I suspect that you’ve pushed your camera to its limits in a poorly lit situation. The data on that picture say it was taken at 1/30 second, with aperture f/2.8 – that’s about the longest exposure you want hand-held, unless you have extremely steady hands, while the lens is probably wide open.
I’m sorry, I didn’t phrase my question well. What I mean to ask was why flickr in particular made it look so dark – it’s fine (not a perfect photograph, but not so dark) when viewed in Photoshop.
That seems strange to me. I dunno.
But I’ll try to remember what you said about f 2.8 in future use.
I’m not sure why it would look brighter in Photoshop. However, most of your pictures on Flickr as fine as far as brightness goes: it’s just that one, and the one called “040904 Sleeping” that seem too dark to me.
Photoshop reads embedded color profiles and adjusts for them. There could be a mismatch. Most browsers don’t adjust for Adobe RGB or Pro Photo RGB files, so for web use, it’s best to make sure everything is exported as sRGB. Open your photo in PS, go to Edit > Convert to Profile and check to see that the Source Space is sRGB. If not, that’s where you can convert it.
Hmmm…actually, your EXIF shows that you are in sRGB, so my suggestion above won’t be applicable. But it is not unusual for photos in Photoshop to look different in browsers because of the color management issue I mentioned before.
I did a black and white plain-film photo course for two semesters in high school that introduced me to the basics but nothing of interest pertaining to art. I’ll go with mhendo. I feel competent and justified in becoming apoplectic about people that can’t frame a shot without cutting off heads (when it affects me), but I can’t say I’ve managed to take more than 2-3 really worthwhile photos and I can’t even decide which 2-3 photos that would be, but I’m confident the photo of the house from Denmark is the best.
With the inability to self-edit or select, I just know I could never be a real photographer. Although I do hate 98% of everything I see and that could be just enough of an asset…
Took a generic art class in high school that never touched on photography, and I took the intro to photography class at the CC, but the teacher was horrid so I quit going. And really, when you get down to it, it seems there’s very little that really needs to be “learned” when taking pictures. A few basic settings, and then you just need to frame.
I’m not sure which version of photoshop you are using but try ‘saving for web’ under the “file” section.
This allows you to save a file that has been optimized for the web. (made smaller, has some of the colors removed as web browsers don’t use all the colors)
I don’t have any formal training and I haven’t taken any classes.
I got interested in photography right after high school about 27 years ago. I read several books and learned the vocabulary and theories. However, I was much too cash-strapped to practice them. I mailed my film to discount labs to be developed and I had to wait weeks to get the pictures back. It was hard for me to learn that way. However, I took better-than-average snapshots with the Canon AE1-P for overy twenty years.
I just recently got back into it in a more serious fashion. I am trying to transition from taking snapshots to more arty photos. It’s so much easier with digital where you get nearly instant feedback.
I’ve ground-ruled myself to not doing any post-processing other than cropping. I want to learn to capture the image using just the camera. Not than I’m opposed to post-processing, but one thing at a time works best for me.
Right now, I’m spending a lot of time doing macro shots. I never did them before and I’m having a lot of fun with them.
I (and my sister and brother) all caught the photography bug from my father.
Only training I’ve had specifically in photography was a high school class. Not recalling much from that except for doing work in darkroom film developing, which I never continued doing after the class.
Also in high school had an excellent general art history class, which helped me learn to appreciate photography as art.
Aside from those classes, my only training has just been taking pictures whenever I can.
My personal album on that forum is here. (I am also “Landshark” there.)
Last year participants in the Digital Imaging forum created four calendars that were sold to benefit the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. One of the calendars had a flowers theme. I decided to submit for consideration of inclusion in that calendar this photo, and was thrilled when the selection committee of professional photographers who participate in the forum made it the October photo in the calendar!
(The forum participants are planning to do more calendars AND a photo book this year, sales again to benefit the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I haven’t yet found anything of mine that applies to this year’s themes that I would want to submit. But if I recall correctly, I think photos from last year’s calendars are planned to be included in the photo book.)
I had been thinking before before I submitted it for consideration of inclusion in the calendar of having that photo professionally printed and submitting to this year’s San Diego County Fair Exhibition of Photography, which is a competitive exhibit. Having the photo included in that calendar definitely helped make up my mind to do so.
I took the file of the photo to a local shop on Friday for printing and mounting on a display board, and it’s scheduled to be ready for me to pick up this Wednesday.
The user name is the same as here. Here’s a better link.
Landshark, you bring up a point that’s crossed my mind a few times recently. Why not make good prints of my better shots, have them matte framed, and hang the on the wall. Right now, I have some old Ansel Adams prints. Why not put up my own?
I visited 20+ years ago. The shot looking down on the bike is my favorite.
