Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 28 Oct 2016 (Friday) 06:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

This critique can make me a lot better. Please help. Photo of my truck.

 
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 3 years ago by Bassat.
     
Oct 28, 2016 07:56 as a reply to  @ post 18169355 |  #16

I think this is a much better shot of your truck. This same angle in a quarter-on (like the first one) would be killer! The only thing I don't like is the glare on the windshield. A circular-polarizer filter may help with that. I think f/2 would have helped this shot, but may be too wide for a quarter-on shot. (Notice, no annoying glare from the turned-off lights. :) )

EDIT:
Rest assured, if I printed that cat photo 11x17, it would look like crap. It is heavily processed. Which brings me to the question... Are you shooting JPG and accepting whatever comes out of the camera? Raw and a program like LightRoom can have a huge impact on your results. This is the original of my cat photo. I did almost nothing right. Lightroom saved this shot.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TRDApril
THREAD ­ STARTER
Should I ditch them?
Avatar
52 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 40
Joined Oct 2016
     
Oct 28, 2016 08:05 as a reply to  @ Bassat's post |  #17

Haha thanks! I know, it looks so good with the lights on though lol. I have read mixed reviews on a CPL, some say yeah, some say no. I was going to get one anyways since they're inexpensive to experiment. The glare on the windshield drives me completely insane.


Canon 5D Mark IV | Canon 70-200 f4 L IS | Canon 24-105 f4 L IS | Canon 35 f2 IS | Canon 50 1.8 II | Canon 85 f1.8 | 430EX II | 1.4X III | ProTactic 450 AW | Vanguard Alta Pro 264AB

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Oct 28, 2016 08:07 |  #18

With filters, you get what you pay for. If you have a camera shop nearby, compare a $10 CPL to a $150 CPL. You won't buy the cheap one, guaranteed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TRDApril
THREAD ­ STARTER
Should I ditch them?
Avatar
52 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 40
Joined Oct 2016
     
Oct 28, 2016 08:28 as a reply to  @ Bassat's post |  #19

I had read that B+W was a good filter. What is your opinion on that one?

My lenses that I will have for my Mark IV will be:
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
EF 24–105mm f/4L IS II USM
EF 50mm f/1.8

I've been looking through the Canon website and considered adding a few other not extremely expensive lenses but I can't make up my mind. If there's a better recommendation over the 24-105 please let me know :).

I wish we had a camera shop. The only place you can even buy cameras near here is Walmart or Best Buy. It sucks :/.


Canon 5D Mark IV | Canon 70-200 f4 L IS | Canon 24-105 f4 L IS | Canon 35 f2 IS | Canon 50 1.8 II | Canon 85 f1.8 | 430EX II | 1.4X III | ProTactic 450 AW | Vanguard Alta Pro 264AB

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited over 3 years ago by Bassat.
     
Oct 28, 2016 08:42 |  #20

I think B&W are good for the money. You can do better, but will pay accordingly. I don't use filters much. Take a look at opinions/reviews on Amazon.com, BHPhoto.com, or Adorama.com.

You can save a bit by just getting the 77mm for your 24-105, and some step-down rings (get metal) so you can use the 77mm on the 67mm 70-200.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,907 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2552
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Oct 28, 2016 10:12 |  #21

If grain at ISO 400 bothers you, then use a tripod, ISO 100, & be sure to not underexpose the truck.

How can I block the color flare from LED lights?

I don't mind it, but note that only one light is flared, & it's pointing at the lens. Also make sure that your lens elements, both front & back are clean, & don't use any filters.

What do you do in regards to different monitors?

You can't please everyone! Use your LCD monitor, make sure that it's Calibrated, (external link)& that's trhe best than anyone can do.

I have read mixed reviews on a CPL

99% of the time, I don't use one.

I want to get better with lighting and settings

Here's some images I took of a neighbor's pickup. If you see anything that you like about them, take a look at the "Tips" link in my Sig.


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,547 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 298
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Oct 28, 2016 12:39 |  #22

5Dc is called as Classic for the reason. If someone can't use it to make it shine as the Classic it is someone, not 5Dc. I recommend to look at 5Dc threads 2 and 3, if I remember correct, where it was in hands of capable users...
Your truck pics must be hooray among truck lovers. But to me as amateur photog they miss some drama in it.
Here is 50L on the film Rebel. :)


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,528 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 1589
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 28, 2016 13:17 |  #23

In general, there's nothing obviously "wrong" with this image, as far as focus, noise, etc goes.

A few notes from my view that may give you some improvement, in no particular order:

  • A CPL would help remove some of the reflections on the truck that are just reflecting distractions in the b/g, as well as the sky that isn't really adding much to the image except bright patches
  • Shooting a little higher so that you're not looking "up the nose", so to speak would give a little nicer perspective, and let you tilt the frame lower, to also help eliminate some of the sky patches in the image
  • Position your truck further toward the camera and farther away from the trees in order to give a little better separation of the vehicle from the background
  • If really bothered by it, make an adjustment layer and mask out the fringing around the truck lights
  • Try and locate a framing that doesn't have a major trunk sprouting out of the top of the vehicle; combining this with note 3, above, will help minimize the view of things growing from your subject
  • If you're going to shoot on roads like this, consider carrying a battery operated blower in the back and using it to clean up your foreground a little bit before shooting
  • Use a tripod
  • Really, as others have said, don't worry about ISO so much. With newer bodies, it's really not a problem; especially up to 6400
  • Worry more about getting your exposure nailed and color balance correct; then noise won't be as noticeable anyway


All you can do is make sure your own monitor is calibrated and that you're getting the image to look the way you want it there. You can't control what hardware anyone is going to view the results on, so there's not much use in sweating that part too much.

- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PNPhotography
Senior Member
Avatar
802 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 55
Joined Sep 2007
Location: central PA
     
Oct 28, 2016 13:36 |  #24

The first shot ain't bad at all,I really like the second shot.It seems to me that you WANT a FF camera so get one.


6D|7D|7DMKII|Nikon D750|Nikon 85 F1.8|Nikon D5500|G15| Gripped|300F4|35F2IS|8​5 F1.8|135L F2|200L F2.8|17-55 F2.8|70-200L F2.8 MKII|430EX|
https://www.facebook.c​om …2755174446/?ref​=bookmarks (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1054
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Oct 28, 2016 15:45 |  #25
bannedPermanent ban

Sensor does impact DOF: the larger the sensor, the shallower the DOF at the same aperture. I don't like crop sensors either.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Oct 28, 2016 16:01 |  #26

Alveric wrote in post #18169756 (external link)
Sensor does impact DOF: the larger the sensor, the shallower the DOF at the same aperture. I don't like crop sensors either.

Sensor has absolutely ZERO impact on DOF. Any particular lens projects the EXACT SAME image onto an APS-C, APS-H or FULL-FRAME sensor. The sensor is a 'passive' observer in the photographic process.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,508 posts
Gallery: 154 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4554
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Tom Reichner. (3 edits in all)
     
Oct 28, 2016 19:26 |  #27

.

NOTE: My comments below refer to the image posted in the initial post - I have not read the other replies to that post, nor any follow-ups by the OP.

I think that this image would benefit by having the forest behind the truck be out-of-focus......at least moreso than it is, as it appears to be almost as in-focus as the truck itself.

If it were me, I would have accomplished this by moving closer to the truck, and shooting it from a closer distance. All of the pavement in front of the truck doesn't really seem to accomplish much, from a compositional standpoint - so I would have eliminated it, which moving closer would accomplish.

I also would have used a much wider aperture; perhaps f2 or f2.8 at the most. Why? Well, that would have helped to blur the background forest.

Another thing I would have done would be to park the truck differently. There is a lot of open pavement to the truck's left - that is where I would have parked it. Why? Because that would get it further away from the trees in the background, which would help you get separation between the truck and the forest.

Getting closer to the truck and shooting with a wider aperture has another benefit; it would enable you to more effectively blur out part of the truck. I think this type of image would be more visually dynamic if the front of the truck (hood, bumper, fender, front wheel, front of door and roof pillar) were sharp, and the rear of the truck (rear door, rear wheel, bed) were increasingly out of focus.

Another thing I would have done would be to pay very careful attention to the "major" tree trunks, and where they intersect the truck. Because you used such a deep depth of field, and photographed the scene from so far away from the truck, and parked the truck so close to the woods, those two tree trunks in the middle of the frame are really very prominent, which I don't see as a good thing. I wouldn't want any one particular part of the forest (let alone two) to compete with my subject for visual impact. The fact that one of them is transecting the leading edge of the truck isn't helping. But, if you would do all of the other things that I recommended above, those tree trunks wouldn't be nearly so prominent, so in that case their exact location wouldn't be so important - but you would still want to pay close attention to where each tree trunk is and make sure that its location (relative to the truck) is optimal, from an aesthetic standpoint.

By the way, I think that your 5D classic would have been a much better choice for this particular photo. Why? Because it would help you to better blur out the tree trunks in the background, and it would allow you to get physically closer to the truck which would result in a more dynamic visual, for the reasons discussed above. Also, the slightly dark corners that you would have if you shot this with your 5Dc would work pretty well with this image, producing a slight vignette, which in some cases is horrid, but in this case I think it would work really well with the subject matter and the composition.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TRDApril
THREAD ­ STARTER
Should I ditch them?
Avatar
52 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 40
Joined Oct 2016
     
Oct 28, 2016 21:30 |  #28

Thanks to everyone for the replies. Sorry, I've been at work all day. I really appreciate all of the feedback and will do research on it all. The only way to get better is opinions like all of yours, so thank you!


Canon 5D Mark IV | Canon 70-200 f4 L IS | Canon 24-105 f4 L IS | Canon 35 f2 IS | Canon 50 1.8 II | Canon 85 f1.8 | 430EX II | 1.4X III | ProTactic 450 AW | Vanguard Alta Pro 264AB

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genesimmons
Goldmember
Avatar
1,984 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1178
Joined Aug 2013
Location: bc canada
     
Oct 28, 2016 23:09 |  #29

Bassat wrote in post #18169764 (external link)
Sensor has absolutely ZERO impact on DOF. Any particular lens projects the EXACT SAME image onto an APS-C, APS-H or FULL-FRAME sensor. The sensor is a 'passive' observer in the photographic process.

i believe this is true, my sony a7 full frame has a apc mode to use apc lenses. even when using a full frame lens i switch between full and apc depending on composition and i see 0 difference in dof at same aperture


OLYMPUS EM1 M2. 12-100 F4 PRO.75mm f1.8,fisheye f1.8 pro. SONY A7 various manual lenses. FUJI X100
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/100085318@N08/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Oct 29, 2016 00:07 |  #30

genesimmons wrote in post #18170037 (external link)
i believe this is true, my sony a7 full frame has a apc mode to use apc lenses. even when using a full frame lens i switch between full and apc depending on composition and i see 0 difference in dof at same aperture

A little thought experiment, if you will. Take a photo with any lens on a full frame camera. Print the photo. Take a pair of scissors and trim that photo to a 1.6 crop factor. Does the DOF change because you cropped off part of the photo? Same thing happens in-camera if you put that same lens on an apsc body.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,180 views & 13 likes for this thread
This critique can make me a lot better. Please help. Photo of my truck.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is htam
899 guests, 224 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.