Evening Does

[Ron Kruger]

This is a shot I got last evening--nothing special--but the evening shades gave it interesting colors.

[slayer7124]

The shading definitely makes the deer pop out. Good capture!

[Ron Kruger]

Yes, having the deer standing in full sun, with the hill casting an evening shadow behind them, really gave it contrast and difinition.
I noticed deer out in this field and tried to get past the high weeds (noticable streaking through the foreground), but they spotted my movement, and when they both looked my way, I knew I had to shoot were I was, because any more advance would have them bounding away.

[Grandpaw]

Did you do a lot of Photoshop adjustments on this? Something just doesn't look right about this picture, Jeff

[Ron Kruger]

No. What you may be noticing is a high degree of color saturation and contrast, but that's mostly a product of evening (or early morning) light, especially when you have some shadows involved as well. It makes everything richer, which may not be desirable to some, but I prefer it because I shoot for publication in magazines and the process of publication always loses some color and contrast with each step. This is especially true of publications that don't print on heavy, expensive, glossy (National Geographic) types of stock. A lot of my stuff goes in newspapers as well, and that's cheap paper.
I often underexpose my shots in full sunlight by -1/3 to get richer color saturation as well.

[Ron Kruger]

Here's an example of a couple of shots I took last week of a pointer locked up on point to illustrate what I mean about shooting in strong sunlight.
One is taken at auto-exposure, the other at -1/3

[Ron Kruger]

The auto-exposure in the bottom photo is fine, but by underexposing the top photo by -1/3, I got deeper shadows, which gave me more contrast and muscle difinition in the dog, but deeper, richer colors in the weeds as well. Some may say that the bottom pictures is "too dark," but I like it and it reproduces well for publication.

[Grandpaw]

The auto-exposure in the bottom photo is fine, but by underexposing the top photo by -1/3, I got deeper shadows, which gave me more contrast and muscle difinition in the dog, but deeper, richer colors in the weeds as well. Some may say that the bottom pictures is "too dark," but I like it and it reproduces well for publication.

Ron, I would be interested in seeing some of your other work. Do you have a website or somewhere I could check out some of your published photos used in magazines. Looking through some proven photos may give me some helpful ideas. I am trying to get my photos to the point I may get them published also, Jeff

[Ron Kruger]

Sorry, Gramps, but I don't have a website for photos. I've considered it, mostly as a portfilio for editors not familiar with my work, as a place for current markets to shop when a special need arises and maybe as a place to sell some prints; but I'm not sure a website would be such an asset for the time and cost involved. (I have quite a few established markets already, and I've never been into the ego trip of having my own website.)
Andyway, the biggest reason, is that to post for sale images to a website, the resolution has to be so small to keep people from just stealing them, that they look terrible to me.
But I'd like to help you all I can, and what I would suggest is getting a copy of the Photographer's Market, study it and read the articles to determine the best ways to package and present your work. Then decide upon a niche market for the types of photographs you take. Don't try to shotgun the markets--specialize. If you can write articles to go along with your pictures, all the better. It's a lot easier to sell a package than just a photo, and a lot easier to sell an "illustration" than some artsy image.
I see a lot of shots on this site that are much better than mine, but there isn't much market for them, and none at all for some of them. Like Canon Bob does, you have to get off the beaten paths and go to extra lengths to get shots beynod what the average shutterbug gets just walking around and snapping pictures. The technical aspects of a photo are one thing, but what really sells a shot is composition (shots that tell a story), and that's as hard in this auto-settings age as it was when everything was manual.
I'll tell you candidly, though, there isn't much money in it, even for those who are prolific and good, and that aspect is getting worse with each passing year, as camera technology is making technically good photographers of everyone.

[Loupey]

I think Grandpaw had a legitimate point in asking for advice since very few of us (I'm assuming) have images published (on paper) on a regular basis.

...I see a lot of shots on this site that are much better than mine, but there isn't much market for them, and none at all for some of them. Like Canon Bob does, you have to get off the beaten paths and go to extra lengths to get shots beynod what the average shutterbug gets just walking around and snapping pictures...

Please keep in mind that many of us post to this site in the genuine interest of simply sharing. I think most would agree that we learn from each other and we post not only what we think are good, but those which are bad (to learn), and some just "because".

But now that you mention it, are there some past publications to which you can post a link which feature your work? It's always a testament to the richness of this site when we have members actively having their works published :thumbsup:

[Ron Kruger]

Loupey, I have a regular column published in a few newspapers in western Kentucky. One you can easily find online is the Hopkinsville New Era. I also have a regular column in the Building Tradesman in Detroit and the St. Louis Labor Tribune (Both these publication go out to every member of the AFLICO in the St. Louis and Detroit areas. Different stories and pictures for each, but they both pay better than any other newspaper I deal with.) I have two or three pieces published in the Outdoor Guide Magazine every issue, and have had covers there. I have one or two pieces published each issue in Tennessee Valley Outdoors, and had a picture on cover issue before last. I also had the cover of West Tennessee Outdoors an issue or two ago, and often have three or four articles in it (with pictures), but I don't get to see that magazine, so I'm not sure what is in there now, and they haven't paid me for a couple of months, so I think they are on the ropes. (All my articles in every newspaper or magazine are accompanied by at least a couple of pictures.) I also have two or three articles with pictures in Mid-West Outdoors (Chicago) every issue, but they don't pay much for covers, so I haven't submitted any cover-quality shots to them. Every few months, I have an article (with pictures) in Fur-Fish-Game Magazine, Fishing Facts, American Angler, Michigan Outdoors, Crappie World. I'm probably forgetting some of the not-so-regular markets. If you'll Google my name, you'll probably find more.
This is just what I'm doing at present. I’ve been doing this for over 30 years, and I've been in most every outdoor magazine in the nation at one time or the other. I'm the former editor of two magazines and once went broke trying to publish my own magazine. Years ago, I did some work for Field & Stream and Outdoor Life, but, although they pay well, they buy all rights, and once I figured out that I was in this for the long haul, I refused to sell all rights to anything, words or pictures. I'm one of the few freelancers who actually tries to make a living at this. It's a tough, low-paying business.
If you want to check me out further, I'm also a member of the Southeastern Outdoor Press Association, which includes most of the better writers and photographers in the nation.
What I posted was to help Grandpaw get his pictures published, and if anyone took offense to what I said, it was unintended.

[Grandpaw]

Ron, non of these pictures look like they are in sharp focus to me. They look the same on both my monitors and the colors on the deer photo just don't look right, Jeff

[Ron Kruger]

Gramps, thanks for pointing that out.
I posted the two dog pix as an example of exposure differences, because they were handy at the time. They were shot with a long lens. You may be noticing some natural blurring of the background, or bokah effect, but I agree that the focus is not exactly tack sharp on the dogs.
On my monitor, I can magnify the top shot 10 times or more and the deer are still sharp. It, too, was shot with my 200mm, so it has some foreground and background blurring. I'm not sure what you mean by "the colors don't look right."
What you are seeing may just be the effects of evening lighting. I'll download the original from my camera again and make sure I didn't do something extra in PS. I don't usually do that with pix I'm planning to submit for publication, but this isn’t one of them. Almost all of what I post here are out-takes, for one reason or the other, because I'm still a little concerned that someone might pirate them (not any members, but maybe one of the many guests I see poking around.)
However, this was one of the first shots I took with my new monopod with IS off. I previously shot everything hand-held with IS on, and found that I got the best results by bumping the contrast and saturation slightly in my camera. (The reason I do this is because publishing images, especially on the cheaper paper used by newspapers and smaller magazines normally degrades the color and contrast slightly during the transformation processes.) But maybe I’m getting higher contrast and saturation with IS off.
At any rate, what you point out suggest I need to experiment with some shots of the same scene using different internal camera settings. Maybe someone has some experience with this and can offers some advice. Does in-camera IS effect color and contrast? The does in the field shot does look a little high in contrast.
And it could be the difference in the monitors. I have a fairly new flat-screen, but it’s not calibrated. A couple of days ago, I took some shots I’m doing for a local business to the head of the local chamber of commerce to look at, and they didn’t look very good on her screen, but she said that was because she had an old monitor, then talked about how money is tight, etc. But there’s always the possibility that my monitor needs to be calibrated.

[Ron Kruger]

I couldn't figure out what I had done to the Does in a Field shot in PS, so I downloaded it again from my camera, and the original looked flat. Normally I would just trash such a shot, but I'm experimenting with PSE 7 and LR 2.2 to determine which to buy, and this was a good candidate for fixing. I might have overfixed it.
In the meantime, I have emailed one of the editors that probably uses more of my stuff than any and asked him if the quality of my shots are as good as they were previously to make sure my camera is still preforming properly, or if I'm doing something wrong.
As we all know, there is a difference in monitors as well. I also emailed the CC lady to see if those recent images looked all right on the customer's home monitor. (They've already sent some of my recent shots off to be enlarged to poster sizes for the walls of their business.)
My wife, who occasionally takes my images to work and shares them with her co-workers says they look great on their monitors, and that everyone tells her they are the best shots they've seen. But none of them are experienced or ciritical photographers, and certianly not photo editors.
I'm going to all this trouble because although I've been selling photographs for over 30 years, I've only been shooting digital for 8 months or so, and I'm finding out that the technology is much more complicated than the days of slides, and that communications between operating systems and software packages is what makes it so complicated. I'm on a learning curve here, and I've already determined there are a lot of people on this site that know a great deal about all this, and I want to assure you all that I really appreciate the feedback.
Please keep in mind that because of my concerns over piracy (whether warranted or not), I'm not posting my best shots here. Have you all noticed a problem with my other shots? Or just these?

[Loupey]

...Please keep in mind that because of my concerns over piracy (whether warranted or not), I'm not posting my best shots here. Have you all noticed a problem with my other shots? Or just these?

While I can understand your concern, I wish you did. At least at a smaller, lower resolution or highly water-marked. Speaking for myself, I don't want to give out advice on "second rate" shots.

Difficult for anyone to know how to help you if you don't show us what you already know.


EDIT: Ron, I hope the above doesn't come across harshly. But it seems to me rather odd for someone to be holding back yet asking for advice. I think you'll agree that we are all very open and helpful here.