«

"jmc" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
>> jmc wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
>>>
>>> Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200 pictures
>>> with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you non-US folk!).
>>> This is my first DSLR, and my first major picture-taking expedition
>>> with it.
>>> I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
>>> appreciated!), and of my website!
>>>
>>> Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take, some
>>> of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm
>>> not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane image a
>>> masterpiece
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to sell?
>>> *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you should sell
>>> your photos", one is a graphic artist...
>>>
>>> Thanks for visiting!
>>>
>>> jmc
>>
>> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
>> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
>> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
>> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
>> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also diaplayed
>> after each shot, or during playback review). This will help you identify
>> exposure issues in the field.
>>
>
> Underexposed? Really? They look fine on my screen, and on my camera's
> LCD, and on the screen of the computer at work. Can you give me an
> example of one that is underexposed? Maybe my eyes are overexposed
>
> jmc

Pointing the camera at the sky like that will cause the meter underexpose
the scene. best to dial in some exposure comp.
-S

jmc wrote:

> Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
>
>> jmc wrote:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
>>>
>> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
>> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
>> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
>> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
>> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
>> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will help
>> you identify exposure issues in the field.
>>
>
> Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few images
> - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a good primer
> on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?
>
> Thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming. How's my composition skills?
> Aside from them being underexposed, what else do I need to work on,
> overall, to improve my skills? Is there anything I'm good at, that
> doesn't need as much improvement?
>
> Thanks again for the help.
>
> Jodi

Hi Jodi,

You have some nice compositions, and many can be improved a lot
with some dodging and burning. The Ron Bigelow site
has some nice articles, including one on curves:
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Here are some images that I think could be improved:
0653: darken the bright areas.

0550: darken the sky and use curves to darken the blacks

0546: darken the sky and lighten the foreground: make the flowers
stand out. Apply an S-curve to make the flowers stand out.

0666 is another with bright sky and dark foreground.

In general the viewer's eye is drawn to the brightest thing
in the scene. The brightest thing dominates, usually, especially
if it is large. If you have photoshop CS(12 or 3) try the
shadow/highlight tool. Without CS_, select a region, then feather
the edge of the selection, then use curves to brighten or darken.
The human eye has a much larger dynamic range than film or digital
cameras, or display screens and prints. That dynamic range must
be compressed to show what attracted you to take the picture.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

jmc wrote:
> Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
>> jmc wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
>>>
>> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
>> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
>> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
>> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
>> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
>> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will help
>> you identify exposure issues in the field.
>>
>
> Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few images
> - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a good primer
> on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?
>
> Thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming. How's my composition skills?
> Aside from them being underexposed, what else do I need to work on,
> overall, to improve my skills? Is there anything I'm good at, that
> doesn't need as much improvement?
>
> Thanks again for the help.

Taking a look at just 0546 for a minute, others have given ideas on
exposure, and the mass of dark green foliage is one thing that sucked
the light out, plus the general backlit nature of the angle, so the
foreground should be brought up quite a bit, perhaps using curves. I'd
try cropping off the left side, esp. where a pole says it isn't
vertical, but the houses in the background there take away from the
composition.

Enjoyed your shots of a wonderful spot, is that Tassie.

--
John McWilliams

Suddenly, without warning, David J Taylor exclaimed (12-Feb-07 9:39 PM):
> jmc wrote:
> []
>> Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few
>> images - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a
>> good primer on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?
>
> Jodi,
>
> For monitor settings, look at the top three-row chart here:
>
> http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp
>
> You should be able to distinguish the darkest and the lightest 3 boxes.
>
> David
>
>

Thanks. I can.

jmc