The "Post your pictures here" thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the last roll I didn't totally screw up while developing:

scan1201160010.jpg


scan1201160012.jpg


scan1201160013.jpg


scan1201160014.jpg
 
Anewbe4u, I actually think the original is fine, the exposure looks spot on whereas the edited one looked overexposed, unless you were going for that look!

The main thing is probably the location which makes it look like a test shot in your living room which I presume it was, to that end I'd say your camera can take great quality shots so no worries there. Maybe try in the garden or have the background further away from her so it appears more out of focus. As far as editing goes, I've got photos of my kid and I've gone back numerous times to try different editing of the same shot.

Was it shot with the 18-55mm kit lens and on camera flash, are you shooting RAW etc? :)
 
Last edited:
agree with ^^ original was great. but a lil touch here and there wont go a miss, see below
Anewbe4u said:
Hey guys.

My 600D arrived so I have been messing about with it a bit. To be honest, I have no idea what I'm doing.

Anyway, I'm just as interested in the editing of photos as the actual taking. I've been messing about with one I took of my kid. Now, I followed a guide on editing portrait shots. But to be honest, I'm not sure it actually looks better. The guide mainly said things like "change the brightness until it looks good" I have no idea what looks good!

I've posted them both below, the original and the edited version, could you give me some tips what to change on the edited version or suggest some things I can try on the non edited version.

I'm not so worried at this point about the composition of the photo but again, advice would appreciated. Also, if anyone could recommend a guide, that would be great.

Thank you :)
Click to expand...

if your using photoshop, use bridge and camera raw, you can do subtle editing there,
quickbridge.jpg


heres a quick re-edit ! slightly soften,spot heat the lil spot on cheek, lil fill light to brighten but brought exp down a step. oh and quick crop.
 
Last edited:
42zx said:
Anewbe4u, I actually think the original is fine, the exposure looks spot on whereas the edited one looked overexposed, unless you were going for that look!

The main thing is probably the location which makes it look like a test shot in your living room which I presume it was, to that end I'd say your camera can take great quality shots so no worries there. Maybe try in the garden or have the background further away from her so it appears more out of focus. As far as editing goes, I've got photos of my kid and I've gone back numerous times to try different editing of the same shot.

Was it shot with the 18-55mm kit lens and on camera flash, are you shooting RAW etc? :)
Click to expand...

I just kinda followed the guide, not sure what the end result was supposed to be really :P

That's precisely what it was, a test shot. Tomorrow I hope to go out with the kids and try and take some better shots. Using the standard lens kit as well. I think the flash was used and yeah, shooting raw with the jpg as well. Think this was just the jpg though. Raw kind of confused me.
 
adbp1 said:
agree with ^^ original was great. but a lil touch here and there wont go a miss, see below


if your using photoshop, use bridge and camera raw, you can do subtle editing there,

heres a quick re-edit ! slightly soften,spot heat the lil spot on cheek, lil fill light to brighten but brought exp down a step. oh and quick crop.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that's much better, I guess I was editing it way to much! I'll take some more shots tomorrow and try the more subtle editing. I'll post here for critique.
 
RAW saves a ton more information in the file than straight jpeg, its a digital negative, like a 25mb file vs 5mb one. I'd download the adobe elements trial to get a grip on RAW editing. If you're serious about portraits the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is great value for money, good for indoor shots too.
 
What sort of kit do you need to take the kind of landscape pictures 42zx has been posting, some really amazing pictures.

I've been looking at getting a camera and it's pictures like that that pushing me towards getting one, tho I was looking at getti g a canon d600, but I was wondering could you even take pictures like that with d600, if you had the right lenses etc?

I realise that 42zx must have a talent for taking pictures aswell !
 
42zx said:
If you're serious about portraits the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is great value for money, good for indoor shots too.
Click to expand...

The nifty fifty is a great lense for the price, but I found it a little long on a crop body (500D) unless you have big rooms :p
 
lokkers, you're right it can be a tight but if you're just doing headshots it shouldnt be too bad. For the price I dont think you can beat it, the next alternative is at least double the price atm, I had the nikkor equivalent and loved it.

Ac1dh0u$3. I use a Nikon D7000 with Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 mainly, I love this lens, so sharp across the frame you can crop and crop and crop. I tried the Sigma 10-20mm in a shop before buying the Tokina, which I found sharper, better built quality, less distortion and has a nice wide aperture for an extra £100 or so at the time it was a no brainer. Night shots are on a pretty basic Giottos tripod. Then LR3 to edit.
 
Thanks Andy, I'm using an Epson V500 and Vuescan on the software side. The Epson is pretty good for medium format but not as good for 35mm, but the quality is enough for web stuff.
 
I'd go with the 11-16 unless theres a huge price difference, which there doesnt seem to be. You're buying it for the wide end so the wider the better, probably got 17-24mmmm covered with other lenses and the extra stop of light doesnt hurt either.
 
GTRacer said:
Thanks Andy, I'm using an Epson V500 and Vuescan on the software side. The Epson is pretty good for medium format but not as good for 35mm, but the quality is enough for web stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I bought a Canon EOS 3 the other month and at the moment I'm running a few black and white films through it. Will get them developed in one go and was considering purchasing a scanner, so this will definately go on my list.
 
theres about £80 difference to the tokina 12-24 and about £250 over the nikon 12-24.
just read ken rockwells page and the 11-16 and he recommends that over the nikon and the tokina 12-24.
so with that i might go buy the 11-16mm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom