# Go Lions!!!!



## JRE313 (Oct 5, 2012)

Im Just testing out my new Nikon D7000. Yes, This photo might be overcooked but I thought it would fit the image.
Hope you Enjoy!! 




Go Lions signed (7 of 1) by JRE313, on Flickr


----------



## Parker219 (Oct 5, 2012)

Not bad. Clone out the telephone wires and poles and even the half a goal post and I think it would be better.


----------



## CaboWabo (Oct 5, 2012)

I dont understand why the need to clone out things , those wires poles and such are there in real life , I personally dont want a perfect photo I want to see real life things in the way , I really like the photo


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 5, 2012)

They are very distracting.


----------



## SCraig (Oct 5, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> They are very distracting.



Not as distracting as that enormous, wordy watermark, but I do agree.



CaboWabo said:


> I dont understand why the need to clone out  things , those wires poles and such are there in real life , I  personally dont want a perfect photo I want to see real life things in  the way , I really like the photo


Make sure you never use depth of field to blur a background then.  It wasn't blurred in real life.  Also make sure your white balance is dead on the money, no warming things up to make them look better.  And never use any kind of strobe or additional lighting.  After all, that extra light wasn't there in real life.  Same for any kind of filter.  Can't be changing the appearance in any way or it wouldn't be true-to-life.


----------



## 1hdr4u (Oct 6, 2012)

CaboWabo said:


> I dont understand why the need to clone out things , those wires poles and such are there in real life , I personally dont want a perfect photo I want to see real life things in the way , I really like the photo



I'll have to agree with you Cabo. I've got a lot of shots where I had telephone wires and such in my shot but still considered them to be great shots. If that's the way he wanted to portray his shot then I think it looks great. How many shots did you use to make this photo JRE313?


----------



## JRE313 (Oct 6, 2012)

1hdr4u said:


> CaboWabo said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand why the need to clone out things , those wires poles and such are there in real life , I personally dont want a perfect photo I want to see real life things in the way , I really like the photo
> ...



Only 3


----------



## zombiemann (Oct 6, 2012)

I don't really get the "OHMYGERD  PHONE LINES.... MUST CLONE" attitude either.


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 6, 2012)

This one is way better than the first one you did. Processing looks great!!

As far as the phone wires,,,, this is my thought.....*IF* the picture is going to be hung and displayed and even trying to sell a print than yeah go the extra mile to make the photo look as attractive as possible, *BUT* if its just for fun and or practice then why waist the time cloning out things like that?? 

There are pictures of highways with beautiful sky's and the phone poles and wires look awesome and help draw the eye into the vanishing point.

Keep in mind that "PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE THE  BIGGEST CRITIQUES" !!!! normal people look past all that little stuff.

JRE, surprise you did not go with the D600 

one last thing I agree with  SCaig that your water mark is way to big and it is really distracting. Keep it small and simple!


----------



## JRE313 (Oct 7, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> This one is way better than the first one you did. Processing looks great!!
> 
> As far as the phone wires,,,, this is my thought.....*IF* the picture is going to be hung and displayed and even trying to sell a print than yeah go the extra mile to make the photo look as attractive as possible, *BUT* if its just for fun and or practice then why waist the time cloning out things like that??
> 
> ...



Whats so great about the D600?


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 8, 2012)

ITs a FULL FRAME :mrgreen: basically a D7000 on steroids and the dynamic range is supposed to be really better! 

Just saying, I assume you bought new so just a little more $$ gets you the D600 but, then you have to invest in FF lenses.

D7000 is still an awesome camera!


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 9, 2012)

CaboWabo said:


> ...I want to see real life things...



If that were true, you wouldn't be doing HDR processing to your images.

I get what you're saying. I, too, have no problem leaving things in which some may find distracting. After all, it's what was in the scene at the time But, if I'm going to take the time to do something like HDR processing to them, why not take the time to remove those things which are distracting?

After all, once you start going down the HDR route, you're moving away from what you actually saw through your viewfinder...


----------



## robertandrewphoto (Oct 9, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> CaboWabo said:
> 
> 
> > ...I want to see real life things...
> ...



I'll have to disagree with you entirely on that.  The point of HDR is capture all ranges of light to recreate the scene as it can be viewed by human eyes.  Most photographers deviate from that idea and then go crazy because the colors can be so "cool"....much like how this image is.  If the car featured in this photo was a bit darker then it would change the whole dynamic of the photo and be a lot more realistic, but alas.

A few more exposures on the low end would probably prove to be very helpful in this photo.  Get rid of that horrendous watermark and accompany that with a little more depth in the darks and then we might have a pretty damn good picture.


----------



## Designer (Oct 9, 2012)

CaboWabo said:


> I want to see real life things in the way ,...



Yup, realism is real. 

Why would you say it might be "overcooked"?


----------



## Designer (Oct 9, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> .. normal people look past all that little stuff.



Sooo...oo...oo.. then... photographers are not "normal"?


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 10, 2012)

robertandrewphoto said:


> I'll have to disagree with you entirely on that.  The point of HDR is capture all ranges of light to recreate the scene as it can be viewed by human eyes.




"Can be viewed" and "is viewed" are two entirely different things.

In the image presented, that's not something you're going to see without the benefit of processing. Given that, I don't see how cloning out a distraction or three is any big deal...


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 10, 2012)

I <3 HDR discussions. I like this picture, but I would say there's too much tonemapping. Some more darks would look nice I think. As for cloning out stuff, I too like to portray things how they really are but it's a good point if you're going to be doing HDR processing, you may as well process some other stuff as well. I like the telephone lines in the background, but not the ones closer up, and the goal post is indeed annoying. Maybe if you had got lower to the ground or closer you could have gotten the picture without the goal post, and without cloning. I would say to at least _try _what people have suggested. Don't knock it till you try it!


----------



## robertandrewphoto (Oct 11, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> robertandrewphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have to disagree with you entirely on that.  The point of HDR is capture all ranges of light to recreate the scene as it can be viewed by human eyes.
> ...





robertandrewphoto said:


> Most photographers deviate from that idea and then go crazy because the colors can be so "cool"....much like how this image is.



Like I had said in my previous post.


----------



## JRE313 (Oct 11, 2012)

Some images look pretty good with the cartoony look

Like this image for example


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 11, 2012)

I like the way this one was done.  The car looks cartoonish, yes.   But in real life, it looks cartoonish.  That's the point.  I notice the background, sky, ect. is rather natural-looking.

And the lines might be removed, but it doesn't take away from my appreciation of it.


----------



## vipgraphx (Oct 12, 2012)

Designer said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > .. normal people look past all that little stuff.
> ...



NO they are not they are not normal, I am not a photographer so I am normal


----------

