# Overexposed?



## SabrinaO (May 6, 2011)

These are promo shots for my next event. A tea party!   I love the edits and they look good on my computer. How do they look on yours? 



















view more:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/photographybysabrina/sets/72157626661749076/


----------



## subscuck (May 6, 2011)

I admit I'm not calibrated, but they look way over on mine.


----------



## misstwinklytoes (May 6, 2011)

+1


----------



## SabrinaO (May 6, 2011)

are you both on laptops?


----------



## subscuck (May 6, 2011)

I'm on a PC, 20" LCD


----------



## misstwinklytoes (May 6, 2011)

I'm on a laptop.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 6, 2011)

i guess ill fix the exposure. :er: Its just so frustrating because final edits look so perfect my mac desktop... but when i go to my hp laptop or a regular pc they look different. :meh:....


----------



## AUG19 (May 6, 2011)

Have you looked at the histogram of the first? Try reducing the midpoint slider in Levels by about 50%.



SabrinaO said:


> These are promo shots for my next event. A tea party!   I love the edits and they look good on my computer. How do they look on yours?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KmH (May 6, 2011)

The dappled sunlight looks pretty bad, and I think the white balance is off too, because of it. Because of the dappled sunlight that is.

Your image editing software should be able to indicate what parts of those photos are overexposed (clipped).


----------



## AnthonyRyanPhoto (May 6, 2011)

They are slightly overexposed this monitor, but honestly, I wouldn't worry if something is overexposed by definition, make sure it looks good to you.  Calibrate your monitor and make it look good to your eye


----------



## SabrinaO (May 6, 2011)

The wb is off how?? I intended for this set to be a litttle warm...
There's nothing I can do about the dappled (spotty?)sunlight... or is there? Does it really look "bad"? If it does... help me see it.


----------



## KmH (May 6, 2011)

Dappled sunlight is controlled with a diffuser(s).


----------



## clanthar (May 6, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> The wb is off how?? I intended for this set to be a litttle warm...
> There's nothing I can do about the dappled (spotty?)sunlight... or is there? Does it really look "bad"? If it does... help me see it.



They're not warm -- the opposite. They're cyan. As for dappled sunlight -- best to avoid it unless you have fill along.






If you look at the luminosity histograms of these images you'll see that they fall short of reaching the left (shadow) corner. They need Levels corrections. I adjusted the one of the flags. I made the Levels correction in Photoshop -- pulled the shadow end slider to the left. I also tweaked the midpoint slider to the left (just a little) and removed the cyan color cast.

You noted you have a MAC desktop and that you also looked at these on a laptop and on PCs. You need a standard for image viewing that you can trust. Never look at a photo on a laptop and try to pass judgment. Your MAC desktop has a basic calibration routine built into the OS -- have you run through that calibration? Go to preference and select Display. Then click on Color and then Calibrate. Do the tone adjustments but stay off the color (right side). If you want you MAC to look like most computers then answer 2.2 to the gamma question.

Joe


----------



## manaheim (May 6, 2011)

I love it when people post stuff like this.

Standard rule... if you ask the question, the answer is yes.

Overexposed?  Yes.

Other qualfying questions that fit this model...

Does this picture look like ****?  Yes.
Is this too slanted?  Yes.
Does this picture make me look like I have a big nose?  Yes.

Does this dress make me look fat?  Ohhhhhhhhh!  Trick question, here.  The real answer is not "Yes", but actually... "No, you ARE fat.  The dress is just telling the truth."


Wheelah.


----------



## gsgary (May 6, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> i guess ill fix the exposure. :er: Its just so frustrating because final edits look so perfect my mac desktop... but when i go to my hp laptop or a regular pc they look different. :meh:....



Too late you already took the photo, it is not good to have to adjust every shoot in photoshop


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 6, 2011)

I dunno what lens you used, but I don't care for the quality of the background blur. It's nauseating.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 6, 2011)

clanthar said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > The wb is off how?? I intended for this set to be a litttle warm...
> ...


 
Wow your edit looks great! I'm going to do what you did exactly!! Thanks. What is the midpoint slider? I have lightroom. Also when you say you removed the cyan... How did you do it? Did you warm it up or did you just desaturate the cyan a little?


----------



## SabrinaO (May 6, 2011)

gsgary said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > i guess ill fix the exposure. :er: Its just so frustrating because final edits look so perfect my mac desktop... but when i go to my hp laptop or a regular pc they look different. :meh:....
> ...



Oh get over yourself...
Nothing is 100% perfect straight out of camera. Pictures could always use a pop of contrast, a levels boost or a wb/exposure tweaking. When I shoot I try to get it best SOOC for minimal editing... but I shoot RAW so I have to edit.


----------



## antiquerookie (May 7, 2011)

I suggest you take a look at "The Art of Photography" by Bruce Barnbaum.  What is the story / point of the pictures?  Had you not mentioned the tea party, I wouldn't have been able to figure them out. 

I'm sorry but they look like rejects to me.  No matter how many hours are spent Photoshoping them, they still don't have a story.


----------



## clanthar (May 7, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> clanthar said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...



I'm afraid I don't use Lightroom at home -- it's at the office but I'm a Photoshop user. When you're editing in Lightroom you see a histogram above the editing panel. I believe it shows a combination of color channels as well as luminosity -- luminosity is white?

I don't believe Lightroom has a direct Levels adjustment. The goal in most cases is a photo in which the luminosity histogram extends all the way from the left end to the right end. In your photos the histogram falls short of the left end. It's easy to correct in Photoshop -- in Lightroom I'm afraid I can't help till I get to work on Monday.

Lightroom I'm sure can alter the white balance to remove the cyan color cast. What I did specifically was again to use Levels in Photoshop. I converted the image to Lab color and then simply adjusted the two color channels until the tree trunk looked right and the white of the white flag was just a little blue while the white of the rope was a little yellow -- compromise. In Lightroom the method would be different.

I'm sure Lightroom can handle it -- but it sounds like you need to back up a bit and start by getting control of your viewing conditions.

Joe


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

antiquerookie said:


> I suggest you take a look at "The Art of Photography" by Bruce Barnbaum.  What is the story / point of the pictures?  Had you not mentioned the tea party, I wouldn't have been able to figure them out.
> 
> I'm sorry but they look like rejects to me.  No matter how many hours are spent Photoshoping them, they still don't have a story.


