matthew & lungStruck: Thanks, guys - compliments help during days like this when nothing seems to turn out the way I want it to
dfkt: I agree - very nice.
---------------------------------
I went out today with the intention of doing some treescapes and maybe a nature abstract or two, but I had a frustratingly low turnout of decent shots. I've processed the four best here:
Beautiful Green ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^up there!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am doing some photography for an on-line bead shop and brochure. The reproduction size will be maybe smaller than posted here, depending on the final viewing monitor screen size. In the brochure they will be 2"X3".
Most bead photography is done with a mini light-box. This was shot with natural morning light first bouncing off a white stone floor, then off a white ceiling down onto the stone beads. A little different than normal but the client is super happy with the results. I shot all twelve photographs and completed post processing in about an hour. The client said she had never seen a shoot so fast. I think the photographs maybe didn't come out as professional looking as they could but they have a slightly non-professional charm that may work for the client.
Nice! I particularly like the first one, with the pale blue beads and the metal discs. I think perhaps the reason they don't look traditionally professional is the shallow depth of field (which I like); marketing photos typically employ a great deal of depth of field, with powerful lights to allow for it.
This image is something from last year which I never managed to wrestle into a state where I was happy with it; I still haven't
I've been staring at it too long and need to distance myself to figure out what it is that bothers me about it. I like the clouds and the water, so I think it's the foreground - particularly, I think it's something about the left pile of rocks and greenery. I tried converting to black and white, and while that fixed my issue it also removed some of what I like about the original.
Nice! I particularly like the first one, with the pale blue beads and the metal discs. I think perhaps the reason they don't look traditionally professional is the shallow depth of field (which I like); marketing photos typically employ a great deal of depth of field, with powerful lights to allow for it.
I did think of that before, but when you said it it rang true. I don't own a tripod but with a tripod I could have obtained a better DOF. I will remember that if i do beads again. I'm using a 200mm maco lens so 1/200 is as slow as I can go, 400iso is the fastest speed with out grain so a tripod would allow me to go to a slower f-stop.
This image is something from last year which I never managed to wrestle into a state where I was happy with it; I still haven't
I've been staring at it too long and need to distance myself to figure out what it is that bothers me about it. I like the clouds and the water, so I think it's the foreground - particularly, I think it's something about the left pile of rocks and greenery. I tried converting to black and white, and while that fixed my issue it also removed some of what I like about the original.
I think maybe the left side of the foreground is all a little too bright in comparison with the dark/gloomy kind of yellow hue you have going on in the sky and water reflection. It's what my eyes go to straight away as it stands out too much.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.