# You got my attention........



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 11, 2012)

I came into this forum with expectations of pats on the back or "good work" I was cut down so fast!!! This is a VERY tough group...... so I surrender myself again. You have peeked my curiosity. I am no longer looking at my photos with pride but a more critical eye now and after today I can "see" the issues in so many of my photos, but I have to submit again because I just need to know what YOU see that I don't...... I want to start really seeing my work for what it is so here I go again.
There are the photos that I would consider my "better" photos. 
1. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




4.


----------



## willis_927 (Jan 11, 2012)

1 - is a cool Idea, but the color is way off. Also I think it needs a tighter crop. 

2 -3 are in serious need of some fill light.. 3 more so than 2.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 11, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> ....... You have _*peeked *_my curiosity.


Sometimes I hate myself.  I believe you meant *PIQUED.*

These photos are better than the other thread showing that you have a knack for capturing emotion in your images.  This is a good thing.  Concentrate on the fundamentals of lighting, exposure and composition.  I've made this suggestion (from personal experience) to take an inanimate object and run through the paces of aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings.  Keep good notes on what has worked and what has failed.  When you are confused on why certain settings yield poor results, certainly post and ask.  But TBH, you should set aside many hours of lonely and boring practice until these results become second nature.  If you snap off a shot and see the bad blinkies or your histogram is off the charts, then you should then be able to make a few adjustments to get it back within reason.  It won't happen next week or next month, but before you know it it WILL happen with perseverance on your part.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 12, 2012)

^^^ What he said!


----------



## KmH (Jan 12, 2012)

It appears you know little about photographic lighting, or the guidelines for the use of light when making visual images.

In #1, the kids cast no shadows, and the light on them doesn't match the scene they were apparently cut and pasted into. It looks very fake.

The little girl in #2 has what is known as 'raccoon eyes' (dark eye sockets). A person's eye's are usually considered an important part of a portrait type photograph - You know, "windows to the soul". I would also suggest #2 would have been stronger shot with the camera in the vertical (portrait) orientation rather than the horizontal (landscape) orientation.

In #3 the girl is extremely under exposed. A precept of the visual arts stems from the understanding that human nature is such that our eyes go first to the brightest part of an image. In #3 that is the foliage in the background, not her. We can't see into her dark eye sockets at all.
So the precept is - "light advances, dark receeds". She should be brighter (advance) than the background (receeds).

#4 is to dark, backs of heads are not to compelling, and all the dappled sunlight makes the image very busy. The intended main subjects have insufficient visual weight in the frame.  I would crop #4 from it's current 3:2 aspect ratio to a 1:1 aspect ratio (square).


----------



## Ms.Nash (Jan 12, 2012)

^^^^^ what he said


----------



## KmH (Jan 12, 2012)

So here are some photographic light resources you can use:

Light Science and Magic, Fourth Edition: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting 

Strobist: Lighting 101

http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Jan 12, 2012)

Book = Understanding Exposure - by Bryan Peterson
Available in most book stores or anywhere on the web


----------



## jowensphoto (Jan 12, 2012)

1. I absolutely LOVE the concept. I think getting a little lower and moving a little bit to the right would help the composition. I think this is a good one to have a little on the "warm" side, but maybe not quite so much.

3. Cute headshot of a sweet face!

3. You really captured the moment with this one. Her face is hidden in the shadows though.

4. Eh, the other three are better


----------



## sm4him (Jan 12, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > ....... You have _*peeked *_my curiosity.
> ...



^^ +1


----------



## sm4him (Jan 12, 2012)

You have serious lighting issues.
I can't help you fix them, because...well, because *I* have serious lighting issues. But I've at least come to recognize that it's the major thing I need to work on (currently waiting for that durn contract check so I can buy a flash to use off camera!). Look at similar photos from some real pros, and you'll begin to see how yours differ.  You have underexposed areas, shadows on faces and under their eyes, all issues that could be fixed with the right lighting. 
Pay attention to KmH (I can't believe I just said that, lol!!) when it comes to lighting...or lightspeed, or a number of others that post regularly on here. And if you're serious about getting photos like this correctly exposed, read strobist.com's Lighting 101 and pick out your off-camera flash (if you don't have one already).

I do like the composition in most of these though--particularly #1 and 3.
Oh, and that little kid in #2? TOO. CUTE. Looks like me when I was that age, with that bright red hair.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

First and foremost-step away from the editing program until you get calibrated. Your colors are all over the place and the EXTREME contrast is giving you huge black blobs that will suck your eye into them. 

1. I fail to see where the kids look cut and pasted here. I love the scene. I think that maybe the original had the potential to be a beautiful shot. Get rid of the stop sign and the street sign too. They are incredible eye suckers as well as the black blobs in the children. The color COULD work if it were a little more subtle. 
2. needs fill flash. her eyes are black holes for the most part.  Again, I think the original has some potential, but your color thing is really killing it badly. It also looks like you put a soft focus on it because the bow was in focus and not the eyes
3. Might have the potential to be a great moment capture, but as it is her face is so dark with no light to the eyes so she's all mouth. She's also very GLOWING orange. 
4. is 85% blacks to the point that you have a black hole at the end of the path and you can barely make out the second child which is blending into the blacks at the right. The color is extremely warm. 

I suspect you do not see the glowing orange. Monitors out of the box tend to be very cool in color so you think that your images are blue or cool when they are not. You must calibrate before you will be able to actually even see your images properly, let alone edit.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 12, 2012)

@ Elizabeth30: The first book that Keith has referenced is one that he recommended to me some time ago, and I have purchased it and have been working my way through it. Very, very good explanation of how light is used to give dimension and depth to any subject. As I told Keith, the examples in the book will take me several months to work through, but to the credit of the authors, they are very clear both in their explanations, and in the setup of each set of shots, so I (and you) can try to replicate their methods to get the results illustrated. 


As for your photos, my comments are as follows:



#1 &#8211; The lack of shadow detail in the children bothers me, as does the slanted horizon. I don&#8217;t like the blown sky, and while I appreciate that the couple in mid-ground needs to be somewhat out of focus for the image to work, their placement in the middle of the blown sky overshadows them. From a compositional point-of-view, there is a virtual line between the children and the couple, and that line kinda clashes with the rest of the lines of the picture. I think the concept has promise, but it needs to be developed further.



#2 &#8211; I really like her expression and the overall composition, but I find the eyes too dark. Some reflector fill from the left side would have brightened up the shadows. Of course, if this shot was taken &#8220;on-the-fly&#8221;, as an opportunity grab, then it&#8217;s understandable, but at the same time if it was posed, then that situation could really use some additional fill light.



#3 &#8211; Another one where I wish someone was on your left with a large reflector, aimed at her face. The body is getting enough reflected light, but not the face.



#4 &#8211; This image shows the perils of having strong light with hard shadows. The child on the right disappears into the shadow, while the backside of the girl is almost overexposed. Again, I think the concept you were shooting has promise. Compositionally, I would have preferred to see them closer to the right side (not centered), walking into the picture along the path. As it is, the space to the right side of the children has very little pictorial value.



A photographer who I know personally and who has photographed many fashion and travel shoots all over the world for some well-known magazines, told me that just because the image may look spontaneous, doesn&#8217;t mean that it is. In her workshops she has shown me (and several members of our photo club) how much effort goes into preparing the light, the props, the &#8220;actors&#8221;, and if outside, choosing the right time of the day, to ensure that all parts of the image are properly exposed, with the right amount of detail. Then, the direction of the actors generates the &#8220;spontaneous&#8221; feeling, but this is after the rest of the prep work has been done.


----------



## bazooka (Jan 12, 2012)

I don't think #1 looks cut & pasted at all. The light looks very normal to me.

As for everything else... +1


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth, look at the bright side, all the help these people are giving you is making the rest of us make better photos. I don't mean this as a slight to you but when people post photos that need work, all the info that comes out helps us all become better photographers.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> First and foremost-step away from the editing program until you get calibrated. Your colors are all over the place and the EXTREME contrast is giving you huge black blobs that will suck your eye into them.
> 
> 1. I fail to see where the kids look cut and pasted here. I love the scene. I think that maybe the original had the potential to be a beautiful shot. Get rid of the stop sign and the street sign too. They are incredible eye suckers as well as the black blobs in the children. The color COULD work if it were a little more subtle.
> 2. needs fill flash. her eyes are black holes for the most part.  Again, I think the original has some potential, but your color thing is really killing it badly. It also looks like you put a soft focus on it because the bow was in focus and not the eyes
> ...



Wow, my monitor must be WAY off then because when you say that you can barley see the second child in photo #4, on my monitor you can make her out fine, some shadows on her maybe and not sure about this "orange glow" you keep talking about so yea, I will look into that. 
As for photo #1 so it looks fake because of the lighting? I deleted the RAW format of this photo but I have the original in JPG, so her it is...... and I liked the street sign and stop sign in it.... I thought it gave the photo a bit of character.....
This family is a close friend of mine and this photo shoot I did for her was by far the best I've done. Considering my little knowledge and not so great equipment. but I LOVED the scenery here and got sooooo many goood shots! When I say good I know you're thinking, bad but in terms of artistic they are great to me! oh and BTW I'm going to change my settings so you can edit this if you like......


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 12, 2012)

Joey_Ricard said:


> Book = Understanding Exposure - by Bryan Peterson
> Available in most book stores or anywhere on the web



Have you read this book?


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > ....... You have _*peeked *_my curiosity.
> ...



Yea....... I'm not a very good speller ...... lol


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

KmH said:


> .  I would crop #4 from it's current 3:2 aspect ratio to a 1:1 aspect ratio (square).



I have been editing in PS CS5 for some time now and have to figure out how to crop proportionality? there must be a setting for this but they do not seem to work??


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 12, 2012)

Your composition is OK at times, but what is going on with the White balance in these shots? The colour is completely off as previously stated and some of the shots are quite soft due to shooting wide open. What White balance setting are you using? 

On a positive note, you seem to have an eye for capturing moments. So you clearly do have some natural photographic ability, all four shots have something about them in terms of capture. All four could of been 'great photos' if taken with good photographic skill.  But image 3, the shadows on the subject and the bright sunshine in the background is horrid and by not fully evaluating the light in front of you, you have in my opinion ruined a potentially great shot.

On a side note, If you are doing this seriously! Ditch the 50 1.8 lens immediately, the 'bokeh' shown in these samples is nervous, distracting and poor. This isn't your fault, its a feature of an old lens design. Buy a Sigma 50 1.4 and enjoy some smooth OOF rendering. You will be surprised at how much of a difference it will make to the overall look of your images.


