Group Pic & Blur

[matt-tastic]

Just wondering if I could get a little feedback. Particularly on the blur and composition, but feel free to add any commentary.



Camera Canon EOS 7D
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 320
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash On, Fired
Lens EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[Laurenbiz]

Can we see a SOOC version of this photo?

Why add the blur? It seems overdone, and it looks very obviously processed.

[matt-tastic]

I don't have the original, deleted it... but here is one that wasn't messed with too much at the same place. I think I do have a tendency to over process, I guess I take more pics of objects, not people...


IMG_2648 by matttastic320, on Flickr
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 320
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash On, Fired

[matt-tastic]

ps. I added the blur because I felt like the background might be too busy??

[warcrier]

I used to over process all the time. So I understand your problem. If you kill the blur some it should look better. The way you have it now almost looks like you used two different pictures and stuck them together.

[SusanH1970]

Originally Posted by matt-tastic

ps. I added the blur because I felt like the background might be too busy??

You're right, the background is too busy. However, trying to blur it out in post processing really isn't the best option. Learn to see the background as well as the subject(s) and move your subjects if necessary. Keep shooting and as you look through the viewfinder, look at the whole picture...you'll start noticing things in the background. Practice will get you there!

[matt-tastic]

Ya, after looking at the original, I found it, this is pretty bad. A little saturation and clarity seem to make landscape, architecture, and things look better to me. Unfortunately, this seems to not be the case for photographing people. I'll post the original whenever I get back home, you can see the difference. Thats what I get for trying to edit a pic at two am after the party... Lol

[SusanH1970]

Originally Posted by matt-tastic

A little saturation and clarity seem to make landscape, architecture, and things look better to me. Unfortunately, this seems to not be the case for photographing people.

Oh, thank GOD someone had the cajones to admit this. LOL!

Kudos to you for not thinking Oompa-Loompa's are real (and actually thinking bright orange skin is not good). I'm looking forward to seeing more portraits from you after you've learned a bit!

[matt-tastic]

LOL, well, you know, I just never really photographed people I guess. I have photographed a decent amount (at least for a hobbyist, I guess) of landscape, racing, cars, motorcycles, etc. A little "pop" in these photos, at least to me, seems to really look pretty decent. With the winter approaching and none of those things really having any exciting opportunities lately I have turned the camera onto those around me..lol... unfortunately, it seems as though a softer and more subtle approach to photographing people might be in order, I mean for god sakes, I'm in Oklahoma, not the Jersey shore...haha...

Here's the photo pulled back a long ways, with the sheen taken off of a shirt and no orange...


IMG_2647d by matttastic320, on Flickr

[MrJones]

instead of using heavy duty tools like blurring, why not use the simple, old tool of crop?
I think cropping is your best friend in this situation cause besides the tree, the background is really useless.
here is an example, just for you
oh.. and I cloned out the TV.