Your comments are always appreciated (trying again)
Richard Bornstein
are appreciated.
I hope it works, and doesn't just connect to a webshots blank page.
http://community.webshots.com/album/480100938UxNJpP
If that doesn't work, perhaps this will:
http://cards.webshots.com/invite/pickup/106778739QZHE/album/480100938UxNJpP
(just click on 'no thanks').
My wife says that i can sell some of my pictures, but in my opinion they
are nice, but there is alot of wonderful professionals out that there that
can beat these.
I tried posting the link before but it didn't work and reposted a corrected
link but it didn't seem to ever appear. Trying again. Hope it works.
Jasen
"Richard Bornstein" <richard....@3web.net> wrote in message
news:435db...@news.cybersurf.net...
don't listen to your wife. Just nod and say "yes dear".
Mark˛
> Hi: I shot the following pictures with a Kodak LS753 camera. Your
> comments are appreciated.
>
> I hope it works, and doesn't just connect to a webshots blank page.
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/480100938UxNJpP
>
> If that doesn't work, perhaps this will:
> http://cards.webshots.com/invite/pickup/106778739QZHE/album/480100938UxNJpP
> (just click on 'no thanks').
>
> My wife says that i can sell some of my pictures, but in my opinion
> they are nice, but there is alot of wonderful professionals out that
> there that can beat these.
I would suggest that you sell them to your wife.
:)
Derek Fountain
> are nice, but there is alot of wonderful professionals out that there that
> can beat these.
Your wife is just being kind. They're just your holiday photos. Many are
washed out and undersaturated, and most are of subjects that might be
interesting to you personally but are totally dull to the independent
observer. I looked through the first 8 pages and couldn't find a single
one that had any real photographic or artistic merit. And if you really
want comments you can learn from, don't put up 165 images, put up 5.
Well, you did ask. Twice.
Gormless
>
Nothing. I left it for several minutes.
>
http://cards.webshots.com/invite/pickup/106778739QZHE/album/480100938UxNJpP
> (just click on 'no thanks').
>
Did that. "Service temporarily unavailable."
Richard Bornstein
As for saturation, etc, i should say that all these pictures were not
adjusted in any way. Sorry bout the excess amount of pictures, i just
posted a link that had all the pics of that trip.
"Richard Bornstein" <richard....@3web.net> wrote in message
news:435db...@news.cybersurf.net...
Jasen
No worries. Keep trying and keep learning and you never know what you can
do later on.
Roy
You have had a few comments, and do not seem to be too upset about the
negative ones. That is good, think about what these posters have said, and
try to apply that advice to your next shoot.
The real difference between the "good" photographers and the rest, has a lot
to do with them keeping the "ordinary" stuff out of sight.
5 really good pics creates a much better impression than 165 which only
includes 5 good ones.
Roy G
Jasen
buy John Shaw on the art of nature photography are very good and are
available cheaply via
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/102-1558890-8072119
Learn how to "see" a good image through the lens. Keep things simple and go
for good colour and clarity (black and white is much harder than colour)
Use the rule of thirds, very important, and if you must centralise the
subject, fill the frame with it, or at least enough that you can crop it
later. Use a polarising filter for landscapes as it will make them much
clearer with better contrast and colours. The image should be jumping out
at you if you want to sell it. Be your own hardest critic and throw out the
crap.
After all of that you should begin to get somewhere.
cheers
Jasen
Jasen
www.amazon.com and search for "john shaw":
Richard Bornstein
point-and-shoot. Is there any way to put on the filter?
As for the pictures I took, personally i liked the pictures that I took on
my hikes in the woods, closeups of the plants and such.
"Richard Bornstein" <richard....@3web.net> wrote in message
news:435ef...@news.cybersurf.net...
Jasen
> I appreciate the comment about polarizing filter, but the camera is a
> point-and-shoot. Is there any way to put on the filter?
>
> As for the pictures I took, personally i liked the pictures that I took on
> my hikes in the woods, closeups of the plants and such.
Ah, now it's all clear. There are limitations to what you can and can't
shot with a P&S. That's fine if you like what you took, but to try and sell
that work isn't going to be easy. Heck, it isn't easy with really good
photography sometimes. I'd doubt if you can put a polariser on your camera,
but have a search for other attachments you might be able to fit on the lens
housing. Dimage P&S cameras have things such as a fishlens for example, so
there might be things like that. I still seriously recommend getting some
reading material though and learn how to take shots properly and differently
to others enough to stand out.
good luck.
Richard Bornstein
photography, but I don't think I have the creative sense that top
photographers need.