 
These photos are not "rejects" ... I already said these are promo photos for a tea party event I'm hosting and taking pictures for. I was thinking about combining them into a story board but I shouldn't have to because once I post the event anyone can figure out they are just shots of the potential setup. It's not like I took these to frame on my wall or something, so some rules of photography can go out the window. I suggest you put that  "The Art of Photography" book DOWN and open your mind a little...


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I dunno what lens you used, but I don't care for the quality of the background blur. It's nauseating.


 
35mm 1.8. What's wrong with the quality? I know some lenses are better w/ bokeh than others. I'm curious to what you are thinking.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

clanthar said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > clanthar said:
> ...


 
I have photoshop too so I'm gonna see what I can do in that. Thanks for all your help Joe! What is lab color and why did you convert it?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 7, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno what lens you used, but I don't care for the quality of the background blur. It's nauseating.
> ...


 
It looks so busy and overlappy, and jaggedy...it is visually disorienting to me. It's just not smooth and pleasing,



SabrinaO said:


> antiquerookie said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest you take a look at "The Art of Photography" by Bruce Barnbaum. What is the story / point of the pictures? Had you not mentioned the tea party, I wouldn't have been able to figure them out.
> ...


 
I disagree with the ancientrookie, I totally got tea party from the first 2 images.

I love how you selectively toss information to suit your needs. From seeing your posts repeatedly, you would only benefit from reading as many books as you can. Maybe you would come here less looking for the quick fix of your problem du 'jour. Yoou provide a great example of this in the colorspace thread. You specifically asked to have it watered down so you can get what you need, and not have to fully understand it. You need a deeper understanding of what you are doing. You need to open your mind AND some books.

I do find it funny that here, you are willing to toss "rules", yet in another thread of someone elses work, you are quick to enforce them.
So which is it Sabrina? Do you even know?


----------



## Pgeobc (May 7, 2011)

May I suggest? A tea party is a very light-hearted affair, so just enough overexposure to make these into high-key photographs might be just the thing.


----------



## j28 (May 7, 2011)

The shallow DOF in the first one looks artificial to me.  It looks like it has been added in PP rather than created in the shot.  What settings were you using?

The shot with the banner and tree is very visually cluttered to me, and I cannot tell what I am supposed to be focusing on.  Editing it helped a little with the overall feel, but it still seems to be about the tree to me.  I would look for a space with fewer leaves on the ground and not as many competing colors (the brown leaves are what is killing it, IMO)


----------



## kundalini (May 7, 2011)

If these are promo shots for a tea party, I'd opt for a shot of tequila.

Exposure issues have been exhaustively discussed, so I'll touch on some other problems.  Bitter already mentioned the nervous background blur.  It really is poor and I think it is exacerbated because of the harsh sunlight that's hitting it.

Why the tilt in #1?  The stacked cups do not stack well and look haphazardly positioned.  Having multiple colored cups without its matching colored saucer looks shoddy compare to the white tea pot.  The banner flags add nothing, even if they are coordinating colors to the multiple colored cups.

Why is the vase the prominent subject in #2?  Why is the tea cup amputated?  Why is the bottom of the vase cut off?  Aren't you promoting a tea party?  I would have placed the vase behind the main subjects.  Again, the banner flags add nothing.

The only suggestion I can offer for #3 is to find another location and a different PoV.  I would try to find a solid daker background, 6' to 12' in the distance.

Honestly, if you're trying to shoot props for a tea party, I would consider shooting them indoors under controlled lighting without all the busy-ness of distracting backgrounds.  If you want to shoot a scence of what a possible tea party setup would look like, then it would behoove you to shoot the entire scene, not bits and pieces.

Lastly, consider throttling back the attitude.  It seems people are trying to give solid advice.  Although some of the advice segued to other aspects of the images, the intent seems to be in good faith.


----------



## KmH (May 7, 2011)

If you want to learn how to use the editing tools/functions/features that are available in Lightroom 3, get the book: Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5 

CS5 Camera Raw and Lightroom 3 use the same edit rendering engine (editing tools/functions/features) ACR 6.

Lightroom has a tool that can fix most of the CA the 35 mm f/1.8 produces, and Lightroom has a tool for adjusting levels.


----------



## clanthar (May 7, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> I have photoshop too so I'm gonna see what I can do in that. Thanks for all your help Joe! What is lab color and why did you convert it?



Lab color is a different color model than RGB which is the default for digital photos. Photoshop allows conversion to Lab (Image menu - Mode). In the RGB model you have three channels, one for each color Red, Green, BLue. In Lab you have one channel for the tone of the photo (L) and two channels for color (a) is magenta/green and (b) is yellow/blue. I often convert a photo to Lab mode to edit it. I prefer to make color corrections in Lab as it's easier for me and makes more sense. To do that I use Levels in Photoshop and adjust the midpoint slider for either/or both the (a) and (b) channels. An alternative in RGB mode would be to use Photoshop's Color Balance dialog.

Joe


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


 
What are you talking about? Im not trying to create works of art here... im just trying to take some promo shots of my props and setup. About the colorspace thread... so what? It was early in the morning and that was a ton of info to be reading. I just wanted it simplified. Again... SO WHAT?


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

j28 said:


> The shallow DOF in the first one looks artificial to me.  It looks like it has been added in PP rather than created in the shot.  What settings were you using?
> 
> The shot with the banner and tree is very visually cluttered to me, and I cannot tell what I am supposed to be focusing on.  Editing it helped a little with the overall feel, but it still seems to be about the tree to me.  I would look for a space with fewer leaves on the ground and not as many competing colors (the brown leaves are what is killing it, IMO)



Wrong. It's not artificial...lol. Shooting at 1.8 will do that. I heard  that some lenses have prettier bokehs than others though... 
Again though... i don't really care about the clutter or the brown leaves. These are just  shots of my props. These are not going on my wall, nor was i trying to  create works of art.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

kundalini said:


> If these are promo shots for a tea party, I'd opt for a shot of tequila.
> 
> Exposure issues have been exhaustively discussed, so I'll touch on some other problems.  Bitter already mentioned the nervous background blur.  It really is poor and I think it is exacerbated because of the harsh sunlight that's hitting it.
> 
> ...



I didn't notice the tilt..thanks! About the teacups... that was the point. This is like an alice in wonderland/whimsical type theme, not a stuffy and proper tea-party.  So thanks.. I'm glad the cups look haphazard 
I'm not gonna reshoot because i'm satisfied with these results. I just wanted to see if these were overexposed. I didn't expect these to be picked apart for ridiculous things like the brown leaves or the bokeh because again.. these are just shots of my props.  But I will be aware next time of cutting things off, and lighting conditions. 
Lastly... i don't have an attitude at all. Its just when someone tells you your photos are "rejects" i don't think anyone would take that lightly.


