Death Valley

[bobecuame]

My pretty recent trip to Death Valley. I am a newbie so any critique and input is much appreciated. These pictures were converted to jpeg and only pp was sharpening. Don't worry, my feelings won't be hurt so blast away if my photos are terrible. Thanks.

[bobecuame]

more pics

[bobecuame]

some more pics

[bobecuame]

still some more pics

[bobecuame]

and last pics

[FlyingPhotog]

#2 is (IMO) your strongest image.

I'd create a layer for the mountains (add contrast) and a layer for the sky (add saturation and a hint of black to transparent gradient from the top down.) All need some pretty significant "dust bunny" clean up.

1 is very busy
3 doesn't use the light as well as 2
4 lacks a visual focus due to the expanse of sand beyond the stone and the blue "sky hole"

#2 might also work well in B&W.

[bobecuame]

Thanks for your reply FlyingPhotog. What does "dust bunny" clean up mean?

[FlyingPhotog]

Thanks for your reply FlyingPhotog. What does "dust bunny" clean up mean?

Eliminating the dark spots caused by dust on your sensor...

Very noticeable in the landscape shots you posted. Especially in the sky.

[tonydee]

#1 cuts in uncomfortably on the dead bushes at front... I think you needed a step or two back to get them in a more complete form, with less lines crossing the bottom edge and carrying the eye out of frame. There's also too much sky. Can apply little guidelines like the Rule of Thirds which says 2:1 or 1:2 of sky:ground depending on which is more interesting, but another good way to train they eye - that sometimes improves on rules of thumb - is experimentation: start with a really tight crop, then move it up until it's harmonious. For me, I'd need to crop about as high above the rock at left as that rock is above the sand at its base. And second the call for cleaning equipment - though post-facto you can use a "spot" tool or healing brush, depending on your software....

#2: background and sky are dull ... the footprints and ripples that might pass as foreground interest are far enough away to be more midground already... the big wedge of foreground doesn't help divide the picture into thirds or any other balanced arrangement... all up the image just doesn't quite come together.

#3: a massive improvement... the shadows through the dunes are great, visually separating the downward slope of the front dune to create a slightly weak foreground element (already better than 2's), then you've delivered solid mid-ground through the wide arching curves of dunes reaching across to the right, framing and carrying the eye around the bush which itself significantly enhances interest levels in the shot. The background remains ho hum.

#4: the sky vs dune separation crosses the frame in an unflattering way... again failing to structure the image or achieve balance... good to have found some foreground interest, but overall just doesn't deliver.

#5 / general store: a solid capture of a scene worth capturing. I'd clone out the protrusion at mid left.

#6: breaks most rules by putting both the core horizontal divide (in this case between direct sunlight and shadow) <i>and</i> the core subject central in the shot. Works very well despite that (i.e. I wouldn't change it). I particularly like the non-standard amount of dead shadow space above the sculpture, as it adds to the mysteriousness and sense of something behind and beyond the apparition.

#7: To my mind, less effective for having more context (a human dwelling nearby), and hence being less totally bizarre. Here there's no requirement for central horizontal placement either (in #6, having only the horizontal divide centred would have looked like a lop-sided "weight" on "his" shoulders). Other than those background and framing issues, a technically accomplished capture of the subject.

#8: again, the shot doesn't naturally divide in harmonious places. Back to Rule of Thirds, Golden Ratio (aka Proportion), or other guidelines until you're comfortable with when and why to break the rules.

#9: potential, but a bit too much vertical height given to the "foreground" element, cramping in the background and sky. This could be corrected by taking the shot from about 12 steps further forward. The shadowed background remains kind of dull, and in this case unfortunately looks like it's not horizontal, even though it probably is, just giving the top of the photo a twisted lop-sided aspect.

#10: almost enough interest for a photo, but to make the most of it, needs to be shot slightly more along the ground so you've got a third of stick for foreground, only a third of mid-ground, leaving room for a third of sky. Alternatively, a more macro approach in close to the stick might have really made it the dominant subject rather than just "filler".

Cheers, Tony

[bobecuame]

Excellent critiques. Those pictures looked fine to my eyes when I took them besides the dust but I guess they are not. Good to have insight from other pair of eyes, thanks. Is there a thread on here somewhere that has the basic rules of shooting? (rules of thumb) Also, I've noticed others have posted more than 2 photos on a thread. How come my I can only post 2 per thread and had to kept on replying to my own thread to post all 10? Anybody know?

