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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 5, 2005, 2:07 PM   #1
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

All of the photos that have appeared in this forum to this point have been of people, but our moderator assures me that there is no topic restriction in here.

My main interest is in landscape photography and I am quite pleased with this shot but I would value some suggestions for improvement.

One thing that occurs to me is that the Mansion itself is very bright, but the histogram shows (I think) that I haven't in fact blown the highlights. When I took the picture the building really did seem to be shining very brightly, so its about what I remember seeing.

There is some noise in the sky, but a NR kills the detail in the grass, to the picture's overall detriment I think. I had the camera set on ISO1600 from the night before. Doh!

Anyway this park is just across the road from me so I can easily return to the site if anyone has suggestions.
Attached Images
 
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 5, 2005, 2:19 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

You've probably guessed that landscapes aren't my thing. I do plan to shoot some landscapes very soon though. Here, I think you have too much uninteresting space at the bottom of the image.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2005, 3:27 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree about the space at the bottom. Since you can easily go back, why not try shooting at ISO 100 (no need for noise reduction then) & bracket your shot. If it were me I would do 2 brackets...one spot metering on the house & one using matrix metering (what the hey...you aren't wasting any film)!
  Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2005, 7:08 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
berto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 384
Default

i agree as well.. lose about half an inch from the bottom and lose a little bitof the space on the right side then punch up the black a little.
personally, i think when blacks aren't really black in BW pictures it tends to make the overall scene kinda muggy.


berto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2005, 8:41 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

hmm...i dunno...

i don't think the 'uninteresting space' is only uninteresting on the web...because of compression, and the tiny viewing size...

get that printed bigger, then you'll be able to see some grass in there, and it would be beautiful...

love the black and white, although it could use some contrast i think..

you'll have to watch the whites of the mansion, and the blacks of the darker part of the grass...you want to keep some detail...especially in the grass...because, without detail it would just be 'uninteresting space'...

i think the lower part of the image balances the image well...

Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2005, 12:32 AM   #6
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Thanks everyone for the comments, they are much appreciated.

I agree, I need to go back with a tripod and bracket. On this trip it was handheld, so I couldn't use multiple layers.

I'm not sure about the "dead space" thing on this photo. To be honest I find that probably 90% of my landscape shots can benefit from cropping but this one I couldn't seem to make any better. One of the things I did want to convey was the sweeping expanse of lawn leading up to the house, so I guess I need to strike a balance between too much and not enough.

Actually it occurs to me that the very tall tree on the left is just clipped at the top, by tilting the camera back just a touch I think I can lose a bit of the lawn and get the top of the tree. If it were a painting I think the artist would include the top of the tree.

Also I like Vito's point, I haven't actually printed this one yet and that's just silly! A print and on-screen are two very different things. I do need to maintain the detail in the grass (in sun and shadow) so ISO100 plus tripod is definitely the way to go here.

Also there seems to be a consensus that there is something lacking in the B&W conversion. The sun was shining brightly on the house but it wasn't shining that brightly over the rest of the scene so the original colours aren't terribly punchy. There are only fleeting moments sometimes, but maybe that's one of the big problems here, the light just wasn't quite right.

Fortunately I can go back and shoot this scene many times until I get it right, because I'm sure there's a very nice photo there waiting to be found.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2005, 3:58 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Thanks everyone for the comments, they are much appreciated.

I agree, I need to go back with a tripod and bracket. On this trip it was handheld, so I couldn't use multiple layers.

I'm not sure about the "dead space" thing on this photo. To be honest I find that probably 90% of my landscape shots can benefit from cropping but this one I couldn't seem to make any better. One of the things I did want to convey was the sweeping expanse of lawn leading up to the house, so I guess I need to strike a balance between too much and not enough.

Actually it occurs to me that the very tall tree on the left is just clipped at the top, by tilting the camera back just a touch I think I can lose a bit of the lawn and get the top of the tree. If it were a painting I think the artist would include the top of the tree.

Also I like Vito's point, I haven't actually printed this one yet and that's just silly! A print and on-screen are two very different things. I do need to maintain the detail in the grass (in sun and shadow) so ISO100 plus tripod is definitely the way to go here.

Also there seems to be a consensus that there is something lacking in the B&W conversion. The sun was shining brightly on the house but it wasn't shining that brightly over the rest of the scene so the original colours aren't terribly punchy. There are only fleeting moments sometimes, but maybe that's one of the big problems here, the light just wasn't quite right.

Fortunately I can go back and shoot this scene many times until I get it right, because I'm sure there's a very nice photo there waiting to be found.
Uninteresting was probably not the best description for the bottom portion of the scene. The darker bottom in this scene is negative space. If you want the viewer to appreciate the texture and color of the grass leading up to the Mansion, then it needs LIGHT. Some shadows are nice and create interesting lines for the eyes to follow.

If you were to hang an 8x10 on the wall, stand back a few feet to view, you'll see that the eyes are first drawn to the brightest area of the scene(Mansion) and then wander off into the sky and out of the frame.

Shooting at a different time of day when the shadows are less directional may work better if this is the framing you want.

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2005, 12:53 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 33
Default

From your original post, it sounds like you have a digital camera there (ie. "set to ISO 1600") etc.

My suggestion: get yourself an R72 infra-red filter, set the white balanceusing thesunlit lawn and shoot an infra-red version of this picture.
Arizona_Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2005, 1:04 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Steve,

Unfortunately I have a Canon 20D. (I never thought I'd hear myself say that :-) )

The IR filter is so good that nothing gets through. They even make a different model, only on release in Japan atm, the 20Da for astrophotography that doesn't have the filter.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 6, 2005, 1:06 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Steve,

Unfortunately I have a Canon 20D. (I never thought I'd hear myself say that :-) )

The IR filter is so good that nothing gets through. They even make a different model, only on release in Japan atm, the 20Da for astrophotography that doesn't have the filter.
Is there an IR filter action for PS?

Rodney
RodneyBlair 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 12:10 AM.