Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice job diddiyo! The photography is nice too, but I'm talking about how you snookered folks with that "I was playing around ... what [do] you guys think" bit! I personally would rather see discussion from you about your style, and comments both about why you like what you do and how you produce that effect consistently.
People, look at the photography. Then look up what else diddiyo has posted in the past. I didn't research it far enough to determine if he is a pro, but he certainly is a qualified photographer with some significant talent and experience because it doesn't appear that any characteristic of the images presented was done by accident.
There is just one problem with the post, and that is putting more than 30 images in one article, which is simply way over doing it.
As for the images... a touch of USM would give almost all of them a significant added bit of "pop". I see that as actually a technical deficiency.
I downloaded four of them that others commented on, to allow a bit more analysis. It is rather clear that changes in aperture follow a very specific pattern and that the photographer knows exactly how to control depth of field for effect. (Every close up image was taken stopped to between f/4 and f/5.6 because a wider aperture would be too narrow a DOF at that distance.) It seems the focal length was used effectively too, and ranged from 18mm to 50mm that I saw. The main point was that it appeared focal length was used to control perspective, and framing was adjusted by changing location. I see that as probably talent at work, not accidents selected for effect.
One characteristic that most are commenting on is that the images are "too dark". Personally I agree, but clearly the OP is deliberately doing that for effect. It isn't actually that the images are not bright enough, as they virtually all have a full range of brightness. The distribution, caused by adjustment of the gamma curve shape, is giving less separation to the lower level, making them darker but also increasing color saturation. High color saturation is not perhaps uncommon for pictures of nice shining cars? It was also a characteristic of every other photograph I saw that the OP has posted in the past, so clearly it is something he intends his images to be.
Again, I'd like to hear a bit of a "tutorial" style lecture from the OP on what he does, why he does it, and how it is accomplished.
Having read what you just posted, Floyd, i.e. that it was also a characteristic of every other photograph the OP has posted in the past in addition to those in this thead, I'm wondering now that if it was not his intent, PERHAPS (and I'm guessing now) it may have something to do with his computer monitor when he's editing and maybe he thinks they're brighter than, in fact, they are. Just a thought.
Having read what you just posted, Floyd, i.e. that it was also a characteristic of every other photograph the OP has posted in the past in addition to those in this thead, I'm wondering now that if it was not his intent, PERHAPS (and I'm guessing now) it may have something to do with his computer monitor when he's editing and maybe he thinks they're brighter than, in fact, they are. Just a thought.
A very good thought at that, PG. The default settings on most monitors is way too bright for image processing work. These images appear very dark on my calibrated monitor. They're also very flat, the cars don't pop at all. Floyd made the observation that the pictures use the full range of the histogram, however I would add that the overall scenes are weighted heavily toward the darker tones. The photographer evidently made the choice to not blow out any pixels at all. However, that left the cars underexposed. I see these were shot using manual exposure, but they look like autoexposures because of that. Outdoors shoots in mixed light are difficult and compromises have to be made. It's better to expose for the subjects and let the sky or other non-essential brighter areas blow out.
I also agree with Fuzz's observation about them being soft. I see that many of them were shot at F1.8 which is most likely wide-open or close to it depending on which 50mm lens the OP was using. My bet is that it's the 50mm F1.8 lens which costs around $100. Even the 50mm F1.4 lens which sells for around $400 is soft at F1.8. Lenses which are sharp wide open run in the $1K to $2K range. The 50mm F1.8 can get sharp shots when its stopped down a few stops to F4 or more. This is a case where knowing your equipment helps as the shots would have been a lot sharper that way.
I'm not sure whether the polarizer helped or hurt here. It's hard to tell since the subjects are so underexposed. It may have been a good call to reduce glare. But since they're so underexposed, I'm thinking it probably further reduced the contrast of the vehicles which contributed to the flat look. It would have been nice to have shot a few without the CP to compare.
AThey're also very flat, the cars don't pop at all. Floyd made the observation that the pictures use the full range of the histogram, however I would add that the overall scenes are weighted heavily toward the darker tones.
I also made the observation that they don't pop (that a little USM would help), that I personally don't like that dark look, and that it is caused by an adjusted gamma curve. So you aren't adding anything, just agreeing!
Quote:
The photographer evidently made the choice to not blow out any pixels at all. However, that left the cars underexposed.
I don't think that is quite the right way to describe it. By dropping the middle of the gamma curve, it makes the brighter parts of the image significantly more contrasty, with a wider separation between tones, and makes the darker parts exactly the opposite. It has very little to do with exposure or blowing out highlights, and everything to do with gamma linearity.
Quote:
I see these were shot using manual exposure, but they look like autoexposures because of that. Outdoors shoots in mixed light are difficult and compromises have to be made. It's better to expose for the subjects and let the sky or other non-essential brighter areas blow out.
But the sky is clipped on at least a half of those with sky showing, plus the images that have almost no sky have the same flat look. Hence I think this was done quite on purpose. It is one way to get a little more saturation in the colors of the cars. Plus it does cause virtually all of the foliage to be darker and therefore less significant.
I doubt that an overly bright monitor is the cause, though I'll grant it certainly is possible. But the difference in looking at the images with a monitor calibrated for gamma 2.2 and 6500K as opposed to viewing at gamma 2.4 and 5000K is a bit dramatic! The colors all pop a lot more with the calibration set to match a typical print, as opposed to matching sRGB for the WEB. That is what appears to me to be intentional.
I personally don't particularly like that effect, but I'm not silly enough to think "good photography" is defined by what I like!
Quote:
I also agree with Fuzz's observation about them being soft.
Again, it seems we all agree on that. But that is the effect of not using USM or at least a bit of sharpening.
I have no idea why the OP doesn't sharpen the images, but again I don't define good photography to be what I like. If the OP wants them to look that way, for whatever reason, that is his option.
Quote:
I see that many of them were shot at F1.8 which is most likely wide-open or close to it depending on which 50mm lens the OP was using. My bet is that it's the 50mm F1.8 lens which costs around $100. Even the 50mm F1.4 lens which sells for around $400 is soft at F1.8. Lenses which are sharp wide open run in the $1K to $2K range. The 50mm F1.8 can get sharp shots when its stopped down a few stops to F4 or more. This is a case where knowing your equipment helps as the shots would have been a lot sharper that way.
I totally agree in regard to the "Nifty Fifty", and the exact same applies to the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens too. Nikon's f/1.4 versions aren't bad at f/1.8, but they are a lot better at f/4 too.
However... the OP has been relatively careful about DOF, and clearly uses it to isolate parts of the image. I think once again that a little USM would add a bit of pop where needed, and if done selectively could leave the out of focus areas with what appears to me to be an intended amount of blur.
A few statistics... Out of 33 images, 7 use the 50mm lens, 6 at f/1.8 and only 1 at f/2.2,and all used ISO 100. The other 26 are shot at focal lengths from 18mm to 40mm, using fstops from f/3.5 to 5.6, mostly at ISO 200, but with 8 at ISO 100 and 2 at ISO 400.
Clearly the use of the widest apertures is intentional.
Quote:
I'm not sure whether the polarizer helped or hurt here. It's hard to tell since the subjects are so underexposed. It may have been a good call to reduce glare. But since they're so underexposed, I'm thinking it probably further reduced the contrast of the vehicles which contributed to the flat look. It would have been nice to have shot a few without the CP to compare.
Lets be a bit pedantic here, and once again point out that the images are *not* under exposed. The gamma curve linearity is the reason that many appear too dark, not incorrect exposure. The fact that the same is true for shots with large areas of sky and also for images with no sky at all suggests it is not a case of a bright sky tricking the light meter.
Heh, we'll have to wait for the OP to stop rolling around on the floor in fits of laughter so that he can set us all straight... :-)
PERHAPS (and I'm guessing now) it may have something to do with his computer monitor when he's editing and maybe he thinks they're brighter than, in fact, they are. Just a thought.
The brightness issue likely has to do with faster shutter than should have been selected, and a discrepancy between the brightness of the shot through the view finder versus the result. At least the photographs I looked for EXIF suggest use of manual mode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson
I have no idea why the OP doesn't sharpen the images, but again I don't define good photography to be what I like. If the OP wants them to look that way, for whatever reason, that is his option.
Surely it is, but if the OP is trying to learn photography, a better approach is to get the basics through the camera right and depend less on post processing. Very few people dare to post pictures they took much less asking for critique. If the person had performed surgery on the photographs, we would be talking about issues (or lack of) with results from post processing as opposed to results in photography.
Surely it is, but if the OP is trying to learn photography, a better approach is to get the basics through the camera right and depend less on post processing.
Despite what Floyd thinks, the "softness" is not just about applying sharpening in post-processing. Many of the shots are simply out of focus (or seemingly mis-focused). Sharpening in PP is not going to get them as sharp as if they had been in focus to begin with.
Surely it is, but if the OP is trying to learn photography, a better approach is to get the basics through the camera right and depend less on post processing. Very few people dare to post pictures they took much less asking for critique. If the person had performed surgery on the photographs, we would be talking about issues (or lack of) with results from post processing as opposed to results in photography.
Did the OP say anything at all indicating he thought posting here was a way "to learn photography"? He posted thirty some pictures for people to look at! He's a lot more interested in showing off his work than he is in comments from a peanut gallery!
Incidentally, his style is not unlike what is commonly seen with other "car picture" photographers.
Tell me more about monitor calibration. Is it done via software? Does it affect normal viewing with websites, etc?
The basic idea is to get a consistent and repeatable display, which is usually intended to match what will be produced by a printer. That allows editing an image for the purpose of making prints by showing what that image will look like when printed.
However, the "default calibration" is not the same! Generally monitors will have settings that are supposed to provide sRGB colorspace and 6500K color temperature. Unfortunately it is fairly common for a monitor to be located in an area where the ambient light is fairly bright, and therefore the brightness and contrast of the screen are necessarily set very high. The next most unfortunate characteristic of monitors is that they change with time.
The result is that while there is a "standard" (sRGB) for images on the web, the actual range that will be encountered is guite broad. And in fact, when people say they have a calibrated monitor, it means almost nothing because they don't say what it is calibrated for, and they probably don't realize it makes a difference!
There are web sites that provide images meant to "calibrate" a monitor. They sort of work, but are not likely to produce consistent results. The gamma (contrast) and brightness can usually be set fairly well, but color adjustments are usually far from good.
The best way to calibrate a monitor is with a hardware device called a "colorimeter" that will measure known colors projected to the screen and provide a profile that can be loaded to adjust those colors somewhere close to what they should be. With good monitors it works fairly well, but with some there simply is no hope (for example, very few laptop monitors can actually be correctly calibrated).
Did the OP say anything at all indicating he thought posting here was a way "to learn photography"?
OP did specifically ask for comments about his photography ("sharpness, brightness, overall picture quality etc"), so yes, he is doing more than just "showing off", he is looking for critiques.
OP did specifically ask for comments about his photography ("sharpness, brightness, overall picture quality etc"), so yes, he is doing more than just "showing off", he is looking for critiques.
Asking "what you guys think" is a way to encourage viewers to take a closer look. And a day later you can see the serious intent to engage in discussion too! If you think he expects to learn anything from you, please be aware that "gullible" is not listed in the dictionary any more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
