First off, thanks to the both of you. I know you are both experienced photographers and take some amazing shots, so thank you for you inputs.
You honestly don't need an amazing camera to produce nice photographs. There are plenty of people out there making great stuff with low-end cameras.
I suppose I just need to learn more about my camera then. I've gone through the instruction manual that came with it but it really wasn't all that much help, it made the photos better but not how I really want them. I am still looking at getting a new Canon SD1100IS.
The Old #2 is too close of a crop. You should be taking a picture of a sign that says Old #2, and not Old#2. I'm not saying see the background, but it is really in-your-face right now. The second version is unnecessary, the shot is already tastefully dark and just enough contrast.
I didn't do any cropping on that picture with the computer, I suppose I was standing to close though. I'll be heading back up north soon and I would like to play around with taking photographs of the build since it's fairly neat. I'll see what else I can come up with a couple steps back. And ya now that I think about the the PS one is a little bit much.
The first storm cloud shot is very well composed, but exposed wrong on the part of your camera. The light from the sky invaded the camera's light meter which killed anything on the ground. You can probably adjust the exposure on your camera somewhat, so try and get something with more light getting in. I'm not sure if it's like this on all cameras, but aim your camera down a little so less sky is framed, hold down the shutter halfway for a bit, then pick it back up to your desired frame and hit the shutter all the way. The halfway point is when it focuses and sets on exposure, and when you lift back up it will stay on the ground settings but with the sky's light. This is how it works on my camera. That way you would would've gotten the real light detail on the ground, with the trees, the flowers and that stump. It's really nice. Overexposing to get light on the ground will also bring out some prettier colours in the sky too!
Ya shooting the setting sun seems to be some what of a challenge. My camera does the half-shutter-button focus thing but more often then not it leaves my shots blurry. Maybe the image stabilization has something to do with it? I will try and mess around with this a bit more, but right now it seems a bit above my skill level especially after some of the stuff I read online.
I like the digital noise and specks on your lens in the sparks shot. It helps. Even noisier would've made it nicer too, with more variety to a simple photo.
Good to note. Thank for all your comments, they were quite helpful and gives me some things to keep in mind while I attempt to do this again.
#1 (original) is quite nice, although as has already been mentioned, some context would be good. There's not enough in the shot at the minute to keep me coming back to it.
Alright, as I've said I'm going to play around with this one next time I'm up north. I just really like the way the side of the pump house looked for some reason. But I will see what I can do in terms of changing it up a bit.
#2 (processed) The PP was a bit unnecessary. Cropping, levels, curves, healing (spots), and some saturation work is usually considered to be the norm. Selective cloning too is fine. It really depends on the subject: glamour photographers go mad, landscapists tend not to. Try to use PP to accentuate the good qualities, but good PP is like good makeup on a girl: it's best when you don't notice it. And it looks like you've attempted a high-contrast black & white conversion. On a subject that was essentially monochrome to start with!!
Ya photoshopping isn't really my strong suit, I need to figure out what I'm doing more before I attempt things like this. I'm used to cutting up cars and what not, not trying to make photos look better so I need a bit of practice.
#2 (the dog) is a nice shot, but an SLR with a fast lens is always going to kick your arse here, because it would have separated the dog from the background. From that distance, and with that lighting, a "force flash" may have lit up the dog's eyes nicely. Because you're a bit stuck with the depth of field (the amount of a shot that's in focus), try shooting from an angle much closer to the ground. If you can make the background further away, there's more chance of it blurring and giving you the separation you need.
It was a rather spur of the moment shot while we were loading up the van to come home. I actually had to crop the passenger door out of the picture. But Sandy (the dog) is pretty well behaved so I'll have to see about getting other shots of her from different angles like you said.
#3 (sunset #1) Lovely. But try to remember the rule of thirds when doing sunsets: i.e. place the horizon 1/3rd the way up the frame.
Thanks, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. I think that's one thing that has always got me on sunset-ish photos. I either put to much horizon in or to much sky.
#4 (sunset #2) The light has gone here, you're about 5 minutes too late. Try using Shadow/Highlight recovery to bring up the grass, but all the PP in the world isn't really going to cover for the fact that you were late. (Sorry!)
No quite alright, I was a bit late, I think it was already 21.00 and we were in a valley.
#5 (bonfire) Nice abstract. Plenty to keep the eye busy in the frame.
Cool I'm glad both you and exige liked the photo 👍.
Thanks again for the comments fellas!
.
Keep it up!
