Photo geekery

[drwex]

I'm still working on figuring out how to edit my mediocre camera originals. I've had several helpful tips and I want to see what appeals to the viewing public. Herewith, a wholly unscientific experiment.

In all cases, click on the thumbnail to get the full image.
First the original photo:

Now two different ways of editing it.
Option 1: and Option 2:
Which do you like better?

In related news, my attempts to photograph the moving parts of the ENSMB fundraiser were an almost complete flop. I'm consistently failing to get the DSLR to behave like my old analog SLR. The motion is blurred in the wrong ways; the depth of focus is WAY too deep and what it seems to want to focus on is not necessarily the closest object but seemingly something random in the frame. *grump*

Comments

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I like #1 a little better -- what colors there were stand out more vividly than in #2.

Which DSLR do you have? My Nikon D50 has several focusing modes: there's a spot mode where I select the portion of the frame to focus on, and it also has a "matrix focus" mode where, as far as I can tell, it looks around and guesses at what I'm really shooting at and focuses on that.

I had a blast taking ENSMB pictures but OMG! the light! Way frustrating.

[drwex]

I've been borrowing ahf's Nikon D-something. It's quite possible that there are modes and features/settings I don't understand. I'll have to play with it some more. I'm hoping to get the wrinkles ironed out before the summer (spinning) parties.

[cereselle.livejournal.com]

I agree, the warmth in Option 1 sets off the cool colors of the subject.

[drwex]

Thank you.

[skreeky]

I like #1 for a different reason. The thing that makes this an interesting photograph isn't the color, it's the texture. (In fact, I might even take a little of the sat out of it, since the whitebalance looks odd in either one.) The texture pops better in #1.

[drwex]

Nod. The white balance is totally artificial, since the original was so messed up to begin with. I agree with your notes about texture, but see below about skin tones?

[skreeky]

Well, if she's supposed to look like metal, taking the saturation down assists in her goal too.

(As for what the color the walls really were and so on, well, decide if you're making a documentary or an art project and go with your choice. People who weren't there have no idea what color it's "supposed" to be, they just know what looks better.)

[drwex]

I think it's very true - I view my photos as art much more than documentary. Otherwise I wouldn't edit them. Thanks again!

[coraline]

yup, #1 for sure... less sure about the warmer colors, but the contrast is better.

and the depth of field is totally a lens/aperture thing -- it should be just the same if you're using the same lens.

[drwex]

Thanks, I appreciate the comments. At some point it'd be interesting to shoot side-by-side with you and have your insights in real time. I'm sure you could spot several things I could improve.

[mizarchivist]

option 2 (apprently I'm a rebel)

[drwex]

That's ok. Can you give me a few words on why you like #2 better?

[mizarchivist]

I am not partial to overly yellow in the walls on 1- it makes it look wrongly developed. If that makes sense. 2 seemed more true to what the space looked like. Maybe?

[drwex]

Nod. Makes sense. Thanks!

[unclebooboo.livejournal.com]

I prefer #1 too.

The greater depth of focus with the digital camera is a common complaint. You can blur the focus in post processing the digital image if you want to.

[drwex]

I don't want to 'blur' the focus so much as I want the focus depth set the right way. In particular the problem is that things in the foreground are showing up out of focus - you'll see more when I post the full set of ENSMB shots.

[starphire.livejournal.com]

I like the contrasts in the umbrella better in #1, but it also shows more flesh tone, less silver. Since her skin is supposed to look like metal, I vote for #2. Yay Clara!

[drwex]

Thank you.

[buxom-bey.livejournal.com]

#1 The subtle color variation adds to the texture and depth of the photo. I actually think #2 looks a little washed out.

[drwex]

Thank you - I appreciate the extra comments.

[inahandbasket]

IAWTC.

[hlmt.livejournal.com]

I think it's just going to depend what the subject is--each picture has to be treated differently. #1 is warmer--but sometimes that's too much. #2 is cleaner--but sometimes you want things to be fuzzy. So I can't say that I really prefer one or the other--just depends what your final goal is.

Love,
Mz. Tergiversation