# Howrsegirl123's Photography



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

Not knowing what that means, I got nothing. But you are talented and I enjoyed the last pictures.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

aubie said:


> Not knowing what that means, I got nothing. But you are talented and I enjoyed the last pictures.


Thank you


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Bumping


----------



## Saranda (Apr 14, 2011)

You could use flash as an instrument to expose actions that would otherwise lie hidden, using human models to act in emotionally revealing roles, reacting to the flashlight as a distraction that has momentarily made them visible. 

That could go from dark fantasy settings, e.g., a bogeyman under the bed, or dark silhouettes creeping in the corners, - or even the Easter bunny/Santa stopped in their tracks by a sudden light! - to something as serious as domestic violence. Use simple home settings with characters that are a bit surreal, that depict those aspects of our lives we sometimes want to be left hidden.


----------



## SummerShy (Aug 3, 2014)

I don't understand your question. Can I get a rephrase?


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I have to take a picture and use my camera's flash in a low light situation. The subject can be anything and I can do multiple subjects.


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

Your horse in a barn, when its bright outside it can exaggerate the dark inside so flash can correct that.

Hi-lite a plant in garden in evening/early morning.

Portrait, have subject stand by window, flash 'corrects' shaded part of face. Can get some lovely effects.

Dog or cat or baby in a box or hiding somewhere.


----------



## Remali (Jul 22, 2008)

Oh, I like ShirtHotTeez idea!


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Do you like this photograph?


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Or one of these?


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

top one


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm now trying to shoot a night scene, I have to leave the shutter open for at least a second and there can be light streaks but most of the photo has to be sharp. I'm having a very hard time getting something to turn out decent. Any tips?


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

No tips, but I like the top one as well~


----------



## Jan1975 (Sep 7, 2015)

howrsegirl123 said:


> I'm now trying to shoot a night scene, I have to leave the shutter open for at least a second and there can be light streaks but most of the photo has to be sharp. I'm having a very hard time getting something to turn out decent. Any tips?


Raise the ISO as high as your camera will allow w/out being too grainy. Also, your lens should be open as wide as it goes (lower aperture #). If you shoot in RAW you can lower some of the grain with the noise reduction slider, but you'll lose some detail.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

howrsegirl123 said:


> I'm now trying to shoot a night scene, I have to leave the shutter open for at least a second and there can be light streaks but most of the photo has to be sharp. I'm having a very hard time getting something to turn out decent. Any tips?


If you need something sharp when you've got low light then you've got a few options;

1) ISO - raise the ISO up. Yes you get more noise, but it means that you can use a suitable aperture and shutter speed in the low light conditions and still get a sharp shot. 

2) Use a slower shutter speed - you might have to tripod mount and you'll need a slower or static subject; but a slower shutter speed means letting in more light.

3) Use a wider aperture (smaller f number) - less depth of field, but in return you're letting more light into the camera.

4) Add your own light to the scene - this could be ambient (eg constant lights) or it could be flash. 


Now considering that you might be rather limited on equipment and flash setups I'll assume for this that you can't do an easy off-camera flash setup - so we'll put flash aside.
The other 3 points will interact with each other so its time to think of subjects again. You want a sharp shot so that already discounts subjects which might blur or which you would blur - so think of things that might be best to shoot in the dark.


Buildings are an ideal option - they don't move. You can thus use a nice lower ISO - an aperture of your choice and a slower shutter speed to get a good result - all whilst mounting the camera on a tripod (unless you can get your shutter speed up fast enough for hand-holding). A simple building "portrait" or "landscape" type shot might be an ideal choice for this. 

Don't forget to experiment with different angles and even different times of night if you can. If you get a road into the shot with moving vehicles upon it you can even get a bit of motion blur (which at night shows up very clear with rear/headlights).


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Thanks for the advice. I ended up using the top pic and did pretty well on it (grading wise.)

