure it would make much difference?

The very first thing I do when I pull a picture in for editing is apply the lens correction and rotate it so horizons are perfectly level and/or verticals are perfectly straight and exactly parallel to the image borders. Unless I'm using a wide or ultra-wide (I don't own a fish-eye, but same thing applies), then the curvature is part of the artistic intent. I have been known to correct even ultra-wides, but a lot of the image will be cut out, so you have to plan ahead. I believe it is almost universally accepted by landscape photographers that leveling and correcting distortion betters the image. There are exceptions as noted by this article which otherwise shows the benefits of applying corrections in post process to straighten lines.

Now it is one thing when an image is tilted intentionally to create an interesting composition, and totally different when the photographer is not paying attention to or is unaware of the surroundings and background elements that are part of their photographs.

https://photographylife.com/straight...aligning-lines

Here's a quick distortion (straightening the curved horizon) plus leveling edit. I don't think it lost too much of the curvature of the grasses, but I did lose some content on the sides.

cubcamp-lake.jpg

And yes, I do own a bubble level that attaches to the flash hot shoe

[Katy Lied]

I dunno. I think I like the sloping horizon. It draws your eye across the photo from left to right, and then swirling to the foreground eddy. If you want to get fancy, the clouds reflected in the swirl of water then bounces your eye back up into the clouds. Once in the clouds, your eye is drawn back to earth, along the path across the photo from left to right...

ad infinitum

cubcamp-lake1.jpg

[swampfrog]

I dunno. I think I like the sloping horizon. It draws your eye across the photo from left to right, and then swirling to the foreground eddy. If you want to get fancy, the clouds reflected in the swirl of water then bounces your eye back up into the clouds. Once in the clouds, your eye is drawn back to earth, along the path across the photo from left to right...

ad infinitum

[ATTACH]8185[/ATTACH]

Not me, my eye just runs out the right side of the picture like a ball rolling down a slight incline, but I see the point.

[swampfrog]

The second one is highly processed. Light is from upper left center (note the shadow on the water). Sky and hair highlights is overexposed/blown so that the processing to lighten the kids skin isn't too noisy. Total contrast is reduced. Blacks/shadows brought way up. Reverse vignette or possibly 2 separate gradients pulled in from the side.

The 3rd would be much better if those silly people hadn't photobombed it. Can't they see that someone is trying to make a nice picture?

Do you have an external flash? That third one is almost certainly taken with some flash fill. Probably 2 to 3 stops below metered exposure.

I don't do a lot of portraits, but I did find this brief set up instructions that expanded my view of what can be done with portraits.
https://www.reddit.com/r/postprocess...t_this_effect/

Also some tutorials here:
https://jessicadrossin.com/

Wanted to follow this up. Did some more senior portraits for my daughter and was looking to see if I could recreate this at least somewhere close. First was to get a capture that is backlit and overexposes the sky.


1C2A8759.jpg, on Flickr

Rotated and processed, raised the exposure by 1.5 stops boosted whites, brought highlights down slightly, shadows up, blacks down slightly. used the Tone Curve to put a little more contrast in the midtones.

1C2A8759-2.jpg, on Flickr

[tooblue]

I dunno. I think I like the sloping horizon. It draws your eye across the photo from left to right, and then swirling to the foreground eddy. If you want to get fancy, the clouds reflected in the swirl of water then bounces your eye back up into the clouds. Once in the clouds, your eye is drawn back to earth, along the path across the photo from left to right...

ad infinitum



[ATTACH]8185[/ATTACH]

As an artist and illustrator, what Katy has diagramed is often exactly what I am looking for in a composition: a way to deliberately force the eye to move to, leave and then return back to a main focal point. Classic painters such as Vermeer and Rubens were expert at it. My earlier photo with the centre aligned fence post does that well. My preference for certain of Swamp's photos verses others, is predicated almost exclusively on eye movement and capturing the viewers gaze within the composition (ad infinitum as Katy states).

Also, I am a stealthy/haphazard photog: I usually only look through my viewfinder once (maybe twice) to set the settings, and then prefer to take shots with the camera rested on my chest, or hip. For that particular image, I set the camera on the shoreline of the lake shot the image blindly.

All that being said, Swamp is a traditional photog and his critique has merit. When I have some more time, I'll adjust the image myself as he recommends and post it again.

[tooblue]

Wanted to follow this up. Did some more senior portraits for my daughter and was looking to see if I could recreate this at least somewhere close. First was to get a capture that is backlit and overexposes the sky.


1C2A8759.jpg, on Flickr

Rotated and processed, raised the exposure by 1.5 stops boosted whites, brought highlights down slightly, shadows up, blacks down slightly. used the Tone Curve to put a little more contrast in the midtones.

1C2A8759-2.jpg, on Flickr

A little bright an washed out but, well done.

[swampfrog]

I want to take something pictures more like these: (not taken by me)

The photo looks backlit but I am mystified how.

A little bright an washed out but, well done.

I was trying to mimic this one, you're right I went too far on the exposure it's more washed out than the example shot. I'll adjust later. The example one is also a little more balanced towards cool, which is good for the chosen color palette I think. I have not done a lot of high key work in processing.

[swampfrog]

As an artist and illustrator, what Katy has diagramed is often exactly what I am looking for in a composition: a way to deliberately force the eye to move to, leave and then return back to a main focal point. Classic painters such as Vermeer and Rubens were expert at it. My earlier photo with the centre aligned fence post does that well. My preference for certain of Swamp's photos verses others, is predicated almost exclusively on eye movement and capturing the viewers gaze within the composition (ad infinitum as Katy states).

The two areas I'm trying to focus on more currently are composition (with the same factors mentioned) and selecting the right focal length. I have a tendency to select focal length based on what I can include/exclude via zoom, whether the zoom be on the lens or by moving my feet. I need to be more aware of how I want the size of objects to appear relative to one another in space, select an appropriate focal length, and then move my feet to frame what I want.

I have virtually no artistic training, please continue to let me know where I can improve.

[Pelado]

I was trying to mimic this one, you're right I went too far on the exposure it's more washed out than the example shot. I'll adjust later. The example one is also a little more balanced towards cool, which is good for the chosen color palette I think. I have not done a lot of high key work in processing.

That style seems to fit the blonde-haired subjects better, producing a glow around their heads. Not sure if it just doesn't work on a brunette or if there's something they did differently than yours.

[tooblue]

That style seems to fit the blonde-haired subjects better, producing a glow around their heads. Not sure if it just doesn't work on a brunette or if there's something they did differently than yours.

I really think the oldest girl in the image with the three sisters is holding a defused light behind the three of them.

[creekster]

I really think the oldest girl in the image with the three sisters is holding a defused light behind the three of them.

I dont think this is the case. Look at the burned in lighted part of the top of the smallest girl's head. The source of that light has to be above and behind the three girls. It cannot be coming from behind them.