[dcstep]

Darrick, again, that's very dark. I love the composition, but the walk leading up to the guardians is so dark that I can barely see any detail there on my calibrated monitor.

If your in LR, tone mapping to bring up the exposure of the walk would make it stronger, leading the eye more.

This is not a critique forum, so forgive me if I'm out of place. We started talking about this earlier in this thread or another thread, so I thought I'd report what I'm seeing.

Dave

[Itsed65]

B-25 at Buchannan by lennycarl08, on Flickr

[justanotherdude]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Darrick, again, that's very dark. I love the composition, but the walk leading up to the guardians is so dark that I can barely see any detail there on my calibrated monitor.

If your in LR, tone mapping to bring up the exposure of the walk would make it stronger, leading the eye more.

This is not a critique forum, so forgive me if I'm out of place. We started talking about this earlier in this thread or another thread, so I thought I'd report what I'm seeing.

Dave

It's fine lol I want CnC.

Only problem is every monitor I've seen my photos on, all my photos look fine. Work computers, my computer, wife's computer, phones, iPads. Everything looks normal. :/

Update: Figured I'd try to brighten it anyway.

Does this look better?

[dcstep]

Yes, that looks way better Darrick. Doesn't it look better on your work monitor also.

Most monitors are set way too bright. If your processing monitor is calibrated, I don't know what else to tell you to do. You might print a view on small paper, just to see how the exposure values look in print.

My monitors are calibrated and I'm looking at your images vs. the others in this thread and you're consistently darker than the rest of us. I think it is a monitor issue during your post processing.

Dave

[justanotherdude]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Yes, that looks way better Darrick. Doesn't it look better on your work monitor also.

Most monitors are set way too bright. If your processing monitor is calibrated, I don't know what else to tell you to do. You might print a view on small paper, just to see how the exposure values look in print.

My monitors are calibrated and I'm looking at your images vs. the others in this thread and you're consistently darker than the rest of us. I think it is a monitor issue during your post processing.

Dave

Hmmm. I'll do a bit of digging through my systems and see.
I know when I tried to calibrate it before it turned everything bronze. I'll try again.

Thanks!

[jmg]

Got to try some landscape shots this past weekend:

Bryce Canyon by JMG, on Flickr

Constructive Criticism welcome!

[Weebl]

Darrik,
Yes that looks better than the previous version to me. When I was looking at that on my Samsung phone it was fairly dark and I lost a lot of the hedge. On my computer I could see it better but still fairly dark. (very old but calibrated monitor)
The only criticism I have of this is on angles. The hedge tops are very slightly off, the left one is higher. The walkway at the bottom of the photo is not centered. The last one is purely up to interpretation but the height at which it was taken seems to be eye level height. To me that turns it into just a quick snapshot, a different angle would change that.
I'm not saying this is a better example or any good, as it was taken about a year after I started taking photos again but it shows what I'm talking about. I'll revisit this spot in a few weeks to do it over. These side walls are just over one foot high.
This advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Weebl]

Originally Posted by jmg

Got to try some landscape shots this past weekend:



Constructive Criticism welcome!

Chop the top 1/3 off or get that 14mm/ 16-35 lens. The aspect ratio doesn't seem to do justice to that image. To me it looks like there was much more out of view. Knock a tad off the blue/magenta to get the background "greener" I always hate the UV haze.
Someday I'll get over there to see what it really looks like. Nice texture of the walls and clouds.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Weebl

Chop the top 1/3 off or get that 14mm/ 16-35 lens. The aspect ratio doesn't seem to do justice to that image. To me it looks like there was much more out of view. Knock a tad off the blue/magenta to get the background "greener" I always hate the UV haze.
Someday I'll get over there to see what it really looks like. Nice texture of the walls and clouds.

Thanks! I didn't notice the magenta tint until I took some away. How's this 16:9 aspect:

Bryce Canyon - Wide by JMG, on Flickr

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by jmg

Got to try some landscape shots this past weekend:


Constructive Criticism welcome!

I like it. Very cool shot. But Kev's right about needing a wide angle lens if you're going to do justice to landscapes like that. You can even go cheap with one of the Rokinon lenses. Both the 8mm FE and the 14mm 2.8 are super easy to focus (they're both manual). Both are under $300.

EDIT: The 16:9 is better. Also, the 24-105 does pretty well with panos. I've never had a problem stitching them, even when shooting handheld. You might try that next time. Here's a multishot pano of Valley of Fire I took with the 24-105 at 105mm. Click the thumbnail for the full size image.

