# Please take a look



## Cody'sCaptures (Feb 3, 2017)

I'm really new to photography still but I'm trying.... Please let me know what you think. I have some stupid names for sections that I think I'll change after work, if I need to? Thanks ahead of time for all your input

www.codyholfeltz.photography


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2017)

If you want critique I would suggest reading the critique link in my signature and then also going to the galleries and posting a couple of your photos in a photo thread. In general getting critique on a whole website of photos is difficult for new people - it takes quite a bit of time to provide input so generally people are more inclined to get started with some individual photos.

it also lets them get a chance to see how you react to critique - there's nothing worse than spending an hour on critique only to have the post apparently ignored (no reply) or have the person lash out at it (lashing out is different from debating and not agreeing of course). 
It also gives you a chance to go through how you took certain photos and what you like/dislike about them. That gives people an idea of what equipment you are working with; how your approaching a photo and what you did and didn't use. IT gives a baseline to then suggest alternative ideas and improvements or modifications to your method to get a better result.

I did have a quick look myself and must say I like what you're producing. You seem to have a good grasp of exposure and go for a vibrant and contrasty appearance to your photos. Some, such as the flower shots, show that you might need more experience and instruction in composition and ideas; whilst some others like your macro (shell and peacock feather) look much better (the shell one showing that some more lighting control would help).


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Feb 3, 2017)

Arghhh I hate you!! Haha thanks for the input I will submit some choice pics specifically for critique. I know there isn't a whole lot of pics on there but I kinda like the zenfolio layouts. The front page was a lil finicky to get the not to resize though. I'm really not going to be offended just have a dry sense of humor


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Feb 3, 2017)

In regards to the shell I used an on lens ring flash with no manual control only TTL and flash compensation. Do you think it would've drawn a lil more detail of I would use bounce card right 45 maybe slightly raised? Or preferably another flash unit on like 1/128 or so..


----------



## Overread (Feb 3, 2017)

Here's where individual photos helps as you've two shell photos that I can see  
Natures Creatures | Golden Sea
Natures Creatures | Natures Drill

The ringflash, if unmodified, will typically be a very small light source and thus what you get is a very harsh light. It gives a very circular covering of light as well, which for the shell shot is quite good as you get an even distribution of light over the whole subject. Top down viewing it makes for a good view in my view; however its also important to realise that detail and crispness of detail comes from multiple sources, one of which is variation in contrast. Variation in contrast often then comes from directional lighting resulting in a difference of lighting over the subject, ergo giving you shadowed areas and illuminated areas.

Of course the harsh light improves contrast differences, but very sharp lit to shadowed areas on a subject (esp a very reflective one like a shell) can appear cheap and less in quality. A softer light is often more pleasing to see and is achieved by increasing the light source size (eg using a reflector; umbrella or softbox). Ring flashes are a bit restricted here as if used in their normal position around the lens there isn't often much room to actually fit a softening box or similar attachment (esp if doing macro where the subject is typically very close as well). 

Softer light would cut down on the reflections and can improve things a lot. 


Note that detailing also comes from the aperture used, if you used a very wide aperture (small f number) or shot wide open you might not have been at the lenses sharpest setting; but also the depth of field can be so fine that you end up with a lot of out of focus areas (in portraits you can see this when one eye is in focus and the other is out of focus). The flipside is that a very small aperture (big f number - typically an f number bigger than f13 or so) will increase the depth of field; but diffraction also starts to kick in which softens the details. The point at which diffraction kicks in varies lens to lens; but typically around the f8 point is the peek of sharpness and then it falls off; though remains usable until around f13 or f16 and thereafter the drop off is far more marked.


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Feb 3, 2017)

I could check the exif data as I don't recall. Maybe ease up on the mister as well lol. I remember I shot these after studying composition a little more. Especially obvious on the golden sea, which you immediately picked up on in your first post. I can see where a softer light would reduce the harsh light. Looks almost to the point of clipping on some of the hot spots on that particular image.


----------



## Cody'sCaptures (Feb 3, 2017)

Haha I just remembered I wanted to name that natures nipple but I thought probably shouldn't


----------

