The lighting alone makes it very difficult to get a great shot. Good suggestions have been made to improve that... early and late light, etc. If the shot was done for example with morning or evening light from the left... you would have a darker sky, the mountains would have been much darker and if the fisherman was much closer, he could have been the point of interest yet with a wider lens there could have been a complete scene. The fisherman is just too far away to become a point of interest... thus only acts as a size reference.

If the light was early or late from the right somewhat coming at you but behind the tree... you would have had some real interesting shadows and shape on the background.

I cropped it differently because all the open rocks on the left were dead space and I darkened the scene (too light of an exposure) and I selected the mountains in the background and the sky to darken them. The crop I chose was my take on the best for what you had shot. I realize cropping is subjective, but you did ask for comments.

As said earlier... lighting is everything. I wouldn't shoot landscape in the middle of the day except when you get that perfect scattered cloud cover where the entire landscape looks like its under a large lightbox and all looks great. Better lighting eliminates almost all post production digital imaging.

Lots of tools in Photoshop to darken the sky etc... remove haze.

Hope this helps.
R

That naked women's rally was simply a bunch of misguided people believing the leftist dogma from our corrupt main stream media and the DNC. This fabricated "victimhood" is rampant in the country today which breeds polarization where none is needed. The Dems can't win on the issues so they create a million false narratives to combat or stifle political opposition. MAGA

Initially I reduced the contrast and lightened your photos but not enough to lose the detail in the highlights. At least the highlights of the images are not burned out while more detail shows up.

The real fix... proper lighting. Usually this type of product would be photographed on a "slick" type of background like plex or a smooth formica etc... The light source needs to be quite diffused with gobo cards to knock lite down on selected areas (mostly background). Additionally, small black round cards attached to wire or diffused material can be placed between the light source and particularly bright reflections to knock down the areas blown out and to keep detail. I'll make one suggestion... go to an engineering store and buy a roll of tracing velum (or a diffusion fabric sheet from a photo supply source) and hang it between your light source and the subject... use black cards to control light spill and to keep detail on your subjects. Large diffuse light sources can offer beautiful light while maintaining nice detail and soft transitioned reflection edges. Using gobo cards to control the light from such a source is part of the skill in lighting such shots.

The attached photo here was a quick editorial shot for a engine parts company... you can see plenty of detail because of the soft light and this was shot with 4x5 transparency film and scanned later on. Mostly the priorities for this shot were nice composition and editorial atmosphere. Anyway, this shot allows you to see what can be seen with a diffused light source with shiny objects and dramatic contrast. The subjects in your shots will show much more detail with the proper diffuse light source with gobo cards to control the falloff and keeping the ratio between max highlights with detail and quarter tones with detail ... to a minimum.. ie., a compressed image.

Heres a link to a thread where I posted how to light shiny metal with wood working chisels after one of the members asked... on page 2... perhaps this will help. I explained some on the thread, the last photo here shows the
setup ...
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-490236-1.html

Hope this helps.

R

1) Anyone who owns a camera can take a great image if they work hard and perhaps get lucky... otherwise it like asking can anyone with proper tools build a house.

2) Doubtful... but unless a fluke image is great... you need to be able to discern impactful imagery when its if front of you or just have the stars align for your luck.

3) Better equipment at minimum allows those more technically challenged to at minimum have a much better chance of their images being in focus and properly exposed.

4) When you have learned to recognize "great" photography, the only thing that matters is what you think of your own work... on your own level of "greatness" relative to what you know you are capable of. “A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.” – Ansel Adam The humility of Ansel Adams ...“Sometimes I do get to places just when God’s ready to have somebody click the shutter.” – Ansel Adams.

One of the nicest shots in this section.

Thanks,

RodB

We needed a tough fighter to beat back the establishment and a message of "America first" after 8 years of the other party. Thank God the country is heading in the right direction now. It looks like our current leader has a good handle on foreign policy and his priority is whats best for Americans.

One of the best models I've seen in this section... nice lighting too. I changed the crop and increased contrast some as B&W images look better that way. Nice photo, I just think the empty space does not add much to the overall image impact. Your crop is fine too... I just thought I'd bring her in closer... no offense. I like your shot and the pose a lot. You kept the hands in good position to appear natural to the camera without the flat of the hands towards the camera.... well done. It would be hard to take a bad photo of this model if you went outside in quality light and a beautiful background.


