How would you improve this picture?

[Jim Dawson]

helps me enjoy taking photographs for ME.

Jim

If you are a writer, you know that composition is fundamental; just
as in photography. Many photographers just "throw words around"
without making a single sentence, if you know what I mean.

In this photo, the story is half told! Or, the turkey is half cooked!

I don't get it.

This is ART ! You're SUPPOSED to ponder it. Seems like it worked.

We dont know why she's looking up the tree.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

--
Have a good day!

--
Canon 1D

 

[Mishkin]

Igor, how did you manage to remove all the squarrels from the picture?! Is there a "Filter-> Squarrel-> Remove All" command in Photoshop? ))

I know, I know... these little cuties gather in crowds whereever you point your camera... It's almost like noise in the picture... Good job, Igor, in cleaning the picture polluted with squarrels!



Squarrels are everywhere... Here is an attempt to take a landscape... Geez! This picture must be cleaned!! Is there a program like NeatSquarrel which removes squarrels from the picture? Heeeelp!!!



Playing with Photoshop is fun... Have fun everybody, and Happy Thanksgiving!

))

 

[Mishkin]

BTW, the bottom picture is taken with my lemon 24-70L, which is very very soft (going to return it to B&H). This pic can serve as an example that photos taken even with very bad lens can be resized for the web and sharpened and appear good enough...

Squirrels (not squarrels, stupid me) in my pic are real, not photoshopped in...

Igor, how did you manage to remove all the squarrels from the
picture?! Is there a "Filter-> Squarrel-> Remove All" command in
Photoshop? ))

I know, I know... these little cuties gather in crowds whereever
you point your camera... It's almost like noise in the picture...
Good job, Igor, in cleaning the picture polluted with squarrels!



Squarrels are everywhere... Here is an attempt to take a
landscape... Geez! This picture must be cleaned!! Is there a
program like NeatSquarrel which removes squarrels from the picture?
Heeeelp!!!



Playing with Photoshop is fun... Have fun everybody, and Happy
Thanksgiving!

))

 

[dave veneri]

Stop! Your killing me....I ate too much today and I cant take it....lolol
your sick : ))) man thats funny S* T!!!!
-D

Squirrels (not squarrels, stupid me) in my pic are real, not
photoshopped in...

Igor, how did you manage to remove all the squarrels from the
picture?! Is there a "Filter-> Squarrel-> Remove All" command in
Photoshop? ))

I know, I know... these little cuties gather in crowds whereever
you point your camera... It's almost like noise in the picture...
Good job, Igor, in cleaning the picture polluted with squarrels!



Squarrels are everywhere... Here is an attempt to take a
landscape... Geez! This picture must be cleaned!! Is there a
program like NeatSquarrel which removes squarrels from the picture?
Heeeelp!!!



Playing with Photoshop is fun... Have fun everybody, and Happy
Thanksgiving!

))

 

[DavidP #28649]

If you don't stop, I'll be forced to fill that tree with guitarists.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[dave veneri]

laughting!!! He even put in little blurred ones in the background.....
too damn funny : )

If you don't stop, I'll be forced to fill that tree with
guitarists.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Mishkin]

Now THAT would be a killer picture!!! LOL

BTW, thank you for your 24-70L test, very helpful. I will use your test as a reference point when I replace my faulty 24-70L. This lottery of getting "L"emons is killing me... C'mon, Canon! Your quality control is on par with Sigma's now!

"L"... arghhh...

If you don't stop, I'll be forced to fill that tree with
guitarists.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Theresa Zittritsch]

This picture was taken in a very late afternoon almost at sunset.
The amount of daylight was low.

I used D60 with 70-200IS:

ISO 200
F-Stop 2.8
Shutter speed 1/10 at 70mm

What would you do in a similar scenario?



Thanks.

http://www.photographypage.com

Igor, I haven't read all of the responses so please forgive me if I'm redundent. Since you asked, I would do 2 or 3 things.

1) Remove blue cast. (could be my monitor)
2) Crop tighter, just below her elbow and maybe a little off the top too.

--
Best Regards,
Theresa Zittritsch

 

[Mishkin]

I ate too much, too... I guess on Thanksgiving day it's more adequate to put turkeys in the picture... oh well, next time... Happy Thanksgiving!

Squirrels (not squarrels, stupid me) in my pic are real, not
photoshopped in...

Igor, how did you manage to remove all the squarrels from the
picture?! Is there a "Filter-> Squarrel-> Remove All" command in
Photoshop? ))

I know, I know... these little cuties gather in crowds whereever
you point your camera... It's almost like noise in the picture...
Good job, Igor, in cleaning the picture polluted with squarrels!



Squarrels are everywhere... Here is an attempt to take a
landscape... Geez! This picture must be cleaned!! Is there a
program like NeatSquarrel which removes squarrels from the picture?
Heeeelp!!!