Rick
"Jasen" <jasen_a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:fpZ7f.183$F11....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Mark˛
> Thanks again. I have some knowledge of the basics of the technics of
> photography, but I don't think I have the creative sense that top
> photographers need.
> Rick
That's about how I feel about my photos a lot of the time.
They are pleasing...to ME...but I don't have all sorts of creative eyeballs
that lead to uniquely conceived shots.
I have what I think are some nice photos, like the first few of these:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/maui_2004
-But most of my photos are for *me, and not necessarily what others are
looking for.
That's one thing that makes doing this as a JOB different.
You have to focus on what OTHERS find pleasing, rather than simply what is
pleasing to yourself.
That's not a bad thing, though, since much of the pleasure in photography is
in creating images others appreciate...but when it turns into a money-making
venture, a new pressure arrives that I'm not all too fond of.
Others find great satisfaction in this aspect. I'm not so sure I would.
It's not as fun when I'm being paid to do it. It reminds me of when I was a
kid. If I was mowing a friend's lawn as a favor, I did it with great
vigor...but when it was my regular, Saturday morning chores at home...it was
drudgery.
:)
David Littlewood
<richard....@3web.net> writes
At the risk of repeating some of the comments of others, I don't think
you could sell any of these pictures, but you do show the signs of
having a good eye. With some changes and experience you would improve
very much. Don't think of this as discouraging, many people seem to be
unable to frame a picture at any price.
In detail:
1 I noticed quite a few pictures which showed camera shake. This is a
very common fault, caused by (a) using too slow a shutter speed; (b) not
learning how to brace the camera while releasing the shutter; (c)
stabbing the shutter too vigorously. Small P&S cameras are probably the
hardest to handle here; they are very light (thus no inertia to resist
impulse) and often offer no way of controlling the shutter speed in use.
2 Again, quite a few photos showed exposure errors, mostly
over-exposure. Learn to read the LCD screen immediately after the shot,
and be prepared to delete and repeat if necessary. If the LCD review is
not very good, be prepared to bracket and do the selection at home
later. Also, if you are still not happy with the exposure of the only or
best shot, learn how to tweak it in an image editing program later. One
or two of the shots (Fall River Falls and 100-0940 spring to mind - I
have an oil painting above my computer very similar to the latter) would
look good on the wall with the correct exposure. If you want to become
serious, get a good book on exposure (it doesn't matter if it covers
film, most of the principles are the same).
3 The flower shots show potential, but some had focus errors, and most
of them had too much depth of field. Again, I suspect this is partly
because of the equipment you used. A P&S with a tiny sensor will tend to
have a very great DoF because of the small focal length of the lens, and
even wide open may not give ideal results. Also, your P&S may not allow
you to control aperture easily. Using a 35mm film camera or a DSLR with
an APS-C or larger sensor will allow you to throw the background out of
focus and produce a much better result.
4 And, yes, it has to be said that there are a lot of very dull shots
there. Lots of hazy hills and empty roads among many others. Now please
don't think I'm being snooty here; I just got back from a 5-day trip
with several hundred pictures, and the percentage of awfully dull
"seemed like a good idea at the time" or "it means something to me as a
memento" shots is not that different from yours. However, I would not
show them to anyone outside the family (and them only for the content,
as it were). Learn to be selective in what you show to others. If a
picture does not stick in your mind for quite a time, how do you expect
others to be wowed by it?
Here is what I would suggest you do at this stage:
(A) Chuck any images which are noticeably unsharp; sharpening can help
with a little softness from AA filters in digital cameras but cannot
retrieve pictures with camera shake or material focus errors. Also chuck
any with major exposure errors.
(B) Then put aside about half the pictures which just don't look
interesting.
(C) Any which look interesting but have slight exposure errors should be
tweaked. A good book on the image editor of your choice will explain
this, or come back later and ask.
(D) Then select the ones - probably at most 10% of the total - which
really catch your eye. Remove any blemishes, re-size if necessary for
the final output and apply a little unsharp mask if necessary (your P&S
probably over-sharpens in camera; a DSLR will almost certainly need some
USM as they mostly do little in-camera sharpening).
(E) Show prints of these to a dispassionate audience (i.e. preferably
not your wife) and see what they say. Some will receive praise, some
will get brickbats; many of these will surprise you, but gradually some
of the feedback will make sense.
(F) If there are camera clubs in your locality, consider joining one and
entering their competitions and exhibitions. However, you often find a
very stifling, old fashioned view of what makes a good picture.
