Please School me on my first batch of photos

LuckyStudio 13

LuckyStudio 13

The Tapeless One
Heya Guys,
Just picked up photography and I needed to learn from you experts out there. Can you guys look at these pictures and SCHOOL me on my first batch of work please. I was trying to practice "The Zone System" when I took these photographs. I really appreciate all your honest comments and critiques.


2336054020_c4b882d05e.jpg


2335216907_aeff4fbec6.jpg


2336891826_1eda2f9ce0.jpg


2336060483_cae2f8ca07.jpg


2336887100_8fed632818.jpg


2336884576_6eb328bfea.jpg


2336881552_5ec1ac347e.jpg


2336044545_3cdffca6d5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah number 3's nice. The way the line of the cloud runs opposite the slope of the ground, good composition.

Number 1's not bad too.
 
Dxmetal said:
Those were all taken with jpeg (ugh), I know, I know .. I am learning RAW. I am losing too much latitude with jpeg.
Click to expand...

You don't actually lose lattitude with JPEG.

Really the only thing you lose, is file size. RAW is a tad bit overrated. The difference is so minute most people can't tell the difference... actually I'd say take a photo in RAW and in JPEG and see if you can tell the difference.

Your Photos are quite nice btw.
 
The trick behind raw is how far you can take it in post. Yeah a jpeg and a raw will start out looking the same, but try cranking the color temp a few thousand degrees, and shifting the exposure a full stop with a jpeg.
 
Um, I don't even know what to say to Loki's comment. That is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard.........BLAHHH....Sorry.....stay on topic. (I guess we can open a new thread to discuss the merits of RAW if we need to continue discussing, but I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.)

Dxmetal, I think you are on the right path for sure. I personally like 3,4, and 7 for all the previously mentioned reasons (7 just intrigues me!). I think you did a good job with the B&W conversions, and I like the saturation and contrast levels on the hydrant photo. Be careful though, if you shoot people you will not be able to push skin tones that far. Keep up the good work and post some more stuff for us later!
 
The difference in RAW v.s JPEG is not the fact that one is raw and the other has a compression algorithm because as Loki said you can't visually tell the difference. The reason you shoot RAW is because you can set WB/sharpness/saturation after the fact and most importantly get a 16bit image (12bit or 14bit out of the camera) as apposed to an 8bit JPEG. No you won't visually be able to see the diff but if your highlights are overexposed or you have to shoot in a high ISO you can thank your lucky stars a 16bit RAW is available. That being said if you shoot perfectly and never feel the need to edit you photos then you should shoot JPEG and save the space, but I hope your exposure/WB and other setting are dead on. Some of the best event/wedding photographers only shoot JPEG because typically they shoot near perfectly each and every time and don't want to spend the time converting their files for their clients later (they also don't always shoot at the highest resolution, I don't always agree with this, but I've seen it done purposely)
 
I agree with everything that egp said.

Loki said:
You don't actually lose lattitude with JPEG.
Click to expand...

Typically when discussing latitude in digital photography people are referring to exposure, however you could also be referring to WB, Tone, Saturation, etc. These are all things that benefit in a better image when adjusted from a RAW file vs JPEG. I can see this statement being true if you never make any post adjustments as egp said, but ever try any post work and you are screwed. I could be wrong, but I think that is exactly what DXmetal was referring to.
 
My Second try

My Second try

Guys, these are my 2nd try, this time I shot in Raw and processed the pictures with Adobe LightRoom, then export out to 8 bit jpg. If you want to do post on your pictures, USE RAW. The difference is night and day. Even Ansel Adam processed his negative with different type of chemicals to get that look that he wanted. DivotDan, you are 100% correct.

Let me know what you think on these 2nd set. I need lots of critiques and comments please.

n588622411_367886_6685.jpg


n588622411_367890_7986.jpg


n588622411_367889_7647.jpg


n588622411_367887_7018.jpg


n588622411_367880_549.jpg


n588622411_367888_7329.jpg


n588622411_367891_8339.jpg
 
Last edited:
There's some interesting shots there dx, good stuff. The high contrast in the first shot really works with the lights.
 
