Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 20, 2010, 10:49 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default Another Sunrise

Quite a spectacular sunrise this morning ( a new baby ensures I see lots of them ). Here's 3 RAW edits of the exactly the same shot ... have a look at the upper sky ... it shows what can be brought out of a RAW. The vignetting is natural, that is, it's not added in the edit.

Which do you prefer ?






Last edited by amcam; Mar 20, 2010 at 10:54 PM.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 20, 2010, 11:14 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

they all have some merits.

the last one is just a bit too much for me.

but the first two look nice. i am guessing that #2 is the closest to the original scene and probably biases my opinion. but i think if you had submitted either of the first two it would be believable.

just a little bit of noise i notice though. especially in the darker waves in the bottom left. but i think you could probably fix that pretty easily with a run through a program for noise reduction,
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2010, 3:08 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
they all have some merits.

the last one is just a bit too much for me.

but the first two look nice. i am guessing that #2 is the closest to the original scene and probably biases my opinion. but i think if you had submitted either of the first two it would be believable.

just a little bit of noise i notice though. especially in the darker waves in the bottom left. but i think you could probably fix that pretty easily with a run through a program for noise reduction,
Thanks Hards80.

In fact #2 was the least realistic ... the whole sky was incredibly red ... all on fire. I took a stack of photos, it was so mesmerizing. The final one included 2 pelicans but unfortunately they were a bit far away.

Funnily enough the last one is probably closest to what I remember seeing, a sky full of red.

The originals look quite under exposed.

I didn't notice the noise and had not applied any noise reduction ... thanks.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2010, 3:44 PM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

oh really, i am surprised, i guess its not that easy to pick the natural one if you really weren't there.

it must have been quite a sight if the last one was the most natural.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2010, 5:24 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
donp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Naperville, IL.
Posts: 185
Default

I like # 3 the best. In the first two, the blue sky is to deep for a sunrise. Which ever one is best, it is a great shot ! Thanks
donp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2010, 10:44 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
oh really, i am surprised, i guess its not that easy to pick the natural one if you really weren't there.

it must have been quite a sight if the last one was the most natural.
It does raise an interesting point about photography ... perhaps it is not realism that is important but something that is either believable, appealing or obviously "artistic" that we should aim for ?

Depth of field is a similar example. While dof allows emphasis on the subject, our eyes/brain don't see sharp and blurry objects ... our brain interprets everything as sharp. Dof in photos is believable but perhaps not realistic.
amcam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2010, 11:46 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amcam View Post
It does raise an interesting point about photography ... perhaps it is not realism that is important but something that is either believable, appealing or obviously "artistic" that we should aim for ?

Depth of field is a similar example. While dof allows emphasis on the subject, our eyes/brain don't see sharp and blurry objects ... our brain interprets everything as sharp. Dof in photos is believable but perhaps not realistic.

i think the answer is yes.

for each photo i think there is some balance to be found with varying degrees of realism, believability and artistry. for some shots the balance may be on 1 more than the other for a pleasing image. i think its up to the photographers vision to figure out how to balance them for each shot. and of course the viewer may agree or disagree which may depend on their own tastes.

but thats good, if we all shot the same and saw the same, it would be pretty boring
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:21 PM.