----------



## RebeccaAPhotography (Jan 12, 2012)

In the crop box it has the options to do it. My laptop crapped out so I can't be more descriptive except when u do click on the crop tool you have the options on the panel above ((really hard to explain)) I think the one that can be opened and dragged down to the left has the ratio options. Sorry not much help. 

So I'm at work and read thru half your other thread and gave up too long. Lol and read this. My 1cent  study the basics girlie! Start back at square one of the exposure triangle. Did you get that book understanding exposure? Def do! You will not regret it! 

I too was in your same exact boat!! Literally said the same things with my first post. Now that I look back I am like how naive was I!?! I do not charge any more! I work with friends and since I've found this site my work has improved immensely! Just keep at it


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

KmH said:


> So here are some photographic light resouerces you can use:
> 
> Light Science and Magic, Fourth Edition: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting
> 
> ...



So many great resources everyone has given me!! Thank you! I have started a compilation of all the links that everyone has sent into a word doc so I can start to go through them all!


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> 1. I absolutely LOVE the concept. I think getting a little lower and moving a little bit to the right would help the composition. I think this is a good one to have a little on the "warm" side, but maybe not quite so much.
> 
> 3. Cute headshot of a sweet face!
> 
> ...


 Thank you so much for the kind words!


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

sm4him said:


> Oh, and that little kid in #2? TOO. CUTE. Looks like me when I was that age, with that bright red hair.


My best friends niece, isn't she a doll!!  LOVE red hair! My mama has red hair


----------



## KmH (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > .  I would crop #4 from it's current 3:2 aspect ratio to a 1:1 aspect ratio (square).
> ...


if you want a 1:1 aspect ratio put a 1 in the Width value box and a 1 in the Horizontal value box there on the Tool Options Bar. Leave the Resolution box blank.

When you drag out the crop it will be 1:1. You can resize it by clicking on and dragging any corner.

Do the same for a 3:2 (horizontal) or a 2:3 (vertical) aspect ratio, 5:4/4:5  (8x10, 10x8) or 7:5/5:7 (5x7, 7x5).

Oh! I should add - If you want to move the dragged out crop area, just click/hold and drag inside the crop area.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

bazooka said:


> I don't think #1 looks cut & pasted at all. The light looks very normal to me.
> 
> As for everything else... +1


 What does +1 mean?


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Joey_Ricard said:
> 
> 
> > Book = Understanding Exposure - by Bryan Peterson
> ...


 um...... are u being sarcastic here? isn't it obvious?


----------



## bazooka (Jan 12, 2012)

It means I agree with what everyone else has said.


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Joey_Ricard said:
> ...



Huh? I'm asking the person I quoted the question.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


 HAHA, ok


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 12, 2012)

TMBPhotography said:


> Elizabeth, look at the bright side, all the help these people are giving you is making the rest of us make better photos. I don't mean this as a slight to you but when people post photos that need work, all the info that comes out helps us all become better photographers.



That means you won't be posting anymore shot at F1.8 or F2.2 for a while, right?    LOL!


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

I think I should just note that my goal is Not to become the typical photographer; posing, studio, ect..... I am working toward only doing natural light photography, and getting those candid natural every day moments. candid shots are my FAVORITE!! This can be tough with children though as they are constantly moving but I know It's something I can work on. And as for my lens, yea the 50mm 1.8 was given to me, no way can I afford anything else. My husband and I have 5 children and he is currently laid off  but my dream lense is the 85mm 1.2  I have been drooling over this lens for some time now!! I would also like to eventually get the Canon 5D Mark II but considering my financial situation by the time I can afford it there be a better one out there!


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 12, 2012)

gonna try my darndest. Was suppose to have a photo shoot today but something came up. Next week hopefully. I am excited to get out there and try all this new info I have learned. Then have you all tear me down for missing something else I haven't studied yet.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Wow, my monitor must be WAY off then because when you say that you can barley see the second child in photo #4, on my monitor you can make her out fine, some shadows on her maybe and not sure about this "orange glow" you keep talking about so yea, I will look into that.
> As for photo #1 so it looks fake because of the lighting? I deleted the RAW format of this photo but I have the original in JPG, so her it is...... and I liked the street sign and stop sign in it.... I thought it gave the photo a bit of character.....
> This family is a close friend of mine and this photo shoot I did for her was by far the best I've done. Considering my little knowledge and not so great equipment. but I LOVED the scenery here and got sooooo many goood shots! When I say good I know you're thinking, bad but in terms of artistic they are great to me! oh and BTW I'm going to change my settings so you can edit this if you like......



You are starting out with some great basic images!!! You editing and your monitor are killing you. 
I'll run just a quick edit of this and post back.


----------



## TMBPhotography (Jan 12, 2012)

I tried editing this for funzees and it wouldn't let me upload it back into photo bucket. I cropped the heck out of it and thought it came out decent.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Just a very quick edit. I tried to stick to the style that you lean towards with the very saturated, rich dark colors and heavy contrast. 
Your full image: 






I cropped it to an 8x10 and straightened the crooked horizon. I'd edit out the signs, they are really distractions, but you said you liked them, so they're here. But trust me, they really are distractions:




the problem with the edit is I am positive that you are not seeing the same thing we are because your monitor is not calibrated. So... it's going to look like doo doo to you. 
Try printing a small version of your image out next to the version I have edited and see what you see. Assuming your printer is fair, you should see the differences.


----------



## Tee (Jan 12, 2012)

Have you tried #1 in a simple B&W conversion?  I know you want to be a natural light photographer but I urge you to consider learning when to add flash when you're on location.  Baby steps.  You'll be amazed at how much you can do with flash on location.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> I think I should just note that my goal is Not to become the typical photographer; posing, studio, ect..... I am working toward only doing natural light photography, and getting those candid natural every day moments. candid shots are my FAVORITE!! This can be tough with children though as they are constantly moving but I know It's something I can work on. And as for my lens, yea the 50mm 1.8 was given to me, no way can I afford anything else. My husband and I have 5 children and he is currently laid off  but my dream lense is the 85mm 1.2  I have been drooling over this lens for some time now!! I would also like to eventually get the Canon 5D Mark II but considering my financial situation by the time I can afford it there be a better one out there!



Would you like to know what we call photographers who say they are "natural light photographers"? We call them photographers who don't know how to use flash! 

If you really want to be a pro.. what are you going to tell a client, that wants photos on a dreary day, subject in the shade at twilight? Oh, sorry. there isn't enough light?  Boom.. one customer gone! lol! You need to be able to shoot anytime, anywhere.. or you are not going to be shooting much.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Just a very quick edit. I tried to stick to the style that you lean towards with the very saturated, rich dark colors and heavy contrast.
> Your full image:
> 
> 
> ...



Ok first off I did a "windows" calibration for now and there was in fact a bluish cast to my monitor. If I'm being honest (as you all have been to me ) I really do not like this edit! What's with all the noise in the background now? It had a nice soft haze to it and now I'm seeing double :/ I do think the crop to it is really nice but now that I've bumped my monitor color it looks to saturated lol I'm sure that's my own fault now I'm going to have to go through and see what my photos REALLY look like. uhg!
Here's my re-edited version after my monitor color fix.


----------



## LuckySe7en (Jan 12, 2012)

I really like these photos.  Minor things to fix like your fill and your post processing.  If you don't have a flash right now, go get a large reflector.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Would you like to know what we call photographers who say they are "natural light photographers"? We call them photographers who don't know how to use flash!
> 
> If you really want to be a pro.. what are you going to tell a client, that wants photos on a dreary day, subject in the shade at twilight? Oh, sorry. there isn't enough light?  Boom.. one customer gone! lol! You need to be able to shoot anytime, anywhere.. or you are not going to be shooting much.


Good point but I never said I didn't want to use a flash, by saying natural light, I mean that I want to do out door photos without props (well maybe props like a blanket basket ect...) in natural daylight! Not posed in a studio. Not that there is anything wrong with that type of photography..... that doesn't mean I won't change my mind years down the road but for now I want to be in this beautiful world taking photos with natural beauty all around me and my subjects! Flash included!! HEHEHE! I did try using my flash outdoors... once.


----------



## paigew (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> If I'm being honest (as you all have been to me ) I really do not like this edit! What's with all the noise in the background now? It had a nice soft haze to it and now I'm seeing double :/ I do think the crop to it is really nice but now that I've bumped my monitor color it looks to saturated lol I'm sure that's my own fault now I'm going to have to go through and see what my photos REALLY look like. uhg!
> Here's my re-edited version after my monitor color fix.



I too prefer this look. The less-saturated, hazy look  But I do think the signs should go!


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 12, 2012)

...is anyone sure that this is not a recovery attempt?


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Just a very quick edit. I tried to stick to the style that you lean towards with the very saturated, rich dark colors and heavy contrast.
> ...


You are absolutely right about the noise in the background. It comes from editing such a small image. I am just not going to go into extreme detail on a small image for a quick edit. Kinda a waste of time. 

Your new edit has taken all of the contrast out of the image and the black level is such that it's now very washed out looking. Your blacks are starting to become gray.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Are you trying to create a very saturated, contrasty look to your images when you usually edit? What kind of look are you going for?


----------



## Patrice (Jan 12, 2012)

Regardless of what anyone here says I think your first image in your original post is great. That image caught my attention immediately. I keep going back to it and discovering various small elements in it that were not immediately noticeable. I also like the sepia like rendering you first presented. We see so many images here that are just so 'oh well'. Just another car, just another bride, just another tree, yours is different.

I don't care about what many others deem to be technical flaws, so what, sometimes an image is striking simply because it breaks the mould. 

Thanks for sharing it with us.


----------



## KmH (Jan 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > I think I should just note that my goal is Not to become the typical photographer; posing, studio, ect..... I am working toward only doing natural light photography, and getting those candid natural every day moments. candid shots are my FAVORITE!! This can be tough with children though as they are constantly moving but I know It's something I can work on. And as for my lens, yea the 50mm 1.8 was given to me, no way can I afford anything else. My husband and I have 5 children and he is currently laid off  but my dream lense is the 85mm 1.2  I have been drooling over this lens for some time now!! I would also like to eventually get the Canon 5D Mark II but considering my financial situation by the time I can afford it there be a better one out there!
> ...


Some term them fauxtographers. Quit looking at Facebook. 

Just what you need. A f/1.2 lens. :thumbdown:

You don't understand, because you have no clue. The typical today photographer *is* a "natural light, don't/don't know how to pose, don't/don't know how to light, don't have a studio" photographer. That pretty much defines the vast majority of today's one-on-every-street-corner, entry-level, retail photographer that essentially has an illegal business, no technical or artistic skills and little if any desire to ever do the work needed to acquire those skills.

