the healing brush works fine for that in PS elements.

You'd be surprised what it will do.

Also, snipping out a section right next to your offending powerline and dragging it over the powerline and then feathering the edges with the eraser tool also works...you just gotta play around to see what comes out best in your circumstances.

I believe that we all knew that this was your preference...I'm guessing that the "computer games" word choice is what frosted us up; as if pp is just "games" and just whatever you do to your exposures is "not games"

That phrase made the post seem like more than stating your preference.

Just explaining. :)

Jerry,
I'd like to suggest one other lens.

I was looking for an inexpensive lens to get some wide angle shots, and came across the Sigma 10mm-20mm.

I don't know how fast the Tokina is but Sigma's 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC is a fine lens.

It's gotten good reviews and I'm happy with it, and it can be had for 299.00.

Just a thought.

Then why do anything but save an uncropped raw photo?

Who draws the line where cropping is ok and exposure control over a RAW pic is ok; they are necessary but doing anything more is "computer games"?

It's inconsistent.


On the other hand, saying "I prefer to not do a lot of post processing" is a fine statement and possibly a true one...allowing others their "preferences."

I've thought about this a lot considering we're in the age of easy to manipulation of photos via software.

Where does the camera end and the fudging begin?

Is just bumping the contrast up a little out of bounds?

How about getting rid of that errant bird in our nice cloudy sky?

I don't know the answer but I do know that a good photo is enjoyable and elicits a response in me no matter how the person got there.

[quote=lindysuewho]lol you are rather full of yourself lol

As the other poster said...Frank's work is very professional and he offered to help.

Since you are (assumed to be) inexperienced...I'd think that you'd have been grateful for the help and not sarcastic.

I, for one, would NEVER try to learn on the job at a relative's wedding and if I WERE...then I'd welcome all the help from the pros I could get.

Just my humble noob opinion.

The objection to the OP's spelling choices are based in the idea that there is a time and a place for different styles of communication.

the "kewl" style of shorthand that is necessary on a text message is unnecessary and a distraction on a technical forum where one is looking for answers to technical questions.

You wouldn't expect your doctor to write his medical reports up in "text-speak" would you?

Of course not...so the objection that "language is evolving, get with it or get out of the way" is baseless.


The fact is, using text-messaging grammar out of context makes a person look ignorant when they really may not be ignorant at all.

That's my observation.

I understand what you are going through...it's all a bit dizzying isn't it?

Take heart...it's not hard.

Even with your camera on manual..you can do it!


Go to Amazon and buy (and read) the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson.

It's under 20.00 and a VERY valuable read when you are wondering what you need to do.


And just SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT...make mistakes...see what happened and correct it..digital is free!

I can't stress enough that the fog will lift when you read that book

All you want to know or could know about it...(google is your friend)

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/120047-Determining-Aspect-Ratios-and-Resolutions

I'm a noob but as a married guy who DIDN'T have a wedding photog...I'll say....hire the best pro you can get for what you are willing to pay...do NOT do it yourself!

I just have "snap shots" of my wedding, the most important day of my adult life, and looking back...I wish i had a whole album of well done, real pro photos of that day.

My advice? Hire someone...you'll sleep better.

I agree. There are rules, and then there are broken rules for effect...I've seen photos on here where a photog was going for a certain "look" that was out of the norm of the "rules" and I just don't think that the commentators "got it" and so the comments took on a more limited value.

IF the poster stated the look he/she was going for that would help a lot.

It's fantastic.
I just got it a week ago and found it easy and intuitive to use (I have been using Photoshop and PS Elements up until now.)

There are a LOT of good videos on Youtube...just search "Lightroom 3 tutorials and you'll have more instruction than you know what to do with.

And the other thing to mention is:

If you want to get a little more underexposure going and/or change the sky...that's easily doable and the model is exposed well..so that would be a snap if that's what you wanted to do.

ceg341...

No sweat..I thought that's what it was...with "art" there is always going to be differing opinions :)

In all our critique I guess we forgot to point out what a good job you did :)

I think you did a great job considering what time of day you shot them!

#1 has a good look....I like it...sort of edgy. I also would have probably looked for a background that was darker to disconnect her from it. Or blur it more and lower the exposure.

#2 is good..but a little low on the blacks for my taste. Overexposed slightly?

#3 is also good but a little blown out in the background...and possibly a little overexposed for my taste.


None of these critiques are of huge importance...the pictures look good; very sharp and well done. I'm guessing these are the looks that you went for....bright..hot, not a lot of contrast...not the traditional portrait sort of thing?

Very nice for mid-day...very nice.


Have you tried a much tighter crop to eliminate that sky?