My photos are dull (Page 4): Your to kind, Thank you for looking.. I'm here to stay!!

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Your to kind, Thank you for looking.. I'm here to stay!!

sailorsmom wrote:

I double downloaded your second shot and you certainly did focus on the eye! These are really good photos, Genessi; just need a little lightening.

Genessi Loc: SoCal

They are a lot easier then hummers..Thank you sailorsmom.

sailorsmom wrote:

And I forgot to say...that's a really good shot of my favorite critter..squirrels!

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Like that your able to lighten and still have a nicer blue waters

cameranut wrote:

This was a quick fix in Photo Gallery. Not the be$$$t but it's free & it's easy.

parsons1 Loc: NW Houston

It has to be camera settings.
My pics are dull like that when I shoot raw.
They look good in camera but look neutral when I download using Nikon's
NEF codec. I work around it with software.
I use raw therapee, lightroom 4 & photoshop cs5.

(Download)

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Thank you, I am gonna read up about camera setting so I can change and not worry about messing up the camera.

parsons1 wrote:

It has to be camera settings.
My pics are dull like that when I shoot raw.
They look good in camera but look neutral when I download using Nikon's
NEF codec. I work around it with software.
I use raw therapee, lightroom 4 & photoshop cs5.

cameranut Loc: North Carolina

Genessi wrote:

Like that your able to lighten and still have a nicer blue waters

You can do this if you have Windows 7 personal computer operating system. Note; I'm using the full terms instead of "pc" & "os". The icon for Widows Photo Gallery will look like an orange daisy In blocks / frames, layered. This does not require a degree in computer / photo software. It is super easy to use. As someone else said, the kindergarten of software. It is a good place to start before shelling out the $$$$$$. Also, if you don't like your results just click "revert to original" & you are right back to where you started. Think of it as a small pencil with a huge eraser. You can not mess up your camera by pushing buttons; that is why they are there. You can always go back to "default" settings.

Susan yamakawa

Genessi wrote:

Photographs don't pop..Trying to focus on eyes. Canon SL1, Tamron 16-300

I like your quote and I see nothing wrong with your photos 😄

Genessi Loc: SoCal

I have mac and use the iPhoto app...And I have started to read up on my camera book o learn more.. thank you so much..

cameranut wrote:

You can do this if you have Windows 7 personal com... (show quote)

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Thank you Susan for looking, and I think I just need to adjust some functions in camera and shoot a little more accurate...

Susan yamakawa wrote:

I like your quote and I see nothing wrong with your photos 😄

BobR Loc: Norwalk CT USA

The initial shots are pretty good considering the lens. My least favorite birding/wildlife lens is my walkabout Sigma 18-250mm. Its just never as crisp at the long end as my 70-300mm or 150-500mm. Superzooms are like that- convienence at a price. Bob

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

Genessi wrote:

Photographs don't pop..Trying to focus on eyes. Canon SL1, Tamron 16-300

I looked at the first picture. It ws a bit dull. The rest seem OK. I would have increased my ISO to 400 and made the aperature f 11 or more. Also on the histogram it was low on light and I tweaked it. David 1/1250 shutter speed is not needed on a sitting bird.

1/1250 too fast, ISO 100 too low

right hand arrow move to mountain

after histogram tweaked

(Download)

Genessi Loc: SoCal

Thanks Bob, Maybe that is the problem I will continue to practice and read up on my SL1 book.. Maybe I well come across some better lens later, However it is me that has to improve thanks for looking.

BobR wrote:

The initial shots are pretty good considering the lens. My least favorite birding/wildlife lens is my walkabout Sigma 18-250mm. Its just never as crisp at the long end as my 70-300mm or 150-500mm. Superzooms are like that- convienence at a price. Bob

BobR Loc: Norwalk CT USA

Genessi wrote:

Thanks Bob, Maybe that is the problem I will continue to practice and read up on my SL1 book.. Maybe I well come across some better lens later, However it is me that has to improve thanks for looking.

Not meaning to disrespect the lens type-they are very versatile but do compromise. This has some chromatic fringing going on and is a tad soft- but pretty good considering. That's to be expected IMO.
That said you did a good job on the exposure-especially since its a white bird. That's more important than anything since the rest can be taken care of in post. I think you did a very good job of capturing it. Tried my hand at processing it too :) Bob

(Download)

Version 2 tad brighter

(Download)

Version 3 tad brighter still and a tad more contrast. The more I work it the more I see you did a fine job capturing it.

(Download)

Version 3 with cloned out bird (done quickly)

(Download)

BobR Loc: Norwalk CT USA

Meives wrote:

I looked at the first picture. It ws a bit dull. The rest seem OK. I would have increased my ISO to 400 and made the aperature f 11 or more. Also on the histogram it was low on light and I tweaked it. David 1/1250 shutter speed is not needed on a sitting bird.

No offense meant but it appears slightly blown out in the chest on my monitor. Could be on my end. Bob

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

BobR wrote:

No offense meant but it appears slightly blown out in the chest on my monitor. Could be on my end. Bob

You are absolutely right. I was only trying to discuss the changes that could be made. With bright white and darker background an HDR may have worked better with multiple exposures. I was not trying to show I know better, just alternatives and thanks for letting me play. David