How high do you think I should raise my ISO? I've got a lens that opens up to f/1.8, I've also got a 18-55mm and a telephoto, both with apertures in the 3.5-5.6 range. I do have a tripod. I've tried shooting a barn with the cloudy sky behind it, turned out kinda neat but it was underexposed. I seem to find that if I just leave the shutter open longer it's brighter but the colors get a bit weird.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Are these any good? I've been struggling with subject ideas.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I would like the first one the best, though would like it more if it weren't for the glare on the paneling, and if the white lights in the background could be softened.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Does anyone know about damaged files in camera raw? I have 2 that are visibly messed up after I transferred them from my laptop to the school computer via flash drive, but I can still edit them.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

howrsegirl123 said:


> Thanks for the advice. I ended up using the top pic and did pretty well on it (grading wise.)
> 
> How high do you think I should raise my ISO? I've got a lens that opens up to f/1.8, I've also got a 18-55mm and a telephoto, both with apertures in the 3.5-5.6 range. I do have a tripod. I've tried shooting a barn with the cloudy sky behind it, turned out kinda neat but it was underexposed. I seem to find that if I just leave the shutter open longer it's brighter but the colors get a bit weird.


Your ISO goes as high as you need it too. 
There is a common bit of advice given to newbies which is "keep the ISO as low as possible" and its very BAD advice and best ignored. This is because yes it is true that the higher the ISO the more the noise; but if you need the ISO higher then you've got no choice - it must go higher. Furthermore if you expose correctly (look up "expose to the right" theory and "histograms" for more info) then a correctly exposed photo at a higher ISO will have less noise than one underexposed and then brightened up in editing. 


"Colour going funky" sounds like a white-balance issue - or if you're near a road then the shifting white and red lights of the cars is having more of an effect. 
If its the former then if you're shooting in RAW you should be able to fix the issue - if its the latter then work with it creatively or find another spot/time to shoot. 


As for corrupted photos - they are corrupted and you cannot fix them. Some data recovery companies might, but it would cost and in all honestly isn't worth it most times (and won't work if you've been writing data to the memory card since it might have already written over the bad sectors with new data).


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

There's three things you can do.

ISO, or in the olden days....the speed of the film itself or how sensitive it is to light. faster film was grainer.....and slow film needed more light....ie...kochrome 25....the worlds best slide film for outdoor photography on a bright day......400 was standard indoor film although speeds of 800 and 1600 were common but I never used them a lot.....standard outdoor ISO speed was 100 and 200 was meant for indoor/outdoor photography...

Shutter speed. Or, how fast the curtain opens and closes.

Aperture. How much light the lens allows to pass. Or, the focal length of the lens...which affects depth of field.

flash sync speed is 1/60th of a second. This means in 1/60th of a second the flash has fired and done.....so regardless of how long you leave the shutter open, the flash is done in 1/60th of a second. So the range of a flash is limited by the power of the flash itself. Flash is not effective beyond 20 feet or so in most cases.....

Try setting the shutter speed to 1/60th and shoot a series of pictures changing the aperture progressively larger.

Then there's fill flash....this is where the shutter is open for a longer period of time and the flash fires on the last 1/60th of a second. At night, fill flash will capture and image far beyond the range of the flash itself and then fires the flash to capture more detail of the closer subject....

I do miss the film days....but it sure is nice to see the results immediately....and getting a second chance to reshoot.....which really makes the exposure settings less important in some ways.....


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Overread said:


> Your ISO goes as high as you need it too.
> There is a common bit of advice given to newbies which is "keep the ISO as low as possible" and its very BAD advice and best ignored. This is because yes it is true that the higher the ISO the more the noise; but if you need the ISO higher then you've got no choice - it must go higher. Furthermore if you expose correctly (look up "expose to the right" theory and "histograms" for more info) then a correctly exposed photo at a higher ISO will have less noise than one underexposed and then brightened up in editing.
> 
> 
> ...


Do you think they're corrupted because I moved them? They're fine on my personal computer.