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2011)

The pics look light, bright, and airy...they look like they were shot outdoors using natural, dappled sunlight. Ohh-Myyy-Gawwwwdddd--they look like they were shot on-location....outdoors someplace, where there are trees and chit!!!! They give off the appearance  of having been made under bright,outdoor, spring-time like weather conditions!!! They give off a bright-light type of feeling...  OMG!!!! Tone them down, adjust the levels, adjust the color balance, adjust the chit out of them, and in general just totally bomb them back to the Stone Age, so they look like they were shot with dull overcast, or zero-ratio lighting. Bring them down so they're good and dull,and so it looks like they were shot about a half hour before sunset. That'll get people off your back, fer sure. Know what I'm sayin'???


----------



## j28 (May 7, 2011)

> Wrong. It's not artificial...lol. Shooting at 1.8 will do that. I heard that some lenses have prettier bokehs than others though...
> Again though... i don't really care about the clutter or the brown leaves. These are just shots of my props. These are not going on my wall, nor was i trying to create works of art.



It looks artificial and choppy.  I typically love bokeh and a very shallow DOF, but this looks very off.

Personally, if I am taking the time to do promo shots to show potential clients my set up I want those to be top notch.  These are what potential clients will judge your skills based on. If you are advertising as a tea party service these are fine.  If you are advertising as a tea party portrait experience I would pass you by based on these shots.  They portray a photographer with little attention to detail who is content for mediocre when there is the potential for more.  I'm not trying to be harsh, just realistic.


----------



## kundalini (May 7, 2011)

I don't think you are clocking on Sabrina.  Your photos are sub-par for promotional use IMO.  Have you even bothered checking out Flickr or Google for Alice in Wonderland images?  You are well off the mark.


----------



## AUG19 (May 7, 2011)

In the flag pic it looks to me like one with a 7 or 9 blade ID, used wide open. From Sabrina's sig I'd guess the 1.8/35.


Bitter Jeweler said:


> I dunno what lens you used, but I don't care for the quality of the background blur. It's nauseating.


----------



## manaheim (May 7, 2011)

Folks, folks... please... stop.

Clearly we are in the presence of a master and really would do better to stop trying to comment on how the photo should be adjusted and really should just bask in the glory of massively over-exposed images full of clutter and teapots falling off the table.

Me, personally... my mind has been opened like never before.

Please, OP, continue to fill me with your knowledge.

*quickly sits, rests chin in hand, and stares lovingly at OP*


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Folks, folks... please... stop.
> 
> Clearly we are in the presence of a master and really would do better to stop trying to comment on how the photo should be adjusted and really should just bask in the glory of massively over-exposed images full of clutter and teapots falling off the table.
> 
> ...


 
LAME.

Nice try at funny. Actually no... not really.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

Derrel said:


> The pics look light, bright, and airy...they look like they were shot outdoors using natural, dappled sunlight. Ohh-Myyy-Gawwwwdddd--they look like they were shot on-location....outdoors someplace, where there are trees and chit!!!! They give off the appearance  of having been made under bright,outdoor, spring-time like weather conditions!!! They give off a bright-light type of feeling...  OMG!!!! Tone them down, adjust the levels, adjust the color balance, adjust the chit out of them, and in general just totally bomb them back to the Stone Age, so they look like they were shot with dull overcast, or zero-ratio lighting. Bring them down so they're good and dull,and so it looks like they were shot about a half hour before sunset. That'll get people off your back, fer sure. Know what I'm sayin'???




 Lol Derrel. :-]


----------



## SabrinaO (May 7, 2011)

AUG19 said:


> In the flag pic it looks to me like one with a 7 or 9 blade ID, used wide open. From Sabrina's sig I'd guess the 1.8/35.
> 
> 
> Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


 

7 or 9 blade... Is that the aperture? If so... No wonder why not all bokehs are created equal. I'm guessing more blades = better/smooth bokeh?


----------



## AUG19 (May 7, 2011)

The specular highlights in your picture are rounded so i assumed it was a 9. Googling your 35 tells me it's likely 7. The bright edges and centers of the discs made me think the lens was used almost fully open. Stopping down the aperture would improve the look. Given enough seperation between the flags (or tea set) and the background, it will still be blurred.


----------



## manaheim (May 7, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Folks, folks... please... stop.
> ...



No, it's really more your responses that are funny.  Hysterical, in fact.

Mine was more going for sarcasm.  I see you missed that.

You've spent a lot of time here asserting to people how silly they are for suggesting this or that... even going as far as to say that no photo is perfect right out of the camera.  You're clearly inexperienced and have absolutely no idea how much you don't know, and you're wielding that ignorance with a ham-fistedness that borders on the spectacular.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 8, 2011)

AUG19 said:


> The specular highlights in your picture are rounded so i assumed it was a 9. Googling your 35 tells me it's likely 7. The bright edges and centers of the discs made me think the lens was used almost fully open. Stopping down the aperture would improve the look. Given enough seperation between the flags (or tea set) and the background, it will still be blurred.



So maybe if I shot at 2.8 higher it would give me better bokeh?


----------



## SabrinaO (May 8, 2011)

manaheim said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



CLEARLY you were _trying_ your hand at wit... and you wanted all the "folks" to comment and laugh. I know how it goes on this forum.  With sarcasm comes humor. I got the sarcasm. The humor... not so much. Again, it was lame. Try again next time, or better yet... don't try so hard.   

Inexperienced? lol..not at all. Im just not going to tolerate people (you) who are in some imaginary contest on who-can-give-the-wittiest-comment. It's just pathetic. I am open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism because I want to improve my craft... not argue with trolls.


----------



## manaheim (May 8, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> CLEARLY you were _trying_ your hand at wit... and you wanted all the "folks" to comment and laugh. I know how it goes on this forum.  With sarcasm comes humor. I got the sarcasm. The humor... not so much. Again, it was lame. Try again next time, or better yet... don't try so hard.
> 
> Inexperienced? lol..not at all. Im just not going to tolerate people (you) who are in some imaginary contest on who-can-give-the-wittiest-comment. It's just pathetic. I am open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism because I want to improve my craft... not argue with trolls.



Well, I guess in addition to ignorance, we will add arrogance to your list of traits.

You don't know me, and you don't know who I am or what I do.  Asserting what I'm "clearly" doing here just re-emphasizes my earlier points about your approach.

