which one do you like better?

[DoctorIt]

So I was messing around in the house with some fake lighting and my attempt at "studio photography". I like the results, but feel there is room for improvement. The first shot was in fine jpg mode (forgot it was there) with AWB. The second shot I realized, and switched to RAW.

shot 1:
http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/2529600-M.jpg (http://doctorit.smugmug.com/gallery/65554/2/2529600)

shot 2:
http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/2529601-M.jpg


I made shot 1 clickable so you can go to my gallery and see the larger size. Really good detail in shot 2, from RAW.

Color temperature is subjective in this one, so I guess the part I was struggling with was the framing. I wanted to get the whole pot/bowl in the shot, but it wasn't on a nice base, so I decided to crop it. Do you think it really takes away? Should I have maybe cropped the whole thing, just below the protruding rocks? Hmmm...

[gus]

2

[fish]

1

[HarveyMushman]

2

[wxwax]

2

[Sam]

[QUOTE=DoctorIt]So I was messing around in the house with some fake lighting and my attempt at "studio photography". I like the results, but feel there is room for improvement. The first shot was in fine jpg mode (forgot it was there) with AWB. The second shot I realized, and switched to RAW.

shot 1:


shot 2:


Data with the photo: Focal Length: 50mm (guess: 53mm in 35mm)

Wouldn't that be 50mm X 1.6 = 80mm in 35 mm speak?

[GREAPER]

1

[photobug]

Data with the photo: Focal Length: 50mm (guess: 53mm in 35mm)
Wouldn't that be 50mm X 1.6 = 80mm in 35 mm speak?

(someone correct me if I'm wrong, but...)

I think the focal length is a physical attribute of the lens, so that a 50mm focal length is still 50mm regardless of the "angle of view" (a.k.a. "crop factor") imposed due to the sensor size.

So if this was shot with a 50mm (focal length) lens, the focal length is still 50mm, regardless whether the image was recorded on 35mm film or a digital sensor with a 1.0x, 1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x, 1.7x, or 2.0x crop factor.

If the camera records a focal length of "50mm" with the frame's exposure data (EXIF header?), that's the actual focal length of the lens at the time of the shot. You'd have to know the crop factor of the sensor involved to calculate the actual angle of view (often expressed as "35mm equivalent", which really means "the angle of view is equivalent to a 35mm film camera using a lens of <x> focal length").

[wxwax]

OK, just installed the new monitor. Now I like the color and lighting of #1, but I still prefer the compostion of #2. I think I don't really like the way the plant is cut off in #1. Then again, I don't like how weedy it looks in #2.


:scratch

[cletus]

1

[DoctorIt]

(someone correct me if I'm wrong, but...)

I think the focal length is a physical attribute of the lens, so that a 50mm focal length is still 50mm regardless of the "angle of view" (a.k.a. "crop factor") imposed due to the sensor size.

So if this was shot with a 50mm (focal length) lens, the focal length is still 50mm, regardless whether the image was recorded on 35mm film or a digital sensor with a 1.0x, 1.3x, 1.5x, 1.6x, 1.7x, or 2.0x crop factor.

If the camera records a focal length of "50mm" with the frame's exposure data (EXIF header?), that's the actual focal length of the lens at the time of the shot. You'd have to know the crop factor of the sensor involved to calculate the actual angle of view (often expressed as "35mm equivalent", which really means "the angle of view is equivalent to a 35mm film camera using a lens of <x> focal length").I also don't know where that "guess" comes from. My camera information, when in the Photoshop browser, always tells me the focal length of the lens - no crop factor. And yes, indeed, i was using a fixed 50mm lens with these shots.

[erush]

this one depends on what emotion you are trying to get out of the photo. If you want it to be more subtle and calm then you should go with shot 1. But if you would like the more rigid and sharp look than you shoul dgo with the second shot. Depends on the context cause both look decent.

[DoctorIt]

OK, just installed the new monitor. Now I like the color and lighting of #1, but I still prefer the compostion of #2. I think I don't really like the way the plant is cut off in #1. Then again, I don't like how weedy it looks in #2.

:scratchThe nice thing about RAW files, you can try again. To be honest though, in the original shot 2, those colors are pretty "true". My poor plant hasn't been getting as much sun as it does in the summer when it can bask outside. I was going by the walls in my office which are definitely more gray than blue.

But in any case, I also think I like the cooler tones, so here's another try:

http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/2587180-M.jpg

[wxwax]

Me like.

[ian408]

The nice thing about RAW files, you can try again. To be honest though, in the original shot 2, those colors are pretty "true". My poor plant hasn't been getting as much sun as it does in the summer when it can bask outside. I was going by the walls in my office which are definitely more gray than blue.

But in any case, I also think I like the cooler tones, so here's another try:

http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/2587180-M.jpg
I still like 2. I think it's warm without being too harsh and the contrast
is nice. 1 seems too blue.
3's good.