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

I like the 3rd pic, the aircraft height warning lights give a fantasy effect though the bright light on the right is a little distracting. The red line gives a bit of depth (I assume you know that is from car tail lights)

second choice is the 2nd pic, the bright light brings your eye to centre of pic

are you using car lights for your lighting? You can put a white sheet over/in front of the light source and soften the effect.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

howrsegirl123 said:


> Do you think they're corrupted because I moved them? They're fine on my personal computer.


Moving could corrupt esp if the process were interrupted by something (pulling the card too soon or the power going off is one good example, but not the only potential cause). 

If you've got good copies on your PC I would just delete the copies on the card and not worry about them since you've got a clean copy where you want it (on the PC).


----------



## 6th Sense (Feb 12, 2015)

I'm not sure I would try flash photography with a horse, or any animal really. It can startle them.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

In my experiences the reaction of animals is purely down to the individual animal. The majority don't pay any attention to it; some turn their heads to inspect, but otherwise a flash is quite innocent. 

I do agree that the larger/more dangerous the animal then there is a greater potential for harm caused if the animal should show a negative reaction; however I would argue that most should be fairly safe; indeed with horses I'd suspect nervousness on the part of rider/handler would be a bigger influence than the flash itself. 


OF course this is talking about the small flash units on cameras or the speedlites that fit to the top of DSLRs (indeed many horses born today I suspect are flashed with tablets/mobile phones and built in cameras within seconds of birth). Where it gets more risky is with things like diffusers, reflectors, umbrellas and softboxes. There you can have more risk, especially as those items can move in wind or just fall over or get knocked or just look darn scary. 

It's my impression that its more motion than light that triggers flight/fight responses in many creatures - With sound also coming into play as well (ergo why lightning can spook because its more the thunder than the light). 



But it all goes back to individuality. Each animal will be different so if there is any concern try it out within a safe environment like the paddock where the horse can retreat if need be. With lighting modifiers the general rule is to set them up and then bring the horse to them so that the horse can take thing at their own pace - if they don't like it you can walk away and try to calm them down and try again - if they really don't like it you can just walk them away. Communication with the handler and avoiding any sudden surprises helps (eg DON'T open the pop-up reflector within sight of the horse)


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm now working on a studio portrait. Are there any rules about where the crop should be on the body? It's head and shoulders but where do you crop the arms if they're down by their side? And where do you crop if they're resting on the table in front of them? (this is seated by the way)


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

6th Sense said:


> I'm not sure I would try flash photography with a horse, or any animal really. It can startle them.


Very true, but I would bet you good money that mine wouldn't bat an eye, haha. He's used to so much.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

So for the time exposure/fence pic I ended up using the first and did very well on it, it was voted one of the best in the class


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Portraiture is not my primary area of strength; but the one "rule"* is that if you are to "cut" a limb you should never do it on a joint on the body. So if you were to cut an arm, lets say, you could NOT cut it on the wrist, elbow or shoulder; but could cut it mid section. 

Otherwise I would say the best teacher for that is to go look at some portraits. If you're doing something formal just go to good company websites and see how they did it - search flickr or 500pix for ideas as well. 



*Remembering that there are no "rules" but "theories" which give you a benefit to follow. If you can research and understand the reasoning behind the theory then you can better understand in what situations it would be suitable to "break" the rule (remembering that there are a LOT of theories on composition and thus chances are by "breaking" one you are likely following another - or simply ascribing higher importance to one theory over another).


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Problem here...I have all of my .dng files in folders on my computer. Went to look through some just now and about half of the folders show blank white files, and when I try to open them in bridge it says Windows cannot open this file. These pictures haven't been moved or touched since I uploaded them a few weeks ago. What's going on?


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

I can't help, but hopefully someone can. Look forward to seeing more pictures.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Which do you like best?


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Anyone?


----------



## Remali (Jul 22, 2008)

I like the bottom photo. All are very nice, but the last one sort of pops out at me.


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

Actually it is hard to choose, they all have something to recommend them 
Lovely lady, is that your Mum?