Whatever.  Good luck.  You're not going to learn a lot or gain many friends with this posture, but... again... whatever.


----------



## Bynx (May 8, 2011)

You dont really need others to tell you what is wrong with a shot unless its a choice of A or B. They are overexposed. Looking at them side by side I see they might be a bit over saturated. But the shot isnt bad. I like the composition and it relates to me what its about.


----------



## subscuck (May 8, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> I am open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism because I want to improve my craft... not argue with trolls.


 
And thread after thread that you start is filled with constructive criticism that you resist. You constantly defend your position even and especially when you won't find another single photographer, pro or serious amateur, who will agree with you. Overexposed isn't a "style", it's a lack of skills and fundamental knowledge about exposure and the tools your camera provides you. To justify it by saying it works, when a million other people tell you "no, it pretty much doesn't", is seen as you being quite closed to constructive criticism by those that are trying to help and guide you along. So relax, go to a good place mentally, take a good look within, and try to see why people who have offered up years of _professional_ wisdom are turning snarky.


----------



## cuezombies (May 8, 2011)

subscuck said:


> To justify it by saying it works, when a million other people tell you "no, it pretty much doesn't", is seen as you being quite closed to constructive criticism by those that are trying to help and guide you along. So relax, go to a good place mentally, take a good look within, and try to see why people who have offered up years of _professional_ wisdom are turning snarky.


 
Yes! 

You know, I've been lurking around this forum off and on for years now. There are so many great minds here, however unbearable the snark can be at times (that last is why I resisted creating an account for myself until recently). It's threads like this one that push sarcasm to the front of people's shelves. Really? The guy who's been registered here since September of 2005 is a bridge troll and _you_ are a_ serious_ photographer- exposure questions in the beginners' forum aside- and you can't understand why snark is the first thing some members reach for? You post here asking questions and then make a lot of lame excuses about prop photos, even though your watermark suggests you'd like to be a photographer, not just another tea party ninja. The most helpful suggestion I can muster is that you take the photog watermark off of your "this photo shows a teapot, it's good enough to represent my business" snapshot and stop posting its ilk on photography forums if you're not looking to improve them. 

I like where (I think) you were going with this series; I genuinely hope you'll tone down the defensiveness, take a few suggestions, reshoot and share. And keep asking questions. It's okay to suck for a while as long as you're learning (or maybe it's not- I have to tell myself that as I wait for the small part of my brain that can handle the gears and cogs bit of photography to catch up to what I see in my mind's eye, otherwise I'd never take another shot). It's when you cram your fingers into your ears and start blowing raspberries that things start to fall apart. Not every nugget of advice you'll get from the internet is going to be helpful to your art (or accurate, or polite). Some of it's going to hurt your feelings. But if you set out to be respectful and to keep learning no matter what, the snark you'll run into in the beginning will begin to fall away as you not only improve on your technical skill but begin to establish a reputation for being (stubbornly) open-minded, polite and appreciative of feedback- even if you don't love every post that someone aims at you.

There, end n00b rant.  I am ready to be mocked, TPFers, fire away!


----------



## e.rose (May 8, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Other qualfying questions that fit this model...
> 
> Does this picture look like ****?  Yes.
> Is this too slanted?  Yes.
> ...


----------



## manaheim (May 8, 2011)

I had to go back and look to seeif I was the one here sine sep 2005. 

Yup.

Wow ive been here a long time.

Guess I'm a bridge troll. *shrug*. I like goats. *smacks lips*


----------



## cuezombies (May 8, 2011)

Goats are disgusting. You've been a troll a long time... why haven't you made the step up to homeless people at least?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 8, 2011)

I dunno, I had some braised baby goat at a restaurant, that was rather delicious.


----------



## manaheim (May 8, 2011)

cuezombies said:


> Goats are disgusting. You've been a troll a long time... why haven't you made the step up to homeless people at least?


 
All kidding aside... I'm not looking for fights here on TPF (trolling), but I do often put up a fight when one was clearly asked for... or deserved.

You said you've been monitoring this site for a while, so I would think you may see a trend.

There are a number of folks who have been on here for a while and they tend to be slightly snarkier at times than many of the newer folks.  Why do you think that is?

I'm here on TPF for three reasons... community, a chance to learn, and a chance to teach.  All three of these things are diminished by people who come on and act like the OP has in this (and apparently other) threads.  My unstated goal on TPF is very simple... to share, be one with the group, to teach when asked and constructively received, and to bluntly discourage when asked and unconstructively received.

Too long now has the internet been filled with people who "atta' boy" with no clue about what they are talking about... people who post saying they are looking for help, but are just looking for "atta' boys".  I'm tired of it, and so are a lot of the more senior members here.

Am I gruff?  Grouchy?  Overly blunt?  Yeah, no question.  But you know what, I know a _hell_ of a lot, and I am _so_ very willing to share it.  This describes a lot of the "older" folks around here on TPF as well, and their numbers are dwindling... hell, most of the REAL heavy hitters who taught me a GOOD bit of most of what I know have already thrown their hands up in the air, gotten pissed off and left.  You don't want that to continue... not that you could really stop it, but...

Now you may say "Who gave you the right to define what TPF should be?"  TPF did.  TPF never clearly sets a direction for itself.  It says 'the members decide'.  Truth be told, TPF doesn't probably much care as long as there is still tons of traffic and contributing members... and if I had to guess, they probably love a good occasional snark fest because those are the threads that are watched the most.  I don't know, but it's a pretty reasonable guess.

Whatever the case... so far... the mods have not told me to stop.  I gotta be honest.  I'm as surprised as anyone, but if they did and they didn't want someone being a bit more blunt with folks on here then I would honestly think I am truly TRULY done with this place and move on... because I can't honestly imagine ignoring it when stuff like this goes on.

Anyway, back to my goats.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 8, 2011)

My snark stems from "has business/can't make own decisions".


----------



## subscuck (May 8, 2011)

Very well put, Manaheim. I'm glad you've got the patience to stick around, this place benefits from it. Goat curry rules, btw.


----------



## cuezombies (May 8, 2011)

manaheim said:


> There are a number of folks who have been on here for a while and they tend to be slightly snarkier at times than many of the newer folks.  Why do you think that is?
> 
> I'm here on TPF for three reasons... community, a chance to learn, and a chance to teach.  All three of these things are diminished by people who come on and act like the OP has in this (and apparently other) threads.


