# Critique on a senior shoot?



## Shaky (May 21, 2004)

Had a friend call me after her scheduled photographer put her off again, so I volunteered my time to help her get her son some senior pics. As always, I'm looking to improve so I put these out here as a sample of some of the shots I captured in the hope that I can get some critique and use that to improve!

All shot handheld, Canon 7d, 28-135mm, or 50mm 1.8 prime. No flash or exterior light, cloudy day with scattered sunlight. 5pm to 630pm

Thanks ya'll!


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

I think they look really good, except for the last. The bag, right foreground, is a bit intrusive.
Did you do post for both the web and print. Learned that one the hardway. Several years ago, my first time to do this, I post processed all the images as I normally do. Looked great on the web, but print was a different matter. So now I provide a CD with 2 folders, one setup for web display, and one for printing only.
Web is PP a different way with sharpening a bit more aggressive and PPI set at 72. Print is sharpened for the paper that is going to be used (Glossy or Matte, I use Matte) and has a PPI of 300.
Good job on the work.


----------



## Shaky (May 21, 2004)

stargazer said:


> I think they look really good, except for the last. The bag, right foreground, is a bit intrusive.
> Did you do post for both the web and print. Learned that one the hardway. Several years ago, my first time to do this, I post processed all the images as I normally do. Looked great on the web, but print was a different matter. So now I provide a CD with 2 folders, one setup for web display, and one for printing only.
> Web is PP a different way with sharpening a bit more aggressive and PPI set at 72. Print is sharpened for the paper that is going to be used (Glossy or Matte, I use Matte) and has a PPI of 300.
> Good job on the work.


Thanks for the feedback, but you're scaring me now!
The only problems I've noticed on screen vs print was when I tried to print some photos directly to my cheapo HP printer here at the house, photos looked nothing like the screen. But taking the images to a processing place, mainly BayPhoto for my own use here at the house, and Costco or even WalMart I havent noticed any degradation in the photos.

Granted, I haven't had a lot of photos printed, so I need to learn some more about it, could you be so kind as to explain a bit more?

Thanks

Brian


----------



## Law Dog (Jul 27, 2010)

Look great!


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Shaky said:


> Thanks for the feedback, but you're scaring me now!
> The only problems I've noticed on screen vs print was when I tried to print some photos directly to my cheapo HP printer here at the house, photos looked nothing like the screen. But taking the images to a processing place, mainly BayPhoto for my own use here at the house, and Costco or even WalMart I havent noticed any degradation in the photos.
> 
> Granted, I haven't had a lot of photos printed, so I need to learn some more about it, could you be so kind as to explain a bit more?
> ...


Its not going to be a big difference, in fact most would more than likely not even notice. Most cameras and software default to 300 PPI anyway for printing and 72 PPI for web, depending on how its done in PP. 
I do a 3 step sharpening instead of an over all sharpen just to get a bit more of a sharpen image at the end. I also shoot all mine in RAW to give me a bit of room to do correction if need be.
Heres a general overview of web vs print sharpening

http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2011...-the-basics-every-photographer-needs-to-know/

3 step sharpen

http://gintenreiter-photography.com/photography/sharpening-images-basic-understanding/


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

stargazer said:


> Its not going to be a big difference, in fact most would more than likely not even notice. Most cameras and software default to 300 PPI anyway for printing and 72 PPI for web, depending on how its done in PP.
> I do a 3 step sharpening instead of an over all sharpen just to get a bit more of a sharpen image at the end. I also shoot all mine in RAW to give me a bit of room to do correction if need be.
> Heres a general overview of web vs print sharpening
> 
> ...


Heres the rest, it timed out before I could finish, LOL.

Its not going to be a big difference, in fact most would more than likely not even notice. I am just picky thats all, maybe a bit anal to a point, LOL. Most software defaults to 300 PPI anyway for printing and 72 PPI for web, depending on how the final output is done in PP.

I do a 3 step sharpening instead of an over all sharpen just to get a bit more of a sharpen image at the end. The final step in a 3 step process is to choose what is the output media, Web or Print. Since the two require a different approach to sharpen and PPI settings.
I also shoot all mine in RAW to give me a bit of room to do correction if need be.

If shooting in JPEG the in camera settings dictates the capture and output sharping for you in one action. That is what you see on the LCD when you view the image. In RAW nothing is applied to the files, but the camera still processes the image as if its a JPEG file so you can view it on the LCD display. The filter in front of the sensor tends to soften the image a bit so the camera helps correct that by applying a bit of in camera sharpening so the viewed image looks good on the LCD. But when you download the RAW file to the computer, it will seem to be a bit softer than what was seen on the LCD display because nothing was applied in camera to counter act the filter in front of the sensor.

Hope I have confused the subject for you. Its just being a bit more picky in the overall output of the image and adjusting the sharpness to what you are going to use the image for.

Heres a general overview of web vs print sharpening

http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2011...-the-basics-every-photographer-needs-to-know/

3 step sharpen

http://gintenreiter-photography.com/photography/sharpening-images-basic-understanding/


----------



## Shaky (May 21, 2004)

Thanks SG! I do shoot in raw. And do sharpen in post, but your links explain it in more detail, learned something today so it's all good!


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Shaky said:


> Thanks SG! I do shoot in raw. And do sharpen in post, but your links explain it in more detail, learned something today so it's all good!


Great, just looked over my post again. I meant to say I hope I* have not* confused you, LOL.


----------



## Shaky (May 21, 2004)

Nope, explained it pretty well! I did find an article about it on lightstalking.com that really broke it down, but can't find the article now! Good site with lots of links for those looking for simple tricks and tips along with some more in depth stuff! Just wanted to pass it along, not affiliated in any way !


----------

