>>3243226No worries mate. Like another anon said, your colour correction works slightly better for these
>>3243226 >>3243229.Mainly because you didn't fuck with skin tones, which are hard to get right in post-processing since we're so familiar with what's real and any deviation slips into what aestheticians would call the 'uncanny valley'.
But you did a great job with those last two at 18mm- regardless of concept, subject, mood, etc, for what these last two are, you made the best out of them.
>Also regarding the tele lens on a crop sensor, isn't that the only way I can get that shallow dof at longer focal lengths to emulate that movie effect?Well, it depends on the 'movie effect' you're going for. You're gonna have to be a little bit more specific than that, but I gather you mean the common city shots panning along with subjects from afar as they move through busy streets. Yeah, if that's what you were going for, you've achieved that; my point was that these aren't as strong as photographs/stills as they are as video/footage, mainly because in a motion picture the whole point of a tele lens in that type of situation is motion itself - it gives that claustrophobic feel by magnifying the subject and compressing the background which further fall onto the subject as the he moves. You're missing that in stills and all you're left with are slightly mundane profile snaps of pedestrians. The shallow dof you achieve doesn't create that depth in stills (especially in profile shots0, it merely plasters your subject on a blurry background creating the opposite effect of depth: flatness. Just reasearch tele shots and build a mental library to see what you can do. Also think and compose visually as often as you can.
Don't get me wrong,95% of the photos posted on /p/ are garbage, so don't take my picking of your set isn't indicative of that. On the contrary, I think you have something to work with as you progress. Just keep in mind not all movie compositions work as stills.
