Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • LIKE CHIPTUNES/8-bit MUSIC? Check out Jeremiah "Nullsleep" Johnson's Collapsed Desires tour this month and throughout June!

    File : 1273940536.jpg-(626 KB, 1000x667, 1.jpg)
    626 KB Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:22 No.818291  
    Hello /p/

    I'm new to photography, I've been told that I have an eye for pictures and I would like to to develop (excuse pun) my skills as a photographer but one thing is bothering me, editing. Do I Have to edit all my photos? I find that all the pictures I take look lifeless without some sort of touch-up.

    Would any of you be able to provide me with links that offer photoshop tutorials?

    Here's a picture I took and edited in photoshop.
    EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:23 No.818293
         File1273940586.jpg-(538 KB, 1000x667, 2.jpg)
    538 KB
    and here is the original.
    EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:27 No.818295
    over edited. try taking pictures of people instead of trees.
    >> Esco !eJM4N/hPNo 05/15/10(Sat)12:29 No.818298
    the composition in this picture is terrible. your eyes have a terribly hard time focusing on the intended piece of wood. if you had moved down and captured it with a green background it would have been much more stunning. Before you worry about editing work ony our compostion. remember the people who tell you your good, are not photographers
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:29 No.818300
    >>818295
    Not OP, but why?
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:33 No.818304
    >>818295
    wtfamireading.cr2
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:35 No.818306
    photo benefits form warmer tone but the clipped areas in the upper right corner are distracting like shit
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:37 No.818310
    >>818300
    because people are alot more interesting to look at than trees are.
    >> zsilv !tsBOKEHwbk 05/15/10(Sat)12:39 No.818313
    >>818291
    It seems like that "life" you are putting into your photos is just warming up the white balance. Don't shoot on auto WB and you would have less of a problem.
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:46 No.818320
    >>818310
    They are more intresting to you..
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)12:48 No.818323
    >>818295
    >>818310

    OP, don't listen to this samefag. There's nothing wrong with nature photography, and if you do it right, you'll produce amazing results.

    This concoction, however, isn't exactly noteworthy. You're trying to focus on an area a couple feet down the length of the wood, but the out-of-focus protrusion is right in your face when you look at it, and it's not very good to look at. You also warmed too much in Photoshop, to the point where I like the original a little better. It's good that you're using manual, but you could probably do with some practice in it (we all went through this phase, so don't let it get you down). To help you with composition, look up the rule of thirds. If you can only learn one rule of composition in your entire life, that should be it.
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)13:04 No.818338
    Op here. Thank you for the replies so far.

    >>818298
    Thank you for your honest opinion, perhaps this wasn't the best picture to choose, I mainly wanted some advice on putting life into a photograph.

    >>818313
    Most of the pictures I take are in RAW, I was told that shooting on AWB is ok because you can edit it afterward?

    >>818323
    Thanks for the advice, I will take it on board.
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)13:09 No.818341
         File1273943351.jpg-(396 KB, 1000x667, 3.jpg)
    396 KB
    Op here again, here is another photo I took (hopefully it's a better example of the first)

    What's wrong with this picture?
    Dull looking?
    Bad angle?
    Everything?

    The main thing I want to know is, is all the skill of a photographer down to taking the actual photo? Or does a lot of it come from the editing afterwards? I can't imagine that all these professional photographers would ever use pictures taken right out of the camera without at least some editing?
    EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
    >> zsilv !tsBOKEHwbk 05/15/10(Sat)13:12 No.818346
    >>818338
    That is true that WB isn't baked in when shooting RAW. but you just said that you are spending too much time in post so setting your WB while shooting might cut down on that time.
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)14:05 No.818393
    >>818341

    Ideally, 100% of your skill will go to getting it right the first time. However, editing to tweak your image is forgivable if it's moderate. Nobody wants to spend a lot of time messing with Photoshop trying to get the picture to the best of its potential, that's best left to the day of the shoot.

    As for the pic, it's definitely better than the first one you posted. I think you resize them a bit too small, I'd say put them in something like 1680X1050 or somewhere in that range preserving the ratio of the original image. One thing I don't like about it, though, is the shadow on the under-side of the one wing. Everything else in the shot is nice, bright, and warm enough but not overkill with it, but that shadow just makes something in the center of the shot really dark and dreary, and just doesn't fit with the rest of it. I would've changed my angle of approach a bit, so that if I had to get a darker section of wing like that, it would be narrower on the shot and not so prominent.
    >> Anonymous 05/15/10(Sat)14:15 No.818407
         File1273947354.jpg-(1.05 MB, 1680x1120, 5.jpg)
    1.05 MB
    >>818393

    Thanks for your advice, yes, I agree that spending too much time editing on photoshop is putting too much focus on the actual skill. I still can't understand how the colours on other photographers pictures (either those in magazines or websites) are so vibrant and mine look washed out, filters maybe?

    I only resize my pictures to this size for uploading them on 4chan.

    Here's another picture from a (in my opinion) less artistic position of the same butterfly. (Original image, just resized)
    EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.



    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]
    Watched Threads
    PosterThread Title
    [V][X]le petit b...!lK4GD5SleY
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous