i love how it looks for bridges, not sure how it works for portraits :\
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.
Mar 02, 2016 20:45 | #1 i love how it looks for bridges, not sure how it works for portraits :\ Image hosted by forum (779018) © mike_311 [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff. Image hosted by forum (779019) © mike_311 [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff. Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gonzogolf dumb remark memorialized More info | Mar 02, 2016 20:46 | #2 I'm not a fan of the muddy blacks.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MartinDixon Slit-scan project master More info | Mar 03, 2016 05:52 | #3 Looks like a fog applied over a decent image, sorry. flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 03, 2016 06:05 | #4 Well made - but I have to agree with the others: Not appealing to me.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 03, 2016 06:22 | #5 Take some time and watch television, especially the commercials...that is the style that you should emulate. The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 03, 2016 06:46 | #6 thanks for the input. i was just trying out something different. i had doubts myself and the comments so far appear to confirm that. Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 03, 2016 07:26 | #7 I am going to have to disagree with others. I like the matte look on some (not all) pictures. The 2nd one I like best. Jessi
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LeftHandedBrisket Combating camera shame since 1977... More info Post edited over 7 years ago by Left Handed Brisket. (2 edits in all) | Mar 03, 2016 07:39 | #8 i think you squashed the blacks too much. I took the image into Photoshop and the darkest parts are at the 3/4 tones (75% black) which is too far. If you only took them down to 85-90 percent the same effect can be achieved but you still have an image that retains more contrast. PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 03, 2016 07:55 | #9 Agree on the top and bottom fade! Jessi
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mike_311 THREAD STARTER Checking squirrels nuts More info Post edited over 7 years ago by mike_311. (2 edits in all) | Mar 03, 2016 08:49 | #10 The top and bottom fade is actually lens flare. the sun was right over the bush behind her. the shade form the bush actually created an hazy area in the flare pattern which is more apparent in color. Image hosted by forum (779091) © mike_311 [SHARE LINK] THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff. Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Hannya Goldmember 1,062 posts Likes: 66 Joined Apr 2008 Location: UK More info | Mar 03, 2016 11:14 | #11 I prefer the color version! Nice. “Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.” ― Henri Cartier-Bresson
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 03, 2016 11:29 | #12 mike_311 wrote in post #17921811 The top and bottom fade is actually lens flare. the sun was right over the bush behind her. the shade form the bush actually created an hazy area in the flare pattern which is more apparent in color. the intended to squash the crush the blacks that much. i lifted the black end of gamma curve and then modified the curve to pull the blacks down. the style is intended to match an editing preset in google photos which yields interesting results in some of my bridge pictures but i wasn't sure how it would work for portraits. maybe if i used an image that had stronger shadow lines and not on an image intended to be "pretty". Hosted photo: posted by mike_311 in ./showthread.php?p=17921811&i=i191270796 forum: Critique Corner
Jessi
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kjonnnn Goldmember 1,216 posts Likes: 147 Joined Apr 2005 Location: Chicago, Illinois More info | Nice. Its a kool contemporary style. Watch your conversion to black and white over skin, it can make it blotchy in some cases.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DThriller Goldmember More info | Mar 03, 2016 15:24 | #14 Was the haze in the corners in camera? http://www.facebook.com/DPhillipsStudios
LOG IN TO REPLY |
olafsosh I am a nice and fluffy dude More info | Mar 05, 2016 03:28 | #15 Mike, do the testing with another image. This now ain't working for couple reasons: - Olafs Osh
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Niagara Wedding Photographer 1317 guests, 124 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||