But the churn at the entry level is massive, because only 1 out of every 40,000 of those "natural light only, candid, natural, every day moments, don't/don't know how to pose, don't/don't know how to light, don't have a studio" photographer's actually make any money. Most of those types of retail photography businesses are supported by other income. For a short time anyway.

Today, the 'uses strobed lighting, knows how to pose, has a studio' photographer is in the decided minority, and are about the only photographers around that have a viable, ongoing, actually makes a profit business.

Here is some reality for you. For a full time retail photographer, that has a legal business, to make minimum wage after all the business expenses and personal helth insurance, retirement monies have been paid, needs gross total revenues of between $100,000 and $120,000 a year. That's about $8250 to $10,000 average per month - month, after month, after month.

_Well more than 1/2_ of a retail photographers time is spent doing business tasks like accounting, developing marketing and promotional plans, networking, drumming up new business, maintaining a web site/blog/social networking, etc.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Edit 1




Edit 2


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 12, 2012)

None of the edits work...IMHO...its a recovery. Great idea for comp but its just not working no matter what the edit is...maybe focus on what the exposures need to be and any flashes and modifiers need to be going forward. Th shot is being editied to the nth dregree, but none of it is really working. It was a meh option from the start for an edit.

OK so hate me....


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

I LOVE the first edit!!! I still wish the signs remained. I think the orange cone is more distracting then the signs. I second edit is nice too but I love the toning in the first one! Thanks!


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

Thank you so much!! I have gotten a lot of good info coming here but I still want to maintain my own style.... you know? I don't want to do things the "technical" way. I know there is sooooo much I still need to learn and work on but some things are better when they are different.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> I LOVE the first edit!!! I still wish the signs remained. I think the orange cone is more distracting then the signs. I second edit is nice too but I love the toning in the first one! Thanks!



The first edit is the one I liked as well. I didn't bring it into camera raw - I just did a levels adjustment to set the black point - I did try putting a haze on it with levels but it didn't look right. Then I used a color boost action that I made and that was it. The 2nd one I added an orangish colored haze on top of the stuff I did in the first edit. 

I just wanted to see what it would look like without the signs - I know you liked them. If you were going to crop the way MLeek did then you'd have to at least get rid of the street sign because it would only show a small part of it.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Edit 1
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This one is definitely much more my style than the over saturated look too. LOVE how that turned out!


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Thank you so much!! I have gotten a lot of good info coming here but I still want to maintain my own style.... you know? I don't want to do things the "technical" way. I know there is sooooo much I still need to learn and work on but some things are better when they are different.



You win.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> Thank you so much!! I have gotten a lot of good info coming here but I still want to maintain my own style.... you know? I don't want to do things the "technical" way. I know there is sooooo much I still need to learn and work on but some things are better when they are different.



Exposure wise should be done technically perfect to get the best result. Then you can always edit it creatively and it will come out much better then if you start out with a poorly exposes image.


----------



## Mach0 (Jan 12, 2012)

I like the first one but as pointed out, get the screen calibrated. Have you thought about a reflector? They are pretty handy and relatively cheap. Also, a flash can also help some. If you aren't fond of a flash, I suggest a reflector.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> This one is definitely much more my style than the over saturated look too. LOVE how that turned out!



Glad it came out ok color-wise - my monitor still looks blue to me!


----------



## MWC2 (Jan 12, 2012)

I actually like the first one but the editing kills it for me.   I gave  it a go, I'm no professional but this is what I came up with.






Original & My Edit





Your Edit & My Edit

I  removed the fire hydrant, one stop sign, a sign on one door, the red  light, the power lines running thru the couples heads, the orange  traffic cone, & leveled the horizon slightly.  Then did a levels  adjustment, two curves adjustments, a colour boost, added a slight haze  and a really slight adjustment to warm it up a little.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

KmH said:


> Just what you need. A f/1.2 lens. :thumbdown:
> 
> You don't understand, because you have no clue. The typical today photographer *is* a "natural light, don't/don't know how to pose, don't/don't know how to light, don't have a studio" photographer. That pretty much defines the vast majority of today's one-on-every-street-corner, entry-level, retail photographer that essentially has an illegal business, no technical or artistic skills and little if any desire to ever do the work needed to acquire those skills.


I completely disagree! Little to no artistic skill? I think soooo many photographers have a GREAT artistic skill but lack knowledge on the same things I do like exposure and processing, ect.... but still a good moment captured can be awesome without the skill. I LOVE every day snap shots like this one -  and I'm you are looking at my focus and how her face is in the shadows but that's what makes it so beautiful. I like moments being cature as they are, not set up and performed. I want natural memories preserved, not forced poses of my children. You may call these simple snap shots but I think they are beautiful and i know so many other moms that would pay someone to just hang out around the house snapping everyday moments for them to have a life time!







> But the churn at the entry level is massive, because only 1 out of every 40,000 of those "natural light only, candid, natural, every day moments, don't/don't know how to pose, don't/don't know how to light, don't have a studio" photographer's actually make any money. Most of those types of retail photography businesses are supported by other income. For a short time anyway.
> 
> Today, the 'uses strobed lighting, knows how to pose, has a studio' photographer is in the decided minority, and are about the only photographers around that have a viable, ongoing, actually makes a profit business.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but you don't become a concert pianist over night, BUT it's starts with talent. You can be taught how to play all you like but it won't make you the best!! Practice will make you better but without talent, you will never be able to hear the music and make it flow like someone with natural talent.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MWC2 said:


> I actually like the first one but the editing kills it for me.   I gave  it a go, I'm no professional but this is what I came up with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like it! I'm missing the street sign but the hydrant gone looks good!


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Are you trying to create a very saturated, contrasty look to your images when you usually edit? What kind of look are you going for?


I like a lot of contrast and color. Maybe I was over doing it but yea I like that. HOWEVER, I do have another side to my style, I also like very vintagey soft hazy looks with a lot of light too.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure,  or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer.  Any  photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable  and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.  







This photograph is by Irene Suchocki from Montreal, who is arguably very successful.   She sells on the handmade site, Etsy:  Dreamy photographs of Paris Venice NYC by EyePoetryPhotography  In fact,  she's THE highest selling photographer on that site.  She averages about  8 to 10 sales per day with her average item price being somewhere  around $30.00.  Etsy is an online venue and shops are open 365 days a year so  by estimation she makes somewhere between AT LEAST $88,000 and $110,000 per anum  on this venue alone.  These photos have nothing to do with most of the  "rules" or "advice" that are commonly given out on this forum but she appeals to a wide audience and is selling.

I  agree, wholeheartedly, with any photographer having a solid foundation  in theory of composition, and lighting, etc. etc... but there is still  so much room for creative expression that I think can get stifled  sometimes around here.  Irene isn't someone I'd put on my wall, but she does amazingly well.  If she posted for a C&C here, I wonder if she wouldn't be torn apart in minutes.   

In the end, the clients/customers are what  decide whether or not a photo "works."  If this OP likes  super-saturated, over contrasty images and that's her style... then... that's her style.  If her clients value her work... they value it.

If it's a question of whether or not the market doesn't understand what "good" photography is, that is a question I'm not sure needs to be answered.  If the goal is to have a photography business, it matters little whether or not the buyers are refined enough to care for the rule of thirds.  

Having said that, Elizabeth, you should strive to know all you can know.  However, in the end, allow for your personal style as well.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

Here's my photo of the day. Experimenting with shutter speed and exposure. I figured snow was a good way to practice not over exposing my photos.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure,  or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer.  Any  photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable  and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This image is BEAUTIFUL! I love it!! I would hang this in a heart beat!! Thanks so much for sharing!


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Jan 12, 2012)

KmH said:


> Some term them fauxtographers. Quit looking at Facebook.
> 
> Just what you need. A f/1.2 lens. :thumbdown:
> 
> ...



Wow Keith, this is a fantastic brilliantly written piece of info!

So true, you have all these people banging on about how everyone is a photographer nowadays so there is no way to make money, COMPLETE AND UTTER BS! Most of these people who call themselves photographers are not photographers in any sense of the word!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Here's my photo of the day. Experimenting with shutter speed and exposure. I figured snow was a good way to practice not over exposing my photos.



yes.. but it is totally uninteresting. Maybe if the shot was vertical, and you hadn't cut off the tips of her fingers... it might be ok.  So where is that TALENT you talking about a few posts ago? It doesn't show here! Although basic compositional skills and knowledge would have at least made it more palatable!   

And please keep in mind, that most of those who are encouraging you... know less than you do! Do you really think that is best audience to listen too? You can get adulation on Facebook.. but it won't help you get better!


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:
			
		

> I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure,  or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer.  Any  photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable  and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.
> 
> This photograph is by Irene Suchocki from Montreal, who is arguably very successful.   She sells on the handmade site, Etsy:  Dreamy photographs of Paris Venice NYC by EyePoetryPhotography  In fact,  she's THE highest selling photographer on that site.  She averages about  8 to 10 sales per day with her average item price being somewhere  around $30.00.  Etsy is an online venue and shops are open 365 days a year so  by estimation she makes somewhere between AT LEAST $88,000 and $110,000 per anum  on this venue alone.  These photos have nothing to do with most of the  "rules" or "advice" that are commonly given out on this forum but she appeals to a wide audience and is selling.
> 
> ...



Maybe I should sell my photos there. I can make heart bokeh too. 

It's not that people know about the rule of thirds but it is a compositional guideline that has been proven to be more visually pleasing. In the end your right - its what your clients want but knowing how to expose your photos properly (using light) is the key to photography. Not knowing how to do that and just fixing everything in photoshop is for one more work and ways the point. People on this forum don't really critique the creativity aspect because most are beginners and you should know the basics before you get creative. 

There are tons of photographers out there that don't pose their subjects and just catch them as they are but they still use composition to make their photos stronger. And they know how to expose their photos so that there isn't much to do except develop them and add whatever creative flair. Personal style is one thing but you still should know the fundamentals of photography (exposure, lighting, etc). Snapshots are not something people usually pay money for. Maybe lifestyle pictures but not snapshots. Snapshots are basically poorly composed, exposed pictures taken in the spur of the moment. If you are having a photo shoot it's not spur of the moment. You should still catch all those amazing candids but they shouldn't be snapshots. You can let the subjects do whatever the want - if you want to chase kids) but you should still have control.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

You don't have to pose anything or have the perfectly arranged image. I do very little if any real posing, but I do have to create an image that is technically correct with good exposure, proper focus and proper color. 
I work very much in what is called an "experiential style." It is not posed even so much as the image we have all been editing. 
I set up and sit down and just chat with my subjects. We laugh, joke and get to know each other. All the while I am snapping here or there to get the perfect shots. There's no tilt your head this way or that, place this hand here... I chase kids all over the place capturing what is THEIR essence, not the perfect posed photo. I also do a posed photo for each session, but most of it is photo-journalistic. HOWEVER I am using my flashes placed in the strategic corners to illuminate them properly. I have to produce an image that is in focus and my subjects are the proper color in. 
Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural. 

