(first picture removed, see post #7)
i don't know if its me (my monitor) or does this photo look underexposed? any other critique appreciated.
jxs1984 Senior Member 342 posts Likes: 1 Joined Nov 2006 More info | Mar 13, 2010 20:20 | #1 (first picture removed, see post #7)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
juxtagirl Member 185 posts Joined Jan 2010 More info | Mar 13, 2010 20:24 | #2 It is under exposed. Did you shoot it in RAW? The composition is good and the concept is strong. Canon EOS 5D Mark II Gripped :: Canon EOS 30D :: 24-105mm f/4L IS USM :: 50mm f/1.8 :: 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS :: 3 B800's :: ABR800 w/ moon unit :: AB 42" PLM v1:: AB 86" white PLM v2 :: AB 64" silver PLM v2 :: 32x40 AB Softbox :: AB White Beauty Dish :: Metz 48AF-1 :: and a pretty Cheeky Lime bag
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Kleppy Member 62 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2007 More info | Mar 13, 2010 20:28 | #3 Agreed, the brights are bright enough but the darks are too dark. http://www.kleppy-is-a-geek.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 13, 2010 20:35 | #4 juxtagirl wrote in post #9791356  It is under exposed. Did you shoot it in RAW? The composition is good and the concept is strong. yes it was shot in raw. however if i bring the exposure up, the cards will look a little hot. how can i avoid that? Kleppy wrote in post #9791375 Agreed, the brights are bright enough but the darks are too dark. Otherwise a very well thought shot. if i just make the darks less dark, would i need to touch the exposure?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
juxtagirl Member 185 posts Joined Jan 2010 More info | Mar 13, 2010 20:39 | #5 You can do a curves adjustment in PS. Canon EOS 5D Mark II Gripped :: Canon EOS 30D :: 24-105mm f/4L IS USM :: 50mm f/1.8 :: 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS :: 3 B800's :: ABR800 w/ moon unit :: AB 42" PLM v1:: AB 86" white PLM v2 :: AB 64" silver PLM v2 :: 32x40 AB Softbox :: AB White Beauty Dish :: Metz 48AF-1 :: and a pretty Cheeky Lime bag
LOG IN TO REPLY |
chomish Goldmember  1,917 posts Joined Jun 2007 More info | Mar 13, 2010 20:52 | #6 I think its too dark.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 14, 2010 00:06 | #7  how bout this one now?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DeepPocket Goldmember 1,329 posts Joined Feb 2010 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada More info | Mar 14, 2010 01:01 | #8  Permanent banLike it ! 17 and learning..
LOG IN TO REPLY |
vk2gwk Cream of the Crop  13,360 posts Gallery: 332 photos Likes: 1836 Joined Jun 2009 Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia More info | Mar 14, 2010 04:23 | #9 I would have preferred the front and central part to be in focus, while losing focus further towards the back. Now it is more or less the other way round. My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
LOG IN TO REPLY |
corkneyfonz Goldmember  2,477 posts Likes: 5 Joined Oct 2009 Location: United Kingdom More info | Mar 14, 2010 20:11 | #10 |
Mar 15, 2010 02:52 | #11 vk2gwk wrote in post #9792913 I would have preferred the front and central part to be in focus, while losing focus further towards the back. Now it is more or less the other way round. Exposure, composition and colour is excellent. true i should have tried that corkneyfonz wrote in post #9796654 Interesting subject that holds my attention. thanks
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JRMott Member 75 posts Joined Mar 2010 More info | Mar 15, 2010 18:16 | #12 Definite improvement over the first shot. www.jrmottphotography.com
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 icebergchick 1506 guests, 167 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
