 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
Poll Question:
How awesome is this? | | Total Votes: | 24 | | 1. Epic | 7 | 29.17 % | 
| | 2. Okay | 14 | 58.33 % |
| | 3. Needs Work | 3 | 12.5 % |
| | 4. You suck. | 0 | 0 % |
|
YoelT
      
Location: Viet Nam
Gender: Male
 |  |  | The Decrepit Steel Works
< on 7/20/2010 2:56 AM >
|  | | | Once recently I was an unashamed HDR junkie when I shot on a Canon P&S. In the year that I have been using a DSLR (Canon XSi/450D), I have grown a distaste for HDR, although I still find it's use for some situations. I now exposure blend almost everything, and I am really liking the results, it looks natural but still has some zing to it.
It has been a year ago since I first shot at this site. Since I want to take the time to put the effort into perfecting the photos, post-processing has always been a slow process for me. These shots I am very satisfied with, but I don't want to become complacent. I want to hear some serious criticism of any aspect of these shots that needs to be criticized/ Thanks!
1. The site
2. Report
3. The Basement
4. Green Door
5. The Powerhouse
6. Open Door.
www.yoeltaom.as |
|
YoelT
Location: Viet Nam
Gender: Male
| | | image workflow
<Reply # 1 on 7/20/2010 2:04 PM >
| | | | Forgot to post a whole bit. Some have inquired recently about my work flow for photography. I shoot primarily on a Canon XSi Digital Rebel and my main lens is the Tamron 17-50. For shots like these, I triple bracket the exposures on a tripod, triggering with either a timer or a remote cord. Always try to keep it on ISO100 and use a polarizer when applicable.
For these shots, my post processing goes along these lines:
1. I always shoot RAW only. I do some initial adjustments (usually in batch) using the Canon RAW software. I then convert to 8-bit TIFF (have not discovered any advantage to 16bit).
2. The 3 bracketed TIFF frames for a scene are exposure blended via a batch process with Enblend resulting in a single TIFF image.
3. Using GIMP, I individually work on each image making adjustments primarily with tone curves, saturation, unsharp mask, cropping and other tools if I really want to go overboard. This is where most of the magic happens and also where I decide which images make the final cut. The result is essentially the finished work and saved as a TIFF file.
4. A new step that I used on these images was to load them into PhotoScape and apply a batch process. This batch process used a filter to apply the slight cross-processed film look and vignetting. Also this is where the watermark was added and the final conversion to JPEG took place.
5. The last step before the photos go online is to restore the original EXIF data to the JPEG using Exifer. It is lost from the image files in the process, and I am pretty OCD about dates, tags, shooting information etc.
www.yoeltaom.as |
|
terapr0
 
