Originally Posted by
hyogen 
Big nay from me on the light leaks. Your photos need to speak for themselves on the strength of their content and composition. You shouldn't feel the need to add to your photos in post. You comment on the lack of smiling from your wife. I actually like the second one. Drop the light leaks convert to black and white, add a bit of clarity and contrast and see what it looks like. Actually, I was curious so I did this in about 45 seconds. I did add a post-crop vignette as well to darken the sky:
OK about the light leaks. I think I also need to have her looking away instead of at the camera all the time. I see what you're saying about cutting her off too high, etc. I kinda don't like the outfit....makes her neck look reaally long......almost as long as those African women who enlongate their necks with those rings.....
The blacks are a bit crushed because of the vignette so it needs a bit more work but this is the direction I would take that photo. I think it still needs a pure white in there somewhere. (Remember that every B&W photo needs a pure black and a pure white somwhere in the frame). Mine still has the light leaks in it as well since I don't have the original file.
The first photo, her smile is probably a bit too unnatural. The third, you cut her off too high. She looks like she sneaked into the frame by accident. Watch where you cut off arms, legs, hands, etc..
If you by chance want to edit the RAW file, I have one handy: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2m3wvchduzljtl4/IMG_5150.CR2
That's you in the photo, no? Did someone take this for you? If so, you shouldn't claim it as one of your own.
I used a tripod :)
Fisheye? The distortion of the lodge is distracting to me.
No, this is the 10-20 wide angle still. Just the one below is with a fisheye.
See above regarding if someone else took this. Plus the bit of flare right in the middle of the frame is distracting. Plus, it might be a bit too wide. You and your wife get a bit lost in the background.
also with tripod and 10-20 @ 10mm
Very nice. Need slight adjustments on the exposure--the ground is a bit dark since you exposed for the sky. Is there a reason why you included the tree on the left? I would have walked twenty feet to the right (if possible) to get it out of the frame.
Sigma 10-20
As you can see in the fisheye pic below, it was a small and narrow viewpoint off the side of the freeway. I don't think I could have stood anywhere without the tree and still get a wide shot of the river, but I could be wrong...didn't really think to remove the tree.
8mm fisheye
Again, very nice but you've got the tree branches on the right. Also be careful with structural elements when shooting with a fisheye. I might take this into lightroom and straighten the distortion enough so that the sign on the left is straight vertical.
good point about the branches on the right. I did try using a recommended profile to correct the distortion to make the sign vertical, but that messed up the rest of the photo.. A proper defishing plugin would have probably worked better.
I don't like the power lines in the foreground.
My friend said the same thing. I stopped by the side of the highway to take this, so it was impossible for me to move closer and under the power lines.
Both are way underexposed. Maybe by as much as 2 stops. You can't tell where the bridge or buildings end and the sky begins.
I was going more for the look of the photo--bright highlights and dark shadows, but I see your point about not being able to see the start/stop of bridge/sky/buildings.
I took one with the wide angle, but couldn't get a sharp picture without a tripod :(
Here it is anyway, since the pics here are really small. (Obviously there were a lot of less sharp ones, but this was the best of the bunch). I tried to brace the camera the best I could against my body.
MUCH better exposure. But again, the distorted bridge and buildings are distracting. Plus, at full size, there's a ton of noise and it's not the sharpest.
