Critique these surfing photos

First is back or side lit. cropped abut 50%
Second is front lit. - not cropped.

Polarizing filter doesn't play nice with my lens. Processing with Lightroom 5.

All comments and tips welcome.

My typical shooting and processing protocol:
These were shot in Tv with EC to ETTR without blowing the highlights based on camera's indicator. RAW.
In processing, adjust exposure down; shadows up; clarity, vibrance and saturation +10; highlights and/or whites down as needed; a little noise reduction.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17532508
all adjustments were made in Photoshop.

It's impressive to see what someone who obviously has a great deal of experince can do with top of the line editting software. Maybe I'd be able to do the same with Lightroom 5 and a few more years experience. Can you do produce the same in Lightroom 5. I'd hate to have to do those types of edits to 80+ images, which is what I kept from the second shoot. I'm becoming more interested in producing near final images with the camera and spending less time on processing.

I do appreciate seeing how the image can be improved, but I will ask that you not edit any other images without first getting permission to do so. I believe any pro wouldn't have a problem doing that. In the other thread you had already edited my work before asking. Thanks.

Larry Johnson wrote in post #17532545
It's impressive to see what someone who obviously has a great deal of experince can do with top of the line editting software. Maybe I'd be able to do the same with Lightroom 5 and a few more years experience. Can you do produce the same in Lightroom 5. I'd hate to have to do those types of edits to 80+ images, which is what I kept from the second shoot. I'm becoming more interested in producing near final images with the camera and spending less time on processing.

I do appreciate seeing how the image can be improved, but I will ask that you not edit any other images without first getting permission to do so. I believe any pro wouldn't have a problem doing that. In the other thread you had already edited my work before asking. Thanks.

my post from the other thread:

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17531985
IMO, the posted image needs better processing. Composition could be better but it can be solved by cropping a bit.

I've already taken a quick look in Photoshop, but since this is not the Critique Corner, I'm not going to get off topic and post the results. If you would like me to take a look at the original image (this one is a bit over sharp too), start a thread in the critique forum and i'll post my method and results.

if you want to avoid the possibility of someone taking your photograph into their computer and manipulating it, don't post it on the internet.

by saying "i'll post my method and results" i felt it was pretty clear that i planned to show you what i would do to improve the image, and just as clear that i would post the results.

edit: "method and results" posts have been deleted.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17532569
my post from the other thread:

if you want to avoid the possibility of someone taking your photograph into their computer and manipulating it, don't post it on the internet.

by saying "i'll post my method and results" i felt it was pretty clear that i planned to show you what i would do to improve the image, and just as clear that i would post the results.

edit: "method and results" posts have been deleted.

Well, you leave me no choice but to reply.

"if you want to avoid the possibility of someone taking your photograph into their computer and manipulating it, don't post it on the internet." This type of self-serving attitude is exactly what's wrong with people today. They believe that anything posted to the internet is theirs for the taking, nevermind the copywrite clearly posted on the image. I don't pretend to know (or even care) in this instance if your action constitutes copywrite infringements, but I loathe the way you did it and try to defend it without even offering a simply apology, Left Handed Brisket, or whatever your name is. A simple, curteous, and professional approach would have been to mention that with more processing the image could be improved and ask my permission before doing so. As I mentioned, I appreciated seeing how the image can be improved.

I don't shoot surfers, but here's my possibly worthless-to-anyone advice. Crop tighter. Get emotion on the face involved. Bump your contrast and saturation a notch.

If you're interested in speed, check on software which can apply film effects like Provia, see how you like it.

As for edits, online stuff, if the flag for edits ok isn't on, that's a sign. The second is those massive watermarks which, I'll be direct, anyone any good could just remove. The Internet is the wild west of photo theft and there is no good protection against it short of high-end digital watermarks with a service to go hunt offenders down. Even then, and I know people who've done it, (C) violation of pro video backed by real money can't get paid. Honesty on the web isn't common when it comes to media.

Thanks for the suggestions. I don't know what film effects are and research into Provia didn't yield much, but at least I learned that there's software out there that could possibly help.