A trick with a person wearing glasses is to get them to tilt their chin up slightly so the eye can be seen.
I was told this by a photographer years ago. (I wear glasses too, they are a pain)

IMO
I like 1, the lighting gives a more natural look.
My pick is 2, unclutered background lighting gives dramatic effect which emphasises the mood of the photo

3 is kinder than 4 for lighting and where you cut the shot, but I like the angle of 4 more.

:clap:


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

Sorry late seeing new pictures. I like #2 the best. Good picture and the idea of is she looking out a window? At what? Thinking of something? Adds to it to me. I have never really been an art guy. Surprised at myself because your pictures make me think. Being asked which one and why maybe.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Thanks for the advice guys. I didn't get any responses before I had to choose a photo, so I ended up with number 3, but I was close to going with number 1. We'll see what the professor thinks.

This weren't taken for my class, just some I did for myself today. The colors were perfect.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

Awesome especially #2.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

this one has what my art teacher called "an unfortunate tangent".

the positin of the dog and tree are such that it looks like the nose is perhaps tocuhing the tree, or the tree is stuck on his nose, or ? your eye may struggle to see clearly that the tree is behind the dog. it is just a position that can make a photo/painting awkward. you need to think about that when ytou take a photo;

how each line connects with each other line especially stong ones like the pointy nose and the vertical trunk.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

tinyliny said:


> this one has what my art teacher called "an unfortunate tangent".
> 
> the positin of the dog and tree are such that it looks like the nose is perhaps tocuhing the tree, or the tree is stuck on his nose, or ? your eye may struggle to see clearly that the tree is behind the dog. it is just a position that can make a photo/painting awkward. you need to think about that when ytou take a photo;
> 
> how each line connects with each other line especially stong ones like the pointy nose and the vertical trunk.


I see that now, makes me not like the photo as much, haha. I usually am pretty good with picking out things like that but I guess I missed this one.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

framing up your photo is really important. if you intended that, then it's one thing. but even with the tree not stuck to the dog's nose, the picture would be a bit ho hum on composition. sorry if that sounds harsh. but, it's one of the parts of photography that you have the most artistic control of.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

What do you think of this photograph?


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

what do you think about this one:

View attachment 712674










I was trying to show two different possible ways to crop the photo. it's a good photo. the only thing is the line where the fencing is runs basically right through the middle of the photo, well, not exactly, but a photo that appears to be divided in half is contrary to basic rules of good composition. by raising the bottom, you get a more elongated feel, and more of being divided into visual thirds, vertically.


----------



## Tracer (Sep 16, 2012)

You have quite a good eye. 

The racing photograph, I find the red and white post distracting. Action photography is difficult in that you can't pick and choose your backdrop, but you can crop that out quite easily. That, combined with Tinyliny's crop, will make that photograph more appealing.


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

The red and white post is part of the information - position on track. Tinyliny's cropping gives a sense of being nearer to the action


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I like that elongated crop, but this will eventually have to be cropped as an 8 X 10.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

Yes the poles are part of the action. Love pictures of racing. Close shot so having trouble knowing where it is.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

cropping is really fun. you can do a lot of changes with cropping. my version also was color adjusted, but I like the OP's color version much better. the photo has a lot of potential.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Which of these is the best to show people working?


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Also I'm shooting a 5k race tomorrow morning. I have three lenses- 35mm, 18-55mm, and 70-300mm. Trying to decide which to take. The 35 is my sharpest but I don't know how much space I'll have to move around there. The 70-300 is great too but may be a little long. 

I'm not sure, what do you think?


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

howrsegirl123 said:


> Also I'm shooting a 5k race tomorrow morning. I have three lenses- 35mm, 18-55mm, and 70-300mm. Trying to decide which to take. The 35 is my sharpest but I don't know how much space I'll have to move around there. The 70-300 is great too but may be a little long.
> 
> I'm not sure, what do you think?


Hmm...after doing some tip reading it seems like I should go with the 70-300mm.

What if I started with a wide angle at the start line, then changed to the 70-300 for individual shots?


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Go back to basics of perspective distortion to answer your question and consider two things:

1) A profile shot of a horse from full body to headshot isn't going to work with any lens under 50mm and ideally wants to be taken with 100mm or more otherwise you get perspective distortion. 

2) What kind of shot do you want to get? A wide angle covering all the horses at the start - you want the 35mm. A close up of one horse running or a couple in a bunch charging along - chances are you want the zoom. 
If you remember point 1 then its also going to further remind you want you need.


Again I'd likely take a 70-200mm and be happy with it - the 70-300mm; whilst not your sharpest, is your most suitable for what you will likely need for most shots unless you go for a wide-angle day. Get yourself a nice padded shoulder bag and take all three along inside and swap over as you need them. With lenses like that you should be fine carrying them around all day in a bag on your shoulder. 

Heavier higher end lenses tend to make one more selective because the weight gets to be a factor; but then again for something like this you can easily camp-down in a single spot for a while (say at a jump or corner or on the straights) so you only have to deal with weight inbetween spots.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Overread said:


> Go back to basics of perspective distortion to answer your question and consider two things:
> 
> 1) A profile shot of a horse from full body to headshot isn't going to work with any lens under 50mm and ideally wants to be taken with 100mm or more otherwise you get perspective distortion.
> 
> ...


I'm actually talking about a human race...a 5k


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Just a side note, I've taken most if not all of my horse profile shots with a 35mm, and I haven't noticed any distortion.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Ahh a human race! 

Remember perspective distortion is more about distance than focal length - the closer you are to your subject the more distortion you risk. Profile to headshot with a wide angle lens if you're fulling the frame with a horse is a guideline for distance required for that kind of shot which says that you really want 100mm or longer for this kind of shot to eliminate the risk.

If you're cropping shots then you're taking them from further away - the distances is greater and thus the distortion is less. But it can also depend on other factors such as how "flat" a profile the subject has relative to the front of the lens.


----------



## Tracer (Sep 16, 2012)

howrsegirl123 said:


> Which of these is the best to show people working?


I prefer the first. The second reminds me of a stock photo, it looks overly posed. This first also has movement; there's no question that she's picking up papers and working.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Here's some of the 5K I shot yesterday. I wasn't able to get at the start line so I chose a spot at the base of a hill near the end. I'm going to send 2 or 3 of these in to my local newspaper for consideration to be published. Which ones are the best?


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

the lady in blue
the two ladies
then the little girl with her dad

good luck!


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I had the woman in blue as my top choice too.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I now have to do a photo essay, consisting of 3-7 photographs (aiming for 5) that tell a story. I really like this concept but I am completely stumped on what to do. I wish I could do something horse related, as I've only done one so far for the class.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Also where is a good place to get photos printed?


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

would a photo essay on the process of shoeing a horse work? I mean, many people do not have a clue as to how a horse is reshod.


----------



## Remali (Jul 22, 2008)

howrsegirl123 said:


> Also where is a good place to get photos printed?


Years ago there was a photography studio I used to get my photos processed into prints, they did a much better job than Walmart or Target, or those other places. But I am not sure, these days, if many studios do that any more. Maybe call around and ask about photo processing in your area?


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

tinyliny said:


> would a photo essay on the process of shoeing a horse work? I mean, many people do not have a clue as to how a horse is reshod.


Great idea, and different too


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

howrsegirl123 said:


> Also where is a good place to get photos printed?


There are several online places now that are quite reliable. Snapfish is in a lot of places and you put in your country. Turnaround isn't usually very long. This company is very big and well known. I have used them. There are others.


----------



## Tracer (Sep 16, 2012)

howrsegirl123 said:


> I now have to do a photo essay, consisting of 3-7 photographs (aiming for 5) that tell a story. I really like this concept but I am completely stumped on what to do. I wish I could do something horse related, as I've only done one so far for the class.


The shoeing idea already mentioned sounds great; you could get quite artistic.

Otherwise, perhaps you could do horse tack/equipment? You could pose it, again getting very artistic - a photograph of a saddle, and a story of the different types of saddle. A collection of brushes, with information for each?


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I liked the horse-related ideas, but one evening I was out photographing my dad combining beans and when I started looking through the shots I thought, hmm, this might make a good story. So I went with it.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I did my first long exposures with water last week. I'm pretty happy with how they turned out. I think the water is beautiful like this.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I'd like some advice on how to make this picture better. I want to bring down the highlights on the noseband of the halter, what's the best way to do that? What do you think of the crop? What do you think of it in general? I didn't thread the chain through like you're supposed to because I was thinking I'd take it out later, but I don't know.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

This one too. 
This was my first real attempt at black backgrounds.


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

FWIW (lovely pics, that chestnut is my type of horse!) the photos are great. 

What type of lighting are you using? Ive taken the liberty of adjusting the 'levels' in photoshop which seems to have picked up the warm tones, possibly to the extent of making the pic a bit 'hard'. So I prefer your original the only one thing with the photoshop pics is the chestnuts ears stand out a bit better.

















Using a small flood-light behind a sheet or white umbrella could give a similar effect - soft light right where you want it on the subject.

I love the angles, and style of the two photos 

great work

:gallop:


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

What about the highlights on the palomino's halter?


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

If you took the shot in RAW mode you might have some luck - go back to the RAW version and open it up in your editing software. Keep all the adjustments you made the first time the same and then lower the "exposure" slider. Basically you bring down the exposure over the whole shot until the area you want; the highlights, is properly exposed - or at least as close as you can get without making it a grey area. 

Then you have to export that version to your editing software of choice that supports layers (I export into photoshop out of lightroom). Another option is to save the result as a jpeg and then, again open it and the other normal version in the same editing software. 

Then you just copy and paste one over the other and use layer masking to bring out the area you want to show. I would paste the darker version over the normal since the majority of the darker version you don't want so you just have to "paint in" the noseband. I'd do it with a soft brush so only around 10-20 opacity so that I can sweep it over a few times to build up the effect in layers - that way you can vary how much you want to show.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I haven't figure out how to have two pictures inside one photoshop document at once.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Open the RAW file and process it as normal and open it up in photoshop to edit. Then save it under "save as" as a different file name. 

Then open the original RAW file again - because its now got a different name to the photo open in Photoshop it should open it up again so you can make adjustments.

Then all you need to do is select the whole of the photo with the selection tool and copy it. Then just go to the other photo in Photoshop and paste it in (edit - paste). 

You should then be able to apply a layermask to the new pasted image (it will paste in as a new layer)


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

Do you like this better? Taken the 'glow' off the noseband and the tone is smoother (thanks Overread! - I'm still learning photoshop!)


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

So using the same principle this is the chestnut. Not so washed-out


----------



## Tracer (Sep 16, 2012)

There is also a tool for RAW files called 'Recovery'. I LOVE it. It essentially tones down overexposed areas to recover some of the detail that has been lost.

If you shoot only in JPEG though, you can have a play around with a few different methods. You could try using a combination of the burn tool, the exposure, the levels, and/or the selective colour function in Photoshop. The selective colour tool is another favourite of mine as you can lighten and darken the whites, neutrals and blacks in the image. Of course, you don't want to take it too far.

Vector masks are a great tool, too. Try using a vector mask to hide everything but the overly bright section on the halter on a duplicated layer. You can then reduce the highlights etc. without affecting the rest of the image.


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

Looking at them again the originals still look better - I guess i've got a lot to learn


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I shoot in RAW


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

ShirtHotTeez said:


> Looking at them again the originals still look better - I guess i've got a lot to learn


Editing is in a way harder than photography to learn because there are many different ways to get the same end result; although the way you get there can have small and big differences on the final result too. It's complicated!



howrsegirl123 said:


> I shoot in RAW


Then try the duel processing method i outlined above - you should be able to get more highlight restoration than we can with the JPEGs here


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm doing these photos for my class, and normally I print the photo from the dng then save it as a JPEG. I took the chain out in photoshop then saved it as a high quality JPEG. If after I print it I need to make changes and re-print, is there any way to access the original dng file (the one I was working on first, made all my adjustments in except removing the chain) and have what I change transfer to the photoshop/other JPEG file? Or will any changes I make have to be to that JPEG?