(G) Repeat the above until you see that your equipment is holding you
back. Buy a DSLR. And lenses. And a tripod ....
(H) Repeat until you realise that you are producing stuff which is (in
the small percentage which sees the light of day) good enough to stand
open comparison with the work of others you admire.
(I) Realise (at least in my case!) that selling photos is just too
frustrating, and that there are other ways of making a lot more money
which leaves you time to please yourself!
YMMV
Hope you find this helpful, do come back with any specific issues.
David
--
David Littlewood
Cathy
news:oMi8f.3581$UF4.1726@fed1read02...
> Richard Bornstein wrote:
> > Thanks again. I have some knowledge of the basics of the technics of
> > photography, but I don't think I have the creative sense that top
> > photographers need.
> > Rick
>
> That's about how I feel about my photos a lot of the time.
> They are pleasing...to ME...but I don't have all sorts of creative
eyeballs
> that lead to uniquely conceived shots.
> I have what I think are some nice photos, like the first few of these:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/maui_2004
> -But most of my photos are for *me, and not necessarily what others
are
> looking for.
Mark, lovely photos. Is that you at the waterfall? If so, you are a good
looking guy. Nice picture with you and a young woman too.
Cathy
Mark˛
Wow! Thanks!
:)
>Nice picture with you and a young woman too.
>
> Cathy
Double wow!
-I'm sure you will absolutely make my wife's day when I show her your
comments about the "young woman..." seeing as she's 4 1/2 years older than
me, and I tease her every birthday about robbing the cradle, etc. :)
A tripod comes in handy when you want to actually get into one of your own
photos for a change, like in those two... :)
Thank you for your kind remarks.
-Mark
Mark˛
Mark˛
> In article <435db...@news.cybersurf.net>, Richard Bornstein
> <richard....@3web.net> writes
>> Hi: I shot the following pictures with a Kodak LS753 camera. Your
>> comments are appreciated.
>>
>> I hope it works, and doesn't just connect to a webshots blank page.
>>
>> http://community.webshots.com/album/480100938UxNJpP
>>
>> If that doesn't work, perhaps this will:
>> http://cards.webshots.com/invite/pickup/106778739QZHE/album/480100938UxNJpP
>> (just click on 'no thanks').
>>
>> My wife says that i can sell some of my pictures, but in my opinion
>> they are nice, but there is alot of wonderful professionals out that
>> there that can beat these.
>>
>> I tried posting the link before but it didn't work and reposted a
>> corrected link but it didn't seem to ever appear. Trying again.
>> Hope it works.
> Richard,
>
> At the risk of repeating some of the comments of others, I don't think
> you could sell any of these pictures, but you do show the signs of
> having a good eye. With some changes and experience you would improve
> very much. Don't think of this as discouraging, many people seem to be
> unable to frame a picture at any price.
<Snip of EXCELLENT commentary and advice from D. Littlewood>
(I) Realise (at least in my case!) that selling photos is just too
> frustrating, and that there are other ways of making a lot more money
> which leaves you time to please yourself!
>
> YMMV
>
> Hope you find this helpful, do come back with any specific issues.
>
> David
You're a good guy, David.
:)
Great post and suggestions.
I would only add one thing, which is to anyone else listening regarding
exposure...
-Even though it's old news, I continue to be AMAZED at the ability to
recover poorly exosed shots during RAW processing(!!). Truly amazing. RSE
is particularly good for doing this quickly, with results immediately
revealed and duplicated for similarly problematic shots. I think many here
on this forum continue to cheat themselves out of perhaps the most powerful
aspecdt of digital by ignoring their RAW image capabilities. What an
incredibly enabling tool!
I suspect the OP wasn't using a camera that offers RAW mode, but for others,
I guess this is just one more plug to give RAW a whirl--Especially with such
excellent and FREE tools like RSE, which make the whole RAW issue intuitive
and simple.
-Mark2
Cathy
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
message
> > news:oMi8f.3581$UF4.1726@fed1read02...
> >> Richard Bornstein wrote:
> >>> Thanks again. I have some knowledge of the basics of the technics
of
> >>> photography, but I don't think I have the creative sense that top
> >>> photographers need.
> >>> Rick
> >>
> >> That's about how I feel about my photos a lot of the time.
> >> They are pleasing...to ME...but I don't have all sorts of creative
> >> eyeballs that lead to uniquely conceived shots.
> >> I have what I think are some nice photos, like the first few of
> >> these: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/maui_2004
> >> -But most of my photos are for *me, and not necessarily what others
> >> are looking for.
