Check out my PS phot blog!

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

Hi all. I started a photoblog i hope many will enjoy. No, I do not have ads on the site, i do not need them (i sell my photos for stock), so this is not spam. I hope you enjoy the site. I will be posting almost daily. ENjoy!

You are wasting your time.

Why do you say that?

Helen wrote:

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

Hi all. I started a photoblog i hope many will enjoy. No, I do not have ads on the site, i do not need them (i sell my photos for stock), so this is not spam. I hope you enjoy the site. I will be posting almost daily. ENjoy!

You are wasting your time.

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

Why do you say that?

Water rock: I can’t tell what it is. There is a white something almost slap bang in the centre, not great composition.

Bridge: what in the hell did you do to the sky? If the original looked worse then I venture to say it might not have been a keeper?

Buddha: in a shot like this the whole figure should be in focus – not even all of the face is, and the bokeh to the right is unattractive.

Strawberries: a single spotlight almost directly above? Cream burnt out to blank total white, shadow under it almost total black. No modelling. What is the background? Colourised monochrome – or monochromised colour, whichever – is getting to be a bit old hat now.

Your copyright notice area is far too big.

You talk about using PS, but what for? If you’re posting to a PS NG you could discuss your techniques.

I hope the "many stock sites" are only those that pay about 4 cents per sale because really your examples are not very impressive. Let me hazard a guess that one of your stock agencies isn’t Alamy.

"An extended photoblog of all the photographs I take." You’ve only taken 4?

Sorry,

Helen

It’s ok. I really appreciate constructive criticism. I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions. I do have some reason and reply.

As for the "water rock", it is a rock with water comming out of the top. Yes, water. I suppose I could crop the picture a bit.

As for the bridge, the day was muggy to say the best and it was near impossible to get a good exposure. I can send you the original if you wish; it is not something a little photoshop couldn’t fix. If you have any suggestion on creating a realistic sky, i’d appreciate it.

Bhudda: it is a bit out of focus after reviewing it for a minute. I will try that shot again.

As for the strawberries, there was nothing I could do about it. It was shot in broad daylight and hence all-natural sunlight. And, it is monochromized color.

Remember, I am still a student in HS and therefore have not perfected my techniques yet. If you have any more comments/suggestions, good or bad, though I’d appreciate the cons as well as the pros, just post them to this thread or e-mail me.

Thanks!
Helen wrote:

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

Why do you say that?

Water rock: I can’t tell what it is. There is a white something almost slap bang in the centre, not great composition.

Bridge: what in the hell did you do to the sky? If the original looked worse then I venture to say it might not have been a keeper?

Buddha: in a shot like this the whole figure should be in focus – not even all of the face is, and the bokeh to the right is unattractive.
Strawberries: a single spotlight almost directly above? Cream burnt out to blank total white, shadow under it almost total black. No modelling. What is the background? Colourised monochrome – or monochromised colour, whichever – is getting to be a bit old hat now.

Your copyright notice area is far too big.

You talk about using PS, but what for? If you’re posting to a PS NG you could discuss your techniques.

I hope the "many stock sites" are only those that pay about 4 cents per sale because really your examples are not very impressive. Let me hazard a guess that one of your stock agencies isn’t Alamy.

"An extended photoblog of all the photographs I take." You’ve only taken 4?
Sorry,

Helen

I updated the Bridge photo. No, I have taken more than four. Be nice. Anyway, thanks for the critism, and keep me posted. Take a look at the blog again and thanks for browsing.

Helen wrote:

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

Why do you say that?

Water rock: I can’t tell what it is. There is a white something almost slap bang in the centre, not great composition.

Bridge: what in the hell did you do to the sky? If the original looked worse then I venture to say it might not have been a keeper?

Buddha: in a shot like this the whole figure should be in focus – not even all of the face is, and the bokeh to the right is unattractive.
Strawberries: a single spotlight almost directly above? Cream burnt out to blank total white, shadow under it almost total black. No modelling. What is the background? Colourised monochrome – or monochromised colour, whichever – is getting to be a bit old hat now.

Your copyright notice area is far too big.

You talk about using PS, but what for? If you’re posting to a PS NG you could discuss your techniques.

I hope the "many stock sites" are only those that pay about 4 cents per sale because really your examples are not very impressive. Let me hazard a guess that one of your stock agencies isn’t Alamy.

"An extended photoblog of all the photographs I take." You’ve only taken 4?
Sorry,

Helen

FotoLeon wrote:

It’s ok. I really appreciate constructive criticism. I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions. I do have some reason and reply.

