More pics - Shelsley this time
Discussion
A few from the hill climb at Shelsley Walsh on Saturday.
A few more here
I'd really appreciate some constructive criticism of some of these as I'm trying to put into practice what I see said on here, but for some reason very few of these or the ones I took at Silverstone yesterday seem to be coming up with the goods. Overall, I took around 750 photos over the two days and I'm finding it hard to get excited about more than a couple. And even the ones I thought were half decent are put to shame by other peoples photos at the same events (see Rob's shots on the Silverstone thread for an example of what I mean).
A few more here
I'd really appreciate some constructive criticism of some of these as I'm trying to put into practice what I see said on here, but for some reason very few of these or the ones I took at Silverstone yesterday seem to be coming up with the goods. Overall, I took around 750 photos over the two days and I'm finding it hard to get excited about more than a couple. And even the ones I thought were half decent are put to shame by other peoples photos at the same events (see Rob's shots on the Silverstone thread for an example of what I mean).
Subtlely put Martin. 
The only PS processing done has been to convert from RAW using the Adobe Camera RAW functionality of CS, resize and an unsharp mask. Other than that I am suffering from a severe lack of knowledge with PS.
The other problem I find when attempting any PS manipulation is that when I try and apply a change I notice absolutely no difference when making subtle changes and only really see anything when making wild adjustments which then look OTT.
I think a book on PS and a few hours practice might be in order. Thanks Martin.
The only PS processing done has been to convert from RAW using the Adobe Camera RAW functionality of CS, resize and an unsharp mask. Other than that I am suffering from a severe lack of knowledge with PS. The other problem I find when attempting any PS manipulation is that when I try and apply a change I notice absolutely no difference when making subtle changes and only really see anything when making wild adjustments which then look OTT.
I think a book on PS and a few hours practice might be in order. Thanks Martin.
What kit are you using? One of the problems with most DSLRs is that they underexpose to preserve highlights - which can result in images looking dull when you first view them, and I strongly feel that has a real negative impact on how you view your own composition. The last one of these three is a good example of this.
I've recently moved to shooting in RAW mode, and have to say that thanks to the Adobe RAW plugin, I simply open the image, and assuming it is under-exposed (more often than not it is) I simply crank up the exposure a bit, crank up the contrast a bit, and hey presto, a much more vibrant shot.
I can't stress enough how much of a difference this has made to my workflow, and it's such an easy step!
I've recently moved to shooting in RAW mode, and have to say that thanks to the Adobe RAW plugin, I simply open the image, and assuming it is under-exposed (more often than not it is) I simply crank up the exposure a bit, crank up the contrast a bit, and hey presto, a much more vibrant shot.
I can't stress enough how much of a difference this has made to my workflow, and it's such an easy step!
Cheers _dobbo_. I was using a Canon 300D with a 100-400 IS lens. Incidentally, probably a little too long if anything at Shelsley where you're practically right on top of the track. Quite the opposite problem I usually had before getting this lens.
I think you are probably right about the under-exposure. I do often notice that other people's photos have much more impressive colours than mine. Being completely ham fisted when it comes to adjusting the parameters of the raw conversion though I normally over do it, realise it looks crap and assume that the camera knows best. I shall have a play with some of these and see if I can fine tune my analysis.
I think you are probably right about the under-exposure. I do often notice that other people's photos have much more impressive colours than mine. Being completely ham fisted when it comes to adjusting the parameters of the raw conversion though I normally over do it, realise it looks crap and assume that the camera knows best. I shall have a play with some of these and see if I can fine tune my analysis.
I know what you mean about over-doing it, but my personal taste is for very contrasty colourful pictures - so I don't mind cranking up the exposure by +1 or more and whacking the contrast slider up to 50, 60 or 70. It's not unknown for me to then adjust brightness and contrast again when the Raw plugin is finished and I'm in photoshop proper!
That's just me though, and I know not everyone's taste is the same!
Take this image for example - I was too lazy to take off the polarizer, so I simply fired it off, then whacked the exposure up LOADS in photoshop. Not necessarily a good example in the context of your original post, but it is a case of making massive changes in PS and no-one would ever know!
That's just me though, and I know not everyone's taste is the same!
Take this image for example - I was too lazy to take off the polarizer, so I simply fired it off, then whacked the exposure up LOADS in photoshop. Not necessarily a good example in the context of your original post, but it is a case of making massive changes in PS and no-one would ever know!
Further to my last posting - if you take one of the images from your other thread:
I had a 30 second play with this - only have paintshop pro 5 on the work PC so not up to Photoshop standards, but a bit of gamma correction and a bit of contrast gives this:
Now my monitor at work is a bit funny, but I fully accept that this might be too much for some people, but to me it's more striking and vibrant, and none the worse for it.
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Monday 16th May 17:59
I had a 30 second play with this - only have paintshop pro 5 on the work PC so not up to Photoshop standards, but a bit of gamma correction and a bit of contrast gives this:
Now my monitor at work is a bit funny, but I fully accept that this might be too much for some people, but to me it's more striking and vibrant, and none the worse for it.
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Monday 16th May 17:59
I am just going through the pics from Brands ~Hatch this weekend.
