Posted by shadowedsmile Your straight lines in the majority of the photos are a good start! Not that all photos ever have to be straight - but you seem to have caught onto the shots where it's super important. Keep it up! |
Posted by fornaz As a starter, let me congratulate you on not blowing your whites. Windows are hard not to overexpose when you're in a dark building, I personally usually fail miserably to get two shots good for composite imaging with my shit tripod, even when I'm paying attention, so for a 'new photographer' you're showing promise. You do however get some dark rooms there, the very opposite of blown windows, and though it can be a nice effect, it's also sad when you don't get the full dynamism of a human eye. It's more easily fixed, thankfully, if you don't mind the added noise (some cameras produce beautiful noise... others not so much), the best solution is still to shoot multiple images with a tipod. Compositionwise, shadowedsmile already talked about your straightlines, so I won't add anymore to that, I'd say you have a good eye. The only thing I would pay attention to is the roof-floor framing. In picture #5 for example, I would have framed the windows dead-centre. You can easily crop if you fuck up while shooting, so it's no biggie, but especially when starting I find it's a good idea to stick to either centering or the rule of third. I know it's been said and debated many times how cliché it can get, but I've always felt there's a reason it's so widely used, even unknowingly. I hope this helps! Keep it up. |
Posted by alexcell33 I do see what your saying about making the photos more faithful to the human eye, and I did take multiple shots with a tripod and the lighter ones didn't look as good to me haha maybe I just have a weird taste. |
Posted by fornaz Sorry I should have explained better, I meant taking multiple exposures and stitching the photos together in photoshop. Something of an HDR, if you will, since you're trying to recreate high dynamic range of the human eye. There's a sort of contrast if you take i.e. picture 6 where in person you could probably see much of the inside of that room, it did not appear so dark. Cameras are bad at capturing the full range of exposures, which is why sometimes you can stitch togetehr a few pictures to recreate how you could really see it. Then again, as you said, it can look pretty cool. I just personally find it gets old when all the photos look like that in a set. |
Posted by Adv.Pack with the exception of #1, I would personally just let the highlights blow out in order to get more proper exposure inside. Don't worry too much about keeping your window highlights in check unless there is something interesting/ beneficial outside. |
Posted by fornaz As a starter, let me congratulate you on not blowing your whites. Windows are hard not to overexpose when you're in a dark building, I personally usually fail miserably to get two shots good for composite imaging with my shit tripod, even when I'm paying attention, so for a 'new photographer' you're showing promise. |
Posted by RedBush I've got to second this. I'm still pretty new at the photography thing, myself, and your windows look worlds better than anything I've been able to manage. Have these images undergone any editing at all, or are they right out of the camera? I know programs like Lightbox allow you to composite multiple shots that show both the highlights and the lowlights, so if you're doing any tweaks/touchups, that may be worth looking into. As for framing, they're generally looking pretty good. I'd just say watch your edges and what you're cutting off, like in #8 where we don't get the full frame of the door. Otherwise, not bad! |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |