File :-(, x, )
What do you think /p/? Anonymous
A few shots I took that I did some pp on in PS. For some stupid reason I've got these and a few others up on a wall in a coffee shop.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix E500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.9Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:14 04:10:30Exposure Time1/90 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Brightness6.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length10.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2304Image Height1728RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:14 04:07:56Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height679
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix E500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.9Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:05 22:27:11RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeLandscapeSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/85 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramLandscape ModeISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/3.5Brightness5.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1728Image Height2304
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:05 22:35:54Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1544
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix E500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.9Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:05 22:33:53RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/5.7Brightness4.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylight FluorescentFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.90 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1728Image Height2304
>> Anonymous
>>160407
kinda ok. Colours seem a bit flat and the blown sky doesn't really help.
>>160408
More interesting than the thumbnail. Kinda like.
>>160409
nice colour. I think a blue sky might have been better as a contrast than the blown overcast sky.
>>160411
the grain on this shot doesn't quite feel right for a photo like this. I would have shot lower ISO.
>>160412
I think the framing with the door is an ok idea for ruins normally but not in this case. The weeds growing in from the right and the rusted metal at the top of the door are mighty distracting.

tl;dr; its ok but not 100% pure awesome. Keep working at it OP.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
I've been planning on doing that with some of my shots (coffee shop) Whats your business model?
>> Anonymous
>>160409
I like this one, but the purple fringing in the sky needs to be fixed.
>> Anonymous
>>160595
OP here - I honestly have none, no guts to put my name on the wall with them yet. I asked a manager at the local Starbuck's how they go about getting artists and she asked if I had stuff. Three months later I'm printing and framing. I had to go really cheap on frames and regret the sizes I printed some at - I think the frames could really make some of them look much better.
I'm getting the gonads to actually put my info and prices up. I'm not overly concerned with making a ton, just selling something would be nice. Thinking of pricing @ $55 for a 5x7 and $85/95 for an 8x10.
Your opinion - I've seen your stuff here and really like it - do you think they'd sell?

Thanks to the other posters for their opinions - my PS skills weren't good enough to get anything out of the sky in either of those and I didn't want to paint anything, tried sticking to what could be done in a manual dark room.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>161178
3 and 4 are the only two I think you have any chance of selling. People are cheap, AND cynical. They think that because of Digital camera's they can take the same picture themselves (Unless theres something special about the shot)

3 = good fall colors
4 = abstract shot
those are the 2 things you have going for you there.

Thats the main reason I only try to sell panoramics. The process is abstracted from the average camera user. And I can talk forever about how hard it is to take the pictures and stitch them together. People love that shit, they want something original and exclusive.
Well at least thats how I see it.

My frames are waay too big for most coffee shops however. Also on a note about frames, find a commercial / wholesale framer, and order from them, it will save you tons of money, and people don't appreciate the fact that the frame costs more than the picture. I think your prices may be a bit to high for single matted pics. But that depends on how expensive your frames end up costing you...
So in the end its your choice.
>> Anonymous
how much do you usually spend on frames?
what kind of frames should you get?
i hate big gigantic ugly frames but i get the feeling people here will like that and if i ever want to sell anything it comes down to what people want so
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>161288
Can't answer what you SHOULD get, I prefer simple over complex, and I think it pays off for selling,
But heres what I use for my pics.
Pics are all 12x36" (Metallic = 25$ each after taxes)
Frames are all 20x44" (4" border all around the pic) thin metal (11 profile, squared metal frames) Black or silver. With a single mat.
Cost to me is roughly $70 each for the frame, mat, glass everything. Thats at commercial prices though, I get quoted 180-250$ Retail for the EXACT same frames....

I then sell them for $300. Which gives me some room to deal with cheap customers while guilt tripping them over framing costs.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I think the image quality overall is poor. Even my Powershot can take better quality pictures. I suggest you spend some money on a good camera if you are trying to sell prints.

The actual photos aren't terrible, but they aren't spectacular. Also, a general rule is to resize your pictures before posting on /p/.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:04:05 22:35:54Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1544
>> Anonymous
>>161318

OP again. This one I actually didn't do anything with in PS, was going to but stopped myself. That one and the bird on the twig were both shot with an Elan IIE and scanned when processed, the BoP looks a lot cleaner printed at 8x10 then it does on screen. The other three are a cheap Fuji P&S ($120 when I bought it two or three years ago) the glass or sensor quality aren't fantastic.

Like I said, if one sells I'd be happy. I never intended to display anything but once I opened my mouth and was given a date I couldn't back out.

Sharpen, brightness/contrast on your edit? Anything else or just that?
>> Anonymous
>>161349
I should have noticed that your bird and flower were shot with a different camera as I think they are of vastly better quality. But I just checked the exif of the first one.

Like I said, I think the Fuji is only holding you back. You aren't a terrible photographer so you would benefit a lot from a better camera. Although if you aren't going to try to sell any more prints (if I sold any of my photographs, I'd certainly quit my job and go on quixotic quest shooting thousands of photos a day) then you could save your money.

However, if you want to sell pictures to the consumer, you need the best quality on paper and digitally.

As for my edit, I adjusted the levels (not necessary, but I like my pictures very contrasty), the color a bit more saturated (again not necessary- it might look artificial) and blurred the background. Sometimes it is nice for the background to be grainy, other times you want a smooth, blurry background. To be honest, I wouldn't call my edit an improvement- just a different version.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>160407
The blown sky ruins this one for me. Other than that, it's really nice. I'd recommend going back to this location around sunrise or sunset--some time when the sky isn't overpoweringly bright. Other options include getting a polarizer, which could cut out about half of the light from the sky depending on the angle you shoot from.

>>160408
Eh. Not badly done, I just find it kinda boring.

>>160409
I really like this one, although my advice about the blown out sky applies here too. The strong yellow color running throughout the shot is enough to distract me from the blown sky, though, so it's not as bad in this picture.

>>160411
Not bad. But again, flower closeups have been done to death, so I don't find it that interesting.

>>160412
Meh. Doesn't really have a central focus, and the lighting is very flat and boring.