Take this shot of my son... he was leaning against the wall giving me THE LOOK. If you don't know THE LOOK yet you will, it's the one when mom has the camera out chasing the kid around as they go about their every day life. This image used a flash placed to my right off camera on the ground. He was not posing from me but talking with his dad and scowling at me... That's as posed as it gets here. It's less than perfect because of that, but it's also well focused, well exposed and the color is correct on it. 





This is an image shoot in studio. I was sitting up on a stool chatting with this kid and he was showing me what he'd learned to play. He's a heavier kid so I am above it *on purpose.* He finished up playing something and looked up at me... I snapped. There was no more posing to it than that. I used 1 flash on this one. I could not have gotten that image without it. The backgound would have been almost white and looked like crap if I had properly exposed his skin here. Their house was dark!





Now the shots like the sleeping baby of my own kids? Those are far from perfect. However, for a client it has to be perfect. 

I can't go to a wedding and say "well, the focus is off, the color is a little funky and the exposure is all wrong, but it's a moment I captured for you!" I have to capture that moment in good focus, good exposure and an artistic style. Probably more than 95% of that is not posed at all. I HATE posed wedding work. 

I have two very different wedding photographers I admire greatly. One believes 100% in posing and the other does not believe in posing at all. I follow both of them for my work both in weddings and portraits. Now you think I am insane, right? No... Jim Garner is the photographer who has really headed up the Experiential Style and he is 100% about the experience and capturing it in an unobtrusive way with little to no interference from him. Jerry Ghionis is all about creating the moment. He poses MUCH more than I do but I love how he creates the emotion and art by words and then letting the client do their own thing.  If you have any chance to watch or read anything either of them teach-by all means do it! I think you will find that you're a bit like me in that regard where you really love how Jerry emotionally sets the stage with words and then shots the resulting actions and how Garner shoots fully journalistic. 

What I am getting at is that you can't even do any of that properly without knowledge and use of light. 
I know how you are feeling and thinking about this right now. We have seen so very many people just like you. I'd love to shoot all natural light, but the truth is that it is far harder than using light you can control. I've been at this for 20+ years in one way shape or form and I have a pretty extensive knowledge. I couldn't do it.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

MTVision said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you... and i said as much.  i think knowing how to do things properly behind the lens is absolutely going to improve one's photography regardless of how much artistic license they take.  

I just think that getting bogged down in whether or not the market demands "good" photography is a waste of time, unfortunately.  And yes, you should sell on that site; it's a wonderful opportunity.  However, for many, it's a sobering example of how "even i could do that crap!" isn't true... because a) "you" (not you, specifically, but anyone) didn't, and b) "you" likely can't.  Etsy is competitive as hell.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure,  or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer.  Any  photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable  and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That $88 to $110K per year sounds good... Until you find out what her COG and CODB is. At $110K per year she's probably netting about $26,00_* IF *_she is meeting the IDEALS for a home based photographer.  Over 90% of home studios are not meeting the ideals by a significant amount.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is room for more than what you've described as a true, pure,  or successful photographer, ie, not a fauxtographer.  Any  photographer's sense of style or trademark way of photographing and editing is acceptable  and "right" if it meets the goals of their clients or customers.
> ...



Why do you think that?  Her equipment costs are paid for (assuming she's taken the photo, which she has).  It costs $0.20 to list an item on Etsy; paypal takes 3.5%... printing costs aren't 75% of the item and shipping is paid for by the customer.  How would she lose 75% of her sales?


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my photo of the day. Experimenting with shutter speed and exposure. I figured snow was a good way to practice not over exposing my photos.
> ...


 I agree with you, it's just an every day shot but that's what I was doing.... just practicing with settings. My goal was to try and get the exposure better and to see if I could adjust my shutter speeds to catch the snow flakes in air. I understand what you are saying and don't get me wrong love, I'm not blowing off anyone's advice. Actually, I have had more great advice in the last 24 hours than I have ever had! I'm very greatful for that so thank you. It is nice to hear others complimenting on my photos though because everyone wants to hear that they have something great. But I still feel that there is a line between talent and learned. You can only teach so much but talent is what makes the best photographers AWESOME!! I still have tons to learn though so please keep all advice flowing!!! I NEED it!! So on my uninteresting photo, how do you feel about the exposure and the way the snow flakes look in terms of shutter speed?


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:
			
		

> Why do you think that?  Her equipment costs are paid for (assuming she's taken the photo, which she has).  It costs $0.20 to list an item on Etsy; paypal takes 3.5%... printing costs aren't 75% of the item and shipping is paid for by the customer.  How would she lose 75% of her sales?



There is more to a business then just that


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

MTVision said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure is.  I would know... I know of Irene because I've been selling (not photography) on Etsy (and elsewhere) for 5 years with success.  Business is a major undertaking, no one is saying it isn't.  However, you don't lose that much of your sales when you sell in an online venue like that.  Regardless... it's not more difficult that I'm eluding to here with Etsy.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> I agree with you, it's just an every day shot but that's what I was doing.... just practicing with settings. My goal was to try and get the exposure better and to see if I could adjust my shutter speeds to catch the snow flakes in air. I understand what you are saying and don't get me wrong love, I'm not blowing off anyone's advice. Actually, I have had more great advice in the last 24 hours than I have ever had! I'm very greatful for that so thank you. It is nice to hear others complimenting on my photos though because everyone wants to hear that they have something great. But I still feel that there is a line between talent and learned. You can only teach so much but talent is what makes the best photographers AWESOME!! I still have tons to learn though so please keep all advice flowing!!! I NEED it!! So on my uninteresting photo, how do you feel about the exposure and the way the snow flakes look in terms of shutter speed?



The snow looks good. It still looks underexposed to me though. You could've pushed  the exposure a little bit before anything blew out. F/2.2 is still pretty wide open and being close to your subject isn't going to give you much DOF. You should use a smaller aperture - image will be sharper and you probably wouldn't have any focusing errors.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > punch said:
> ...



You've not accounted for ANY of her CODB in that. Yes, it's cheap as hell to list and sell on etsy and the print itself costs next to nothing. But every click of the shutter on a professional camera costs you approximately .016 cents. That is only the camera body. That camera has to be replaced when it's life is up and that costs. It cost her money when she bought it and if she invested her own money in it, that money  has to be paid back before it's profit. Then there is all of her other CODB like the vehicle that got her to the location to take the photo, the lens, the insurance on her equipment and her business, business license, marketing, accounting and her taxes, accountant at the end of each year assuming she does all of her own accounting all year long, her computer to process the image and to list it on etsy, her internet to be able to get to etsy, her software for processing the image, office supplies needed for her record keeping, printer for her record keeping... The list seems endless. I know it well this week cuz I just took it all to my accountant. Those costs are usually more than 75% in a small home studio. Read the benchmark studies by PPA.


----------



## MWC2 (Jan 12, 2012)

She lives in Montreal, she's paying Canadian and Provincial taxes...  she is paying approximately 30% in taxes on salary alone.  Plus on her sales she will need to pay the Canadian Gov't the harmonized sales tax (provincial and federal sales taxes).  After her COG and other standard CODB I am sure her take home pay is less than many here think it is.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



Hmmm.  Well, I can't tell you you're wrong about your own accounting or what you're reading; but as a fellow Etsy seller who files taxes every year, that percentage for cost of doing business is REALLY high in my experience.  Granted, I don't sell photographs.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

MWC2 said:


> She lives in Montreal, she's paying Canadian and Provincial taxes...  she is paying approximately 30% in taxes on salary alone.  Plus on her sales she will need to pay the Canadian Gov't the harmonized sales tax (provincial and federal sales taxes).  After her COG and other standard CODB I am sure her take home pay is less than many here think it is.



I am only surmising what her gross income is on ONE venue.  Someone making $100,000 gross in Canada is making a very favourable wage and they're paying income tax just like a business owner (but without the write-offs associated with being an independent business owner).  Also, typically Paypal includes sales tax at the point of purchase for those that are charging it which isn't reflected in her listing prices.

At any rate... my point is simply that there is a lot of room for artistic license in this market.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> I agree with you... and i said as much.  i think knowing how to do things properly behind the lens is absolutely going to improve one's photography regardless of how much artistic license they take.
> 
> *I just think that getting bogged down in whether or not the market demands "good" photography is a waste of time*, unfortunately.  And yes, you should sell on that site; it's a wonderful opportunity.  However, for many, it's a sobering example of how "even i could do that crap!" isn't true... because a) "you" (not you, specifically, but anyone) didn't, and b) "you" likely can't.  Etsy is competitive as hell.





punch said:


> At any rate... my point is simply that there is a lot of room for artistic license in this market.



YES!  You are completely right on that mark and it's the best outlook ANY photographer who wants to be a professional can possibly have. That is what will make you successful with just mediocre skills. HOWEVER, it won't make you succeed in getting someone to purchase poorly executed crap either. There must be a balance of both style and skill. Even the best salesman can only sell so much crap.
The image you posted is well executed, properly exposed and properly focused for what it is. It took some skill to get that. She had to know how-granted she can find it on the internet, but that is TIME invested and time is money.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Well, I can't tell you you're wrong about your own accounting; but as a fellow Etsy seller who files taxes every year, that percentage for cost of doing business is REALLY high in my opinion.



Not really if you think about it. It isn't profit until she deducts all that from what shes made in sales including the tax mentioned.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you... and i said as much.  i think knowing how to do things properly behind the lens is absolutely going to improve one's photography regardless of how much artistic license they take.
> ...



agreed.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > punch said:
> ...



It's not something I just made up. It's a full out study done by the Professional Photographers of America who took the time to come up with what the average actually IS and what it SHOULD BE at the best. That is what it SHOULD be. Not many are even making that mark. The profit margin is much less for most photographers. PPA arguably the largest governing body for professional photographers in the world.  WPPi is close, but I believe it's still smaller.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.


Because the mother who wants her kids every day moments to be photographed, wants they photographed in an artistic way. Tell me you can take a point and shoot and get a good artistic photo? The photo of my daughter napping does have issues but I was trying to focus on her bunny so that she would be blurred in the background. I edited it with a bit to much haze even for my taste but I love the idea anyway. You can't take that same photo with a point and shoot. Not by a long shot. It may not look professional or "technically" correct but it does like artistic.

And as for the photos you posted, REALLY?? They look very posed and unnatural to me. And I really dislike the back drop on the second one. Sorry, I don't like to be critical in a forum where I am less than experienced and the noob but they seriously look very posed.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth-sorry for the hijack!


