I have criticized others

Discussion in 'People' started by Mwilson50, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. So I might as well throw a few up here so I can be put back in my place :)  Here are a few from a wedding I did last Saturday.

    35-70 2.8 (old school :) )
    Sigma DG500 Super Flash for Fill



  2. MontyDog


    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
  3. Hey no prob I have a semi tough skin. :)  Perhaps I should have explained the pics a little more.

    #2 was edited for greens that way on purpose :) 

    #1 was light But I did that intentionally in order for my printer to come out right :)  Perhaps I should have changed it back. #3 was how it came out of the camera.

    I should have explained them a bit more :) 

    As far as her looking plump.. Those are the kinds of critiques I am looking for but if you could also give suggestions on how to make it a bit better :) 

  4. Oh I did misspeak on the equip used. The first one was a diff colorspace from a D100.
  5. [​IMG]

    About the first can you repost the photo with the colors not made ready for your printer. Because she looks cute on this photo but it is hard to focus on the primairy subject (the woman) with the overexposed background feel to it.


    Can you explain more about why you wanted to have more green in the photo. It is bit overexposed to much if you intended that to. If you look at the dress on the bridge no details and in the water reflection there are details. The overexposed parts are bit to harsh for my feeling.


    Looks bit soft in the man his face and has dreamy colors. I like the colors. I have photo's to that came directly out of my camera but the wb can be off alot so will not allways say that out of cam is right i bet you know that.

    I like your photo's and like is said earlier are the taken in auto WB because looks a bit like white balance differnce in the shots.

  6. The pose in the first picture strikes me as more glamour like than new bride. Not that a bride cannot be glamorous but perhaps if the hand on the hip was placed elsewhere and the shot taken a bit more from the front it would not come off with as much attitude. Maybe I am not being clear. There is nothing wrong with the pose, I just think the pose would be more appropriate for a "red dress night on the town" kind of picture.

  7. Ok as far as #2 goes, I was playing around a bit with filters etc. The green just sort of caught my eye case I thought it looked neat. The picture wasn't over exposed, it was guassian blurred :)  But perhaps I overdid everything a tad. Like I said I was just playing around with settings and thought it looked neat.

    Here is the other photo

  8. Understood. Most of my pictures were mostly head and shoulders of her however I thought this was a neat pose. You have to admit you dont see it too often on a bride and seeing the grooms diminutive size I thought it was mildly appropriate :) 
  9. DanWhite


    Jul 10, 2005
    Lansdale PA

    1) In the first shot the pose is very awkward, drawing attention away from the face. I might have also did a vinette to make the bride more of the COI.

    2) Blow highlights everywhere. (i.e.dress, vail, bridge, deck)

    3) I woul have like to see you move a little more to the groos side to get a little better angel on the brides face.

    Hope this helps.
  10. #1 Ok.

    #2 I meant to blow them. I wanted to give it a more dreamy look moreso than maintaining details.

    #3 As in not just moving to the side but moving around them to get her face more straight on?

    Thanks everyone for the critiqueing.. Only way to get better is to hear how other people might improve them. :) 
  11. DanWhite


    Jul 10, 2005
    Lansdale PA
    On Number 2 mabe try an action like this insted of completly losing detail.

    On Number 3 yes, I think her facial expression in the shot is great, Just would like to see a little more of it.

  12. I know you asked for it but I am sure this all seems a bit rough. So I thought at least one compliment would be a good idea. I like the bridge photo and see what you are going for. It is very fairtail like. I have to admit that the highlights are distracting. All is not lost though. If you shot raw lower the exposure quite a bit (I use photoshops raw converter) until the highlights are within reason. On PSE3 blown highlights show up as red areas when the highlight warning is checked. When the areas are no longer blown the red dissapears. Now the photo will be too dark. Next step crank up the brightness. I think you will find that you can get the photo back to where you had it but the highlights will not be blown. I discovered this trick by accident and it really seems to work. There may be a similar way to work a JPEG but I don't know how it would be done.
  13. Cool I will have to try that. Thanks.
  14. Just one compliment? :smile: Thanks nonetheless. Those were just a small amount of photos that I took and overall I keep feeling like I keep getting better so I am happy. I do appreciate the comments positive or asking me to work on certain things. Better than everyone ignoring me lol.
  15. I like this one did you try to blend to lighten version with this darken version to look what results it give?
  16. Actually with this one I chose a different approach. The other one I changed the exposure on and it pretty much lightened everything up, which was fine for my printer but was more than I wanted for the archival. So I layered just her and lightened that layer up while leaving the bg layer untouched until I merged them and then blended a bit. :)  I thought it came out a lot nicer.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.