[cameraclicker]

It’s been 6 months since the wedding?  Can the photographer do editing?  Can someone else?  You don’t say how much money is involved, or what the agreement was.  Assuming the photos delivered are somewhere near what was promised, you should probably pay.  You may be able to negotiate.

[cameraclicker]

You should get gear that helps you shoot the subjects you are interested in.

If you are interested in macro photography, for instance, you could use a 50 mm lens and extension tubes, or for some subjects, a dedicated macro lens might work better.  But for grasshoppers a 400 mm lens with extension tubes and a 2X teleconverter gives closer focus and magnification to fill the frame with a single grasshopper from a distance that the grasshopper feels safe and does not take off.

Possibly the next things to get are a tripod, flash, reflector, remote shutter release, spare battery, extra memory cards?

Comute does not look as sharp as I expect it should.  That may be due to processing but I suspect camera movement based on the tower’s red light.

I like Coridor but try cropping the bottom from the edge of the blur, around the bigger green leaf.  See how it looks.  The trees on the right are not that sharp.   Look up Hyperfocal Distance.  It may have worked better at a shorter focal length.

Autumn Trunk is not doing anything for me.

Honda Shadow … does not do that much for me either but I am not that into bikes.  It does not look very sharp.  Post processing may need some work.  Look into sharpening, there are many ways, some easier than others.  All can be over done.  Good sharpening makes a difference.  Sharpening for printing is different than for the web.  Your camera has a low pass filter over the sensor to reduce the possibility of moire effects.  Post processing sharpening reverses the effect of that filter.  That’s the 5 second intro to a complicated subject.

I’m not sure how I feel about Portret.  Her eyes look odd.  The light is interesting.  She is obviously showing off the artwork on her finger.  She has a dent in her forehead.  The lighting may be more suitable for a male.  My eye jumps between her right hand and left eye.   I think it shows a mischievous character.

[cameraclicker]

@glowatski — Your permission is not required by anyone posting the photo for the purpose of discussion about it.  Equally, your photographer’s permission is not required.  A third point is that your photographer does not need your permission to post the photo as a representation of his/her work.  However, the whole point of this exercise was to educate you, and possibly your photographer.  I hope you agree that the picture looks better without the bright stick in the foreground.  Even if you disagree the picture looks better, you have seen the power editing software makes available to change an image.

The files have been deleted from my server.  If you try to view them, you may find you still can.  This is because web browsers keep copies on the local hard drive, which they use to display content faster than they could if they had to download everything, every time.  You will probably have to clear the browser’s cache before you get a message saying the content can not be displayed.  Or, just try it from some computer that has never been to this site.

Happy American Thanksgiving.

[cameraclicker]

Start by losing the music.  Anyone who opens your web page in a modern cubicle style office will not appreciate broadcasting while they look for the button to turn it off.  And, it is probably copyrighted?

I don’t have time to go through them all now.  The few I saw looked good.  What was the purpose of the boots on the railing in the maternity shot?

[cameraclicker]

A local pro recommends tilting the camera to fit in a building or sailboat’s mast that otherwise will not fit with the lens you have.  And he recommends tilting some other photos for creative effect.  His specialty is lighting with speedlights and his advice about that is much better.  If you are going to tilt, make it look like you meant it, as you have, but keep the technique for a few special photos.  Don’t use it for almost every photo.  When you take a tilted photo, take a straight one either just before or just after, so you can compare.

A couple of your photos look slightly over exposed.  This may be your problem with skin tones.  Or, your monitor may not be calibrated.  Notebooks are worst, thin panel desk monitors are next and the great big old cathode ray tube monitors were best.  Thin panels and notebook monitors must be viewed almost exactly straight on.  Manufacturers seem to be trying to improve and some can be viewed from the side without loosing a lot of light but, if you view from above, the image displayed goes lighter and if you view from below it goes darker.  Ambient light affects your viewing experience so pay attention to room light.  Pick up a Spyder or Colormunki that can profile your monitor and create a file for the computer to use to better display correct colours.

[cameraclicker]

The praying mantis on a rusty pipe is over exposed a little with too much brightness behind it.  On the other hand, congratulations for finding one.  If you are going to shoot nature where you find it, you have less options than if you capture it and place it in a studio setting…  Perhaps spot metering?  If you like praying mantis photos, and other bugs, there are a lot here.

The fish in ice must be pretty fresh.  The eye is still clear.  I like the photo.

BW Shisha feels tilted, and too dark.  I would remove the power lines.

Boat is tilted and has noise (surprised at the noise in the cloud since ISO 100).  Fix the tilt, fix the noise, add a little fill light to the foreground, crop about 600 px (most of the empty sky, keeping the clouds with just a little breathing room above) and it is very nice.