----------



## MWC2 (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.
> ...




Images that are OOF, are not artistic they are simply out of focus.  You can't start calling it "artistic" until you can nail your focus 100% of the time and plan a shot to be soft, carry it off and NOT have people point out that the image has issues.  I'm sorry you feel you are being picked on but in all honesty you have a long way to go before you can call your images "artistic" right now they are out of focus.

As a Mom I would not hire a photographer to take these types of images of my children, I would be very disappointed and upset if these were the types of images you gave me.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.
> ...


The point was that you were using this as a PROFESSIONAL representation for the mom who wants her kids captured naturally. 

Yes, I can take a point and shoot and get a good artistic photo if I have to and there is nothing in that image of your daughter I couldn't do with any point and shoot and so could anyone else here.  
You have every right to dislike the backdrop. I hate it and I think it looks like cheap tie dye, but it wasn't my choice for that shoot. Which is a great example here-it's a hunk of crap as far as backdrops go, but the sister (custody) chose it because she felt it really reflected this kid. Let me tell you... I wanted to work with that thing like I wanted a trip to the sewer plant. If you saw the thing in real life you'd hate it even more. However, I had to take what she chose and make it into a good image. It took skill and lighting AND editing/processing. This is in a PROFESSIONAL capacity not as a mom. 
When I set out after my son that day I was setting out for a portrait of him come hell or high water. I didn't want a snapshot of him-although I did get a ton of those that I love as a mom. I wanted a finished product, so I set out chasing him around with a flash. It was full sun and I knew I would need it in order to get good exposure with no horrid shadows on him or his eyes. 
Your image of the baby is a beautiful mom image. But you were using it as an example of what you are talking about with Keith regarding the every corner cheap fautographer.


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Your clients can capture moments like the one the child is sleeping in that are less than perfect. They are paying you to capture the perfect. Why would they pay you to capture anything that they can do with any average camera and no knowledge what-so-ever? KWIM? You have to be able to do it ALL and then some. And make it look natural.
> ...



Wow. I know I always advocate that gear matters but holy **** do you have a lot to learn.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

We're all jumping ahead of the game here. Elizabeth has some phenomenal potential and she may well be creating something truly amazing. We aren't going to know and neither is she until her monitor is calibrated. The shot of the daughter in the snow is a good basic shot. The one she posted that we edited is a pretty good piece to work with, the one of the girl on the tracks that she posted the original is a good basic shot. 
It's getting thrown in the editing and she isn't even seeing what is happening to her editing because of the calibration issue. 
Critique of exposure and color are useless until you have truly calibrated monitor.


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> LMAO!! :lmao: You are correct! Thank you captain!!



If you know, then why do you make such ridiculous statements? 
Can you please explain why a point and shoot can't take "good artistic photos"?


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MWC2 said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > > LMAO!! :lmao: You are correct! Thank you captain!!
> ...


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> We're all jumping ahead of the game here. Elizabeth has some phenomenal potential and she may well be creating something truly amazing. We aren't going to know and neither is she until her monitor is calibrated. The shot of the daughter in the snow is a good basic shot. The one she posted that we edited is a pretty good piece to work with, the one of the girl on the tracks that she posted the original is a good basic shot.
> It's getting thrown in the editing and she isn't even seeing what is happening to her editing because of the calibration issue.
> Critique of exposure and color are useless until you have truly calibrated monitor.



Thank you! I really think part of the problem is I'm using alaptop with a glossy screen. Everything look different if you tilt your screen even slightly.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

The big difference is that some of those are done on purpose. 
The one of the little girl is her own little girl isnt it? That's a big difference. I keep OOF shots of my kids too.


----------



## MWC2 (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MWC2 said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

if you saw my earlier post about this image i wasn't trying to get HER in focus I was trying to capture the bunny in focus and her to be blurred in the background. The bunny looks focused to me. Not the whole bunny just a small part of it. That's what i wanted


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MWC2 said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > MWC2 said:
> ...


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> if you saw my earlier post about this image i wasn't trying to get HER in focus I was trying to capture the bunny in focus and her to be blurred in the background. The bunny looks focused to me. Not the whole bunny just a small part of it. That's what i wanted



Whether it was her or the bunny as the intended focus... it isn't terribly focused, and moreover the subject is too high in the frame.

MWC2 (and tell me if I'm incorrect) isn't saying intentional OOF is a no-no, she's saying your OOF was unintentional, and not OOF in the right way to look artistic.


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> um, I think this is a trick question, best if I don't answer this..........



Trick question? You are the one that established this in your post. You said you can't take a "good artistic photo" with a point and shoot. Why can't you?


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MWC2 said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > We're all jumping ahead of the game here. Elizabeth has some phenomenal potential and she may well be creating something truly amazing. We aren't going to know and neither is she until her monitor is calibrated. The shot of the daughter in the snow is a good basic shot. The one she posted that we edited is a pretty good piece to work with, the one of the girl on the tracks that she posted the original is a good basic shot.
> ...



If you must use a lapotp you can do it. It's far from ideal because a  laptop not only has a glossy screen, but it is missing much of the bit  depth. It doesn't show all of the colors or shades of light to dark. 
ANYWAY,  if you must you can... kind of. Calibrate every time you edit. Edit in  the same place every time. Make sure your monitor is positioned properly  before you calibrate. 
If you have to edit professionally on a laptop get an external monitor for it. 
I'd imagine that at times the saturated stuff looks like blown colors (OVER colored) to you-even when it isn't. You can't see all of them on your monitor.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > MWC2 said:
> ...


----------



## MWC2 (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> MWC2 (and tell me if I'm incorrect) isn't saying intentional OOF is a no-no, she's saying your OOF was unintentional, and not OOF in the right way to look artistic.



Correct!  

I am no where near being a professional or even anywhere near where I want to be as a hobbyist, but even I can see there are major issues with these pictures. Trying to sell these as artistic is a cop out, learn your camera, learn about exposure, learn the technical side of photography as well as about composition.  

Your already in business, you have clients, if you want to keep those clients you need to grow as a photographer or they will be moving on to the next cheap photographer that comes along.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > if you saw my earlier post about this image i wasn't trying to get HER in focus I was trying to capture the bunny in focus and her to be blurred in the background. The bunny looks focused to me. Not the whole bunny just a small part of it. That's what i wanted
> ...


I just said I WAS intentional. Look again, the bunny is in focus. I agree that she's too high in the frame but out of all the shots that day this one seemed closest to what I was trying to convey so that's why I chose to edit this one.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Even if it was intentional its still OOF.  If you had shot the bunny from the side and had the baby in the background - that would be due to DOF.  As it is now more then 1/2 the frame is blurry.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...



I should ask... is it me?  Does the bunny look soft?  Is it just the haze?  If you're highlighting an item using blur, it should be cuh-risp to make your point.  I don't feel that the bunny is in focus.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > punch said:
> ...



If this helps, here's the SOOC shot


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

that's SO much better.  it looks a lot better with color and not faded out in my opinion.  i think moving the frame would have made your point better... it's still hard to find the focus point with it up in the ceiling like that.  also, the bunny is a really flat focus point... it's faded and has no real texture.  a different stuffed animal would have worked better, i think.


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Do you really not see how odd this looks?? The bunny, blanket, part of the arm are reasonably in focus but then the babe's face is OOF?? Like I said if you had shot it from the side of the bed....bunny in focus....Baby out of focus due to shallow DOF..

Ok heres an example - albeit a bad one. Looks like a floating hand and head. 





Hand is in focus - babe's face is blurred due to a super shallow DOF. Face is behind hand.....


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> that's SO much better.  it looks a lot better with color and not faded out in my opinion.  i think moving the frame would have made your point better... it's still hard to find the focus point with it up in the ceiling like that.  also, the bunny is a really flat focus point... it's faded and has no real texture.  a different stuffed animal would have worked better, i think.



This worries and you know why.... if everyone thinks this is OOF then I have some serious eye issues! I keep getting this feedback from you all and I don't see it. Why can't I see it? I look at the links I posted on Myfourhens photos and they are soft and I can't find a determined focal point......  is it my lack of knowledge and skill or are my eyes screwed?


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> > that's SO much better.  it looks a lot better with color and not faded out in my opinion.  i think moving the frame would have made your point better... it's still hard to find the focus point with it up in the ceiling like that.  also, the bunny is a really flat focus point... it's faded and has no real texture.  a different stuffed animal would have worked better, i think.
> ...



do you wear glasses?  have you adjusted that little wheel by the view-finder at all?


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> MWC2 said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm not trying to be mean its an awkward photo with one half in focus and the other half OOF. I get what you were trying to do - but it didn't work IMO.

Here is another example.  A little bit better but just a snapshot


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> punch said:
> 
> 
> > that's SO much better.  it looks a lot better with color and not faded out in my opinion.  i think moving the frame would have made your point better... it's still hard to find the focus point with it up in the ceiling like that.  also, the bunny is a really flat focus point... it's faded and has no real texture.  a different stuffed animal would have worked better, i think.
> ...



Have you looked at Myfourhens portfolio on her webpage.  I looked real quick and they are definitely crisp and in focus. Some of them she does use shallow DOF for different effects. I belong to a forum that Sarah goes too and she is an amazing photographer and not all her photos look like the couple you linked too.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> I'm interested, link me............


50mm f/1.8 on a rebel XTi (has a bout HALF of the capability of yours) by a 13 year old in manual mode




Same camera with a lens that is a hundred times worse for IQ, 15 year old shooter, full manual mode




Same shooter, full manual, same crappy tamron lens


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

http://www.my4hensphotography.com/index2.php#/gallery_sec1/


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Do you really not see how odd this looks?? The bunny, blanket, part of the arm are reasonably in focus but then the babe's face is OOF?? Like I said if you had shot it from the side of the bed....bunny in focus....Baby out of focus due to shallow DOF..
> 
> Ok heres an example - albeit a bad one. Looks like a floating hand and head.
> 
> ...


um....... well yea other than I take take my eyes off the hand of this child looks as big as his head lol but I do understand what you are saying but I seriously was trying to capture her at this angle because I had tried at other angles and i couldn't see her face like I wanted to. Here's one with a better DOF


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

I don't wear glasses and YES I was meaning to mention that these photos where take with MF but I have now started using my AF and using my points. Still getting used to adjusting them while I'm shooting but my focus is looking MUCH better now!


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Oh and Sarah from my4hens, I believe, owns a lensbaby so some of those crazy soft photos might be taken with one of those.


----------



## punch (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> I don't wear glasses and YES I was meaning to mention that these photos where take with MF but I have now started using my AF and using my points. Still getting used to adjusting them while I'm shooting but my focus is looking MUCH better now!



Ok, but have you moved the diopter wheel at all?


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> um....... well yea other than I take take my eyes off the hand of this child looks as big as his head lol but I do understand what you are saying but I seriously was trying to capture her at this angle because I had tried at other angles and i couldn't see her face like I wanted to. Here's one with a better DOF



Well I hope the hand is huge - it was taken with a macro


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > punch said:
> ...


 Oh yes, I am a long time fan of Sarah's work! She is AMAZING! I was just pointing out some of her more drastic DOF Shots! What forum does she go to? I'd love to join? BTW have you entered her giveaway?


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

punch said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't wear glasses and YES I was meaning to mention that these photos where take with MF but I have now started using my AF and using my points. Still getting used to adjusting them while I'm shooting but my focus is looking MUCH better now!
> ...



um no I haven't. I just had to google it to see what it was. **Blushing**


----------



## MTVision (Jan 12, 2012)

Clickinmoms.com

She has a lensbaby - crazy shots

I did enter her giveaway. Mcpactions is having the same one coming up (or similar) and you can choose Nikon or canon!


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Clickinmoms.com
> 
> She has a lensbaby - crazy shots
> 
> I did enter her giveaway. Mcpactions is having the same one coming up (or similar) and you can choose Nikon or canon!



Oh yes, I knew about clickinmoms. I want to join just don't have the extra $ with my husband being laid off right now.


----------



## Destin (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Thank you so much!! I have gotten a lot of good info coming here but I still want to maintain my own style.... you know? I don't want to do things the "technical" way. I know there is sooooo much I still need to learn and work on but some things are better when they are different.



This is an excuse I've seen time after time after time after time on this forum. Not wanting to do things the technical way because you want your own style. 

Newsflash: You first have to master the technical side of photography before you can even THINK about developing a style. I totally agree that it's boring to be another cookie-cutter-all my photos look the same photographer. But that is NO excuse for poor composition, terrible lighting, improper DOF settings, etc. 

I've been where you are. You just need to take a step back, and take time (months, maybe even years) to learn the technical side of photography. You say you don't want to be the "typical photographer" yet it's exactly what you are right now. Your photos are poorly lit, poorly composed, and have too thin a DOF. Just like EVERY other so called "facebook photographer" out there. If you want to stand out from the crowd, you need to be exceptional at the technical side of photography, and from that base, build your own personal style/brand. 

The house build on the sand will soon collapse, but the house built on the rock will withstand the storm. Your photography, without technical knowledge, is the house on the sand. You need to build that rock foundation of fundamental technical skills before you can start putting an addition of style on your metaphorical house.

Edit: Yeah there's some tough love in here. I know. You can hate me for it. Really, go ahead. It won't bother me.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 12, 2012)

I think my head just exploded.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 12, 2012)

Destin said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you so much!! I have gotten a lot of good info coming here but I still want to maintain my own style.... you know? I don't want to do things the "technical" way. I know there is sooooo much I still need to learn and work on but some things are better when they are different.
> ...



No hate here!!! I completely agree with you!! I am learning the basics now and plan to keep learning. just saying I don't want to lose my style along the way.


----------



## Destin (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> A photography with 0 talent and a complete understanding of the technical side of photography will almost ALWAYS produce consistently better photos than a photographer with a ton of talent but no knowledge of technical matters.
> 
> This isn't drawing or painting. It's photography, and it's somewhere around 60% science, 40% talent/artistic vision. You MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST have a complete understanding of technical matters in photography before you worry about your own personal style. Did I mention that you MUST know the technical matters better than the back of your hand?
> 
> ...


----------



## Destin (Jan 12, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...



You have to forget about style, at least for a while, and focus on the technical matters. Once you have a grasp on them, you can start applying your style. 

I'll let you in on a little secret: You don't know enough about photography to have a style yet. Not trying to be a dick. I'm really not. But it's true. A style takes years to develop, and for most, is ever evolving. 6 months from now you'll look at these photos and be embarrassed that you thought they looked good. Even professionals who have been at it for decades have evolving styles. You get bored with one style so you move on and evolve to a new one, and the cycle keeps repeating


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 12, 2012)

Style=Photoshop actions.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Here's my photo of the day. Experimenting with shutter speed and exposure. I figured snow was a good way to practice not over exposing my photos.


Sorry to be blunt, but why are you pretty much always shooting portraits in landscape orientation? Her eyes take me out of the shot.  I'd rather look at what she is looking at than the background.  Don't be obsessed with bokeh.  It isn't bokeh that makes an image look professional.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

thereyougo! said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my photo of the day. Experimenting with shutter speed and exposure. I figured snow was a good way to practice not over exposing my photos.
> ...


Because I don't have a studio...... ??


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

Destin said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > A photography with 0 talent and a complete understanding of the technical side of photography will almost ALWAYS produce consistently better photos than a photographer with a ton of talent but no knowledge of technical matters.
> ...


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...


You're misunderstanding me.  orientation is to do with how the camera is positioned, not location.  It's called Portrait orientation as the camera is usually (but not always held so you have a vertical shot. Sometimes Landscape orientation (the "normal" way to hold a camera) is used if you want to draw attention to something in the background to give the shot some context. Most portraits are taken with the camera positioned sideways.  This would have enabled you to get more of the little firl in the shot rather than the OOF background.  Taken wide enough you might be able to see that her feet are in the snow and you wouldn't have cut off her hand.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 13, 2012)

^THIS! People are a vertical subject... we are long and skinny on a vertical axis (except for Roseanne!) So make the viewfinder fit that subject.. like I mentioned in a previous post! Shooting people in landscape is a NOOB thing to do, unless there is a really good reason! And NOT knowing better (when you have been told) is not a good reason.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

Well I think I'm going to spend more time learning today than arguing in these forums!


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Well I think I'm going to spend more time learning today than arguing in these forums!


I like many of your ideas, but before you charge for work, you really should least master the basics.  I'm still not sure that you understand why you should use the circle of confusion (so-called bokeh) as a compositional tool.  The fact that you take a portrait that has more OOF area than subject tells me that you still need to read composition 101 as you don't understand why portraits are usually taken in portrait orientation.  What was your aperture on that shot of your little girl in the snow? What you also need to remember is that just because a background is out of focus, it doesn't mean it's not distracting, so you still need to minimise it in a shot like this one.  The shot has potential, it looks like it could have been a fun shot, but you left us out of the story because her eyes are looking out of the shot, and you've cut her in half.  

Take slower steps.  Read, read some more, practise and be objective about your photos: post us a few of your practise shots from learning about composition, and tell us what you like, what you love, what you don't love and what you wish you could change in a shot.  You have some great ideas, but you need to allow your learning to catch up with your ideas so that you can put them to their best use.  Don't even think about challenging the 'rules' until you truly understand them and have mastered them.  

You will as you have learned get very upfront feedback here.  Not all of it will be right, not all of it will be wrong.  Trying things out for right or for wrong is part of the learning process.  If you don't like a suggestion try it out first and if you still don't like it, say why.  

I work in the music industry and most criticism I get is unconstructive and from people who can't do it themselves.  I have to sift through the chaff and pick out the gold.  There's less of the chaff here, I assure you.  Some are opinionated but the internet often brings out the worst in people because they feel they can hide behind a keyboard.  There are some great people and some of the harsher critics like gsgary are great at what they do.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Well I think I'm going to spend more time learning today than arguing in these forums!


How about stepping away from the editing for 2 weeks and getting a basic grip on the basics of exposure and maybe some composition. In that time get a calibrator so you can see what you are doing when you edit. 
You are most likely seeing things incredibly brighter than they really are which is why you are pushing the contrast so high-that's typical on a laptop. It is almost impossible for us to help you when your monitor is not showing you what your photos really look like. 
In the mean time order just a few prints of the images you posted in this thread and your other for cc. Order them from Mpix.com and get a set from WalMart so you can see a few things that will help you way more than we can right now. Those things:
1. The quality at WalMart is horrific and will make you look baaaaaad. Really bad. Seeing the comparison to MPix will make you never want anyone to get one of your photos printed at WalMart again.
2. You will have an idea of what we are seeing
3. You will have something to look at as you grow and motivate you forward
4. It's something for you to watch every day and see your growth


----------



## bazooka (Jan 13, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think my head just exploded.



Fortunately this is an online forum so none of us have to clean it up.  :hug::


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Do you want to make a MAJOR change in your PP and how you see your photos right NOW? Buy a monitor.. a good one (IPS preferably).... and hook it up to the laptop. Don't know what Video Display the laptop has.. but this will be at 1000 times better than your laptop screen! And then calibrate that..


----------



## Tee (Jan 13, 2012)

What I'm hearing you say is you want to have an original style.  What I'm seeing you do is attempting to recreate that 2 chicks and a hen website or whatever the heck it's called.  The style you are representing in your photos is not original at all.  It's the type of post processing 99% of new photographers do.  Listen to those who recommend getting monitor calibration.  Lastly, learn how to get it right in the camera so you're not relying on photoshop to get you that style.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Tee said:


> What I'm hearing you say is you want to have an original style.  What I'm seeing you do is attempting to recreate that 2 chicks and a hen website or whatever the heck it's called.  The style you are representing in your photos is not original at all.  It's the type of post processing 99% of new photographers do.  Listen to those who recommend getting monitor calibration.  Lastly, learn how to get it right in the camera so you're not relying on photoshop to get you that style.



YEP! Facebook is RIFE with it!


----------



## KmH (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Well I think I'm going to spend more time learning today than arguing in these forums!


That's the ticket. :thumbup:


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Well I think I'm going to spend more time learning today than arguing in these forums!
> ...


Yea, I already have printed once at Walmart and without even seeing a what a good printing would look like I will NEVER print there again!!!! HORRIBLE! I've had another person recommend Mpics. I will print some through them just to see the difference. Thanks.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

Tee said:


> 2 chicks and a hen website or whatever the heck it's called.


LOL You rock!!

And you're right I do tend to try and recreate her style with PS when I should be doing it in camera.


----------



## KmH (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Here's my photo of the day. Experimenting with shutter speed and exposure. I figured snow was a good way to practice not over exposing my photos.



A quick edit - 1:1 crop, corrected the underexposure on her only and left the background dark. Her OOF face cannot be made in focus.:


----------



## MTVision (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

> LOL You rock!!
> 
> And you're right I do tend to try and recreate her style with PS when I should be doing it in camera.



Look up Lensbaby and see how Sarah gets those crazy photos you like.


----------



## onelove (Jan 13, 2012)

Professional Photographer vs Artist.

Both are valid and worthwhile endeavors and are not mutually exclusive, but they are different.