Playing with Photoshop is fun... Have fun everybody, and Happy
Thanksgiving!

))

 

[Mishkin]

Did you notice the Squirrel God in the sky?

If you don't stop, I'll be forced to fill that tree with
guitarists.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Thomas Gardner]

And I'm amazed how many prople feel like buying expensive equipment
would help them with the story...

Gonna tick ya off buddy. But the expensive equipment helps me tell the story Run with dat ball if in ya dare. Betcha go in the wrong direction

Some people are hell bent on "putting down: the benefits of expensive equipment. It's like their ego has trouble accepting the fact that it's okay to buy and use expensive equipment.

Today I've spent all day reading and absorbing a tutorial article. I also spent yesterday evening reading the first two pages The article came to me on an expensive computer with expensive monthly web access. The tutorial was about the benefit of an expensive post-processing program feature.

Equipment isn't cheap anymore people; get a grip.

Here's a link to the excellent and informative tutorial. I've spent two evenings worth of effort on absorbing the information. I'm a sloooooow, old dog

http://www.gurusnetwork.com/tutorials/photoshop/curves1.html

Here's the image I used the information on that I learned from the tutorial.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1147020

Practice, practice, practice.

I couldn't have made this posted image without benefit of expensive equipment.

Expensive digital camera body.
Expensive lens.
Expensive computer.
Expensive post-processing programs.
I used two programs on this one image. Corel's Photo-Paint 9 and
Adobe's Photoshop 7.0.1

I wish people would stop worring about expensive equipment and if it makes for a better photographer as we all know our version of the truth

 

[dave veneri]

YES! Very creative and totally funny considering all the "squirel" talk in previous posts!!!

If you don't stop, I'll be forced to fill that tree with
guitarists.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[aevoegels]

And I'm amazed how many prople feel like buying expensive equipment
would help them with the story...

Gonna tick ya off buddy. But the expensive equipment helps me tell
the story Run with dat ball if in ya dare. Betcha go in the
wrong direction

Don't worry, there is no way you'll tick me off. If you feel the expensive equipment helps you and you can afford it, then go ahead and buy it. I don't know for how long you have been in photography and what equipment you have, but if you are learning curves for that photo, you could have used a G2 just as well - that image is nice, but does not need expensive equipment (depending on what you consider expensive). I would love to buy a 1Ds, but for me it would be a waste of resources (I do not have a lot of cash laying around, I don't do this for a living), and yes I do know a lot of new digital photographers that buy really more than they really need, just ofr the sake of learning (by the time they learned about digital darkroom the equipment is obselete).

Alfred

Some people are hell bent on "putting down: the benefits of
expensive equipment. It's like their ego has trouble accepting the
fact that it's okay to buy and use expensive equipment.

Today I've spent all day reading and absorbing a tutorial article.
I also spent yesterday evening reading the first two pages The
article came to me on an expensive computer with expensive monthly
web access. The tutorial was about the benefit of an expensive
post-processing program feature.

Equipment isn't cheap anymore people; get a grip.

Here's a link to the excellent and informative tutorial. I've
spent two evenings worth of effort on absorbing the information.
I'm a sloooooow, old dog

http://www.gurusnetwork.com/tutorials/photoshop/curves1.html

Here's the image I used the information on that I learned from the
tutorial.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1147020

Practice, practice, practice.

I couldn't have made this posted image without benefit of expensive
equipment.

Expensive digital camera body.
Expensive lens.
Expensive computer.
Expensive post-processing programs.
I used two programs on this one image. Corel's Photo-Paint 9 and
Adobe's Photoshop 7.0.1

I wish people would stop worring about expensive equipment and if
it makes for a better photographer as we all know our version of
the truth

 

[aevoegels]

I missed these 2 pictures. These are indeed top quality pictures. I love them! Bot looking straight at the camera and away work on these 2 pics. What is your processing?

Alfred

I like many things about this shot... color, exposure, processing,
model... just about the only thing I don't care for is the models
attention. Looking away from the lens is one thing.. looking up a
tree is another. In a way, the pose is somewhat playful, the tree
partially "protecting" her. What a great time for her to be playful
with the camera, eyes squarely in the lens with a clever smile on
her face. As such, her attention is away from us and, as others
have noted, the most natural place to expect she might be looking,
when hugging a tree, is, well, at a squirrel.

Hopefully, you did many other shots during this time and perhaps
one is not of her looking up. One thing that both a seasoned model
and photographer realize they must do is to get many subtle
variations of a single idea, and not just many unique poses and
shots.

Again, there's some very nice work here. In fact, I'm far more fond
of your processing effort than any of the so-called "improvements".
Very natural and pleasant looking. Only the direction of the
subject's attention bothers me.

Good luck

M

 

[Igor59833]

This is what happens when you have to many squirrels.

If you don't stop, I'll be forced to fill that tree with
guitarists.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Igor59833]

I have a very simple and quick process.