 
Just to clarify, I don't think you're a troll- in fact I found that post to be absolutely ridiculous. (I'm fairly sure you realize that, but just in case!) I'm with you completely re: the reason our old goats  can be a little bristly. Threads like this one chafe me because IMO they waste a lot of resources that people like me- who aren't new to photography but are definitely new to GOOD photography- would love to have on OPs who are ultimately more focused on hand-wringing, wangst, and being right than they are on improving/putting out a good product. At least they're (usually) entertaining, and I can read along and pick out the useful bits when I find them!

I'm thinking of posting a desperate plea for PP help later this week and expect to see plenty of responses suggesting I beat myself into soup with my own tripod and never take another crap photo. :greenpbl: I'd think some of you were sick if I didn't. But I know there'll be some legitimate help, too- and that's worth the snark for me, painful as it can be for the old ego.


----------



## Raian-san (May 8, 2011)

manaheim said:


> Does this dress make me look fat?  Ohhhhhhhhh!  Trick question, here.  The real answer is not "Yes", but actually... "No, you ARE fat.  The dress is just telling the truth."
> 
> 
> Wheelah.


 
:thumbup:


----------



## The_Traveler (May 8, 2011)

IMO, the real killer in this shot is the overexposure of the table.
If there was some texture in the table top then some PPing could make the background look better but the burnt out areas on the table really hurt.
a larger, darker ornate text style over the background and/or the table top would also pull the eye and kill some of the OE curse.

3 layers - background, flags, table and cups

darkened, saturated and lens blur background
didn't do much to flags
increased saturation on table and cups, area sharpen to make them pop. burnt in some places.

with full res image and more interest I would have masked out the very light parts of background and slid more foliage in before lens blurring it all.



Reading histograms save PPing and hair loss.


----------



## chaosrealm93 (May 8, 2011)

yea


----------



## Derrel (May 8, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler, Hey, do you still have the phone number for that whaaaaammbulance service? I think two or three posters in this thread might want to program it into their cell phones.


----------



## manaheim (May 8, 2011)

Nice edit, Traveler.


----------



## cuezombies (May 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> IMO, the real killer in this shot is the overexposure of the table.
> If there was some texture in the table top then some PPing could make the background look better but the burnt out areas on the table really hurt.
> a larger, darker ornate text style over the background and/or the table top would also pull the eye and kill some of the OE curse.
> 
> ...


 
This one looks worlds better!


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

cuezombies said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, the real killer in this shot is the overexposure of the table.
> ...


----------



## kundalini (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> It looks a _tad_ underexposed plus there's a chromatic aberration around the teapot and cups... I wonder what he did to make that happen.



You really are an ingrate, aren't you?


----------



## subscuck (May 9, 2011)

Hmmm. I'm thinking you need some monitor calibration, a better monitor, or at least turn the brightness up a bit. It's not under at all. If it were me editing, I'd probably pull it back even a bit more.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> It looks a _tad_ underexposed plus there's a chromatic aberration around the teapot and cups... I wonder what he did to make that happen.


 
_Well, let's ask him why don't we?_

Well, since you asked, that's not chromatic aberration - the failure of a lens to focus all the incoming colors to the same convergence point.  
It is haloing caused by sharpening the cups layer.   
If the sharpening had been done on a high res - and nicely saturated - image rather than the lo-res image available, the masking and layering could be more finely done and there would be no haloing. I did the area sharpening (high radius, amount to taste) to give the surfaces of the cups more pop. 
I hope that helps.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

subscuck said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > I am open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism because I want to improve my craft... not argue with trolls.
> ...



First of all... a slight overexposure IS a style... just like how an underexposure/low key photograph is.
And don't give me that "lack of skills" garbage (im curious on how/why you think you know me) because I know how to properly expose a picture:

sooc





 Its just that with this pic and the others in the set I wanted a slight overexposure for a light and airy feel...which I created in LR.  I came here looking for opinions on if it was too overexposed because the set looked different on each of my monitors. There were some that helped me and I was OPEN (reread the damn thread!! i wasn't defending the overexposure) to the suggestions and criticisms, and there were some that called my photos "rejects" or gsgary who thinks he can shoot out works of art SOOC and telling me I shouldn't have to be editing pictures at all.   Yes i'm going to defend myself against THOSE statements.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

kundalini said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > It looks a _tad_ underexposed plus there's a chromatic aberration around the teapot and cups... I wonder what he did to make that happen.
> ...


 
Oh so I should be grateful for this edit???


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

subscuck said:


> Hmmm. I'm thinking you need some monitor calibration, a better monitor, o*r at least turn the brightness up a bit*. It's not under at all. If it were me editing, I'd probably pull it back even a bit more.


 

That could be the problem. I have a good monitor (mac) and I do need to get calibrated, but the photos look perfect on my mac, but look overexposed on my laptop.


----------



## subscuck (May 9, 2011)

No, high key is a style. High key retains detail. Over exposure blows out detail. Your pics are overexposed. And more than "slight". And I was serious about the monitor thing.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > It looks a _tad_ underexposed plus there's a chromatic aberration around the teapot and cups... I wonder what he did to make that happen.
> ...


 
Chromatic aberration also happens during editing. Most commonly with HDR and over sharpening


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

subscuck said:


> No, high key is a style. High key retains detail. Over exposure blows out detail. Your pics are overexposed. And more than "slight". And *I was serious about the monitor thing.*


 
What makes you think I wasn't in my reply?


----------



## subscuck (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > No, high key is a style. High key retains detail. Over exposure blows out detail. Your pics are overexposed. And more than "slight". And *I was serious about the monitor thing.*
> ...


 
Your reply wasn't up yet when I was typing. It happens.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Oh so I should be grateful for this edit???


 
or perhaps even just polite?


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

subscuck said:


> No, high key is a style. High key retains detail. Over exposure blows out detail. Your pics are overexposed. And more than "slight". And I was serious about the monitor thing.


 

Also.. please show me/link me a high key photo that doesn't have any spots of blown details. I may be a little confused because doing a search shows photos with blown details here and there... but not to a point where the whole picture is overexposed.  I made an example on what im thinking. 
The first picture has a couple blown spots here and there but not enough to label the entire picture "overexposed". The second has blown spots everywhere and the details are hard to make out and i would definitely call this overexposed. This is basically how I determine of a photo is high key vs. overexposed.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Oh so I should be grateful for this edit???
> ...



I'm sorry but your edit looks worse than the original. Isn't that what you all do around here? Tell it like it is?
But thanks for trying. I really mean that


----------



## j28 (May 9, 2011)

> Oh so I should be grateful for this edit???