[FlyingPhotog]

Excellent critiques. Those pictures looked fine to my eyes when I took them besides the dust but I guess they are not. Good to have insight from other pair of eyes, thanks. Is there a thread on here somewhere that has the basic rules of shooting? (rules of thumb) Also, I've noticed others have posted more than 2 photos on a thread. How come my I can only post 2 per thread and had to kept on replying to my own thread to post all 10? Anybody know?

You can attach two or "embed" up to eight. Use a photo sharing site like Flickr, PBase, SmugMug, etc and you can link to the image instead of attaching it.

[joayne]

Some forum information and Rules are linked below


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=50442

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=574001

[tonydee]

If you were looking for compositional rules, then I must break one of the POTN rules and suggest a google search. I went through dozens of sites in my first couple weeks of DSLR photography, just soaking up everything I could, some were better than others but you spend time on them proportionately.... Doing something similar today, I stumbled upon an article I found informative and fun about family portraits at http://digital-photography-school.com/ - might be worth a read over others there, and there are heaps of links from http://photoinf.com/ though I haven't clicked through them enough to assess average quality or "best of".... Cheers, Tony

[BigAlz1]

I use to live in the valley and I was shocked at how dull the first pic was. Your postings got stronger but a couple just had a bad haze and WB issues to them that could have easily been took care of in post.
Also, you either have a bad problem with dust on your sensor or some rally bad spots on your lens/es. you can see it really bad on every shot that has a sky in it. My eyes went straight for the dots and it is real hard to keep from staring at them. I suspect the sensor since the spots are in the same spot on every frame.

This retouch was with no Photoshot, just a shift in WB and a touch of sharpening and it is leaps more natural looking. Spend more time in post.
Good work, I personally like most of your compositions, just clean sensor and POST, POST, POST. :)
http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu185/BigAlz1/2009Jan16_0472Large1.jpg

[bobecuame]

To BigAlz1: Woh, what a big difference. It looks so more more alive now. What WB did you use? How did you get the sky so blue and everything else so rich in color? Can you achieve that with more saturation? When I shoot outdoors in daylight, I normally just put AWB. Should I put it in Sunny or Daylight WB? Also I did sharpen them but I guess not enough. Yes, those spots were dust in my sensor but I've cleaned them already. Stupid me, changing lenses out in sand dunes.:rolleyes:

[BigAlz1]

I downloaded your post, (even though you do not have picture editing allowed :( sorry)
I opened it with DPP (Canons Digital Photo Professional givin for free with all their DSLRs I think) and I pulled the RED up just a pinch and added sharpening. Thats it!
The red made the ground look more brown like it should and that enhanced the sky!
Do you have a Canon camera? If not use ACR 5.0

[BigAlz1]

Oh I did just nudge the sat. and do mean just a tad. I like for thing to look as natural as possible. The sky is only that blue because that is what I had to work with and I did not want to go into Photoshop. The colors are still way off, I just simply retouched a shrunk compressed photo of your retouch.

Get a gray card or have a good memory lol. Yes I would shoot with AWB but change it back and forth in post and see what one you like better. 90% of the time I still nudge the temp up a bit in post. My AWB on my 40D is no where near as good as my XTi was. It is something I have got use to now. :(

One more thing I stay away from the sat as much as possible. I like to be real careful with the exposer, deepen the blacks, don't over expose, have correct WB, and adjust the RGB channels if needed and things will look really natural. Oh and ad sharpness 'cause its a Canon lol. I find that if I jump right to the sat 9 out of 10 times I have to go in and pull it back after I make the WB, exposure, and RGB adjustments, there is not much need for sat increase.
So my post work flow right of the camera is,
WB
Exposure
Sharpen
RGB Channels
Hue then repeat any needed steps if things change a bunch then sat. (sharpening can go in there just about anywhere after WB and Exposure. I have a set amount I use most of the time so it doesn't matter in my case )

Hope this helps, and make sure you are using DPP if your not your missing a very powerful tool that is so, so, easy to use.

[bobecuame]

BigAlz1, thanks for your help. I do have DPP and tried it and got the same results. I use CS4 instead and it pretty much have the same functions. What set amount do you use for sharpening? In photoshop they have amount radius, and threshold, not too sure what to set each at.

[BigAlz1]

BigAlz1, thanks for your help. What set amount do you use for sharpening?

Sorry I failed to check back on this post and give you an answer. IN DPP I almost always use 7-10 in the RAW section and take the slider up to about half in the RGB section. That is where I keep my setting for mosh things when using DPP.
In PS I use all different types of sharpening, sometimes I just use the sharpening in ACR or I will use unsharpen mask filter but here lately I have been using the high pass filter.
It is all up to you.