I have shot a lot of both formats (jpeg-Raw). You can certainly see the difference between the two but only if you have the programs that let you take advantage of Raw. We shoot in Raw, Process in Nikon capture NX then into DXO OPTICS pro and DXO film too handle straightening out the lines and certain exposer issuse and then off to Aperture 2 because of the latitude of adjustments and then photoshop cs3 if needed to clean up the photos. Oh you can't live without NIK filters you just have to have them. Yes its about $2500.00+ for software but when you make your living producing photography for very exacting clientel you have no choise but use the tools it takes to produce great photos. You start with photoshop and add the others as you need to, every body has a different work flow. Some people use Bridge CS3 in the process for cataloging but we now use Aperture mostly. Great photos in the least amount of time. When you shoot every day and manipulate into the night and create different forms of media from your shots you care about work flow. In the beginning I shot lots of Jpegs and now I shoot Raw and at full resolution, you never know when you might get a really stunning shot and if its not full rez-too bad you lose. Fast cards with a firewire 800 reader makes your life easeier in the transfer area. I started out using sony cameras and still have an R1 which is a great little camera for the money that shoots in Jpeg and Raw. I have made a lot of money with the R1 and its small and light weight and has the same APS chip as the Nikon D200. We now shoot with the D200 and the D300 most of the time. The D300 is truly a great camera and with the new Nikon software its a really smooth package.

I hope this helps some.
 
I happen to be a little grumpy this morning over a script deal gone bad, so pardon my frankness. Keep in mind, this is not about your shots, but rather the subject matter (in the latest round, i.e. tupelo). I'll get crap for this I'm sure.

I don't get it. I'm so bored with shots of "gritty dwellings". Again, it has nothing to do with you, I'm sure you're a fine photographer. My question is, what separates these from the millions of other shots of lame brick buildings in every metropolitan city, or rural city for that matter?

I would suggest that if I gave a P&S to 100 people and had them all take shots of the same, boring building, they would all look the same. I mean, you can change the angle, but it's still just lipstick on a pig. I never get this concept. But alas, I understand that art is subjective and many find this gritty, edgy and see the urban texture and salty colors of real urban life, the naked truth of simplicity within architectural minimalism... ugh.

I don't get it, and it bores me every time. My challenge is to find your voice. I for one take shots of actors, so, i don't have one. But then again, I'm not an artistic photographer, it's not my calling, just a source of income. I save my art for writing/filmmaking. But, clearly you have that desire. What do these shots tell me about you? Not much really. This is one humble, subjective take on an artform, that's all.

I know, I'm being a jerk (see initial disclaimer)

Take care, and good luck!
 
No problem, I love open discussions :) Ok, let see... well For starter, this is probably the best that I can get in this lil town. Other than that it is all flatland here with rundown houses.

Tupelo Hardwear Co is where Elvis Presley got his first guitar. Well actually, this is where his mum, Gladys Presley bought her son his very first guitar. The business was founded by George H Booth in 1926 and is still owned and managed by the family's third generation under the leadership of George H Booth II.

And the people there were EXTREMELY nice :) I got some bolts and nuts for my cavision baseplate there.

Also, this is my second outing with my camera, so ... maybe someday i will find a niche. I also happened to see in my head this nice B+W pic of a huge grey grain silo in town today .... heheheh :D


alveraz said:
I happen to be a little grumpy this morning over a script deal gone bad, so pardon my frankness. Keep in mind, this is not about your shots, but rather the subject matter (in the latest round, i.e. tupelo). I'll get crap for this I'm sure.

I don't get it. I'm so bored with shots of "gritty dwellings". Again, it has nothing to do with you, I'm sure you're a fine photographer. My question is, what separates these from the millions of other shots of lame brick buildings in every metropolitan city, or rural city for that matter?

I would suggest that if I gave a P&S to 100 people and had them all take shots of the same, boring building, they would all look the same. I mean, you can change the angle, but it's still just lipstick on a pig. I never get this concept. But alas, I understand that art is subjective and many find this gritty, edgy and see the urban texture and salty colors of real urban life, the naked truth of simplicity within architectural minimalism... ugh.

I don't get it, and it bores me every time. My challenge is to find your voice. I for one take shots of actors, so, i don't have one. But then again, I'm not an artistic photographer, it's not my calling, just a source of income. I save my art for writing/filmmaking. But, clearly you have that desire. What do these shots tell me about you? Not much really. This is one humble, subjective take on an artform, that's all.

I know, I'm being a jerk (see initial disclaimer)

Take care, and good luck!
Click to expand...
 
The only one from the last set I really like is the first one. I don't know if you did this b/c it was the only place you could stand or if you did this on purpose, but shooting a lit sign against the bright sky was very smart. Creates the effect of HDR and has a nice balance. Even cooler if you could shoot the same sign with the sun setting behind it. I'd like to see a color version of that. Would also be cool if you could PS the power lines out of it, but that doesn't bother me much.

Other than that I agree with alveraz. Seemed like a boring subject to me. Technically the photos were fine, but didn't create much interest to me. I also enjoyed the back story.

I also remember when I got my first film SLR and I shot everything I could find. In time you will start to figure what it is you like to shoot and refine how you do it. I think you are off to a great start and I look forward to more photos from ya.
 
1 Hour Cleaners is my favorite, it reminds me of an old photograph taken in some little town in the middle of nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top