King Tut Exhibit - Constructive Criticism wanted

A bit of background since I am new here; I have had point and shoots most of my life. I only got a DSLR about a year ago, and have been learning on my own since then (I am going to take courses so I can do this professionally, as I enjoy the hell out of it.). I am reading the other forums for photo taking tips, and was looking for any input on composition, any edits you would make, maybe a different angle you would take, creative cropping suggestions, etc. I have a fairly thick skin, so really whatever input you have I do want to hear it. They did not allow flashes, tripods, or monopods. I had to hand hold and hope for the best in the dim lighting they had. I used my 50mm f/1.8 II, since my kit lens sucks in low light situations. I don't have a lot of lenses since I am starting out. If you would have used another please say which one.

#1





#2





#3





#4





#5

Angles, exposures, and framing are all quite good. Given the restrictions, about all you are left to control is the tone in post processing. Which are difficult to describe, just keep playing with the tones.

no help Kelly

They seem quite good to me- a difficult subject to do more with than record. And the lighting is always tricky: you did a very good job with Tut's head, with its strong reflections. (I'll be in Seattle in a couple of weeks, and I hope the exhibit will still be on- I'd like to try, too). Are you using a tripod? Are you shooting in RAW? That makes the kind of adjustments Kelly suggests much easier. Keep shooting!

You did great with these, hard to make suggestions with so many restrictions. Shooting raw would give more editing options.

John Landolfi wrote: They seem quite good to me- a difficult subject to do more with than record. And the lighting is always tricky: you did a very good job with Tut's head, with its strong reflections. (I'll be in Seattle in a couple of weeks, and I hope the exhibit will still be on- I'd like to try, too). Are you using a tripod? Are you shooting in RAW? That makes the kind of adjustments Kelly suggests much easier. Keep shooting!

Thanks everyone for the input so far!

Yes, I am shooting in RAW, and no I did not use a tripod. You are not allowed to use them in the exhibit.

The exhibit will still be on in Seattle when you arrive. I believe it stops some time in January. I hope you get some good shots! This is the last exhibit they will be doing in the US. Also, that is not Tut's head, but I don't have his name at the moment. I do have a pic of Tut somewhere in my photos. I took a lot, and will get through the rest today.

internetchick wrote:

John Landolfi wrote: They seem quite good to me- a difficult subject to do more with than record. And the lighting is always tricky: you did a very good job with Tut's head, with its strong reflections. (I'll be in Seattle in a couple of weeks, and I hope the exhibit will still be on- I'd like to try, too). Are you using a tripod? Are you shooting in RAW? That makes the kind of adjustments Kelly suggests much easier. Keep shooting!

Thanks everyone for the input so far!

Yes, I am shooting in RAW, and no I did not use a tripod. You are not allowed to use them in the exhibit.

The exhibit will still be on in Seattle when you arrive. I believe it stops some time in January. I hope you get some good shots! This is the last exhibit they will be doing in the US. Also, that is not Tut's head, but I don't have his name at the moment. I do have a pic of Tut somewhere in my photos. I took a lot, and will get through the rest today.

Excellent hand-holding, then!

You seemed to do well composing your photos and using the existing light which was probably tricky. The more close-up photos are nice, you seem to keep all of the subject in the frame without cutting it off. You might want to notice your backgrounds when you're framing shots, sometimes just a step or two one direction or another can give you a different vantage point and a quite different picture.

With this type of setting it's probably not going to be possible to always work around signs etc. but in the one of the bust of a statue I notice part of a shadowy face in the background - that photo might have been interesting framed so the little sign at the bottom wasn't in the picture and the face was showing behind it. Or you could have framed it in closer to get the statue w/out the sign. You could maybe look at your photos to get ideas of other ways you could frame shots.

You don't necessarily need a tripod, I haven't ever used one. Photographers use them for portraits, landscapes, long exposures - anytime they need to set up the camera for a length of time. I think you just need to figure out what works for you, what camera settings you can manage. I do OK with 1/60 shutter speed and if I prop against something maybe 1/30, if that isn't giving me enough light then probably there wouldn't be enough without using a flash or setting up for a longer exposure - and in some circumstances where neither one is an option that just tells me I've reached the limits of my camera with the existing light.

You got some nice photos of your visit to the exhibit.

I like em all... A flash diffuser might have been a big help. These are quite nice on the lighting though.

icepics wrote: You seemed to do well composing your photos and using the existing light which was probably tricky. The more close-up photos are nice, you seem to keep all of the subject in the frame without cutting it off. You might want to notice your backgrounds when you're framing shots, sometimes just a step or two one direction or another can give you a different vantage point and a quite different picture.

With this type of setting it's probably not going to be possible to always work around signs etc. but in the one of the bust of a statue I notice part of a shadowy face in the background - that photo might have been interesting framed so the little sign at the bottom wasn't in the picture and the face was showing behind it. Or you could have framed it in closer to get the statue w/out the sign. You could maybe look at your photos to get ideas of other ways you could frame shots.

You don't necessarily need a tripod, I haven't ever used one. Photographers use them for portraits, landscapes, long exposures - anytime they need to set up the camera for a length of time. I think you just need to figure out what works for you, what camera settings you can manage. I do OK with 1/60 shutter speed and if I prop against something maybe 1/30, if that isn't giving me enough light then probably there wouldn't be enough without using a flash or setting up for a longer exposure - and in some circumstances where neither one is an option that just tells me I've reached the limits of my camera with the existing light.

You got some nice photos of your visit to the exhibit.

Space was quite limited, as well as trying to avoid getting people in the shot. I can't tell you how many times I had everything framed and someone would step in with their phone to get a picture. And that does sound nice like that with the face in the background. I would have had to move quite a ways back, and there wasn't room enough to do so. I would like to go again, maybe first thing in the morning to avoid so many people.

And thanks again everyone for the input.

They're all good. The lighting there was obviously designed to give a dramatic feel (I love it when someone else does the lighting for me ) which helps a lot. #4 is by far my fave. Nice framing. Number 2 is like a product shot, very nice, BUT the focus point should be on the face not the leg.

Apart from that, very good!

Stealthy Ninja wrote: They're all good. The lighting there was obviously designed to give a dramatic feel (I love it when someone else does the lighting for me ) which helps a lot. #4 is by far my fave. Nice framing. Number 2 is like a product shot, very nice, BUT the focus point should be on the face not the leg.

Apart from that, very good!

Poop. You're right. I didn't notice that before.

Nicely done under the conditions you were shooting under... Composition on all are great. I like #4 the best as well. Would like to see #1 a little lighter, just to see how it looks.