Opinions of my photo please

UC wrote:
This is an underexposed image.

Why bother us with this?

Because he asked for help. I disagree that the image is underexposed.
The clouds are a beautiful red-orange. On the brighter version,
they become washed out. What is underexposed is the foreground.

If you want the buildings in silhouette, select the water in
the foreground and brighten it then boost the contrast
to make the buildings darker, and the clouds
will have more pop too.

If you want the buildings to show more, select the buildings
to the bottom of the picture and brighten, increase contrast a little
with curves.

When doing s selection, feather with many pixels in this case.

Roger

Jaqian wrote:

Hi after reading "Newbie Question about F Stops and Apertures" I tried
messing around with the F-Stop/Shutter speed this morning and was
wondering what you thought of this photo I took:
http://static.flickr.com/38/87750547_72fc81d7f2_b.jpg I used a tri-pod
and timer to avoid camera shake. I was trying to capture the colours of
a sunrise even thjough was taken around 8:30am. Hope to get an earlier
shot tomorrow.

Exposu 0.077 sec (1/13)
Apertu f/5.6
ISO: 64

More details he http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=87750547


Cheers,
Jaqian

Jaqian wrote:
Hi after reading "Newbie Question about F Stops and Apertures" I tried
messing around with the F-Stop/Shutter speed this morning and was
wondering what you thought of this photo I took:
http://static.flickr.com/38/87750547_72fc81d7f2_b.jpg I used a tri-pod
and timer to avoid camera shake. I was trying to capture the colours of
a sunrise even thjough was taken around 8:30am. Hope to get an earlier
shot tomorrow.

Exposu 0.077 sec (1/13)
Apertu f/5.6
ISO: 64

More details he http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=87750547


Cheers,
Jaqian

The picture is underexposed.The location looks great. Keep shooting
till you find the right light and you will have discovered some sort of
sense about lighting relative to what you see and how the camera sees
light. When you get the right exposure you can always darken or lighten
if you like. The subject seems worthy of a reshoot with the use of a
light meter and a bit of experimentation (cropping, exposure and a
different time of day also from a few other positions) Don't get
discouraged about over and underexposure...every photographer learns
from it and ultimately discovers a good negative does not replace
photoshop gimmicks.
Good luck.
WG

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
UC wrote:
This is an underexposed image.

Why bother us with this?

Because he asked for help. I disagree that the image is underexposed.

Sorry, it is.


The clouds are a beautiful red-orange. On the brighter version,
they become washed out. What is underexposed is the foreground.

If you want the buildings in silhouette, select the water in
the foreground and brighten it then boost the contrast
to make the buildings darker, and the clouds
will have more pop too.

If you want the buildings to show more, select the buildings
to the bottom of the picture and brighten, increase contrast a little
with curves.

When doing s selection, feather with many pixels in this case.

Roger

Jaqian wrote:

Hi after reading "Newbie Question about F Stops and Apertures" I tried
messing around with the F-Stop/Shutter speed this morning and was
wondering what you thought of this photo I took:
http://static.flickr.com/38/87750547_72fc81d7f2_b.jpg I used a tri-pod
and timer to avoid camera shake. I was trying to capture the colours of
a sunrise even thjough was taken around 8:30am. Hope to get an earlier
shot tomorrow.

Exposu 0.077 sec (1/13)
Apertu f/5.6
ISO: 64

More details he http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=87750547


Cheers,
Jaqian

"Jaqian" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks everyone for the advice I've cropped the photo and brightened
it
somewhat. See what you make of it now:
http://static.flickr.com/18/88149665_3441696d02_o.jpg

Btw if any of you had been taking this shot what setting etc would
you
used?


I liked the original best: the expanse of water lends substantial heft
and perspective. As much as I enjoy "drilling in" to see detail,
sometimes the relationship between masses is equally pleasing. In this
case the water serves as a stable base from which to view man-made
artifacts.

--
Frank ess

Jaqian wrote:

Thanks everyone for the advice I've cropped the photo and brightened it
somewhat. See what you make of it now:
http://static.flickr.com/18/88149665_3441696d02_o.jpg

Btw if any of you had been taking this shot what setting etc would you
used?


I'd try to bring out a little more detail in the shadow area along the
riverfront.

"Jaqian" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks everyone for the advice I've cropped the photo and brightened it
somewhat. See what you make of it now:
http://static.flickr.com/18/88149665_3441696d02_o.jpg

Btw if any of you had been taking this shot what setting etc would you
used?


I'd have tried a number of different (longer) exposures. Even as far as 2
to 5 seconds. Even if that meant losing some of the sky. It appears that
lights very limited after dark ie. no man-made lighting around.

It has potential.

BernieM

UC wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

UC wrote:

This is an underexposed image.

Why bother us with this?

Because he asked for help. I disagree that the image is underexposed.

Sorry, it is.

No it is not. There are already pixels with level=255, so if anything
it is overexposed as there are saturated pixels. Look at the
red channel histogram. Any increase in exposure would drive
the interesting red clouds more into saturation. Put a box selection
around the bright red clouds. About 1% of the clouds in the red channel
are saturated. That limits what can be done with the image.
It should have been exposed about 1/3 stop less, and in raw mode
so you have the bits to work with.

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

UC wrote:

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

UC wrote:

This is an underexposed image.

Why bother us with this?


Because he asked for help. I disagree that the image is underexposed.


Sorry, it is.


No it is not. There are already pixels with level=255, so if anything
it is overexposed as there are saturated pixels. Look at the
red channel histogram. Any increase in exposure would drive
the interesting red clouds more into saturation. Put a box selection
around the bright red clouds. About 1% of the clouds in the red channel
are saturated. That limits what can be done with the image.
It should have been exposed about 1/3 stop less, and in raw mode
so you have the bits to work with.

Roger

Here are some sunrises and sunsets to compa
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.sunset
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.sunrise

Roger

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.sunset

Roger, there are some stunning images there, and I congratulate you...

But I think you should consider reducing the compression level on your
thumbs - the ringing on some of the silhouettes (esp. the birds) is
very noticable. Thankfully, the full images are much better!