Your photos, for the most part are quite good and much appreciated, but seem to be overexposed and the colors are washed out. Soft focus seems to be used a lot. Are these effects intentional?
Biology and other science images I market to publishers, are edited minimally if at all; images that are marketed directly to the public … for framing and decorative purposes, are sometimes edited for soft focus (romantic/etherial) effects, saturated beyond "reality," and, manipulated in any number of other ways.
Glad to see you here, Greg.
Not sure about the "overexposure" … monitors are calibrated based on a number of factors and it's possible that what may appear overexposed on one, may not appear so on others.
I agree with Greg that the blaze of light in the deer photo is a bit much... so I looked at the color distribution. It's truncated for about half its width. I fiddled with it to get something closer to a bell curve:
The original shot had the deer in deep shadow ... in order to have them correctly exposed as the main elements, I had to spot meter rather than matrix or center weighted metering.
Because the scene was highly contrasty, something had to be sacrificed ... that being the area behind the deer. It is overexposed as Greg correctly noted ... but ... priority one is to get the shot.
Beyond that, I did create the derivative soft focus in order to market the shot for decorative rather than environmental publication.
I always appreciate critiques, positive or negative ... it is difficult to be objective about one’s own pix at times. So many thanks for taking the time to keep me on good footing.
This is an unedited original from the same series of shots … one that shows how matrix metering "sees" the scene; the camera "wants" everything to comply to what is known as "17%" gray with WHITE = O% gray and BLACK = 100% gray.
I know this is technical stuff based on what is deemed "neutral" exposure … not too light and not too dark … based on the tone of a BLUE SKY (17% above pure white, 83% below solid black).
There is great range between the shadows, highlights and mid tones … the human eye can accommodate such scenes … the camera's light meter … not so much.
Life is an endless series of "trade offs" … photography too.
As previously stated … there are trade offs in life and photography … while not perfect, my choice was to have the fawn better illuminated while bumping up the brightness on the doe, just enough for her to be "acceptable" in the overall image.
More to come.
Your photos, for the most part are quite good and much appreciated, but seem to be overexposed and the colors are washed out. Soft focus seems to be used a lot. Are these effects intentional?
Biology and other science images I market to publishers, are edited minimally if at all; images that are marketed directly to the public … for framing and decorative purposes, are sometimes edited for soft focus (romantic/etherial) effects, saturated beyond "reality," and, manipulated in any number of other ways.
Glad to see you here, Greg.
Not sure about the "overexposure" … monitors are calibrated based on a number of factors and it's possible that what may appear overexposed on one, may not appear so on others.
Nice, I saw some deer yesterday
One of my favorite subjects....Beautiful.
But wait … there's more.
Bee well and good night all.
That is an AMAZING shot of the bee.
Lovely shots Mac! They are very endeeering and they I didn't buzz on by.
You didn't buzz on by? I'm hurt. LOL
LOL, Good one Buzz!
Enjoy your work.
I agree with Greg that the blaze of light in the deer photo is a bit much... so I looked at the color distribution. It's truncated for about half its width. I fiddled with it to get something closer to a bell curve:
The fawn is magic!
Keep 'em comin', Mac!
They're wonderful.
Thanks, Bob. From a technical perspective, your variation is "correct!" From a marketing perspective, my edited version is "preferable."
Whatever the "bottom line" happens to be regarding the use of the photo, determines the specs and edits and presentation.
The original shot had the deer in deep shadow ... in order to have them correctly exposed as the main elements, I had to spot meter rather than matrix or center weighted metering.
Because the scene was highly contrasty, something had to be sacrificed ... that being the area behind the deer. It is overexposed as Greg correctly noted ... but ... priority one is to get the shot.
Beyond that, I did create the derivative soft focus in order to market the shot for decorative rather than environmental publication.
I always appreciate critiques, positive or negative ... it is difficult to be objective about one’s own pix at times. So many thanks for taking the time to keep me on good footing.
This is an unedited original from the same series of shots … one that shows how matrix metering "sees" the scene; the camera "wants" everything to comply to what is known as "17%" gray with WHITE = O% gray and BLACK = 100% gray.
I know this is technical stuff based on what is deemed "neutral" exposure … not too light and not too dark … based on the tone of a BLUE SKY (17% above pure white, 83% below solid black).
There is great range between the shadows, highlights and mid tones … the human eye can accommodate such scenes … the camera's light meter … not so much.
Life is an endless series of "trade offs" … photography too.
I'm using a tablet right now, but I'll play around with it when I get back to my PC.
Very nice starting point!
This was fun to play with... and not easy!
Two difficulties: the bright patch that puts the deer in a backlit situation, and the close color texture of the doe's head with the tree behind her.
The best I managed with the full photo is:
Not great...
So I probably would give up on the full photo. (Sorry, little fawn...
)
Thirsty for more? Check picture 3).
© A. Mac/A.G.
As previously stated … there are trade offs in life and photography … while not perfect, my choice was to have the fawn better illuminated while bumping up the brightness on the doe, just enough for her to be "acceptable" in the overall image.
I like it!
I did an "awwww" with baby getting a snack
Truly adorable, Mac. Love the clarity of the picture. It is a pleasure for the eyes.