mikemorrellNL

Why are you requesting so many critiques? IMHO this photo is a well below average photo of an event. One that I would throw away. I suggest you post only photos that you consider your best or that you would like specific feedback on. mike

Pfff ... I still stick to the adage "beauty in is the eye of the beholder". In other words, any 'valuation' of any photo is always subjective. Depending on personal criteria and preferences. Some people just really love sunrises and sunsets! So for me, this thread is mostly about 'talking amongst yourselves'.

Wow! This is the best cinematography I've seen in years. You could literally take hundreds of 'stills' from this movie and they would be perfect photos. But that's not necessary. The movie - with its photographic eye - is perfect as it is. Thanks for sharing.

I agree that some PP would improve the photo. Taking @JDMvW's crop (just) as a starting point, my suggestion is to to replace the large 'white spots'. Either by cropping - as JDMV suggests - or by other PP techniques (cloning/stamping, replacement) Full screen, the photo has quite a bit of 'noise' and the eyes of the Mantis aren't quite as sharp as they might be. So again, some noise reduction and sharpening in PP would IMHO improve the photo. Having said all this, I really like the photo! Great capture!

You captured it well and I like your composition. There are multiple photos of this interior and ceiling available via Google Images. Some are close ups of the windows, others are wide angle (with the windows smaller). IMHO, you've combined both in this photo.

I like the different textures and contrasts in the water (turbulent/smooth/wave, light/dark). Great 'action photo'!

Not my own photo but a public domain scan I tracked down for my ancestry research.

I've never used slides (warped or otherwise) but I do scan old photos and I do post-processing. My 2 cts: - if you really do want to preserve the slides in the original mounts then +1 for @John Seaman's and especially @Ed_Ingold's suggestions. - Google is your friend: there are many articles related to slide scanning and printing - One possible 'solution' (?) I've not read yet is to use the focus ring on your projector + a fixed digital camera to provide 'in focus' photos that can later be used for digital focus stacking - There seem to be many 'service companies' that will produce 35mm slides from (stacked) digital photos; Google also offers DIY solutions.

Hi @Ricochetrider, I've enjoyed seeing your work for years. Many congratulations on your new-found recognition! I've commented on some of your photos below. Not because they're not excellent as they are but just to suggest a few PP tips to consider prior to your exhibitions. In making these comments, I've considered (for the first photo) the background and for all photos the 'visual focal point', determined by composition, contrast and sharpness. I've gone into some detail just because I wish you the very best during your exhibitions! Photo 1: Great photo! what I missed (digitally) was a bit more 'background color/texture' in the sky - the very light grey background looks to me to be a bit unreal. On prints cropped to size, the photo might look great just because of the light grey background! Photo 2: Again a great photo and a wonderful composition! I do wonder what the 'visual focal point' is of this photo. All elements of the photo seem to me to be equally in focus. The composition suggests that the '1973 emblem' is important. You might want to consider sharpening the emblem to re-enforce its prominence (or not 😉) Photo 3: Fine as it is, no suggestions Photo 4 (bike): the focus is on the front tyre. If that's what you want, fine. Should you wish to bring other parts of the bike into focus then sharpening in PP might help Photo 5: Great photo. No suggestions Photo 6 (El Camina): the center part of the 'El Camina' logo looks to me to be sharper than than the left- en right-hand parts. You might want to consider sharpening the left and right parts of the logo so that that logo as a whole appears (reasonably) sharp Photos 7, 8 and 9: all great photos and no suggestions. Photo 10: MC tank: TBH this is the only photo in your whole series where everything looks slightly out of focus (at least to me). As a consequence, there doesn't seem to be any 'visual focal point.' The only tip I can give is to choose a part of the photo where you want viewers to focus their attention on (with other areas as 'background') and make this area 'pop' by sharpening, increasing contrast, etc. Photos 11 & 12: Racing cars &truck: Fine as they are; no suggestions I repeat that it's not my intention to 'criticize' your photos. Just to offer my personal constructive feedback. On the order of display, my highly uneducated is that viewers might prefer to see 'overview' (people) photo's first delving into car/engine details. One more thing to consider: you've presented your selection but you might well have other photos that would better help 'tell your story' to uninitiated viewers. They may not be your 'best' photos but they may help viewers understand where your coming from. Unless they already know.😄

😄 Ideally, PN would have a test site to try things out without blowing the 'live' site up. But ideally PN would also have at least 1 admin 😉. Invisioncommunity does offer a free 30-day trial. That could be a way of exploring the configuration options available. But until we get (?) an admin with access to PN (and understands how PN is configured now), there's not much point.