An artist with true talent can make a living while doing only the work that they want to do.  But that is rare.  The typical venues will be galleries and art fairs.  If people like the work, they might want to hire you for a shoot and give you full creative control.  Again, that is rare.

People are called starving artists for a reason.

A professional photographer may have a style or particular subject matter that they specialize in, but they are essentially hired guns to perform a particular task.  And that task is whatever the client wants.   A professional will be ready and capable to handle any task assigned to them.  That means having the technical skills as well as talent.

I started out being an "artist".  I did portraits and landscapes.  People hired me to do natural, environmental portraits of their families.  And I had a landscape architect that needed a portfolio.  He liked my artistic approach to landscapes.  All was good.  I was a working pro!  I was making money with my camera.  That is until my landscape client referred me to his friend. The guy called me up and said he heard wasa pro photographer and that he needed a product shot of a few boxes of office supplies.  It seemed simple, put the boxes on a table and shoot them.  No big deal.  Long story short, there were so many mistakes such as bad focus, bad lighting, bad exposure that the guy came close to shoving my camera into a place on me where the sun don't shine.  As he stormed out he asked how I dared to call myself a pro when I couldn't shoot a simple box of paper.  

That is when I decided that if I was going to make a living as a photographer, I better learn what I was doing.  For the next 18  months I shot nothing but 4 different shaped blocks of wood...a cylinder, a cone, a square block and a sphere...all painted white.  I set them up on a table by the window and started shooting.  I learned exposure, composition, DOF and lighting.  I added a fill light.  I moved into a studio and started working with one light, then two, then three etc. Different backgrounds and bases.  My output was contact sheets only, no darkroom manipulation.  It had to be perfect in the camera or it got done over.

I forgot about trying to be an artist but worked on mastering my craft.  The art could (and did) come later.  And when I did start getting artistic again, I had the skills to produce what I was seeing in my head accurately and quickly.  The Zen of photography comes when you forget that you are making photos and totally lose yourself in the moment. You won't even notice the camera and neither will your subject.

That won't happen until the basic skills are as automatic as breathing.  No matter how good your natural voice may be, you need to learn to talk before you can sing.

It ain't easy, but no one ever said that it should be.

onelove


----------



## kundalini (Jan 13, 2012)

Destin said:


> .......To make a point, I have frequently, and still do, take photos of random stuffed animals around my house for practice. Trying new lighting techniques. Trying out new camera settings. Testing the effects of different Depths of field/focal lengths......



Meet Winston......








..... and Friends.









And because I like to hear myself talk, I'll quote my earlier post on page 1.



kundalini said:


> These photos are better than the other thread showing that you have a knack for capturing emotion in your images. This is a good thing. Concentrate on the fundamentals of lighting, exposure and composition. I've made this suggestion (from personal experience) to take an inanimate object and run through the paces of aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings. Keep good notes on what has worked and what has failed. When you are confused on why certain settings yield poor results, certainly post and ask. But TBH, you should set aside many hours of lonely and boring practice until these results become second nature. If you snap off a shot and see the bad blinkies or your histogram is off the charts, then you should then be able to make a few adjustments to get it back within reason. It won't happen next week or next month, but before you know it it WILL happen with perseverance on your part.[/COLOR]




You absolutely cannot under appreciate the VALUE of the art of practing with a purpose. This is where you will hone your mad photog skillz.
.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

onelove said:


> Professional Photographer vs Artist.
> 
> Both are valid and worthwhile endeavors and are not mutually exclusive, but they are different.
> 
> ...



Wow! Very strong words of advice here and touching. You have my convinced. I feel overwhelmed with everything I still need to learn. Should I work on DOF for a month and then move to Lighting, should I do 1 day on lighting and then composition the next day. should I read books or practice shooting or both in the same day. AHHHHH! I feel out of control. :/


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > .......To make a point, I have frequently, and still do, take photos of random stuffed animals around my house for practice. Trying new lighting techniques. Trying out new camera settings. Testing the effects of different Depths of field/focal lengths......
> ...



Winston's cute, can I have a date? LOL Well I will be practicing then!! There are 101 stuffed animals in my house and 5 beautiful children to practice on as well.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

I'm almost afraid to say this but in the last two days I have learned an IMMENSE amount about myself and my goals! I no longer consider myself a good photographer but rather a unskilled photographer is training. So, with all the comments about my editing and my monitor needing calibrated, I should probably stop trying to see my Photoshop actions huh? Yup, I did it! Made actions and put my name on them trying to sell. What a disaster that could be! Gonna take them off the web immediately!!!


----------



## Destin (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> I'm almost afraid to say this but in the last two days I have learned an IMMENSE amount about myself and my goals! I no longer consider myself a good photographer but rather a unskilled photographer is training. So, with all the comments about my editing and my monitor needing calibrated, I should probably stop trying to see my Photoshop actions huh? Yup, I did it! Made actions and put my name on them trying to sell. What a disaster that could be! Gonna take them off the web immediately!!!



Datacolor Spyder3Express Color Calibration System DC S3X100 B&HYou REALLLLLLY need to invest in one of these. And then an external monitor to hook up to your laptop so you can see what you're doing. Until you have at least the calibrator that I linked to, you may as well not even open photoshop up. 

I realize that's a bold statement. But it's true.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

Destin said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm almost afraid to say this but in the last two days I have learned an IMMENSE amount about myself and my goals! I no longer consider myself a good photographer but rather a unskilled photographer is training. So, with all the comments about my editing and my monitor needing calibrated, I should probably stop trying to see my Photoshop actions huh? Yup, I did it! Made actions and put my name on them trying to sell. What a disaster that could be! Gonna take them off the web immediately!!!
> ...



Well shoot!! That looks like a really nifty calibrator BUT I have no money!! UHG! I was really honestly thinking I could just start a photo biz and improve as I go to help compensate for my husbands loss of work. NOPE! And really have no way to make any $. We are on the verge of lose our small 2 bed room duplex with our 5 kids! I don't know what to do but I can't even afford a tooth pick right now. :/


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> onelove said:
> 
> 
> > Professional Photographer vs Artist.
> ...


You can't start with DOF and lighting, you have to first start with exposure and understanding each element and what does in terms of exposure and creatively. Once you understand that and how to control it, then move to DOF and motion-stopping motion and capturing motion. THEN move to adding in lighting. Don't mix in lighting while you are learning the very basics. Flash changes the rules a bit and can change them a WHOLE LOT if you get into advanced flash techniques. Until you know how to control the basics adding light will actually make it much harder on you to learn. 
You have to build a foundation. Kind of like in grade school: First you learned to count to 10. Then you learned to count to 100. Then you learned to add and subtract. Then you learned to multiply and divide... They are all layered starting with the basic first. Same thing here. 
I have some materials you are welcomed to if you are interested send me a PM and I'll link you. 

You WILL get there and if your un-edited images are any indication it won't take you all that long. You have an eye for what you want to capture and you have figured out how to at least accidentally get it. Now we just need to get you to where you can get it 100% every time all by yourself without praying it's right. 
If you really want to develop a style like the one you've shown you absolutely can do that. 
Photoshop and editing are the same as photography. You have to learn the basics first and the where and how and why of it AND what it will look like in print-because looking good on a monitor is not always the same as a print. You can get away with much on a monitor that looks exactly the same in print but when compared side by side you wouldn't like the print so much. 
You often mention raw and that's where you need to start in Photoshop. You have to know how to fully use the raw editor and what each thing does AND how to properly use it because (again) you are working on a monitor and what may look amazing on the monitor-which is actually a very small image compared to print-will look like total dog poop in print. I truly do not edit more than 95% of the time and the edits I do are only things like adding a texture or designing an album, etc. EVERYTHING is done in Adobe camera raw. I cannot afford a minute an image to edit. Your style or what you are pointing to as your style does not even require that you open PS for most of it. 
I also have some awesome resources on PS from raw to polish you are welcomed to use if you want them.



Elizabeth30 said:


> Well shoot!! That looks like a really nifty calibrator BUT I have no  money!! UHG! I was really honestly thinking I could just start a photo  biz and improve as I go to help compensate for my husbands loss of work.  NOPE! And really have no way to make any $. We are on the verge of lose  our small 2 bed room duplex with our 5 kids! I don't know what to do  but I can't even afford a tooth pick right now. :/



For the calibration-order several 8x10 prints and do your best to make your monitor look like them. When you get the prints in let us know and we'll come up with some good resources for hand calibrating for the time being. 

I can  understand your reasoning and thought process, however photography isn't  something you can make a quick buck at. A LOT of people with that first  DSLR think it is and A LOT of them end up selling their gear when they  realize that in reality they just lost a LOT of money making that $50 CD  for a client. A wise person said... The quickest way to make money in  photography is to sell your gear. It's totally true. 
We don't want you to fail-or anyone else. That's why we do what we do around here. Success is there for the asking. 
ANY  business that is not started with a thorough business plan and a GOOD  education in BUSINESS is pretty doomed from the get go. Your business  education doesn't have to be in school either just like your photography  education doesn't have to be in school. But you do have to have the  business end covered. You didn't even know that you were losing a TON of  money when you sold that $50 CD. You probably literally lost about $50  to $100 assuming that you have next to nothing invested in gear,  computer, programs, etc. You didn't hand the money out that day. You  have already bought your gear PERSONALLY. You have to pay back  "personally." You also have to be putting $ in the kitty for the next  camera and the additional gear you NEED. You also didn't consider sales  tax. 
Please, please, please don't get caught advertising any kind of  business on facebook or the internet by the state. They are truly out  there trolling for un-registered businesses. I've been checked, I know  others who have been checked and we just had someone posting in here a  short while ago who had their town find out which then turned to the  state and the IRS. She was in the same exact financial boat as you just  trying to survive with her kids. You have to know what your requirements  are for your municipality, county, state and of course federal. 
Back  there somewhere someone said you made $16.66 per hour. That was BEFORE  you considered gas in your vehicle and wear and tear (you had to have  the vehicle insured and registered to be able to use it.) Before you  considered the cost of the equipment or the CD or the computer to make  it. When you add all of THOSE things in you made NEGATIVE money. 
Business  is complicated and it's expensive. There are a LOT of programs out  there for women and minority businesses for education and even for loans  and grants. Take a look at The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov There is a wealth of information  there and there is usually a local chapter of the SBA or SBDC (small  business development corp.) They do FREE business workshops at local  colleges across the country. Take them!!!! 

If you are in a  financial pickle take a good hard look at college. You would then  qualify for state and federal college money. Each semester my husband  gets back roughly $2K from his state and federal grants that goes to pay  his living expenses while in college. You could take business or basket  weaving or even photography. When doing that you are getting 2 things  from it-obviously the education and a little bit of a shot in the income  dept. Not much, but it helps a little. And the education is free. Education is NEVER a waste.

