• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would you say my photos look too overprocessed?

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Nope, they look quite natural to me. If anything, I think they look less "processed" than the ones you linked. Good pics; I quite like the panoramas.

You should add some saturation to your pictures. Some of them look like they could use a bit more pop
 
I agree. Yours look natural. The ones you linked to on fredmiranda are neat but don't look natural at all due to the heavy processing.
 
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Nope, they look quite natural to me. If anything, I think they look less "processed" than the ones you linked. Good pics; I quite like the panoramas.

You should add some saturation to your pictures. Some of them look like they could use a bit more pop

Agreed. Some of your shots look a little washed out. Nothing a little saturation/contrast bump couldn't fix, though.
 
Originally posted by: GoSharks
How much processing are you actually doing?

well, i thought that i was actually doing too much. upped the saturation and contrast quite a bit IMO on all pics. but i'm doing all this on a tiny (but calibrated) 7in laptop screen and on a severely inaccurate CRT as a second monitor.
 
Your PP, which doesn't really look like that much seems duller. Seems like it needs more curve adjustments. Their photos has a lot more contrast between the warm/cool colors and the colors that are present are more dramatic, with more vibrant tones. ie the dirt in your photos, dirt brown isn't very lively and the water didn't stand out that much.

At least thats my personal opinion.
 
Your shots look good, but as others have indicated, due to the more conservative processing, they don't have the same pop as the ones you linked on the Fredmiranda site.

You seem to have done a lot to enhance detail and expand total dynamic range, but it seems a bit "average" from shadow through highlight. The ones linked emphasize the shadow and highlight, leaving the middle a bit mellower, giving a high contrast look to them. Hard to explain, but I visualize a histogram for yours appearing pretty balanced all the way through, or even a little mid-range heavy, compared to the linked images being the opposite, with emphasis on both ends, not the mid-tones...

It's definitely a different style in processing. Not better or worse, just different... Yours looking more natural...
 
Aside from what has already been said, I think the white border you use also leads to a different perception of color depth and pop than the ones from the other photographers. You'll notice that they use either a black border, or no border at all.
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: GoSharks
How much processing are you actually doing?

well, i thought that i was actually doing too much. upped the saturation and contrast quite a bit IMO on all pics. but i'm doing all this on a tiny (but calibrated) 7in laptop screen and on a severely inaccurate CRT as a second monitor.

Try using the threshold thing in PS to find your white and black points. This should be the basis for any large print image. Even on a calibrated display, I try to use this if it goes to print.
 
Back
Top