DSLRUsers.com

More from that trip out to the Botanic Gardens. Once again with the D300 and the Sigma 180mm macro





The bride was with a photographer, I could not resist but to snap a few. If you were the photographer that was on this job, apologies! (if you think the bride may want a copy of the photos feel free to PM me and I'll happily give you my contact details to pass onto the bride

Cameron, my take on your pics (excluding the fact that I still do not like the framing)

#1 - A nice capture at the right level. It would have been great to include all of the birds right wing

#2 - To me this does not work. The bokeh is very harsh and the subject matter is really not apparent

#3 - This pic works on all levels for me. I just love the pose right down to the flowers being held down beside her body

#4 - Although a very good pic I still prefer #3.

Please keep an eye on sizing as 3 of these pics are larger than 800px on the longest side

sirhc55 wrote:Please keep an eye on sizing as 3 of these pics are larger than 800px on the longest side

I have reposted with pics with smaller frames and fixed the image sizes. Very sorry about that.

Thanks for the feedback, I agree with the harsh bokeh on #2 and I do prefer #3 to #4 as well.

aim54x wrote: I do prefer #3 to #4 as well.

As do I.

But I think you may need to take a little longer to make your exposures: before squeezing the shutter, cast your eye around the viewfinder, and try to ensure that your composition is all that it should be. I would like to see the whole of the bride's dress. Consider that she's probably just dropped something like PP3K on a dress that she's only going to wear just the once. For images like this it would be prudent to try to include the whole of the gown.

Remember that you can always crop out some of it if the image doesn't work, but in this case, it's not there in the first place, and you cannot crop it in, can you?

Also ... what was the actual colour of this gown? I'm seeing these images as suggesting it to be a warm cream colour, and that may well be the case. You were there, I was not. Is the gown's colour accurately represented here, or is there a minor wb issue?

Gary, it was a warm cream dress, probably a little underexposed but the WB is pretty true there. I will keep the cropping in mind for next time, her dress was a little wet (the bit that is not there) so I guess I may have been trying to leave that out, I cant really remember.

Thanks for the tips!

aim54x wrote: but the WB is pretty true there.

Ok, great, and thanx. Just wanted to check.

And to make sure that you did.

I'd agreed with Gary and Chris pretty much on all counts.... the cropping isn't quite right and is one of those things that can't be adjusted for after the fact.... I've plenty of shots just like those... and always wish I'd captured that little bit extra in the frame... easier said than done at times of course.

Mj wrote:I'd agreed with Gary and Chris pretty much on all counts.... the cropping isn't quite right and is one of those things that can't be adjusted for after the fact.... I've plenty of shots just like those... and always wish I'd captured that little bit extra in the frame... easier said than done at times of course.

The 180mm prime is a little restrictive (especially when you are too lazy to get up and move) and I did not expect them to turn out. Lesson learnt!

I prefer the exposure for skin tones of 4 and the beach on bottom left. The third feels a little lonely? to me.

Robert

aim54x wrote:The 180mm prime is a little restrictive (especially when you are too lazy to get up and move) and I did not expect them to turn out. Lesson learnt!

Cameron,

Not so fast, buster.

Look again at the third image, and I will show you exactly what I mean by casting your eye around the viewfinder.

My criticism was that you have chopped off the bottom of the dress, right? You're agreeing in principle, but also now saying that you used a 180mm and that brings you, focally, to a certain point.

Ok ... sneakerzoom is one answer, as you know ....

But let's now look at all the empty space at the top of this image, above her head!

This is exactly the sort of issue that can be corrected, in camera, by just taking a second and scanning the VF. At the end of the day, I do not believe that you would have fitted the whole of the bottom of the dress in this image even moving the camera PoV up a little and removing some of the space at the top, but the next step is to ... take a step or two back, and viola! You're there.

Cheers.

gstark wrote:
But let's now look at all the empty space at the top of this image, above her head!

This is exactly the sort of issue that can be corrected, in camera, by just taking a second and scanning the VF. At the end of the day, I do not believe that you would have fitted the whole of the bottom of the dress in this image even moving the camera PoV up a little and removing some of the space at the top, but the next step is to ... take a step or two back, and viola! You're there.

Cheers.

Can I say, without being overly critical (because I have done it myself, many times) that this is one of the most common photographic sins, and, with modern digital cameras, an easy one to fix.

In my experience, the issue lies with the focus point. It is easy to use the central focus point - many of us use it and recompose. The trouble is that once things start happening quickly, the recompose part goes out the window. Furthermore, I think the issue is emphasised when taking verticals.

Moving the auto-focus to a different point in the viewfinder really helps. If you move it to the top of the viewfinder, whether in landscape or portrait, then it makes it much easier to compose your picture.

gstark wrote:

aim54x wrote:The 180mm prime is a little restrictive (especially when you are too lazy to get up and move) and I did not expect them to turn out. Lesson learnt!

Cameron,

Not so fast, buster.

Look again at the third image, and I will show you exactly what I mean by casting your eye around the viewfinder.

My criticism was that you have chopped off the bottom of the dress, right? You're agreeing in principle, but also now saying that you used a 180mm and that brings you, focally, to a certain point.

Ok ... sneakerzoom is one answer, as you know ....

But let's now look at all the empty space at the top of this image, above her head!

This is exactly the sort of issue that can be corrected, in camera, by just taking a second and scanning the VF. At the end of the day, I do not believe that you would have fitted the whole of the bottom of the dress in this image even moving the camera PoV up a little and removing some of the space at the top, but the next step is to ... take a step or two back, and viola! You're there.

Cheers.

Point taken, although sneakerzoom would have been better!

the foto fanatic wrote:Moving the auto-focus to a different point in the viewfinder really helps. If you move it to the top of the viewfinder, whether in landscape or portrait, then it makes it much easier to compose your picture.

Trevor,

An excellent point, and well made. Thanx for reminding us of this.

Cameron,

aim54x wrote:Point taken, although sneakerzoom would have been better!

Yep.