While  you are building a business that has a plan and will succeed find  something else. Troll the salvation army and start selling crap on ebay  or God knows there are a million ways to do it. Hell, I see people  selling total CRAP on craigslist every day that you know came out of  someone's unwanted crap! Do clean-outs after people move, pick up some  house cleaning for others... There are a million things you can do in  the mean time for a buck or two. This is a business you want to invest  in properly and to succeed in the long term. You want to build something  here and you can-if you do it right.


----------



## Destin (Jan 13, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...



I'm currently unemployed also, so I feel your pain. I've been out putting applications in EVERYWHERE, but nobody is hiring right now. It's terrible. Granted I'm young and have no kids, and not many bills, but it still sucks. Hope things work out for you!


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > onelove said:
> ...


----------



## inallseriousness (Jan 13, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> ^THIS! People are a vertical subject... we are long and skinny on a vertical axis (except for Roseanne!) So make the viewfinder fit that subject.. like I mentioned in a previous post! Shooting people in landscape is a NOOB thing to do, unless there is a really good reason! And NOT knowing better (when you have been told) is not a good reason.



This seems like as good a place as any to jump in...

Choosing to shoot people in a horizontal orientation has nothing to do with one's time spent behind the camera. ("Shooting people in landscape is a NOOB thing to do...") Shooting someone in vertical orientation doesn't define you as experienced any more than shooting someone in horizontal orientation designates you as inexperienced. It's beyond ludicrous to even make such a suggestion. 

Both formats have their inherent qualities for conveying a wonderful portrait. Vertical orientation allows more of the body, of course. They also tend to have more of a formal quality. Horizontal orientation allows, if one chooses, to include more of the surroundings giving an environmental context. We're very used to seeing in this format - television, movies, computer monitors. They also tend to have more of an informal vibe. 

"And NOT knowing better (when you have been told) is not a good reason." Wow. When you have been told? Dad, is that you? wth? 

No, there does not have to be a really good reason to shoot a portrait in a horizontal orientation. Hell, shoot both... see which you like better. 

And really? Portrait and Landscape is language better suited to telling your printer how you want to print your latest manifesto. (I'd go portrait, by the way) Photographers shoot in vertical and horizontal orientations.


----------



## inallseriousness (Jan 13, 2012)

KmH said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's my photo of the day. Experimenting with shutter speed and exposure. I figured snow was a good way to practice not over exposing my photos.
> ...



The edit is so washed out. Definitely not an improvement. The deep pink on the nose and cheeks from the cold is all but vanished. The hat is washed out. The crop makes the photo less interesting. There's already a downward gaze to contend with, now all the snow falling around the child is nearly gone as well. More is more in this case - more snow. This one tells a much better story with more of the environment.


----------



## punch (Jan 13, 2012)

Destin said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 13, 2012)

punch said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 13, 2012)

inallseriousness said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...



Yep, you can't polish a turd.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 14, 2012)

inallseriousness said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...


The area around the girl has little interest.  Keith was just trying to recover part of the shot.  The shot doesn't work because her legs have been amputated and she is looking down at her feet.  There are indeed times when a landscape orientation works, but definitely not here.


----------



## KmH (Jan 14, 2012)

inallseriousness said:


> The edit is so washed out. Definitely not an improvement. The deep pink on the nose and cheeks from the cold is all but vanished. The hat is washed out. The crop makes the photo less interesting. There's already a downward gaze to contend with, now all the snow falling around the child is nearly gone as well. More is more in this case - more snow. This one tells a much better story with more of the environment.


Yep, and thank you for mentioning that.

That's all why it should be gotten as close to properly exposed in the camera as possible, rather than relying on 'fixing' the photographer technical errors post process.

The under exposure is likely a result of all the white in the scene confusing the camera's light meter, which is calibrated to 18% gray. Experienced photographers know the exposure has to be bumped up somewhat to compensate for the way the in-the-camera light meter works when there is that much white in a scene.
But many new photographers don't bother gaining an understanding of how their tools work, and what the tools limitations are.

The under exposure has artifically pumped up the saturation in the un-edited image, so correcting the under exposure de-saturates the colors.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 14, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Wow, my monitor must be WAY off then because when you say that you can barley see the second child in photo #4, on my monitor you can make her out fine, some shadows on her maybe and not sure about this "orange glow" you keep talking about so yea, I will look into that.
> As for photo #1 so it looks fake because of the lighting? *I deleted the RAW format of this photo* but I have the original in JPG, so her it is...... and I liked the street sign and stop sign in it.... I thought it gave the photo a bit of character.....



I just saw this.
Deleting the raw file is pretty much the equivalent of making a print and trashing the negative.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 14, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Elizabeth30 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, my monitor must be WAY off then because when you say that you can barley see the second child in photo #4, on my monitor you can make her out fine, some shadows on her maybe and not sure about this "orange glow" you keep talking about so yea, I will look into that.
> ...


 I was just freeing up space on my HD and didn't think I'd be needing this photo again since it was for someone else who I had already given the photos too


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 14, 2012)

And what if a client comes back in three years and says that they won the lottery and want 4 x 6 foot canvas wraps of their little girl, who has since been eaten by wolves, and they want copies for each of their six new homes - and they want them with solid gold frames  and they don't care about the cost?

I don't delete client images.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 14, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth30 said:
> ...



Back up your RAWs before deleting. That way when you have a better grasp of the technical side of things you cam always revisit a shot later.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 14, 2012)

punch said:


> For God's sake... if people were paying you even $50 for a photo shoot, regardless of whether or not you're deemed ready by people and you're also losing your home... then I say ignore people and take the $50.  Seriously.  If you need money and clients are paying, then take the money.  :|  It's not like they don't know what they're getting.



As long as you're not mis-representing yourself then I say go for it .


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 14, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> And what if a client comes back in three years and says that they won the lottery and want 4 x 6 foot canvas wraps of their little girl, who has since been eaten by wolves, and they want copies for each of their six new homes - and they want them with solid gold frames  and they don't care about the cost?
> 
> I don't delete client images.


You have quite the imagination!! Point taken!


----------



## Ballistics (Jan 14, 2012)

kundalini said:


>



Haha I saw this and immediately thought: Stuffed animal jail break.


----------



## TamiAz (Jan 14, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



or a stuffed animal menajahtwa.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 14, 2012)

Elizabeth just scanning through these posts and comparing them in my mind to your first efforts of a few days ago you have truly made a huge change in your vision of yourself and I for one applaud your efforts.  You went from defensive and argumentative to willing to learn in a very short time and that takes a lot of willpower and introspection.  If your abilities improve parallel to your attitude we can expect to see some big improvements soon.

I think that one of the posts mentioned that you are using a laptop for editing (I could be wrong, I didn't read every single post).  Here's a word of advice: put some masking tape on the table that you edit on and always put your laptop in exactly the same position with the screen tilted at exactly the same angle.  Laptop screen are horrendously hard to calibrate, especially an "Interpretive" calibration by looking at the colors and manually adjusting the tint and contrast.  They are very, very sensitive to the angle at which they are viewed, and changing the light or the angle at which you look at the screen will make a huge difference in how you see what is on the screen.  Someone recommended getting an external monitor and I strongly recommend that since it will remain in the same place all the time (in addition to having better and more accurate color).  I've got one I'd give you but it would cost omre to ship than it's worth.  If you happen to be close to Nashville you can come and get it and we can calibrate it on your laptop to (although they really need to be recalibrated every 30 days or so).

You are getting some very good advice.  One thing to note is that in some cases you are getting conflicting advice.  Keep in mind that there are no cast-in-stone rules of photography other than the physical laws of optics and light.  Everything else is a recommendation.  The advice you are getting is in every case that person's impression of what is best under the circumstances, and none of them are wrong.  Once you understand the basic "Rules" (I hate that word) and WHY they are considered to be "Rules" (there it is again) then, and only then, can you begin to decide for yourself which ones you want to use and which to ignore in any given situation.

Good luck with your efforts.  I really think you are on the right track.

Oh, and here's my quick edit of your shot:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 14, 2012)

TamiAz said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Haha I saw this and immediately thought: Stuffed animal jail break.
> ...



I am assuming that is the phonetics for  *Ménage à trois* ??


----------



## TamiAz (Jan 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> TamiAz said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



I googled it and used the urban dictionary spelling.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 14, 2012)

TamiAz said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > TamiAz said:
> ...



Gotcha... no big deal, I guess! Still means the same thing (although conveyed in a slightly less lovely manner!) lol!


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 14, 2012)

I'll echo the compliment that you have really taken to taking the criticism in generally the right way, not everyone in your position on this forum has, and I had to chuckle when I came across this post by an infamous poster on here called AmeteurAllie:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/261349-i-learn-better-critique.html

Not everyone really believes they get better with critique and I applaud your positive attitude as you will be the one that garners the fruits from the harvest in time.


----------



## Elizabeth30 (Jan 14, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Elizabeth just scanning through these posts and comparing them in my mind to your first efforts of a few days ago you have truly made a huge change in your vision of yourself and I for one applaud your efforts.  You went from defensive and argumentative to willing to learn in a very short time and that takes a lot of willpower and introspection.  If your abilities improve parallel to your attitude we can expect to see some big improvements soon.
> 
> I think that one of the posts mentioned that you are using a laptop for editing (I could be wrong, I didn't read every single post).  Here's a word of advice: put some masking tape on the table that you edit on and always put your laptop in exactly the same position with the screen tilted at exactly the same angle.  Laptop screen are horrendously hard to calibrate, especially an "Interpretive" calibration by looking at the colors and manually adjusting the tint and contrast.  They are very, very sensitive to the angle at which they are viewed, and changing the light or the angle at which you look at the screen will make a huge difference in how you see what is on the screen.  Someone recommended getting an external monitor and I strongly recommend that since it will remain in the same place all the time (in addition to having better and more accurate color).  I've got one I'd give you but it would cost omre to ship than it's worth.  If you happen to be close to Nashville you can come and get it and we can calibrate it on your laptop to (although they really need to be recalibrated every 30 days or so).
> 
> ...


Thank you so much your compliments are very generous! Thank you for the offer to calibrate for me but I will likely not be any where Nashville. I rarely travel, just don't have the means to but thanks anyway! I do have an external monitor I can hook up to though, and I will try and use that for my editing!


----------



## Crollo (Jan 14, 2012)

Elizabeth30 said:


> Here's my re-edited version after my monitor color fix.





			
				Elizabeth30 said:
			
		

>



Please, calibrate your monitor before posting anything else. Your shots are good but it's painful to see low contrast images one after another.


----------