RodB

I don't get it.... not erotic, weak composition ... no interesting color opposition/contrast or patterns... weak on the pose... zero on impact for an image of a nude. Sorry just saying what an instructor I use to have would say.

He used to say you could not go wrong with a pretty girl with a nice natural background (outside for instance).
I'd say studio shots need a concept where the nudity is integral but not necessarily overcoming everything else.
Nudes need to be interesting, a nice natural pose for the model, show off the female form even if limited... directional light... a natural feminine pose that projects some level of eroticism. It takes some time to realize what a "natural pose" is ... zero elements of akwardness... just appears natural. Keep at it... good luck.

Rod

Quick Reply... the best lens for great Bokeh.... Nikon AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D Lens

I have never seen a more beautiful Bokeh than the Nikon 135mm F/2 DC lens.... just wow.

R


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm
...The Nikon AF 135mm f/2 DC is Nikon's, and arguably the world's, greatest portrait lens. It has a very similar smaller brother, the 105mm f/2 DC.

The 135mm DC is also Nikon's sharpest 135mm lens, and an extraordinarily great lens for nature and landscape photography. It is worlds sharper and freer from spherical aberration than any of the the old manual focus 135mm f/2 lenses.

The hood is the best built-in hood I've ever used. It is metal, and it locks into position so it doesn't shrivel down like most other built-in hoods.

You have to move a ring to get to manual focus mode, and once you do, manual focus is fantastic.


Defocus Control

DC stands for Defocus Control. A lot got lost in the translation on the way from Japan. The key word is control, not defocus. This is not a soft-focus lens; it is a lens that has been specifically designed and patented both for superior bokeh (the softness of out-of-focus areas), and the ability to control this bokeh for optimum results under all conditions...

How do you set this 135mm lens for optimum bokeh? Easy: set this ring to the same aperture at which you're shooting. Press the unlock button on the left in order to move it, otherwise it stays locked. Set it to the R side to make backgrounds go soft and disappear, or the F side if you want to optimize it for junk in the foreground.

Hint: You should almost never have out-of-focus objects in front of your subject or in the foreground. It looks unnatural and weird. Our eyes naturally focus on the closest thing to us, so it's uncomfortable when a photo has a soft foreground or other distractions which our eyes can't bring into focus.

The effects of this defocus control are very subtle. You won't see it through your viewfinder. When used properly, the 135 DC turns backgrounds into the softest, smoothest washes of color you've ever seen. Turn the ring in the wrong direction, and out-of-focus backgrounds get harsher. These are subtle effects. Computer people may not see these subtleties at all, but artists will.

Leave the Defocus Image Control ring at zero, and the 135 DC simply acts as the sharpest 135mm lens you've ever used.

The defocus control only controls defocus, or the parts of the image that are not in focus.

If you set the control beyond the aperture you're using, like set to f/5.6 when shooting at f/2, you can get a softer focus effect.

The in-focus part of the image is always ultra sharp. This is not a soft-focus lens. It's only the unfocused parts of the image which are made softer. No one in the USA understands this lost-in-translation subtlety, and mistakenly thinks this is a soft focus lens. That's why this lens isn't popular in the USA.

The 135 DC has a control for all of this. This is why Nikon has the patent on it. You can adjust the lens from normal to super bokeh to soft focus if you push it too far. You'll notice that dedicated soft-focus lenses have no separate defocus control; they are fixed one way and the only control you have is your shooting aperture.

This lens is so unique that Nikon will probably discontinue it just around the time people start figuring out what it does, and then the used price will skyrocket to $4,000, just like it did with the 28mm f/1.4, for exactly the same reason..... (see link for entire article).


