|
Re: A few problems here.
In reply to Bob Tullis,
6 months ago
|
Bob Tullis wrote:
tedolf wrote:
Bob Tullis wrote:
mferencz wrote:
Got out yesterday for a moment with my 2 week old camera, took a few shots, this one I liked. Looking back I see I used Iso 400 instead of 200, do you think this would have made a difference in the photo? maybe given it more punch?
My general feelings are that while such exposures like these are good, they often don't quite convey the eye/mind (and possibly the emotional) experience of the moment. Well, not the kind of presentation I'd have in mind (something a little more compelling than the average out of camera results).
ISO 200 gives the best signal/noise response and detail per pixel, so that would be one's objective for the finer presentations. But ISO 400 here passes quite well. Yet here a little addition of Clarity or Local Area Contrast, and some nuanced sharpening, would enhance this conveyance for my eye. A good exposure is paramount, whether it could use some manipulation or not. This is that.
--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
/"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."/ - Little Big Man
.
It is under exposed, probably by half a stop. Also it could use a little more saturation.
Nothing a litte PP couldn't fix.
Also, the composition is poor. The bush jutting into the frame on the left is not well positioned to act as a frame and the branches interfere with the leading lines of the RR track drawing the eye in from the lowe left corner of the frame. This is a very well known photo spot outside of Cleveland/Akron and has been photographed a thousand times. Look at some proffesional exaples for composition ideas. Try to match what they did and you might understand the compositonal issues better.
Teedoph
LOL! I guess you're right - those that can't. . . teach.
Exactly!
The exposure is fine, with enough shadows to make it something better. Better to under expose to retain highlights. Though in a perfect world you're right - the exceptions being what you commonly exhibit.
--
I am going to disagree with you on this. I think the detail in the reflection of the bridge in the water is more important than the detial (if there is any!) in the clouds. In fact, the reflection is the central theme of this photo.
I would give a little more exposure (1/3 to 1/2 F stop) to brighten up the reflected image and loose some of the detail in the clouds if necessary. I am not sure you would even loose that much anyway with just another 1/2 stop of exposure.
It would be a better picture that way.
As is, it is just too gloomy.
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
/"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."/ - Little Big Man
.
TEdolph
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