Snow Horse: Tried out different filters and settled on this 'Style Transfer' (Neural) filter in PS. Added a bit of snow here and there. Partly by blurring white horizontal lines and partly by using a texture pattern on a mask (trees).

First of all, thanks for posting this photo. Via Google I learned that "Azopan PS-21" production was discontinued in 2003 - at the latest - when the Romanian company Azomureș went bankrupt. So my guess is that this photo is relatively old. TBH, any photo of a royal/stately home doesn't really 'rock my boat'. The tilt and truncated spire have already been mentioned. Full view, I also notice various 'imperfections' (spots, stains, creases, mottled sky) that might have been cleaned up. As a 'historical photo', this photo might have some value for (amateur) restoration. Unless it's a unique photo of a unique location, the 'truncated spire' decreases its value.

Great photo but as @marc epstein says, just a bit blurry. There are various 'sharpening' programs that you could use to improve the sharpness of this photo. I often use Topaz plugins for Lightroom/Photoshop and usually Topaz Sharpening AI for sharpening photos. I'm not saying you should use the same, but just as an example of how 'sharpening' could improve the sharpness, I'm including an example: Original: Sharpend:

I know exactly how it is to wander around 'an event' (in this case a fair), see something interesting and take a photo! This happens to me regularly, especially when I'm 'wandering around' with others (family, friends). You don't want to disappear for 15-30 minutes to find a 'perfect location' and 'perfect photo'. But just critiquing this one photo, it depends on what you - ideally - wanted to capture with this shot: - just the wheel? - the 'fair' (with the wheel in the background?) My feeling looking at this photo is that it's not really one or the other. The wheel As @derrick_sorensensays, an alternative would be to get closer and/or crop (jn PP) closer on the wheel; another alternative might have been to move to somewhere where you could have got a 'cleaner shot' (even if it's at 90 degrees). There are some unclear people bottom right that don't add to the photo. The same applies to some stuff on the right hand side. Don't forget that most PP programs allow you to 'remove' distracting objects. The fair If you wanted to show the wheel as part of the fair, then a wider shot (including more people) with the wheel in the background might have been better that just the unclear group at the bottom right of the photo. I think that there's a lot that can be done to improve this photo in PP. Mainly through cropping bottom/left.

I agree that this a great, well-composed, and interesting photo. I especially like the 'lines' of the windows' shadows in the foreground that lead up to the arcade's windows themselves. The photo - as is - looks completely natural. Personally, my attention is immediately drawn to the high-contrast arcade windows (with their ornate decorations). Then I realize that the 'lines' in the foreground are shadows cast by the windows. Finally, I realize that the buildings left and right make a nice 'frame'. You might want to consider slightly (artificially in PP) increasing the visual impact of the 'leading lines' by darkening the shadows and increasing the contrast. I stress 'slightly'! But where you want viewers to focus their attention first is a matter of taste.

According to the InvisionCommunity website, conditional rules for awarding points, badges and determining 'reputation' are set up and can be modified by admins. As @Sandy Vongriespoints out, we currently have no active admins. Points, badges and reputation are all forms of 'gamification' designed to encourage members to provide content. It looks like the current (default ?) rules value forum engagement (new forum threads, reactions, etc.) more highly than posting a photo in the gallery.

The link worked fine and I enjoyed the video. It made me realize just how wide the range of options are available these days in terms of 'color grading'. From 'pure B/W' to 'full color' and every nuance of hue/saturation/lightness in between.

Another PP challenge (posted a bit late this week). There are no rules for how you PP this photo. Just use your imagination and your skills. Feel free to post your own PP challenge photo in the 'Digital Darkroom' forum. Next week or any other week. I won't be posting any new challenges over the Christmas/New Year period (Mike).

Thanks! And very reassuring. I have a small stock of (Canon) paper for my occasional prints. If 'auto' prints look OK, that's enough for me. If they don't, I try something else. Good to know that I don't need to worry too much about 'rendering intents.😊

@rodeo_joe1The only photos I (very occasionally) print are just 1-off birthday cards for friends. I print them in 'high quality' but the quality doesn't have to be that great. Usually, I just print photos using the default setting 'printer manages colors'. But I noticed that if I select "Photoshop manages colors' I can select from 8-10 printer profiles for my printer. TBH, I've never compared the results. Any opinion on which option you would recommend? The 'perceptual' rendering intent seems to be the best one for most purposes. Thanks, Mike

Good choice IMHO! From the interviews with professional photographers that I've watched/read over the years, they all say that their 'social skills' in developing and maintaining good personal relationships with their 'clients' and 'subjects' is at least as (if not more) important than any technical or creative skills they may have. Three additional thoughts: It's always been true that the most valuable 'marketing activity' for any organization is that done by satisfied clients. Recommendations through word of mouth (for example, your friend) have always been and are still important. These days, client recommendations via websites and social media are perhaps just as important. They build confidence for prospective clients. Some organizations (for example restaurants) have been accused of 'hacking' positive scores. But detailed, specific reviews are hard to hack. I don't know how your website is set up or whether this is appropriate but if you're unable/unwilling to add photos from this photoshoot to your portfolio, an alternative 'payoff' might be to ask your friend whether she might give you a (hopefully positive) recommendation on your website. Even anonymously. Something along the lines of 'I've worked with @TanV on a couple of (non-commercial) photoshoots and I've found that ..... What I like about @TanV's approach is ...'. What I like about the final selection of photos - that we made together - is ...' This photoshoot was for your friend's benefit (her photos). Would she (or someone she or you know) be prepared to act as a 'model' for photos that you would like to take for your portfolio? You could pay some expenses (since it's in your interests) and the 'model' should have the option of anonymity, if he/she so desires. Since a 2nd photoshoot would be at your initiative and in 'your interests', you would be in a stronger position to agree terms and conditions with any 'model'. FWIW, I recommend that - for any photoshoot - you (as the photographer) always make an initial limited selection of (post-processed) photos for further review with your client/subject. In this case my guess is 5-10. For weddings, etc. the selection might be much larger. Just as an amateur (voluntary) photographer, this is the way I've come to work. In my experience, an initial (limited selection) based on a 'photographer's eye' (with cropping, corrections. enhancements) helps clients/subjects make a final selection from a small number of (photographically 'good') alternatives. Sure, I have personal preferences and I sometimes express and justify these. But I'm happy for my my clients/subjects to make the final decisions in the knowledge that I can (photographically) 'stand by' all the photos in my initial selection. Just some thoughts. As a last point: Friendship is Friendship. Personal and unconditional and definitely not 'transaction-based'. And personal friendship has nothing to do with the 'business interests' of friends. Mixing these can harm the friendship. On the other hand, my personal experience is that friends help each other out (without compromising their personal values or integrity). So, without compromising your personal friendship, it doesn't seem to me to me to be an unreasonable request to ask "hey, we've just done a photoshoot together, would you - as a friend - just add a comment on my website?" Mike

Another PP challenge. There are no rules for how you PP this photo. Just use your imagination and your skills. Feel free to post your own PP challenge photo in the 'Digital Darkroom' forum. Next week or any other week. With temperatures now below freezing in NL, people are hoping that canals and small lakes will get enough ice to get their skates out. This (old) photo shows an improvised 'refreshment point' for skaters (and waiting parents) on a frozen canal. Traaditionally with Hot Chocolate and biscuits.

Like Dustin, I'd watched Ted Forbes's video (Nobody cares ...) years ago and I initially thought this one (Why no one needs..,) was the same one. Both indeed have YouTube channels stuffed with video's on 'how to take more awesome photo's'. I'd like to see a video on "Why no one cares about your YouTube video's' 😉

I have very little experience in 'close-up' photography as you describe it but IMHO a lot depends on a) the distance from which you need (or want to) take photos and b) the quality of the photos you want/need to take. A secondary factor is how often you want/need to take these kinds of photos. My very limited experience in 'close-up' photography has been divergent. You could (in principle) use a tele-lens to 'zoom in' on small details (small insects) but these photos would appear relatively 'flat' with no 'depth of field'. Pretty much all 'close-up' photographers use a macro lens (and or lens modifiers). Hard as it might sound, I suggest you take some time (via internet articles) to delve into the world of 'close-up' (macro) photography before making any fast decisions. I'm not a macro photographer so I can't give any real advice. Maybe you should post your question in the PN macro forum too. As far as I understand it, dedicated macro lenses give a better ( for example 1:1) representation of details than a 'general purpose lens'. As I understand it, the focal length of macro lenses are designed to photograph details from different distances to the subject. In general, 'short' macro lenses are cheaper than 'long' macro lenses. The Canon brand macro lenses are relatively expensive ($1000+). Thankfully, other Canon-compatible third-party brands are more affordable. Check out the Canon-compatible macro lenses from Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. The Tokina atx-i 100mm F2.8 FF MACRO PLUS is the cheapest I've found but has good reviews. I'd also suggest looking around (Adorama, ....) for used Canon-compatible macro lenses. My guess is that macro lenses are less subject to the (outdoor) 'wear and tear' of other lenses. It's also possible that photographers (like me) once bought macro-lenses and discovered that they seldom used them.