For me the first image lacks contrast and saturation, both are present in the second. The action is better on the first one, the second image feels like the real action happened a few seconds earlier.

Both images feel "bulls-eyed", the subject in dead center, most find images more pleasing when the subject is not centered and falls onto the quarters, google Rule of thirds if your not familiar with it.

All opninions offered are worth what you paid for them, no refunds.

Larry Johnson wrote in post #17533079
Well, you leave me no choice but to reply.

not really.

it's copyright.

it seems to me you have a just a passing understanding of the word and the laws behind it. My taking your pic onto my computer and altering it and then deleting it in no way could ever be seen as infringing on your rights. That's why i said "if you want to avoid the possibility of someone taking your photograph into their computer and manipulating it, don't post it on the internet." You can mark it with three thousand circle c's and it still does nothing to protect you from someone taking the pic onto their computer for their own PERSONAL use. This is not debatable.

You do however have the right to not like the legal aspects of copyright law. But again, as far as something that infringes on your rights you have no leg to stand on.

that's what this is:

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17531985
IMO, the posted image needs better processing. Composition could be better but it can be solved by cropping a bit.

I've been over this a couple of times, but just for clarity for anyone else interested. I have no legal impediment stopping me from taking your picture into my computer and doing whatever i want to it and then deleting the files. It is a matter of opinion of whether this falls into "professional courtesy". You have your opinion and I have mine.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17531985
If you would like me to take a look at the original image (this one is a bit over sharp too), start a thread in the critique forum and i'll post my method and results.

I have re-read the above that I posted before you started this thread, and was in fact the impetus for this thread. Despite efforts to give you the benefit of the doubt, i cannot see any way my words could be misunderstood. It seems perfectly clear that I would POST my method and results. Results of a method of processing a photo is the photo itself.


Additionally, I am confident that the images i posted in this thread would be considered "editorial" and a "derivative work" under US copyright law. The copyright line was not removed or obscured so attribution to you was clear.

Frankly i believe that i could post them here or even on another website in an editorial fashion without fear of legal problems. However, I do feel that this would cross the professional courtesy boundary and I would not do it without permission. One last time here, i DID ask permission and stated that if you wanted me to post my results all you had to do was start a thread.

For anyone interested in copyright law, here is a document that talks about derivative / editorial works and attribution among other things.

http://www.copyright.g​ov/title17/92chap1.pdf

www.photoattorney.com is another great resource

and yeah, i see that you base your loathing of me strictly on your uninformed opinion, and that you are okay with your ignorance in regards to copyright law. This post wasn't meant to educate you but there are plenty of others out there that seek to know more about their rights.

My honest thoughts when I first saw the images was that they were in need of a tighter crop, better processing and both shots are centre framed. The last point is the most important for me in that you made a bad choice with your sig size, placement and opacity. Kind of ruins the visual.

{There is an option on this forum to switch" Editing allowed" on or off. } Edit: seems to be discontinued in the new version - sorry! When you post in the CC section it is to your own advantage to switch that option on because a lot of people with more experience can show you how to improve your images. Also make sure the EXIF is available or Meta data made available at the top of your image.
Having a notice like the OP "Ask for my permission ....etc" is prohibitive to getting good critique and positive suggestions. Personally I find that sort of thing - also posting with huge logos in the centre of the image - rather arrogant as if you want to say: my image is so good I am sure everyone wants to copy it.."

Having said that, now to the pictures:
#1 is over exposed and lacks contrast - action is interesting as we can see some of the face although a closer crop would improve the shot.
#2 is properly exposed but we see th surfer from behind... not very interesting that way.

I do a fair bit of surf shooting and usually avoid "back" shots as the face and expression of the surfer is part of the story. To get that expression one need to get closer, have a longer lens or crop closer. Usually only the last option is the most realistic one.

Thanks for the comments. I was primarily interested in comments regarding exposure, which I should have specified. One wasn't even cropped. Interestingly, one of the surfers stated that the three things surfers are interested in seeing in photos, in order of importance, are, the wave, the surfer and the weather. Still, it's only natural to focus onthe surfer.

Copyright marks are not a matter of arrogance, regardless of where they appear on the image.