It's not really a problem I suppose, I can open the JPEG in camera raw and make adjustments, but everything's set to zero and I like knowing how much I'm changing things from where I had it.

Sorry if this is confusing.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

When you edit in RAW mode the original RAW file is not changed; the editing software instead makes a record (normally a separate file) which stores all the details of what the slider settings were. 

Thus you can just open the dng file again.

However if you open the RAW file to edit and then export it as a JEPG to other editing software, sometimes the RAW software won't open the dng again because it sees the current JPGE open with the same file name. That's why you "save as" on the JPEG and change the name; that way you can open the dng again at the same time.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Here were some of my favorites from that shoot, chains removed


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Besides the noseband, which has been spoken of already, the only thing that stands out to me is that all these horses look like they are sloping downward; as if their forebody is shorter than their rear. I think it a combination of the angle of their necks coupled with taking photos of them close up at eye level rather than crouching a bit to look at or up at them. I know sometimes backgrounds are a nightmare and force a different angle to remove something that otherwise would have been a pain; but would be nice to have some shots where the horses are not sloping forwards.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Overread said:


> Besides the noseband, which has been spoken of already, the only thing that stands out to me is that all these horses look like they are sloping downward; as if their forebody is shorter than their rear. I think it a combination of the angle of their necks coupled with taking photos of them close up at eye level rather than crouching a bit to look at or up at them. I know sometimes backgrounds are a nightmare and force a different angle to remove something that otherwise would have been a pain; but would be nice to have some shots where the horses are not sloping forwards.


They look like they're sloping because they actually are; where they had to stand was on a slight decline.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Switching gears to lenses for a minute...so I've been thinking about getting the Nikon 85mm 1.8G. I love my 35mm so much and I want something longer for portraits. Recently I stumbled across the 85mm f/3.5, which is marketed as a macro lens but I've also read does good portraits. Of course you wouldn't get as shallow a depth of field or as much bokeh, but I also love macro photography and would like to do more of it...so, should I go with the classic portrait lens? Or the macro/portrait dual lens?


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

It is very much a personal choice there. Can you get both, then you can change them as necessary. If you have to get one first go for the one that appeals most, or go for the most versatile one.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

A few thoughts:

1) Macro lenses tend to all have a very "hair trigger" focusing system for regular distances. They make up for it by having a very fine controlled close focusing system - what this means in practical terms is that the manual focusing ring turns a lot for small changes in close up; whilst at regular distances it turns very little and results in a bigger shift in the focus. 
This can make regular focusing with them a little more tricky in some situations where you might be manually focusing or adjusting the focus compared to some other regular lenses. If autofocusing only it shouldn't be a huge problem ;but again it just makes focusing that bit more demanding.

2) Most macro lenses tend to have slower AF motors than regular lenses; even when you use the limiter switch (so that the lens won't focus through all its close focus range) its still often a little slower - own brand lenses tend to be the fastest as compared to 3rd party offerings.

3) Macro is demanding, challenging and GREAT fun! Takes a while to get used ot it but its a lot of fun and I've known people use 3rd party macro lenses for action photography - so don't get the idea that they can't do stuff; they are just not "as" ideal as other options. It's something to keep in mind; but otherwise they are very capable. 

4) 85mm is a good range for macro - I would generally say 60mm is the shortest focal length for macro work you should practically consider; whilst longer is generally better. With macro its important to realise that each true macro lens on the market (which is to say mostly only the prime macro lenses) will give you the same magnification (barring a few exceptions). Which means that for the close focusing distances the focal length won't change the frame content - what it will change is the working distance* and the background blurring**. Depth of field remains the same. 

