Mags seem to be telling people not to worry about getting the right settings on your camera. Just take the bloody shot and we'll show you how to make it look good later. This is the wrong starting point for beginers.

I'm a very big fan of cooking things in post editing but I always ensure there's a shot there in the first place.

Well Im trying to do things properly, but must admit my mind still goes blank when I have a shot in front of me Lol so do take a lot of pics on all sorts of settings and then 98% binned. The other 2% well perhaps 0.25 yep I like that 0.75 well maybe it will look better if I look at it again later, and 1% well I wont bin it just yet

I dont have or want photoshop, dont buy the magazines, and am definately doing it the hard way which is proably why my stuff is never rated much on here but do hope that It will finaly click one day and I will be able to take pic after pick of good shots and be confident in what Im doing. My little FZ18 does take some super shots on auto though but I always feel that Im cheating if I use it Lol

Not knowing much about raw only that it has to be worked on afterwards must make it very time consuming though. How many hours would you need to spend on all those  wedding pics then..

Lesley

Les Key wrote (see)

Well Im trying to do things properly, but must admit my mind still goes blank when I have a shot in front of me Lol so do take a lot of pics on all sorts of settings and then 98% binned. The other 2% well perhaps 0.25 yep I like that 0.75 well maybe it will look better if I look at it again later, and 1% well I wont bin it just yet

Not knowing much about raw only that it has to be worked on afterwards must make it very time consuming though. How many hours would you need to spend on all those  wedding pics then..

Lesley

There's nothing wrong in the way yourd doing it. In fact I think it could be one of the best ways since a many files don't cost you anything.

With regards to weddings RAW files are normaly (this is my way) batch converted after being viewed to make sure they are all white blanced (best done in pre captire though) have the right exposre and any saturation, curves etc done to them. 

So in that regard they are not very time consuming.

For single shots such where you want different settings for each frame taken, this is where it can become time consuming.

I don't know if your camera has a raw option but if it has, I would recomend trying it

Thanks John

It has got raw but Ive left it alone till now as I have Silky pix to go with it that I havent even looked at yet or downloaded onto my puter. So not as time consuming as I supected then I will be having a look tomorrow.

Les, nothing wrong at all with your outlook - getting it as good as possible in the camera.

My daughter's over here now (from USA) and she says she's no time to learn about Photoshop, even though I have a few CDs from magazines that would teach her some basics in no time.

It's a pity she can't be bothered because her husband took some pictures of his desent into the Grand Canyon and as he is not good with any equipment, let alone cameras, the photos were dreadful - in that they were all bleached out. I don't know what h'ed done, upset the WB maybe, but unviewable. 

It took me a good few hours, the information was there and by darkening, increasing saturation, applying orange filters, removing blue hues, improving contrast - he now has a set of reasonable photos. I didn't crop a one so he still feels like they are HIS pictures and that's the way he saw them at the time.

I only have Elements 6, but it does all I want. It is worthwhile getting to know it. Believe me becuase there will be a time when you have a photo that is crying out for a tweek, it's a good photo that has the pssobility of being a great photo.

But as for HDR, which is the Monk's maincomplaint, I agree - there can be too much of it and soem people think that because it's HDR-ed it's a great picture. NO. It still needs what you say - a good subject and well taken to beging with.

Could I ask your opinion on this image? Do you feel it's a HDR over cooked?

Do you want a full critique - I hope this is not a trap.

I like it - a lot, get that out of the way first. Depending on the state of the tide I fancy walking down there onto the outcrop of rock in the distance. So in that respect, the scene is a good one.

Is it HDR'ed? I'm not sure that something like this couldn't be achieved by tweeking the contrast and saturation here and there, setting feather edges and playing with areas. Only thing I don't like is the dark bank high on the left, it looks like it could use some more detail. It shouldn't really be in shadow, not from the Sun's position. The nearby rocks in the wall suddenly develop a shadow where there doesn;t look to be a bend.

Just a personal preference (assuming that shadow on the wall is real), I would have moved camera to the right and down a touch to include more foreground. This would also move the horizon well away from centre and the outcrop to one/third in. Easy saying all that now, thinking it on the day is a different matter, but that's the beauty of digital - take many pictures.

So now you're going to tell me it won an award or something? It would be interesting to see the original.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I don't like HDR at all. It's just that I don't think it should be relied upon to make a good job out of something quite ordinary.

I'll put one of Mike's (my s-i-l) up for your comments.

Just as a 'by the way', this one of yours is photographically speaking a far better shot -

And another.

I think the problem I was having was with the name of the file, I had a # in it and TC's gallery doesn't seem to like it.

Woody mate,

Thanks for taking the time to critique my shot.

To start off, no it hasn't won any awards. They day I win an award will be the same day all 6 numbers come out, I get that 21 year old swedish blond nanny and the kids turn into the kids off mary poppins.

Anyway, just to point out a few things. By the shadow in the wall I take it you mean the section towards the bottom end of what is visable of the sea wall? This isn't a shadow but it is where the wall comes out at an angle and goes around the outcrop (If you know heysham at all, this is where the rock hewn graves are). I think this gives your point about moving the camera for a better composition more weight.

As far as the horizon, I'm not sure if I would like to move it as the sun and cloud themselves form a more substantial  horizon than the real one. That's just my opinion though

The bank of trees on the right, I see your point there and now you've said it, it's really bothering me. May have a play with that. One thing I hate about allot of HDR images you see about the 'tinternet these days is the lack of shadow. A nice effect for a grunge look, but if your after a nice landscape shot then it has to have some realism.

Your a good man Woody and I really apreciate  the feed back. HAs given me allot of food for thought.

Woody wrote (see)

Just as a 'by the way', this one of yours is photographically speaking a far better shot -

If you were selling and I were buying, this would be the one.

This one was straight out of the camera. And a rush job at that as I was going away the next day. So you've made my day by picking it out. Just goes to show if it aint broke don't try and fix it. Which I can by guilty of doing sometimes.

Both shots you've shown of your editing of Mikes captures look good to me. And from you've said, you've done a grand job.