Location: Sauga City
Gender: Male
www . tohellandback . net
| | | Re: The Decrepit Steel Works
<Reply # 2 on 7/20/2010 11:34 PM >
| | | | heres my quick and honest critique
1.
feels overexposed. the lens flare in the top right is a bit distracting, and the shot seems to be lacking in subject matter. The stacks aren't straight and seem to curve in a bit. All of these are an easy 3 minute fix in PS
2.
I really like this shot, except for the line across the bottom of the frame. It's visually distracting and doesn't add to the composition. Maybe try cropping it a bit tighter? I like the DOF you chose though. This one caught my eye right away.
3.
it's a cool shot, but that little bit of ceiling / snotsicle in the top left is distracting. The watermark detracts from this (and all) of your shots - get rid of it. It also might be my monitors, but it seems a bit over exposed (I don't think its my monitors though because, if anything, they tend to be darker than they should). This HDR shot would probably look better as a single exposure.
4.
I like this except the top of the window on the far right is cut off. There's also some HDR ghosting in the same shot. This too would probably have been more successful, and had a more realistic "feel", as a single exposure.
5.
This is a nice documentary type shot, but it didn't need, and certainly didn't benefit from the use of HDR. The telltale black vignetting in the corners is a dead giveaway as to what technique was employed. If you're going to use HDR, always aim for subtlety. You'll know you're doing HDR right when nobody can guess its an HDR. The sky is also a bit overexposed just above the roof. Actually, it might not even be overexposed, but it seems like it is because of the huge difference in contrast between the white clouds / sky and the black corner right beside it. Turning that black corner blue again would take about 10 seconds in photoshop
6.
I think this is my favorite shot of the set. The slanted walls on either side are a bit distracting, but otherwise I really like the composition and think its an interesting photograph. The door leads my eye into a pleasantly exposed room, and the colors and texture of the walls give it a really genuine feel.
all in all a pretty good set, from what looks to be a really interesting location. I'm far from an expert or anything, but I'd suggest continuing to focus on your composition and subject matter, and lay off the HDR unless it's needed. I too used to be hard into HDR and would use it any chance I got, but you'll find that its appeal definitely wears off with time. I still use it every now and again, but I just never mention when I do. Nobody calls me out on it, so I must be doing something right. I think the biggest challenge to using HDR is learning when its needed and when it's a waste of your time (with shot #5 being a perfect example). There's no harm in bracketing every shot you take (though I question the need since you shoot in RAW), but you don't always need to process every single group as an HDR.
another piece of advice I could give is to spend less time post processing your shots. There's not a single shot posted here that should have taken more than 5 minutes to edit. I'm definitely not one of those purists who takes all my shots right from the camera, but I certainly dont think you should spend more time editing it than you did to take it. Spending more time looking through the viewfinder will save you time starting at a computer screen.
anyways, these are all just my own opinions so feel free to read into them as much or as little as you like.
fuck that didnt end up being so "quick" :p
www.tohellandback.net |
|
YoelT
Location: Viet Nam
Gender: Male
| | | Re: The Decrepit Steel Works
<Reply # 3 on 7/21/2010 2:04 AM >
| | | | Thanks a lot for all that. A few thing to clear up tho:
None of those are HDR, unless you are calling exposure blending the same thing as HDR, which I consider a different technique.
My HDR would look something like this... cover your eyes:
haha
None of the images are vignetted originally, that was all added intentionally. I do admit that on a few images it does not look right and detracts from some of the shots, particularly of the sky.
I also i actually didn't spend more then 5 minutes processing these individually, not counting the time running the batch processes of course. But I had maybe 100 shots and 100x5 is still 8+ hours. For me it just can take several weeks or months to scrape together that much uninterrupted free time that I can afford to spend on photos.
I'll probably say more later, gtg.
www.yoeltaom.as |
|
YoelT
Location: Viet Nam
Gender: Male
| | | Re: The Decrepit Steel Works
<Reply # 4 on 7/21/2010 2:10 AM >
| | | | Oh and watermarks, yes everybody hates watermarks, including me. Obviously If I was going to print or have a picture displayed somewhere the watermark would be gone (I make a version with and without the watermark.) But the fact is if the picture is going to be displayed online, people are going to steal it, which I have discovered several times at least and who knows how many that I will never know about. I can't stop people from 'stealing' my pictures, in fact I am glad that they are liked enough to be stolen. So I least I have have some credit still on the picture wherever it may end up, unless of course they crop it out.
www.yoeltaom.as |
|
terapr0
Location: Sauga City
Gender: Male
www . tohellandback . net
| | | Re: The Decrepit Steel Works
<Reply # 5 on 7/21/2010 2:22 AM >
| | | | eeek my bad, I definitely mistook the corner vignetting for some HDR ghosting / artifacts...forget that portion of the critique ;)
and yea I can certainly relate to the frustrations of editing many many pictures lol
www.tohellandback.net |
|
e-photog
 
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Gender: Male
This IS in fact me...
| | | Re: The Decrepit Steel Works
<Reply # 6 on 7/28/2010 2:29 PM >
| | | | I wouldn't say any of these are "Epic" but there are several that are very well done.
The "Report" image is very well done, and I like the depth of field, but I think it would be stronger if it was cropped down to just under the hole in the 2nd paper. There's just too much negative and wasted space.
"The Site" is another image with a really good concept, but I think if it had been shoot either earlier in the morning, or later at night would have done it wonders. But I know you can't always chose where the sun is when you go exploring =P I've seen many photos opps and wished I could stay for another 4 hours to get a nice sunset picture.
"The Powerhouse" image, the only thing I'd recommend would be to straighten out the building a little more. The colors and exposure are spot on, and the composition is pretty decent, but to me it looks like the building is on a slight slant... Or maybe I am... hahaha
As for Watermarks, I don't mind them if they're small and tucked away... When people fade them all over their pictures it becomes distracting and ruins the image. But yours are like mine... Small, dont distract, but still show who you are.
Them's be my 2 cents =P Good job!
www.e-photog.ca |
|
YoelT
Location: Viet Nam
Gender: Male
| | | Re: The Decrepit Steel Works
<Reply # 7 on 8/5/2010 7:09 PM >
| | | | thanks alot!
www.yoeltaom.as |
|
desmet
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
| |  | | Re: The Decrepit Steel Works
<Reply # 8 on 8/6/2010 3:25 PM >
| | | | Looks good.
HDR is a gimmick for people who couldn't shoot their way out of a paper bag. It definitely has it's uses and you can even get a little bit of the 'hdr look' on some shots to add a bit of whimsey, but any decent photographer is going to outgrow the "clown vomit on every shot" look. It's amateurish and it's used to cover up the fact that people suck at photography.
|
|
|
|
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 203 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739366026 pages have been generated.
|
|
