Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fotojack" data-source="post: 21378" data-attributes="member: 16">Hey Heather, congrats on the new camera. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> You're gonna have fun with that puppy, eh! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />On your first picture...............personally, I think it looks a little washed out.....as in no discernible contrast. I don't think you needed to shoot it at ISO 160. It looks like it was shot in bright sunlight, so an ISO of 100 would have been better. The more light you have available, the less ISO needed.I'm not in the habit of criticizing others as I'm no raving expert, but I just felt the need to point out things that I myself noticed about the shot. This is what I would have done to it to make it &quot;pop&quot;:[ATTACH]2940[/ATTACH]What do you think? Much difference? Any difference? Better? Worse?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fotojack, post: 21378, member: 16"] Hey Heather, congrats on the new camera. :) You're gonna have fun with that puppy, eh! :) On your first picture...............personally, I think it looks a little washed out.....as in no discernible contrast. I don't think you needed to shoot it at ISO 160. It looks like it was shot in bright sunlight, so an ISO of 100 would have been better. The more light you have available, the less ISO needed. I'm not in the habit of criticizing others as I'm no raving expert, but I just felt the need to point out things that I myself noticed about the shot. This is what I would have done to it to make it "pop": [ATTACH]2940[/ATTACH] What do you think? Much difference? Any difference? Better? Worse? [/QUOTE]

Verification