[justanotherdude]

Originally Posted by Weebl

Darrik,
Yes that looks better than the previous version to me. When I was looking at that on my Samsung phone it was fairly dark and I lost a lot of the hedge. On my computer I could see it better but still fairly dark. (very old but calibrated monitor)
The only criticism I have of this is on angles. The hedge tops are very slightly off, the left one is higher. The walkway at the bottom of the photo is not centered. The last one is purely up to interpretation but the height at which it was taken seems to be eye level height. To me that turns it into just a quick snapshot, a different angle would change that.
I'm not saying this is a better example or any good, as it was taken about a year after I started taking photos again but it shows what I'm talking about. I'll revisit this spot in a few weeks to do it over. These side walls are just over one foot high.
This advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

You have a good eye, because that's exactly what it was. My wife was pushing me along so I just snapped a real quick one as we walked pass. I'll be back there many times to come so I'll have more chances to grab more perfect photos.

Thanks for the critique!

[Itsed65]

Osprey chick spotted

Feeding Time by lennycarl08, on Flickr

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I like it. Very cool shot. But Kev's right about needing a wide angle lens if you're going to do justice to landscapes like that. You can even go cheap with one of the Rokinon lenses. Both the 8mm FE and the 14mm 2.8 are super easy to focus (they're both manual). Both are under $300.

EDIT: The 16:9 is better. Also, the 24-105 does pretty well with panos. I've never had a problem stitching them, even when shooting handheld. You might try that next time. Here's a multishot pano of Valley of Fire I took with the 24-105 at 105mm. Click the thumbnail for the full size image.

Thanks, I haven't tried panos on this yet. I'm guessing it would look weird at 24mm?

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M_Six

EDIT: The 16:9 is better. Also, the 24-105 does pretty well with panos. I've never had a problem stitching them, even when shooting handheld. You might try that next time. Here's a multishot pano of Valley of Fire I took with the 24-105 at 105mm. Click the thumbnail for the full size image.

Actually, I remembered I took a few shots for the purpose of trying to stitch them. A lot easier than I thought it would be. Here are 3 pics stitched together:

Bryce Canyon Panoramic by JMG, on Flickr

[Weebl]

JMG,
when you put them side by side you can tell what I mean. The second does not give me that cramped feeling nearly as much. Even if a tripod isn't available, you can usually get at least a couple of usable frames to stitch. I'll hold the camera so the tripod mount hole sits on my finger and pivot on that.
Edit: nice pano!
Darrik,
"Hey I'm trying to shoot something here!".
Maybe you just have to be a bit more OCD and think about it all the time,I do. My wife won't hurry me but just give me looks. You could even practice with your cell phone, 2-4 feet off the ground for shots.

Ed,
You know, next year they will graduate and be all grown up.... so quick.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by jmg

Thanks! I didn't notice the magenta tint until I took some away. How's this 16:9 aspect:

I prefer that aspect ration. I'm torn about the magenta. The sky looks better, but I preferred the red rocks with a little more vibrancy.

[Weebl]

He could always add that in via red/yellow/orange

[WoohooSoCal]

Originally Posted by jmg

Actually, I remembered I took a few shots for the purpose of trying to stitch them. A lot easier than I thought it would be. Here are 3 pics stitched together:

Try a vertical aspect pano to get more of the depth of the canyon, if it would add to the photo. The horizontal pano seems like it is cutting off what is below.

[WoohooSoCal]

Originally Posted by onlyabloke

It's fine lol I want CnC.

Only problem is every monitor I've seen my photos on, all my photos look fine. Work computers, my computer, wife's computer, phones, iPads. Everything looks normal. :/

Update: Figured I'd try to brighten it anyway.

Does this look better?

This photo looks like you are shooting on film. Are you, and I just missed that?

If you are shooting digital, then your photos look like they are shot and processed in a film filter mode. Nothing wrong with that if that is the look you are after; your previous photo looked exactly the same. Again, nothing wrong with that look.

In what mode do you shoot? Aperture priority? Shutter Priority? Manual? Auto?

[justanotherdude]

Originally Posted by WoohooSoCal

This photo looks like you are shooting on film. Are you, and I just missed that?

If you are shooting digital, then your photos look like they are shot and processed in a film filter mode. Nothing wrong with that if that is the look you are after; your previous photo looked exactly the same. Again, nothing wrong with that look.

In what mode do you shoot? Aperture priority? Shutter Priority? Manual? Auto?

I shoot all digital. I used one of the presets I made to give it this look.

I shoot manual 99% of the time, as in this photo.

[M_Six]

Nicely done pano, JMG. At 24mm, I usually do the auto correct of the individual shots before stitching them. Seems to work well that way, even at 24mm.

[WoohooSoCal]

Originally Posted by onlyabloke

I shoot all digital. I used one of the presets I made to give it this look.

I shoot manual 99% of the time, as in this photo.

Right on.