> >
> > Mark, lovely photos. Is that you at the waterfall? If so, you are a
> > good looking guy.
>
> Wow! Thanks!
> :)
You're welcome.
> >Nice picture with you and a young woman too.
> >
> > Cathy
>
> Double wow!
> -I'm sure you will absolutely make my wife's day when I show her your
> comments about the "young woman..." seeing as she's 4 1/2 years older
than
> me, and I tease her every birthday about robbing the cradle, etc. :)
Well, everybody needs compliments now and then. Keeps us going :)
4 1/2 years is only important when you are in your teens and makes more
of a difference when younger than 15. When I was around 15, I used to go
to my cousins house and he was 11 years old and I thought what a kid :)
nothing in common at all. But now, a man 4 1/2 years younger than me is
nothing. In fact, 10 years younger is nothing - unless he looked
younger, then that would be
no good :)
> A tripod comes in handy when you want to actually get into one of your
own
> photos for a change, like in those two... :)
> Thank you for your kind remarks.
Isn't it difficult when using a tripod such as in that case, to know if
you are going to be in the right place in the picture? The picture of
you and your wife is good as you are both pretty well in the middle of
the photo, as if someone took it. I've taken quite a few self timer
photos and they have turned out well, but not with a tripod.
By the way, when on Pbase and other photo sites, I am always interested
in what camera model certain photos are taken with, but I don't always
see that information. Do people posting photos not always mention what
camera they are using?
Cathy
Mark˛
What I do is I frame the shot noting the relative size of something near
where I'll be, and then go to that spot.
In the shot of the two of us, I very carefully set it up...noting where my
feet should be, and about how much taller I am than my wife. Once you do it
a bunch of times, it's pretty quick. -Tougher when you want to fill the
frame with people, but not bad in most other settings.
> By the way, when on Pbase and other photo sites, I am always
> interested in what camera model certain photos are taken with, but I
> don't always see that information. Do people posting photos not
> always mention what camera they are using?
Pbase identifies this automatically from exif data, but some people use
editors that strip this data, so Pbase has nothing to note. One interesting
feature on Pbase is that you can search through millions of the images
posted through them based on camera model. You can, for example, see ONLY
the images shot with a 10D, or D70 if you like. They have a lot of
interesting ways of categorizing stuff.
Cathy
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
message
> > Isn't it difficult when using a tripod such as in that case, to
know
> > if you are going to be in the right place in the picture? The
picture
> > of you and your wife is good as you are both pretty well in the
> > middle of the photo, as if someone took it. I've taken quite a few
> > self timer photos and they have turned out well, but not with a
> > tripod.
>
> What I do is I frame the shot noting the relative size of something
near
> where I'll be, and then go to that spot.
> In the shot of the two of us, I very carefully set it up...noting
where my
> feet should be, and about how much taller I am than my wife. Once you
do it
> a bunch of times, it's pretty quick. -Tougher when you want to fill
the
> frame with people, but not bad in most other settings.
I used the self timer to take about 8 or 10 indoor flash shots a couple
of weeks ago when a few
relatives visited me. I put the camera on a steady ledge and we sat on
the couch.It was the only place where we could all sit in the right
place for the camera, though my one cousin had to squeeze in at the end
of the couch and just made it into the picture, so wasn't the best
composition, but
the pictures turned out very well. Self timers are fun.
In the photos, some people had redeye, but myself and a cousin who have
light blue eyes had no red eye at all, but a cousin with hazel yes and
another one with brown eyes had bad red eye. I don't usually have red
eye when I get photos taken. I fixed the red eye nicely in a trial
version of Photoshop Album 3.0 and I used Irfanview to lighten up some
of the photos which were a bit too dark. Now I have to know some things
about getting stills printed too send to my relatives.
Some don't have computers.I am going to post a message about it but not
tonight. I am too tired.
> > By the way, when on Pbase and other photo sites, I am always
> > interested in what camera model certain photos are taken with, but I
> > don't always see that information. Do people posting photos not
> > always mention what camera they are using?
>
> Pbase identifies this automatically from exif data, but some people
use
> editors that strip this data, so Pbase has nothing to note. One
interesting
> feature on Pbase is that you can search through millions of the images
> posted through them based on camera model. You can, for example, see
ONLY
> the images shot with a 10D, or D70 if you like. They have a lot of
> interesting ways of categorizing stuff.
I didn't know that. I will have to check. By the way, you had a
beautiful background to photograph in Hawai. I've heard its so beautiful
there, but I don't think I would ever get the chance to go there.
Cathy