Leon

Can I recommend that you join this group –
http://www.flickr.com/groups/cafe/
You can open a free account, and post images to innumerable groups on every
subject imaginable!!!
But if you start with CAFE – ‘Do read the guidelines before posting!!’ –
you will receive constructive criticism, and if appropriate! praise. There
is almost No destructive criticism, it’s frowned on by the members.

Harry

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

It’s ok. I really appreciate constructive criticism. I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions. I do have some reason and reply.
As for the "water rock", it is a rock with water comming out of the top. Yes, water. I suppose I could crop the picture a bit.

Try to crop it with the water feature off centre. Look up the golden mean.

As for the bridge, the day was muggy to say the best and it was near impossible to get a good exposure. I can send you the original if you wish; it is not something a little photoshop couldn’t fix. If you have any suggestion on creating a realistic sky, i’d appreciate it.

The best way to get a realistic sky in a pic that doesn’t have one of its own is to clone a realistic sky into it from another pic which DOES have a decent sky!

Bhudda: it is a bit out of focus after reviewing it for a minute. I will try that shot again.

As for the strawberries, there was nothing I could do about it. It was shot in broad daylight and hence all-natural sunlight. And, it is monochromized color.

Remember, I am still a student in HS and therefore have not perfected my techniques yet. If you have any more comments/suggestions, good or bad, though I’d appreciate the cons as well as the pros, just post them to this thread or e-mail me.

Thanks!

All kudos to you for taking punishment well!
I will keep an eye on your site and report further.

Helen

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

I updated the Bridge photo. No, I have taken more than four. Be nice. Anyway, thanks for the critism, and keep me posted. Take a look at the blog again and thanks for browsing.

I was trying to be nice, but OK, true, I wasn’t entirely nice about your agency work.
If you really want to make money at the agency game forget the microstock sites, perfect your work, and try to get registered with Alamy or another full agency. Alamy are paying my mortgage.

H.

Thank you. I very much agree with you. Remember, I am still a student, therefore, I do not claim to be perfect. I appreciate any constructive criticism so that I can hone my skills. If you have any tips on how I can do better, keep an eye on my blog and post comments and I will do my best. I really appreciate your tips.

I also appreciate your idea about the stock sites. I will submit to Alamy once I hone my skills. Do tell me when you think I am skilled again.

Helen wrote:

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

I updated the Bridge photo. No, I have taken more than four. Be nice. Anyway, thanks for the critism, and keep me posted. Take a look at the blog again and thanks for browsing.

I was trying to be nice, but OK, true, I wasn’t entirely nice about your agency work.
If you really want to make money at the agency game forget the microstock sites, perfect your work, and try to get registered with Alamy or another full agency. Alamy are paying my mortgage.

H.

"Helen" wrote in message

"FotoLeon" wrote in message

Why do you say that?

Water rock: I can’t tell what it is. There is a white something almost slap bang in the centre, not great composition.

Bridge: what in the hell did you do to the sky? If the original looked worse then I venture to say it might not have been a keeper?
Buddha: in a shot like this the whole figure should be in focus – not even all of the face is, and the bokeh to the right is unattractive.
Strawberries: a single spotlight almost directly above? Cream burnt out to blank total white, shadow under it almost total black. No modelling. What is the background? Colourised monochrome – or monochromised colour, whichever – is getting to be a bit old hat now.

Your copyright notice area is far too big.

You talk about using PS, but what for? If you’re posting to a PS NG you could discuss your techniques.

I hope the "many stock sites" are only those that pay about 4 cents per sale because really your examples are not very impressive. Let me hazard a guess that one of your stock agencies isn’t Alamy.

"An extended photoblog of all the photographs I take." You’ve only taken 4?

Sorry,

Helen

the whole figure should be in focus –
who says so??
the trend in product photos nowadays is to use this lack of depth to making the subject stand out letting the others recede, the technique is everywhere, look at any fashion mag, they are doing this purposely. The OP may not have, he may have just got one of those "happy accidents"

for me that was his most "successful" shot…
I do agree with most of your other criticisms
now that we know he is just a high schooler who is actually willing to listen, he has lot of time to improve and take your advice…………..

"KatWoman" wrote in message

"Helen" wrote in message

the whole figure should be in focus –
who says so??
the trend in product photos nowadays is to use this lack of depth to making the subject stand out letting the others recede, the technique is everywhere, look at any fashion mag, they are doing this purposely. The OP may not have, he may have just got one of those "happy accidents"

Certainly, regarding your comment re the trend, but in that case let the front of the face be in focus, rather than a thin slice around about ear depth. It’s not meant to be a CT scan.

for me that was his most "successful" shot…
I do agree with most of your other criticisms
now that we know he is just a high schooler who is actually willing to listen, he has lot of time to improve and take your advice…………..