All you would want to know about Bokeh except ... get the lens I mentioned above... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Well, I'll respond with a non-abstract answer. Unless the image will be a time lapse with "cottony water" etc ... usually shutter speed is a function of simply avoiding camera movement that would cause a soft image in focus or not). I learned to evaluate a photo starting with choosing an F-stop for desired or required depth of field first. If depth of field was a moot point (focus at infinity most likely) then one has several choices for shutter speed that will produce sharp images without an "action" subject. And so it goes. Its kinda like Mozart said to the King in Amedeus when asked if he had used too many notes. Mozart replied... "only as many notes as I needed". Shutter speed used is simply what will provide a quality image...no more, no less... what other significance matters??

A polarizer will get rid of some of the reflections but not the majority of them... I'd suggest lighting such a scene with large white translucent parachutes (lit from behind)... placing one on each side of the studio... large soft light sources that would diminish the shadows and make for soft reflections across the auto where light reflections could be seen. The entire scene would be lit more like a bright hazy day outside... Naturally you would need to light the background in some areas.

Auto shoots I've seen done very well also added a very large scrim (parachute) from above on a 270 degree cyclorama background .... the autos never looked better.

I'm sure you could do some quality Photoshop work to minimize the reflections on the car and to lessen the shadows of the model against the car and floor.

Nice concept ... I'm betting with a bit of Photoshop the show will look very fine.

Rod

Perhaps deciding on your goals with photography is the best way to start ... ie., to just snap pics now and then or do you have specific goals photographically and want to be sure you invest in equipment that allows easy accomplishment of said goals. Photography is similar to many other hobbies.. fly fishing or archery or golf... you have to make an educated guess as to the level of interest you have in this hobby and if you want to start cheap then re buy if you end up liking it. In fly fishing I started with a top of the line 8 weight rod because I knew I intended to be a serious user and intended to fish our coastal flats the rest of my life.

Many people simply buy a camera and lens based on cost and never seriously do any research to figure out what they might want or need to do with the camera as time goes by. I have been asked many times by friends what is the least expensive camera they can buy for general use... and I always ask them to consider seriously how much they would use a camera. Your description of your progress in photography is probably the most common where you run into photographs that are difficult with the equipment you have plus you begin to see the advantages of the "more controls" available to the user on more advanced cameras. For me personally I really appreciate the external controls of cameras like the D300, D500... D700, D4 and prefer the "pro feature" cameras because of this.

To me a basic interest in photography requires one to at least consider some basic parameters as to what kind of photographs they want to take plus the advantages of easier basic controls for taking photos aside from putting your camera on "P" and shooting away. Manufacturers make several models at a price point where the average shooter just wants to take pics with as little muss and fuss as possible. Millions of people just want happy snaps of their family and vacation... I would note that over the years most of my friends and family were completely satisfied with a recommendation of a quality point and shoot or a basic DSLR... and never thought of a camera need again.

More serious would be photographers will likely invest time to become educated to a point where they achieve an understanding of the basics features of a camera to meet their needs under most circumstances and under most situations. This would especially go for lenses too. Just evaluating the kinds of photography you want to do can help in deciding how much camera/lens to buy. Taking time to learn more about your needs both starting and in the future can only help appreciate more advanced separate controls etc. Probably the complaint most often seen in photography is that people want to take photos of their children in sports... but their camera does not offer fast enough focus etc, changeable lenses, etc... to really perform for them. Note: fast action photography requires one do some research to get a camera that performs well in sports... examples ... Nikon D70, D200, D300, D500 et al. Realistically, most likely sports/fast action photography is one of the few activities that can really rule out a camera as a choice. The basic DSLR entry for both Nikon and Canon will take 95% of photos for most folks.

Most of the more advanced cameras offer individual easy access controls for ISO, quality, white point plus better low light images and other more advanced features.. The advantage of having fast access to individual controls to modify settings is great considering the time it takes to go into the menu systems of most cameras to achieve your settings. Nikon offering complete banks of settings (U1 and U2) that can be saved are valuable features for those who shoot common situations now and then and just want to change to those settings with one simple selection.
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000/users-guide/index.htm#u1u2 Absence of this feature with the D500 is why many have not bought this camera.

Once people spend enough time with their camera they begin to realize the advantages of having easier/faster control of their camera (user friendliness) during use. The reality is that most more advanced photographers started with a first camera that left a lot to be desired in features and they graduated up the scale as their knowledge and budget progressed. A camera is just a tool and some work better or are easier to use than others.

