[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Mark, that bumblebee shot looks like it was in a studio. Great stuff.

Thanks, DC. I was pretty happy with it as I hadn't even readjusted settings yet after using the 70-200. After the shot I realized I was still at f2.8, so I'm surprised the DoF is as good as it is.

[justanotherdude]

Haven't been very motivated to get out and shoot, so instead I've been editing old photos - practicing with presets and such.


Silvia at Rest by Darrick Snyder, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by onlyabloke

Haven't been very motivated to get out and shoot, so instead I've been editing old photos - practicing with presets and such.

I just had occasion to re-edit some pix from 2008. There were some good shots in the mix, but I was stunned at how much better I am as a photographer and editor. Also, the editing software today runs circles around the 2008 versions.

Dave

[justanotherdude]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I just had occasion to re-edit some pix from 2008. There were some good shots in the mix, but I was stunned at how much better I am as a photographer and editor. Also, the editing software today runs circles around the 2008 versions.

Dave

Same here. The difference between 2011 to now for me is quite large. And the same with the software like you said. I edited photos in GIMP back then, now that I have Photoshop/Lightroom, it's so much better.

[jmg]

Speaking of cars:

Porsche 356 Convertible by JMG, on Flickr

[justanotherdude]

Here's another one from today. Re-edited this one with a new preset I created (plus a little tweaking). Like how it came out, but no matter how many times I've edited this one (and a couple other) I'm never 100% satisfied with it.


The Traveler by Darrick Snyder, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by onlyabloke

Here's another one from today. Re-edited this one with a new preset I created (plus a little tweaking). Like how it came out, but no matter how many times I've edited this one (and a couple other) I'm never 100% satisfied with it.

Sometimes I step back and realize that my image isn't as strong as I thought it was and I'm trying to do too much in post to rescue it. With your image, I'd prefer the guy to be coming into the image and I see more of his face, or going out of the image with me seeing less of his face. He's in kind of a neutral place now. He's almost centered in the frame and I think the composition would be stronger with him either more to the left or more to the right, depending on how much face we see, and differing percentage of his face showing.

There's a rule in wildlife photography that I think also applies in people photography (all rules can be broken). The rule is that the head angle cannot be negative, going away from the camera. It can be perpendicular to the sensor or any angle toward the sensor, but not away. Here, you've got just a tiny bit away, but that slightly weakens the image. I think this image is best with the head angle perpendicular to the sensor. I shoot lots of backsides of people, partly so that I don't need model releases, but the head angle is way more away, like 90-degrees.

When I break rules, like head angle or level horizon, I do it big, so that there's no doubt that I meant it. For instance, a horizon that's 1 or 3-degrees off looks like an accident, but when it's 20-degrees off, there's no doubt that I was going for the "angle."

Just some knee-jerk reactions.

[dcstep]

jmg, love the 356. That was the first car that I fell in love with, back in the day.

[M_Six]

My first love was the Jag E-Type.

[justanotherdude]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Sometimes I step back and realize that my image isn't as strong as I thought it was and I'm trying to do too much in post to rescue it. With your image, I'd prefer the guy to be coming into the image and I see more of his face, or going out of the image with me seeing less of his face. He's in kind of a neutral place now. He's almost centered in the frame and I think the composition would be stronger with him either more to the left or more to the right, depending on how much face we see, and differing percentage of his face showing.

There's a rule in wildlife photography that I think also applies in people photography (all rules can be broken). The rule is that the head angle cannot be negative, going away from the camera. It can be perpendicular to the sensor or any angle toward the sensor, but not away. Here, you've got just a tiny bit away, but that slightly weakens the image. I think this image is best with the head angle perpendicular to the sensor. I shoot lots of backsides of people, partly so that I don't need model releases, but the head angle is way more away, like 90-degrees.

When I break rules, like head angle or level horizon, I do it big, so that there's no doubt that I meant it. For instance, a horizon that's 1 or 3-degrees off looks like an accident, but when it's 20-degrees off, there's no doubt that I was going for the "angle."

Just some knee-jerk reactions.

I can agree to that and see what you're saying.

The reason he was centered in this one was because I was shooting with an 8mm fisheye and didn't like the distortion it caused if he wasn't centered.

I'll keep what you said in mind as I go through the rest.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by onlyabloke

I can agree to that and see what you're saying.

The reason he was centered in this one was because I was shooting with an 8mm fisheye and didn't like the distortion it caused if he wasn't centered.

I'll keep what you said in mind as I go through the rest.

Yeah, in this case, I like the fish-eye effect. If it were me, I'd just put his head perpendicular to the sensor. (I know, it's too late for that).

I'm torn about the man. Is he the subject or another piece in an abstract? If the subject, then I'd pull out more details in the collar/hoodie and even a bit on the face. If not the main subject, then I might darken him even more. With the head away, his darkness, he's kind of an ambivalent element.

I'm also undecided about the red awning to the right. That strong color pulls my eye over there and I think, "For what?" I might make that grey instead of red.

Which brings up another option. Often, I'll work an image as color and it just doesn't work, but then I convert to B&W, raise contrast, bring out all the shadow elements and it pops. I'd keep the sky detail about the same, but try to bring more details of his clothes out, without changing his importance, just show subtle detail in his hoodie.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

My first love was the Jag E-Type.

I had a fling, but then I heard about the "reliability" and turned back toward the German.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I had a fling, but then I heard about the "reliability" and turned back toward the German.

Yep, that was their Achilles' Heel. But you looked cool leaning against the side of it while you waited for the tow truck.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Yep, that was their Achilles' Heel. But you looked cool leaning against the side of it while you waited for the tow truck.

In the 1990s, I was working as an interim CFO for a guy that used E-types as his daily transportation. We were going up a slight hill in Cincinnati and the 12-cylinder started coughing and sputtering and he said something like, "Don't worry Dave, at most you'll have to push me a few feet to get off the main road and 'my guy' is always here in less than 15-minutes." Fortunately, I didn't have to push and we didn't have to wait for "his guy."

He had three E-types, including a 1960s original (with the glass over the headlights). One was always being worked on so there'd be a fresh steed when one came up lame. He was of that class and thought of Jags like polo ponies, which he'd outgrown twenty-years prior. (His wife and daughter still did national level equestrian competition at staggering annual cost. Quite nice ladies, with their own inherited money).

Dave

[Weebl]

I was sitting on a rock taking pics of the surfers and waves when he got tired of people watching him and climbed over the rocks only to see me. A year old male. About 1100 pics with the 100-400ii and it is very nice.

[dcstep]

I too was sitting on a rock by the water when I see these girls scoot by on a tube. The expression on the little girl's face reminded me off pulling my own girls behind a boat, many years ago:

Total Exhilaration by David Stephens, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Pelican flies low and close:

Pelican Flies Low by David Stephens, on Flickr

[Weebl]

Never mastered the bif shots, probably need a better camera body along with a 2X.
I like those water droplets, it adds to it rather than just a bif.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Weebl

Never mastered the bif shots, probably need a better camera body along with a 2X.
I like those water droplets, it adds to it rather than just a bif.

Yes, it's kind of a specialty, including, at least, a 400mm lens. Unfortunately, a 2X will generally slow down the AF so much that you can't keep a flying bird in focus.

[dcstep]

Here's a big buck from yesterday:

Big Buck Catches His Breath by David Stephens, on Flickr

[Itsed65]

A little buck from yesterday

Little Buck by lennycarl08, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

A little buck from yesterday

He'll be a big boy one day.