Jump to content

Alexandre Fagundes

Verified
  • Content Count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alexandre Fagundes

  1. I still try to take that one shot right, the diference now is that I check the histogram after shooting and sometimes take the shot again with a better exposure. I also bracket a lot nowadays to make HDRs if the light contrast is too high on the scene. And I use much higher ISOs if needed
  2. In another agency I work with, microstock, they dont accept any image with a license plate, unless it is editorial, I thought it was the same thing here
  3. I use geotagohotos, an app for the iphone for a while now. You have to sync the time with the camera and than just start the program. It does drain some battery, but my iphone will last a day in a trip if I am not using it for other stuff Later you just download your images and run a desktop application that geotag your photos, its fast and easy It saves me a lot of time to find out later the names of the places I took photos of
  4. I used to have my camera with me all times, but lately not that much. I actually have a lot of old stuff that I didn't process yet on my backlog. But still, an opportunity is always on the corner.
  5. Ok, so this is the new version I reprocessed. Please let me know what you think. Thanks,
  6. It has a tiny sensor, so probably not up to professional quality and clarity. The sensor is far smaller than a cropped sensor DSLR. Best way to know if it's suitable is to view an image taken in good light and sharp focus at 100%, and see for yourself if it looks good or not. Geoff. The problem with this approach is that someone who is looking to join the stock photo bandwagon and has only ever had a diminutive point-and-shoot is not likely to really know whether their image looks good or not. I certainly didn't when I started out and, ten years on, I sometimes wonder if I yet
  7. As others stated, if you take your images in RAW you will have to process it to become a jpg. This is really an option, either you let the camera process it for you and you will have an imediate jpg that might look like what you have in mind or might not (as Phillipe stated above) or you do your own selection of the processing parameters, like color space, color temperature, contrast, brightness and so on. Besides that, there are normal things you should do to any image, correcting the horizon angle, cleaning sensor spots, lens dirt, cropping the image to get rid of unwanted elements, reduce
  8. wiskerke, that´s fantastic advice, thank you very much! The similar one I found was CNWY2W by Paul Mayal, so, only one in 5000, His image´s sky looks better and the New Town Hall is better lit, but the whole image is not very well cropped IMO, lacking space in the front (mine, on the other hand is kind of the other way around, too much empty space in the front up to the lamp). Anyway, I could have processed it in such a way that it would look similar to that one (I mean, the sky and the New Town Hall), they are similars, but not the same because he doesnt have the lantern in the foreground
  9. Thank you hdh, you mean the cycle sign should be bigger? Not really bigger, meant prominent more like in obvious or eye catching if you want to call it this way. I like this modern pictogram being in contradiction with the old building. I see the new x old contrast.
  10. wiskerke, that´s fantastic advice, thank you very much! The similar one I found was CNWY2W by Paul Mayal, so, only one in 5000, His image´s sky looks better and the New Town Hall is better lit, but the whole image is not very well cropped IMO, lacking space in the front (mine, on the other hand is kind of the other way around, too much empty space in the front up to the lamp). Anyway, I could have processed it in such a way that it would look similar to that one (I mean, the sky and the New Town Hall), they are similars, but not the same because he doesnt have the lantern in the foreground
  11. Geoff - I wonder if you might have your monitor turned up very bright as the image looks fine in terms of tonal range to me, not too bright or blown out in the highlights, and the histogram (need to download it to your computer) verifies this. Also not entirely clear who you are referring to in terms of not worring about somebody's opinion - I've read the posts and can't figure out who it is - like to clarify? EDIT - Geoff -looking at your portfolio, the images look fine in terms of brightness so your monitor is probably not too bright. In relation to the OP's picture, a small reduction
  12. About the other guy, never mind... If I were there again (and I hope to be back to Munich many times), I would go a step back and take it more open so I could tweak easier the image, rotate, etc, I just took it too tight and now dont have much how to fix it because I would be cropping something important in the process, but thanks for the insightful thought. I do agree I lighted too much of the shadows, and should pull back more of the lights, it deserves a fresh new processing. I had just changed my monitor to a better one that has better contrast and I am seeing things I havent before...(b
  13. Thanks MDM, it makes sense to darken the sky, the tower and the golden sculpture as well, there is no CA in the original. But what it does have is that I have fixed a bit of the verticals (yes the original was even more dramatic) so the resolution on the top of the New Town Hall is not as good as the bottom of the image, Interesting thoughts about the flowers, I thought without them the image was a bit lame, but you are the second one to point out they are discrating, colors pull a lot of the attention of the eye, and that´s maybe why so many people are saying this image looks busy.
  14. You can't clone the sign out .......... because there's nothing to duplicate from. Cloning in architecture can only be done if there's a repititititve pattern. That isn't the case here. Cheers, Philippe I actually did clone it out in the version I sent to the microstock agency, but I have deleted it from there and have overwritten it in my Hard Drive with this new one. I think I copied the balcony details from the other floor, even though they are different it looked fine if I remember correctly. But I wouldnt do that again.
  15. Hum, your comment makes me think. Yes, its a "cool" image, unusual view, but if you can´t recognize the place,..., than maybe that´s the reason why it didn´t sell,
  16. Don´t worry about the other discussion, Philippe, I understand the guy was upset with my comment even though I was trying to help him. In the next posts he changed the tone and I think we are fine now, but I am enjoying a lot this discussion about my image. The people here at this discussion are only trying to help me and giving me ideas on a best version of this image I think I will post after the discussion warm down.
  17. I would be very unsure about cloning as suggested. In an image where the use is going to be soft editorial, illustrating a leaflet or website, then removing significant parts of the surroundings seems a little misleading. If is were an image intended mostly for commercial use then OK, but not with this kind of subject in my book. To the OP. Yes, I would upload it as it stands if it was the only one I had of the subject, though I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be a best seller. If I had a better one of the same subject then I would be happier. I would guess you took several in the area
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.