Four Eyes
Started by Jeff Phillips, Jul 26 2009 06:33 AM
1 reply to this topic
#1
Posted 26 July 2009 - 06:33 AM
#2
Posted 26 July 2009 - 07:38 AM
Just one extreme amateur's opinions, so take them for what they're worth. But here's what I'd think if it were my shot.
First framing is great. Got the whole fish with some negative space, and it's not facing away from you or being looked down at. If this is a crop, I might want just a bit more space in 'front' vs. behind the fish, but there's a good diagonal line orientation to the shot as framed. Good depth of field choice helps the subject stand out from the background.
White balance might be a little too warm - the fish lighting looks great but the background water looks a tad 'muddy' vs a crisp blue. May be condition related though as water in FL isn't always perfectly translucent. Selective warming is hard to do without Photoshop etc (I've certainly never mastered it in my cheezy PaintShopPro). Also the highlights might be a bit high - some of the fish looks a little oversaturated (white blowing out a little detail). But sharpness is very nice.
Overall, if I'd taken a shot like that, I might play around with postprocessing choices a little, but I'd happily display it in my gallery! Yet still obsess about what I could have done differently (bit more 'eye contact' somehow, faster exposure to get a darker indigo background, etc etc...all that "I wish I could" stuff that never happens at the time for a noob like me).
First framing is great. Got the whole fish with some negative space, and it's not facing away from you or being looked down at. If this is a crop, I might want just a bit more space in 'front' vs. behind the fish, but there's a good diagonal line orientation to the shot as framed. Good depth of field choice helps the subject stand out from the background.
White balance might be a little too warm - the fish lighting looks great but the background water looks a tad 'muddy' vs a crisp blue. May be condition related though as water in FL isn't always perfectly translucent. Selective warming is hard to do without Photoshop etc (I've certainly never mastered it in my cheezy PaintShopPro). Also the highlights might be a bit high - some of the fish looks a little oversaturated (white blowing out a little detail). But sharpness is very nice.
Overall, if I'd taken a shot like that, I might play around with postprocessing choices a little, but I'd happily display it in my gallery! Yet still obsess about what I could have done differently (bit more 'eye contact' somehow, faster exposure to get a darker indigo background, etc etc...all that "I wish I could" stuff that never happens at the time for a noob like me).
Edited by rtrski, 26 July 2009 - 07:40 AM.
If all else fails, get a bigger hammer...
Current rig: Sony SLT-alpha55 in Ikelite housing, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro in 6" 5503.80 dome (+2 diopter optional), Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM behind UWCamStuff custom 5" mini-dome. Dual INON z240 Type IVs. Homebuilt LED/fiberoptic triggering.
Current rig: Sony SLT-alpha55 in Ikelite housing, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro in 6" 5503.80 dome (+2 diopter optional), Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM behind UWCamStuff custom 5" mini-dome. Dual INON z240 Type IVs. Homebuilt LED/fiberoptic triggering.