Yes.  Someone took time out of their day to show you something that could help you AND to baby step you through how to replicate it yourself.  You could drop the defensive tone and throw out a "thank you".  
It can be difficult to have your work criticized, but there is a lot to learn from it at the same time.  There are so many people here who are willing to share things that only time and experience can provide.  It isn't a personal affront, it is trying to help someone else grow.  It can be hard to be objective of our own images sometimes.  We get so wrapped up in the vision we have that sometimes we fail to see when it isn't working, or isn't coming across to others.


----------



## kundalini (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Oh so I should be grateful for this edit???


You should be grateful for the amount of time, attention and free education you've received on this thread to try and make a disastrous product shot for your "business" into an image that actually promotes said "business", even though the general concensus is for a re-shoot.  So yeah, you should.


----------



## kundalini (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Also.. please show me/link me a high key photo that doesn't have any spots of blown details. I may be a little confused because doing a search shows photos with blown details here and there... but not to a point where the whole picture is overexposed. I made an example on what im thinking.


High Key Imaging


Now I'm done with you.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 9, 2011)

What was wrong with the picture , imo, was primarily the dappled light and the discontinuous foliage which introduced essentially random bits of white splotches and made it very difficult to focus on the points of interest.  High key, in that  situation, didn't work for me.

You mentioned that the pictures look different on each of your monitors. My inference is that you haven't calibrated your monitors.
There's not much sense talking about brightness of images in that circumstance.

And I would be interested if you would point out a source for your statement that Chromatic Aberration can occur in PPing.


----------



## subscuck (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Also.. please show me/link me a high key photo that doesn't have any spots of blown details. I may be a little confused because doing a search shows photos with blown details here and there... but not to a point where the whole picture is overexposed. I made an example on what im thinking.
> The first picture has a couple blown spots here and there but not enough to label the entire picture "overexposed". The second has blown spots everywhere and the details are hard to make out and i would definitely call this overexposed. This is basically how I determine of a photo is high key vs. overexposed.



OK, one more then I'm off to bed. You yourself referenced ghache's thread. What do you notice about the pic? You can see all the detail in her face, clothes, shoes, arms ,legs, etc. There is some clipping on her hand, but that's no big deal. The greatest area where it's pushed to clipping is the wall behind her. Big woop. It's not the subject. In your picture, the teapot is the subject, or at least one of the subjects. While not pushed all the way to clipping, it's pushed far enough that the ridge detail is almost invisible, the logo on the side is all but invisible. In short, you've lost important detail.


----------



## subscuck (May 9, 2011)

kundalini said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Also.. please show me/link me a high key photo that doesn't have any spots of blown details. I may be a little confused because doing a search shows photos with blown details here and there... but not to a point where the whole picture is overexposed. I made an example on what im thinking.
> ...


 
Thanks for the link. It seems I was off on my definition. See what happens when you open yourself up to learning? Learning is fun!


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

kundalini said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Also.. please show me/link me a high key photo that doesn't have any spots of blown details. I may be a little confused because doing a search shows photos with blown details here and there... but not to a point where the whole picture is overexposed. I made an example on what im thinking.
> ...


 
Disastrous? lol... i find that funny. Reshooting? No.. its not even that serious. But I know now what to look out for with lighting conditions with the people that actually HELPED. Its funny you actually think that you and the other wannabe photog-elitists think you have some sort of pull. I don't care what the "consensus" says about reshooting. I don't care that the bokeh is nauseous to one of you, that i shouldn't of stacked the cups up like that (this is my vision, not yours!) or that you think that pictures of my props should tell a story. Well here's the story for the one that couldn't make out the obvious! 






My BUSINESS and this event will do just fine thank you. I don't think my clients will be like "eww... theres dappled sunlight in that shot!"  or, " omg... that "bokeh make me nauseous" or,  "why is that vase and teacup cut off in that picture?" or gross... theres brown leaves. omg." or any other nonsense you people want to pick apart. Again... will I know next time what to look out for and what not to do? of course. But to call this shoot disastrous and I should reshoot? I find that hilarious and reshooting will be unnecessary. 

Goodbye Kundalini!!


----------



## jands (May 9, 2011)




----------



## PrimeDesignsHD (May 9, 2011)

Maybe a tad overexposed in my opinion, but really nice shots.


----------



## misstwinklytoes (May 9, 2011)

On my desktop now and I still see some overexposure, but I agree, for the most part and for the use of the shots, I think they're pretty good.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 9, 2011)

It's so hard to escape the stigma of running a photography business, asking questions on a beginers photography forum, and rejecting the information, cuz you know better.


:lmao:


----------



## mwcfarms (May 9, 2011)

Too bad because Kundalini is a very valuable source of knowledge and always willing to help with lighting and well every simple question. I didn't find anything in this thread he said too harsh. But your not going to hurt his feelings any with your grand farewell. One less person who thinks they know it all to ask him simple questions. I find it highly peculiar that your running a business, and asking basic beginner questions every week. You do have some talent Sabrina and are capable of producing some nice shots but you need to lose the pretentiousness when your asking for others opinions. Write me off too if you will either way doesn't hurt my feelings.


----------



## vtf (May 9, 2011)

I really have missed the trolls lately, it's nice to see the fun return. Not only here but another one who persists because it's not a dslr. :thumbup:


----------



## OrionsByte (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Well here's the story for the one that couldn't make out the obvious!


 
I know you didn't ask for C&C on the flyer, but something you may want to consider is that with the way your photos are edited (regardless of any argument for or against that style), and the pastel colors you've chosen for the text, the text is kind of hard to read.

One thing you _might_ try is adding a pure white layer between the photos and the text, and adjusting it's opacity to something like 25-50%.  That would wash out the photos and give them that "airy" feel you're going for, while also giving the text a chance to pop.

Just my unsolicited opinion.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 9, 2011)

OrionsByte said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Well here's the story for the one that couldn't make out the obvious!
> ...


 
I agree. Too many different fonts and the colors are hard to read.


----------



## ababysean (May 9, 2011)

I love the collage, but I do not like the font.....


----------



## o hey tyler (May 9, 2011)

ababysean said:


> I do not like the font*(s)*.....


 
Fixed.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 9, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> I agree. Too many different fonts and the colors are hard to read.


Do you think it _really_ matters?


----------



## o hey tyler (May 9, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. Too many different fonts and the colors are hard to read.
> ...


