Very nice work. I like the composition and the shots you chose to "highlight". I think you should take more pride and ownership for your work. Trust me, it does take talent to produce good photos. Give someone else the same camera as you, and tell them to shoot next to you as you are shooting and there is no guarantee that they will come out with anything decent.

One suggestion I would make is to play with the photos a bit in photoshop. You might be surprised at how you can make them "pop". And the only thing I can see that I think would improve the pics is to play with your depth of field just a bit so that the buildings behind are just slightly out of focus. That will really place the emphasis on the car and the girl or draw the eye towards your intended target.

I like the pic with the mural in the background. I would definitely have that mural in focus like you do. I think it would have been cool to try a few "fun" pics with that mural though, ones where the model was mimicking the pose of some of the people in the mural.

But you should definitely consider yourself an artist, and photography is your medium....OWN it, you created it.

 

mmmm, red heads!!

me likey!

 

Wow I never noticed that

 

Well, I'm not a bragger. Like I said, I do this for fun, and kinda feel like if I get to the point where it's work... doing it for money or a "prize"... it stops being fun. And I'm constantly in awe of shots I see in publications like National Geographic, as well as some of the Photo Forums on-line. I know my skill level based on those, and it's still WAY down in the amateur category.

Plus, there are a LOT of amateur photographers out there. I am but one.

So... that being said... as I processed the photos, I went through my normal routine of "shoulda done that" and "it would have been cool to try this". I'm not big in photoshop. Some of it is because I'm still in the mindset of good photography skills come from the shot, not from the software. And the other part is that I just don't know how to use Photoshop that well.

I process all my photos with the Canon software, which has gotten better over the years. I shoot in RAW, which gives me greater control over everything, and try not to over-process the images. So, while this may hold back the quality of the photos I take, I feel it's essential in me becoming a better photographer, and not trying to "fake" a good shot by doctoring it up in photoshop, or using quirky and cliche'd effects... of which I see MANY online.

I really only have one lens that will give me a good DOF shot. I had to replace my kit lens about 6 months ago, because the electronics stopped working in it. When I did, I replaced it with a Tamron lens which is good for the price, but really lacks the quality that the Canon lens gave me. I nearly fell off the ladder in the shot of the girl in the back seat, because I was trying to get further away from her, since the Tamron lens doesn't have the range the Canon one did.

I've started using my GoPro HD camera for some shots as well. I took it on this shoot because it's a wide-angle camera, and it never hurts to try new things. I only got about 2 good shots from it (I think), but now that I know how it works, and where to use it, I might start using it more.

 

N-i-c-e!!!

 

I very much agree with most everything you have said. Some people have used digital editing to make up for their lack of ability with the camera. And I wish I was better at photoshop as I have seen some people really produce some amazing results with it. I look at it as one more tool that you have, this one just happens to be used after the picture is taken. There are some who are "purists" and will not use a digital camera, or only shoot in black and white, etc, etc. To each their own, we all have our preferences.

I also liked the wide angle shot. One feature my iphone has that I really like is the ability to take a HDR image. Not sure if your cannon can do the same thing, but if the subject is still then bracketing a couple pictures and combining them allows the sky to be seen the same way the naked eye sees it and can really add a nice affect to the picture. That is one effect I think it would be OK to reproduce in Photoshop as it is closer to what the naked eye actually sees when you are setting up and taking the picture.

 

I think the only way I can do HDR is to take multiple shots, and combine them with photoshop. I use a Canon XTi, and I don't recall there being an HDR "feature" on the camera. But I'm not 100% sure.

I see a lot of what I think is over-photoshopping on the webbernets. It seems to go in "phases", and when something gets a good response, the trend runs rampant.

First, it seemed to be the "faux DOF", where someone would blur out the background, in the hopes to bring more focus on the subject.

Next, the dreaded "B&W photo with a color subject". I despise this. It seems to be the most widely used example of the "struggling photographer". I was once told by a friend, who runs her own studio, that if you have one of these shots in your portfolio, it's like the "kiss of death". IMO, it's a cool effect, but should be used VERY sparingly, if at all.

Now it seems HDR is the next trend. Again, it's a cool effect, but it seems that every thread in regards to photography ends up turning into a "have you tried HDR?" discussion. No offense. It does require decent photoshopping know-how and skills, which I admit, is a big reason I haven't tried it. But, I'm seeing more and more of it online, which completely turns me away from it.

Does this mean I won't "experiment" with different effects? Of course not. I'll over-saturate, or crank up the contrast... heck, I even did one of those "engraving" effects on a shot I took of my bike. It was cool. But that's about as far as it went.

I dunno... maybe I'm just boring. And of course these are just my opinions, and certainly shouldn't be considered fact. After all, I'm just doing this as a hobby.

 

This one is my favorite, great shot!

 

I understand what you are saying about HDR. When it is done right, it looks amazing. When it isn't, well.... I wasn't sure if camera manufacturers were adding the capability as a feature on their cameras or not. I use it on my iPhone when I have a bright sky and I want to take the picture so that I see in the picture what my eyes see in reality. Using HDR subtly should result in a picture in which a viewer will not even notice that it was used, except maybe a photographer who knows that there is no way possible to get that image with just one shot.

 

Sounds like you're describing over/under exposure for a shot. i.e. "Backlighting". The software I use can fix/reduce that... to a point... without resorting to HDR.

The shot quoted above, where my friend is fixing her shoe, is a good example. The shot was taken directly into the sun. The RAW image had the road and some of the sky completely washed out and overexposed, while the girl and car were very underexposed. Essentially, the sensor didn't know what to do.

I balanced as best I could, while trying to keep some level of "realism". The way I see it, I had to squint to look at her, with the sun glancing off the road and other reflective objects. I want to keep that in the shot. I also tend to use shots with lens flair and other "abnormalities". To me, it's more real, and not as "fake" as trying to completely eliminate them. I want to convey, in some way, what it was like to actually be there, and not some euphoric or perfectionist view of it. I'm rambling again.

 

Tough to drive a stick in shoes like that really nice work with the photos by the way!

 

Everybody seems to really like that shot. It wasn't even a "planned" one.

I went back to my truck to grab some things, and when I turned around, she was fixing her shoe. "Don't move!" I told her. I dunno... it just looked right.