Anyone seriously interested in photography can invest a little time to learn the majority of the controls on the camera you decide to invest in... as well as what are the essential features for a camera to achieve the type of shooting they intend to do... (go to kenrockwell.com and read the set up and review on your camera plus much more on all facets of digital photography... there is no better web sight for Nikon and Canon). Ken's insight on individual camera features is invaluable from my experience over many years. Like with most tools, it well worth researching those that are available and the pros and cons of each before making a decision.

If one has a local camera store that rents equipment its a good idea to rent and use a prospective camera you are thinking of buying... or borrow one from a friend. This goes for lenses too.

RodB

I know quite a few people in the digital imaging pre-press industry and all use Apple computers. I completely agree with you.

A good analogy... Originally the Mac was designed for graphics, page layout, prepress, and imaging... the others were modifications of existing machines/operating systems to also use similar programs and came after the Mac. Fast forward and now its difficult to tell which platform you are in if you are using Photoshop or LR. If you want or need a wide range of different software for different special interests then the PC is your choice...but I have not found much that I wanted to do that was not available in the Mac platform except for CAD maybe.

As a competent PC user I have used the Mac platform for the past 35+ years. There is no simpler easier system for a new user to get up and running. It was designed for graphic arts... Their hardware has always been top notch and lasted many years till I had to upgrade for fantastic new featured software. Much of the software for the Mac is very smartly written... a good example of this is the software for the iPhones which makes them the highest user loyalty group in the industry.

I like the similarity of most programs for the Mac in that many of the key commands are the same/similar function in most programs. The similarities/commonality of most Mac software in may ways is a real advantage especially if you bother to learn key commands. Learning key commands makes it possible to go thru scores of images in Photoshop with a minute or two on each image... I like knowing I only have to follow some commonsense rules when online to avoid ever having virus problems ... I like the fact that all the IMac desktops I bought have all lasted approx 8 years and I sold them when I upgraded. I personally have long used the iMac platform... and for the past 12 years have used an iMac 27. The only time I had to replace a unit was from damage caused by a lightning strike that came up my ethernet Internet line... and ruined my computer... (no more hard wired inet connections for me).

After using a 27" iMac monitor its hard to be happy with the smaller Mac laptop (more expensive than the Desktop iMac). The color accuracy of all the Macs the past 20 years is amazing compared to years past when you had to pay extra to get a particularly color accurate monitor for serious color work. I love it that I can get the "Tactile Pro 4 Keyboard" which has the wonderful touch of the original IBM keyboard with the clean clear "click" and the indented key with such a great feel (lots of vendors make cool products for the Mac). I love the simplicity of connecting and using new hard drives, printers, scanners etc when using Macs.

As an Apple guy... I love it that my iPhone can hold all my music and connects simply to my computer USB with iTunes to back up all my contacts and music (50 GB I also do it on The Cloud) which also plays easily on my Pioneer 4100NX car radio/cd player which runs Apple "Car Play"... which allows me to see my major icons of my phone on my radio screen... for Phone, Music, Text, Maps... and I can safely connect my iPhone to my radio and have complete control verbally of who I call, text or look up a business or listen to all my music... all hands free for my safety except for music which I must select the start playlist/song on the radio screen.

As an imaging professional I would be remiss if I didn't recommend you take a look in an Apple store before deciding.

Thanks for the technical review of some of the methods to light such situations and to deal with wide angle distortion. I know and have used most, which was not the goal in these pics. I guess my main point was to show some decent images can be made when documenting work etc, with a reasonable amount of effort in composition and lighting. My goals now are to produce good documentary work on projects and for my personal stuff, the suggestions above were not even considered. I appreciate the input and I'm sure many others here will learn something. I'd say unless I was getting paid to do architectural work or these were going to be in a brochure, I would have to consider the photo use to decide if I wanted to use the appropriate methods to achieve that standard. I appreciate the interest and time in offering the suggestions. Photoshop offers much in the way of remedying many issues too.

By the way, my suggestion to avoid "blowout" of bright areas in this situation would be to use a few sheets of Rosco Gel neutral density as its the easiest solution. We used to always keep several sheets of often needed color balance and neutral density sheets in a well protected case for such instances.


R