 
No... And I don't think she'd take my advice anyway. :greenpbl:


----------



## Dao (May 9, 2011)

I wonder if TPF can add a "Dislike" button so that I can use it in this thread.


----------



## mishele (May 9, 2011)

If we add the "dislike" button can we also add a "I don't care" button too?!!


----------



## vtf (May 9, 2011)

Insert self emoticon.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 9, 2011)

vtf said:


>


 
You cut off the knuckles, the flash is harsh casting harsh shadows, you should wear a shirt that won't get lost in the background, maybe try a different angle, maybe try a cleaner font with better kerning. But not bad over all, I like the concept. Definitely reshoot this.


----------



## mishele (May 9, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> vtf said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Why do you have to be such a dick all the time? This shot doesn't need to be re-shot. I think it was very artistic of him to make himself blend into the background. The font he chose is perfect, it matches his blown out knuckles.


----------



## vtf (May 9, 2011)

mishele said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > vtf said:
> ...


 
:lmao:

Better shirt?




One night I figured I was tired of the standard emoticons so I'd come up with using self portraits. This one was also used for my Bin Laden thread. 
Thanks Mishele, he's just screwing around. BTW my nuckles are that white.

More to come...


----------



## mishele (May 9, 2011)

I know he was kidding I was messing w/ him.....lol


----------



## KevinPutman (May 9, 2011)

My troll thread is obviously better.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 9, 2011)

Kundalini has exceeded his PM limit and can't be contacted.


----------



## kundalini (May 9, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Kundalini has exceeded his PM limit and can't be contacted.



Sorted.


----------



## kundalini (May 9, 2011)

mwcfarms has exceeded her PM limit and can't be contacted.


----------



## mwcfarms (May 9, 2011)

Woops. haha thanks fixed.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

mwcfarms said:


> Too bad because Kundalini is a very valuable source of knowledge and always willing to help with lighting and well every simple question. I didn't find anything in this thread he said too harsh. But your not going to hurt his feelings any with your grand farewell. One less person who thinks they know it all to ask him simple questions. I find it highly peculiar that your running a business, and asking basic beginner questions every week. You do have some talent Sabrina and are capable of producing some nice shots but you need to lose the pretentiousness when your asking for others opinions. Write me off too if you will either way doesn't hurt my feelings.


 
What? I didn't write kundalini off... hes the one who said "now im done with you" so I am saying au revoir.... 
Why is it so bad that a business owner asks some questions? I guess that business owners should never ask for the opinion of others and that people should know absolutely _*EVERYTHING*_ they need to know about their craft before going into business? Please. I am ALWAYS willing to learn and grow and having a business you learn and grow along the way. I just post in the beginners forum because this IS the catch all section for everything. Im not sure why many of you are saying im not open...if you actually took the time to READ what went on in this thread you would SEE that i was open to people's suggestions until someone was rude and told me my photos were "rejects".


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 9, 2011)

O Hai!


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

Thanks! ill give that a try...


----------



## KevinPutman (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO, personally I think we should just keep our mouths shut. We both have our own opinions, and we love to voice them. But no one here likes to hear it. We say one thing wrong, and the condescending rain down upon us. Drowning out every little thing we say, and making sure our opinions never surface again. 
Apparently in order to be "liked" or "respected" on here, you have to be able to keep your mouth shut, or just have the same opinions as everyone else. If we disagree on some subject, it's better to just shutup and let the hyenas get the last laugh.

No offence to anyone out there, I can see you all trying to say I'm "disrespecting" you.

And no offence to you Sabrina, I'm sure you don't like the comparison I'm trying to bring up between you and I.


----------



## jands (May 9, 2011)

KevinPutman said:


> SabrinaO, personally I think we should just keep our mouths shut. We both have our own opinions, and we love to voice them. But no one here likes to hear it. We say one thing wrong, and the condescending rain down upon us. Drowning out every little thing we say, and making sure our opinions never surface again.
> Apparently in order to be "liked" or "respected" on here, you have to be able to keep your mouth shut, or just have the same opinions as everyone else. If we disagree on some subject, it's better to just shutup and let the hyenas get the last laugh.
> 
> No offence to anyone out there, I can see you all trying to say I'm "disrespecting" you.
> ...



:gah:


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> O Hai!


 
Question: Why are you even here? I mean what have you contributed to this thread other than your snarky and pompous little remarks? In fact... I have never seen anything of value come out next to your name. Do you get kicks on trolling around these forums with your little "witty" and useless remarks? I guess it's because you think you are the end-all be-all in photography. I'd humor you and give you a pat on the back if you were here... but i'm guessing you do that to yourself every night.


----------



## MissCream (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > O Hai!
> ...


 

That's not all he does to himself every night!  

Also I've seen lots of helpful posts from Bitter, along with humorous remarks that literally make me lol.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

is this better? Added a white layer at 31% opacity between the text and pictures


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

MissCream said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


 
Not me. Not at all. *shrugs*


----------



## OrionsByte (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> is this better? Added a white layer at 31% opacity between the text and pictures


 
It's a little better - maybe darken the drop shadows.

Someone once told me that when you're working with graphic design, you should step back and look at it from across the room, and see how it looks.  Designs that are cramped and busy become more obviously so when all you can see is the big picture instead of the details.  In this case, when I back up from it the only text that's really easy to see without trying is the "for a", because it's printed against a complimentary color.  The other words all blend in to the background.  Adding a border to the text, or darkening the drop shadow, will help separate them from the collage.

How is this going to be distributed?  Printed?  Emailed?


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

OrionsByte said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > is this better? Added a white layer at 31% opacity between the text and pictures
> ...



This is gonna be posted on my blog and on my facebook along with an announcement for the event.


----------



## photocist (May 9, 2011)

So even though everyone said it was overexposed, you actually put a white layer on top to make it even more bright?


----------



## OrionsByte (May 9, 2011)

photocist said:


> So even though everyone said it was overexposed, you actually put a white layer on top to make it even more bright?


 
Blame me for that one, if you feel like blaming someone - that was my suggestion.  I was thinking it would wash out the photos enough to make the text show up better while still conveying that "light, airy feel" she was after by overexposing them in the first place.  

If you have a different suggestion, I'm sure Sabrina would love to hear it.


----------



## photocist (May 9, 2011)

I dont think the changing of the font is necessary, and the thin fonts make it hard to read on the busy background.

I understand why she did it, but it looks like its for a baby shower or something. I am sure people will eat it up, but it sure aint my style, and I know there isnt anything that can be done about that.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

photocist said:


> So even though everyone said it was overexposed, you actually put a white layer on top to make it even more bright?