Beach 2 looks level.  The horizon is in the middle.  Try cropping it so the horizon is on the upper third line.  The lump of old concrete in the lower right is not in sharp focus, so try cropping to remove it (make the lower edge at the very top of the rock in the lower left, keeping the rock above it) which puts the lower third line just above the lower third line.  Three different “looks”.  Which do you like best?  Why?

“God got me” girl has lots of noise in the background, her hands and arms are perhaps too bright.  That’s all nit picking stuff.

The girl in the loud dress looks better taken from the side than square on.  Her skin could stand some post production work, just cleaning up little blemishes, which is picky work to do well.  Good retouching is an art, bad retouching gets you on the front page here.  You don’t have anything to be ashamed of regarding any of them.  They could be improved a little.  68e has a light background with almost white sky.  Depending upon how reflective that wood is, you may have a good result if you exposed for the background and lit the foreground with a flash at part power.  It depends on why you took the picture.  If it was a vacation photo, probably I would not bother getting out a flash.  If it was a photo shoot, I would.  If a flash is used, the angle of camera to wood may have to change or a circular polarizer may be needed to handle reflection.

[cameraclicker]

I think you have improved.  I think you could improve some more.

I like this one, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=541471142533302&set=a.541471115866638.135703.368612416485843&type=3&theater for instance, but I would have had them stand ever so slightly further apart so all the son’s face was visible, but probably not his right shoulder.  Then, expose for the bright yellow tree in the background and fire a camera mounted speedlight set somewhere below full power, perhaps 1/2 or 1/4 power, depending on conditions, and taste, to light the foreground.  You have a number of photos in the first new album that are similar, your subjects are lit well but the background is partly burned out.  For added points, you could use radios and set up speedlights off camera.  Sometimes extra light is not needed and sometimes it helps.  Sometimes a reflector is enough.

I think my favourites are the Little Ethan gallery, good expressions, good light.  One picture has a bright circle which I would edit out.  Focus looks off on some of them but you are showing us Facebook images.  I have no idea if the original image is good and Facebook resizing and storing the image is causing the image to appear as it does, or if there are problems with the image.

Keep shooting lots, try to look at your photos critically, practice helps.

[cameraclicker]

I agree with soaringturkeys.

I will add:  Canon’s L lenses and (I believe) all the Sigma lenses come with lens hoods for a reason, they cut down on lens flare and improve contrast.  They also offer a degree of mechanical protection for the lens.  You can put them on facing out for use and backwards to cover part of the lens for storage.

[cameraclicker]

As a joke?  No.  As an attempt to educate.

[cameraclicker]

The Canadian version was just overhauled, and right after that the Supreme Court issued a number of verdicts which apparently broadened it further.  According to the heading, this is accurate to Oct. 31, 2012:

29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:

(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the

(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

[cameraclicker]

@lincolnphoto — I am guessing you are American?

The US act states:

§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use 40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Since there is not much for sale on this page, and certainly no one is offering that image for sale here; and, since this whole thread is news/educational in nature; and, since this thread has already been noted for containing criticism, it seems to me that the fair use doctrine applies.  As such, I don’t need the copyright holder’s permission.

 

[cameraclicker]

Ken,

Wonderful work and a good web page philosophy.  Easy to navigate and operation across platforms trumps bells & whistles.

[cameraclicker]

@meganray — Ali may not have asked for a critique but her photo was linked in this thread and it appears from the discussion that she is charging for her time and expertise.  If she is taking them and providing them for free, a different standard may be applied.

@sask13 — It seems anyone can call themselves a professional photographer and start charging for their services.  It amazes me what some are charging for, and it amazes me even more that they are actually getting paid.  Are they able to charge for enough work that they can make a living doing it?

@glowatski — I had some time this morning and instead of watching TV, I edited Ali’s photo.   The original is on the left and what I think it should have looked like is on the right: Compare these.

If you like the edited version, you can pick up a copy here.

 

 

[cameraclicker]

The secret to becoming an authentic photographer is to stand behind a real photographer and take the same picture… over and over and over again, until you understand.  Figuratively, that is what school is.  It is what many books are.   How successful you will be depends upon how you learn and how observant you are.  School might be faster because the teacher is more forthcoming with information packaged for consumption.   For most jobs, school is just the prerequisite, the real learning starts after you graduate.

Anyone can take a great photo.   Two great photos is a bit harder, twenty or two hundred harder still.  She is right about shooting a lot, however.  For “The Sense of Sight” at National Geographic, Joe McNally shot almost 1,200 rolls of film or almost 43,200 slides!   Eventually 40 shots ended up in the magazine.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VacqxeJ8AN8 is a fascinating way to spend 17 minutes.

It’s not about the education, or the equipment, or the editing.  It’s about the final image.  Being professional is about consistently creating good images.

[cameraclicker]

LOL!  For that pose, lots of tai chi practice will improve your stamina to maintain the pose.

[Author]

Posts