• Little curves (not always)
• Extra contrast +3…5
• Adobe 1998 color profile
• USM – amount 500%, radius 2 pix, threshold 0
• Soft Focus via
o Gaussian Blur – radius 20 pix
o Fade – opacity 35%, mode normal
o USM – amount 18%, radius 2 pix, threshold 0
• Resize
• Frame

Alfred

I like many things about this shot... color, exposure, processing,
model... just about the only thing I don't care for is the models
attention. Looking away from the lens is one thing.. looking up a
tree is another. In a way, the pose is somewhat playful, the tree
partially "protecting" her. What a great time for her to be playful
with the camera, eyes squarely in the lens with a clever smile on
her face. As such, her attention is away from us and, as others
have noted, the most natural place to expect she might be looking,
when hugging a tree, is, well, at a squirrel.

Hopefully, you did many other shots during this time and perhaps
one is not of her looking up. One thing that both a seasoned model
and photographer realize they must do is to get many subtle
variations of a single idea, and not just many unique poses and
shots.

Again, there's some very nice work here. In fact, I'm far more fond
of your processing effort than any of the so-called "improvements".
Very natural and pleasant looking. Only the direction of the
subject's attention bothers me.

Good luck

M

 

[Thomas Gardner]

If you feel the
expensive equipment helps you and you can afford it, then go ahead
and buy it.

The expensive equipment does help my photography. Some are having trouble with that fact. What I find so surprising is, I don't understand why they have trouble with this fact.

I don't know for how long you have been in photography
and what equipment you have, but if you are learning curves for
that photo, you could have used a G2 just as well - that image is
nice, but does not need expensive equipment (depending on what you
consider expensive).

As to how long I've been into photography, 43 years

I'm sure you're an expert with curves, I'm not, but because I'm taking the time to learn, I'm a whole lot better then when I started. There's no way on God's green earth that a G2 will match the final image quality. And without the expensive body, lens, computer or programs, the image wouldn't exist. All the steps in the creation of the image were done with expensive equipment. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to accept the fact that expensive equipment is here to stay and we all have to get use to this. Expensive equipment is now part of the process.

I would love to buy a 1Ds, but for me it would
be a waste of resources (I do not have a lot of cash laying around,
I don't do this for a living), and yes I do know a lot of new
digital photographers that buy really more than they really need,
just ofr the sake of learning (by the time they learned about
digital darkroom the equipment is obselete).

Nobody is suggesting that anybody has to buy the most expensive equipment as in the 1Ds body but I do get tired with this nonsense that the better equipment has nothing to do with final image output because to me it has a lot to do with the final output.

 

[Mishkin]

Notice that the squirrels on this pic make a triangle. This is the Squirrel Triangle, similar to Bermuda Triangle. This is where pretty young women disappear when they are surrounded by squirrel squadrons

If you don't stop, I'll be forced to fill that tree with
guitarists.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Peter Gregg]

Looks like she is fixing her hair and getting it ready for the real shot. Is this the picture you intended to post?

Peter Gregg

 

[aevoegels]

If you feel the
expensive equipment helps you and you can afford it, then go ahead
and buy it.

The expensive equipment does help my photography. Some are having
trouble with that fact. What I find so surprising is, I don't
understand why they have trouble with this fact.

Who is having trouble with it? Not me. I just stated that a lot of people buy it thinking that they will have better pictures because of it. Kinda of like, if you buy a race car, you will automatically know how to race. It will allow you to race, but just bacause you have does not mean you know how to. I agree its better to have the photo limitation on the person, not equipment, one just need to be realistic. I'm speaking genarically (including myself) and not anybody in special.

I don't know for how long you have been in photography
and what equipment you have, but if you are learning curves for
that photo, you could have used a G2 just as well - that image is
nice, but does not need expensive equipment (depending on what you
consider expensive).

As to how long I've been into photography, 43 years

I'm sure you're an expert with curves, I'm not, but because I'm
taking the time to learn, I'm a whole lot better then when I
started. There's no way on God's green earth that a G2 will match
the final image quality. And without the expensive body, lens,
computer or programs, the image wouldn't exist. All the steps in
the creation of the image were done with expensive equipment. I
don't understand why it's so hard for people to accept the fact
that expensive equipment is here to stay and we all have to get use
to this. Expensive equipment is now part of the process.

I would love to buy a 1Ds, but for me it would
be a waste of resources (I do not have a lot of cash laying around,
I don't do this for a living), and yes I do know a lot of new
digital photographers that buy really more than they really need,
just ofr the sake of learning (by the time they learned about
digital darkroom the equipment is obselete).

Nobody is suggesting that anybody has to buy the most expensive
equipment as in the 1Ds body but I do get tired with this nonsense
that the better equipment has nothing to do with final image output
because to me it has a lot to do with the final output.

again, that depends if the person who owns the camera knows how to use it, otherwise no.