5) Remember that the macro hasn't got as wide a maximum aperture. Whilst f2.8 to f2 tend to be the widest for most practical situations the option of going wider can have a bonus for certain effects (really getting razor thin depth of field and stronger background blur) and in some darker situations is the only option. It's something to consider - esp as most macro lenses are f2.8 rather than f3.5

6) Macro will make you want a flash - and an off-camera flash bracket - and a cable to let you fire the flash off-camera. Of course if you get a good speedlite flash you can use that in any genre of photography as you need.

In general I would say to ask yourself. Do I want to do macro or do I want to do regular shooting. Whichever you WANT to do most get the lens for that.
I would say go macro as I'm a big fan of it (I own 4 and oddly at present all my prime lenses are macro lenses); but it really depends on your choice.

*Minimum focusing distance is from the sensor/film in the camera to the subject; working distances is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject. As you can see a working distance and minimum focusing distance for most regular subjects is pretty much null difference between them - however for macro working distance is all important. Longer focal length lenses will have longer minimum focusing distances and thus potentially longer working distances (it will vary a little depending on the lens itself but generally longer focal length = more working distance).

** longer focal length lenses will blur the background much more so over shorter focal length ones when comparing them for macro work. It tends to only show strongly when comparing extremes like a 35mm and a 150mm macro side by side - however it can be seen. 
This can cause some to think that shorter focal length give more depth of field as the fall-off into blur is less marked; but its not true. Depth of field remains the same.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Your detailed posts are great 

With all of that in mind, I'm thinking I'll stick with my original thought of the 85mm 1.8


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

howrsegirl123 said:


> Here were some of my favorites from that shoot, chains removed


I love these, great job, did you have these horses in a stall?


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Hoofpic said:


> howrsegirl123 said:
> 
> 
> > Here were some of my favorites from that shoot, chains removed
> ...


They were in a barn


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Okay...we're doing a Christmas shoot this weekend. Two people, two horses. 35mm, 18-55mm, or 70-300mm lens?


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

Break the situation down into 4 parts:

1) What kind of photos you want to take. You know the situation and the people+hoses posing so think about what types of shots are possible within the given situation as well as what kind of theme (if any) you want to go for. 

2) What kind of photos they want to have taken. Never hurts to ask if they are posing for you and can provide some good ideas

3) What kind of situation it is. Stable shots, barn shots, riding, posing standing, active etc... Granted it might depend on points 1 and 2 as to what you end up doing. Also consider things such as backgrounds and the setting in general - do you know the area you're shooting in - do you know where you might be able to pose them or have them run/jump/walk where you can get a good clear shot

4) What gear you have. Finally this affects what you can potentially do given the situation and the desires of the shoot. 


In the end you might well take all 3 lenses as they are not too big nor bulky; but having an idea of what you want before the shoot helps a lot. It means you can start things with ideas and even a few rough concepts will help things go faster and smoother. Sometimes a few planned early shots lets more spontaneous things flow from that; rather than them and you turning up and going "Well ok here we are now what should we do". 

Event shooting is somewhat easier for you; the event is already defining what is happening so when the situation is more in your control you've got to define what is to happen.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I have some pictures I need to post, it's been quite a while. Just a little update, I recently acquired a Nikon E series 50mm lens off eBay for dirt cheap. I originally thought I wanted it just to sit on my shelf for collection, but I tried it out today and it works beautifully, glass is clean and images are sharp. I'm having to get used to total manual focus but so far I really like it.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

Overread said:


> Break the situation down into 4 parts:
> 
> 1) What kind of photos you want to take. You know the situation and the people+hoses posing so think about what types of shots are possible within the given situation as well as what kind of theme (if any) you want to go for.
> 
> ...


I read this at the time I just never responded to it. 

The shoot was fun, we ended up using the 70-300mm. The horses weren't very cooperative which made for some interesting photos.


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

My first time with a manual focus lens


----------



## howrsegirl123 (Feb 19, 2012)

I need some help on ideas of what to shoot...the photograph has to be hand tinted in photoshop...so a subject with good colors but a less busy background is best...it doesn't have to be horse related, but it can be. I'm having a hard time with this one.


----------