I am using Rawshooter and on each one I am tending to go to outdoor normal ( seems to whack up contrast and saturation) and then applying +0.5 to +0.75 exposure compensation and even more shadow contrast. Pictures seem to come out with much more punch and vibrancy.
I'll post a few of the results converted straight from RAW and tthen with messing about with RAW prior to converting to jpeg. Some need a bit of photoshop work but let me know what you think
I am using Rawshooter and on each one I am tending to go to outdoor normal ( seems to whack up contrast and saturation) and then applying +0.5 to +0.75 exposure compensation and even more shadow contrast. Pictures seem to come out with much more punch and vibrancy.
I'll post a few of the results converted straight from RAW and tthen with messing about with RAW prior to converting to jpeg. Some need a bit of photoshop work but let me know what you think
Darren, few comments.
The only real difference I can see between these and the ones that you liked on the other thread are
1) Positioning. Rob was using a 100-400mm lens. This gives many more opportunities to position yourself. Your shots are suffering somewhat from having "spurious" stuff in the foreground. A long lens enables you to get above and high, whilst still taking good shots.
The exception is your vertical shot of the single seater - there the foreground starts to work.
2) Depth of Field. Again related to length of lens. The larger the lens, the further you can stand away, and the more the DoF effect gets - meaning only a small portion of the image is in focus, which adds to the "speed" effect.
3) Contrast. You images are rather flat, and could do with "midtones" being streached and highlights "brought out". It's rare nowdays that I don't fiddle with either of those to get the shot looking more natural.
4) Tight crops. Cropping tight makes it look like you filled the frame. I use Picassa www.picasa.com a lot as it's got a nice user interface to keep the correct "size" on crops, but you can do the same in Photoshop and Photoshop Elements as you can enter the height and width in the options bar before making a crop selection to crop to a specific aspect ratio.
Also remember to crop "well", see http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/glossary/l/blruleofthirds.htm
See the difference between these three.
Original
Maintain the aspect ratio at 4:3
Select in
I also played around with the saturation and midtones / highlights of one of yours - looks more "together" to me.
Original (scaled to the same size as the played around one)
"Slight" tweaks and a crop
Hope that gives you some of my (amateur) pointers.
J
>> Edited by joust on Monday 16th May 18:22
The only real difference I can see between these and the ones that you liked on the other thread are
1) Positioning. Rob was using a 100-400mm lens. This gives many more opportunities to position yourself. Your shots are suffering somewhat from having "spurious" stuff in the foreground. A long lens enables you to get above and high, whilst still taking good shots.
The exception is your vertical shot of the single seater - there the foreground starts to work.
2) Depth of Field. Again related to length of lens. The larger the lens, the further you can stand away, and the more the DoF effect gets - meaning only a small portion of the image is in focus, which adds to the "speed" effect.
3) Contrast. You images are rather flat, and could do with "midtones" being streached and highlights "brought out". It's rare nowdays that I don't fiddle with either of those to get the shot looking more natural.
4) Tight crops. Cropping tight makes it look like you filled the frame. I use Picassa www.picasa.com a lot as it's got a nice user interface to keep the correct "size" on crops, but you can do the same in Photoshop and Photoshop Elements as you can enter the height and width in the options bar before making a crop selection to crop to a specific aspect ratio.
Also remember to crop "well", see http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/glossary/l/blruleofthirds.htm
See the difference between these three.
Original
Maintain the aspect ratio at 4:3
Select in
I also played around with the saturation and midtones / highlights of one of yours - looks more "together" to me.
Original (scaled to the same size as the played around one)
"Slight" tweaks and a crop
Hope that gives you some of my (amateur) pointers.
J
>> Edited by joust on Monday 16th May 18:22
Oh, one thing - don't worry about taking 700 and only liking a few.
Look at the ones you don't like and work out what could have made it better. Over time you'll start to change the way you do things and get more "consistent" results.
However, there is a good reason people take lots of photos. On my recent EVO shoot over 500 photos must have been taken, and they used 10.....
J
Look at the ones you don't like and work out what could have made it better. Over time you'll start to change the way you do things and get more "consistent" results.
However, there is a good reason people take lots of photos. On my recent EVO shoot over 500 photos must have been taken, and they used 10.....
J
if you get 10% of your shots that you like then you can consider yourself doing well. I took 450 shots at knockhill at the weekend and I've got 30 that I would consider posting.
this shot is very nice
www.egatesolutions.co.uk/photography/shelsley/images/CRW_4624.jpg
this shot is very nice
www.egatesolutions.co.uk/photography/shelsley/images/CRW_4624.jpg
Here are a couple of images. First one is unmodified and second has had adjustments in rawshooter only.
More pics on <a href="www.pbase.com/rex911/brands_hatch_&page=all">www.pbase.com/rex911/brands_hatch_&page=all</a>
Oops got first 2 images wrong way round. Camping at Brands must have had more of a toll than I thought.
>> Edited by rex on Monday 16th May 20:34
>> Edited by rex on Tuesday 17th May 08:59
More pics on <a href="www.pbase.com/rex911/brands_hatch_&page=all">www.pbase.com/rex911/brands_hatch_&page=all</a>
Oops got first 2 images wrong way round. Camping at Brands must have had more of a toll than I thought.
>> Edited by rex on Monday 16th May 20:34
>> Edited by rex on Tuesday 17th May 08:59
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff