 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
490 online
Server Time:
2024-04-30 20:43:03
|
|
|
 sandy frank
    
Location: Indiana-ish
Gender: Male
Why doesn't Johnny care...?
 |  | Balls
< on 4/13/2011 12:46 PM >
|  | | | Throw 'em at me. No holdy back.
( Also! Seems necessary as of late: http://www.uer.ca/...d=1&threadid=31637 )
400 ISO - 18mm - f/11 - 1/80s
Canon 300D + kit lens.
DANKE!
[last edit 4/13/2011 12:53 PM by sandy frank - edited 2 times]
I've no sense, I lick electric fence; I put barbed wire in my pants and do a Celtic dance.
- My Canon 300D is beat to hell, a bit finicky, and a 'lil loose, much like everything else I own...
http://www.youtube...atch?v=IvN10-n1NBc |
|
consecrated
   
Location: Connecticut
Gender: Male
Æthereal
| |  | Re: Balls
<Reply # 1 on 4/13/2011 1:57 PM >
| | | | OK...Here's the pitch!
Most of the subject is underexposed. The "windows" behind the grandstand are overexposed and blown out, likely due to the low sun. It looks like proper exposure takes place some where around the press boxes. I don't care for the white balance, although that might be a function of the processing.
Now, subjectively speaking, I am not sure I like the railing, and while it does have peeling paint, the concrete partition in the foreground. Get in on the seats and re-frame without the railing. The colors could be cool here. The architecture and geometry could work well if the photo was framed differently IMO.
I am not trying to trash the photo. I think it's a good start, but rather bland and uninteresting. Try less processing and moving around more. I think it's commendable that you posted and are looking for input. I only state what is my opinion, so just keep trying and post again!
[last edit 4/13/2011 1:58 PM by consecrated - edited 1 times]
|
|
robtastic
Location: central colorado
Gender: Male
Friends don't let friends HDR
| | Re: Balls
<Reply # 2 on 4/13/2011 3:01 PM >
| | | | what consecrated said...
Shooting into harsh light like that just blows out a lot of the background and then the dark processing of the rest doesn't help it.
The railing and wall in the front is a bit distracting. Also, it doesn't seem terribly sharp? Is everything in focus?
My Flickr: http://www.flickr....enericprofilename/ |
|
barefootpoetry
Location: PA
Gender: Female
| | | Re: Balls
<Reply # 3 on 4/13/2011 3:33 PM >
| | | | I think a more direct shot of the seats without the railing in the way would look more interesting. Like, if you took a few steps to your right and shot the seats from a front angle.
I often run into the problem of overexposure with UE photos. It can be really hard to get the dark parts to even show up without blowing out the bright parts. I usually have to wiggle the levels in post-processing and can never get really satisfactory results. By the time the glaring sunshine from a window looks less obnoxious, I've managed to turn everything else an ugly gray. It's difficult, and i'm not good at processing.
One trick I have heard, is to shoot two frames of the same shot. For the first frame, expose for the light parts. For the second frame, expose for the dark parts so they look nice. Then, in Photoshop, merge the two so you h ave the best parts of each photo. I think you use Layers for this. I don't own Photoshop and know nothing about it, but this is something I've heard works well for this common problem.
If anyone else knows any tricks to help with this, particularly ones you don't need software for, I am all ears as well.
She who hesitates, sees bulldozers. |
|
sandy frank
Location: Indiana-ish
Gender: Male
Why doesn't Johnny care...?
| | Re: Balls
<Reply # 4 on 4/13/2011 7:42 PM >
| | | | ...and the catch! 
Thanks for the input everyone! I now have a better shot in mind for the next time I go! ^_^
The more I look at it, the more the railing distracts me too. I think I was paying too much attention to lining it up with the support pillar in the background, instead of eliminating it with a different POV.
Post by consecrated
> Most of the subject is underexposed. The "windows" behind the grandstand are overexposed and blown out, likely due to the low sun. It looks like proper exposure takes place some where around the press boxes. I don't care for the white balance, although that might be a function of the processing.
I was actually aiming for some overexposure in those areas. Sometimes blow outs look good, but I guess I need to work on 'em. White balance is a little too warm for ya, eh?
Post by robtastic
> Also, it doesn't seem terribly sharp? Is everything in focus?
Well, about as in focus as I could get using f/11. Any smaller and I think I would have really overexposed the already overexposed areas because of a longer shutter. I think. Anyhoo, the larger version shows a pretty soft focus in the distance.
Post by barefootpoetry
> ...particularly ones you don't need software for, I am all ears as well.
+1 !! Same here ^_^
I'm going to try processing this one again and bracket it in PS. I shoot in RAW so I'll have a little bit of leeway to experiment with.
Thanks again!
I've no sense, I lick electric fence; I put barbed wire in my pants and do a Celtic dance.
- My Canon 300D is beat to hell, a bit finicky, and a 'lil loose, much like everything else I own...
http://www.youtube...atch?v=IvN10-n1NBc |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 125 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739996234 pages have been generated.
|
|