 
Why don't you read what went down before jumping in with your two cents?? 

ugh... i feel like giving up...


----------



## photocist (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> photocist said:
> 
> 
> > So even though everyone said it was overexposed, you actually put a white layer on top to make it even more bright?
> ...


 I didnt feel like reading 8 pages of nonsense.

And actually, I did read most of it, but everyone was so busy swinging their dick around nothing really notable stood out.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

photocist said:


> I dont think the changing of the font is necessary, and the thin fonts make it hard to read on the busy background.
> 
> I understand why she did it, but it looks like its for a baby shower or something. I am sure people will eat it up, but it sure aint my style, *and I know there isnt anything that can be done about that.*


 
Nope. this is a children's party.


----------



## photocist (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> photocist said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think the changing of the font is necessary, and the thin fonts make it hard to read on the busy background.
> ...


 Just make sure to avoid the Jesus Juice.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 9, 2011)

MissCream said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


 
Need I say more?

Remember, I pointed out the horrible bokeh. You blew it off, cuz you don't care.

You might want to keep that in mind though, that that lens in combination with numerous points of light, like whats coming through the trees, is not a good choice. That is, if you want top notch quality pics. You made it clear earlier, that you are not concerned with it, so.....


That you don't see me ever being helpful is testominy to the selfserving manner that you use these forums. Even going so far as asking that a subject that was discussed VERY well, that was very good information, you asked for cliff notes because you can't bother to read it.


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

photocist said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > photocist said:
> ...


 
LOL... I don't think there will be a problem with that...


----------



## SabrinaO (May 9, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...


 

Oh really? So I didn't ask you for further details on what you were thinking since once again.. you just made a statement without explaining or being CONSTRUCTIVE on what can be done about it? 
OK...the bokeh isn't good. But to set up and reshoot because of it? NO... i'm not "concerned" with it.


----------



## Stryker (May 9, 2011)

:coffee:


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 9, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> is this better? Added a white layer at 31% opacity between the text and pictures


 
No. You made it more over exposed. And your font choice is still awful. There's too much **** going on. Plain and simple.


----------



## mwcfarms (May 9, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> mwcfarms said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad because Kundalini is a very valuable source of knowledge and always willing to help with lighting and well every simple question. I didn't find anything in this thread he said too harsh. But your not going to hurt his feelings any with your grand farewell. One less person who thinks they know it all to ask him simple questions. I find it highly peculiar that your running a business, and asking basic beginner questions every week. You do have some talent Sabrina and are capable of producing some nice shots but you need to lose the pretentiousness when your asking for others opinions. Write me off too if you will either way doesn't hurt my feelings.
> ...



Listen, don't assume anything. It just makes you and me look like an ass. I did read the whole thread, found most of what I would have said already said by others so no need to beat a dead horse. I chose not to reply till you so fondly said goodbye to Kundalini  and I believe the reason Kundalini said au revoir is because you seem utterly unreceptive to absolutely every good suggestion he or anyone else had here. Take the good with the bad and try to grow up a little. You sound like an angry little girl in your tone of communication and that makes the rest of us want to put you on permanent ignore. Now I'm not sure if that's your intention or not and I'm trying really hard not to be a ***** about it. You asked opinions in an OPEN beginners forum, if you really want advice for your business this is not the spot for it. For what its worth the people with actual business knowledge do happen to troll the professionals section.

I think there were valid critiques for your shots posted. If you were working for an ad company and they didnt agree with your vision you would have to reshoot it plain and simple. The majority of people here didn't think the shots cut it. Plain and simple. So if someone tells you the ad campaign you just shot sucks and to bin it, guess what you bin it. I sold advertising for three years and its a hard pill to swallow but you do it. Putting something personal into your art form such as photography leaves you open to be hurt like that. Try not to see it that way. Try again. You can again take what I have said into consideration or you can ignore it. Your choice again.


----------



## kundalini (May 9, 2011)

This thread is like picking a scab.  You know you shouldn't, but.......................

First off, thanks Dee.  

Secondly to Sabrina.  I believe the miscomminication between us has been my fault.  You see, I have been in the design and drafting field for 35 years or so.  My drafting instructor made a statement one day in class that was probably a repeat of every class he held for the past X years and said while on auto-pilot.  However, it was extremely profound to me.  His words were "drafting is a language that needed to be spoken to people that do not speak the language".  Meaning it is my responsibility to make the information so apparently elemental that there is absolutely no ambiguity, all information has been shown.  I have run the gamut of industry and disciplines.  I have dealt with every possible character trait.  In all these years since, that has been my benchmark.  My second enlightenment came on a job where I had become slightly complacent because I knew the in's and out's of every facet of the job and my personal life had its turmoils at the time.  I wasn't living up to my own expectations.  His words directed at me were "good isn't good enough".  Along with my drafting instructor, those were the two most sagacious statements to my personal dogma and professional career.

Lastly, with that being said, it is obvious we are working on two distinct dimensions, and this is where the miscommunication began I'm afraid.  In my normal stride, I could reach the bar you have set quite easily.  In order for you to reach the expectations I have for what is considered acceptable in my world, you would need to be shot out of a canon to reach them.


----------



## manaheim (May 9, 2011)

Holy @ssmonkeys with cheese!

This thread is fscking AWESOME.

I'm laughing my @#$)@(#$) @ss off.


mcwfarms... I have an even greater respect for you than I have had previously.  You managed to size up the whole thread and situation with more maturity and patience than many of us could muster.

K... I have an even greater respect for you than I have had previously.  That's quite a background, and that's an amazing way to think of "the craft" (if you will).

SabrinaO... you're ridiculous. 

Hey!  I _said_ mcwfarms was being more mature than me, right?  RIGHT?!?!

Ok back to watching...


----------



## CCericola (May 9, 2011)

Hi,

I saw your poster and I'm not quite sure I know what is going on. Is it just a tea party and you will sell candids of the kids? Are you selling tea cups and tea pots? You mentioned it was for children, is it possible to shoot sample photos with children? Just photographing the props just doesn't seem to work. I think if you show the parents how the props can be used it would be much more effective. You can offer free pictures in exchange for models if you don't have the budget. I would also suggest, if you can, hire a graphic designer for your ads. There are several things wrong with it design wise that a professional will know to avoid.  The props are cute, a lot like the props from The Picture People here in my area. But parents don't want pictures of props, they want pictures of their kids. If you can show them how the props work I think your event will be more successful. It's all a marketing game sometimes.


----------

