Opinions of my photo please

wrote:
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!


Yes, I was noticing that too last night when I posted the link.
I'll work on fixing them when I get time. No, the
originals don't show the ringing. It could also have happened
when the sharpening was applied after reduction.

Roger

Google Says:

Its in Dublin

http://www.aidan.co.uk/photo397.htm.


"How Bizarre" go@away wrote in message
...
"Jaqian" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,
it was taken on Matt Talbot bridge facing towards "The Ferryman" pub on
the southside thats where all the cranes are.

Jaqian

Sorry my skills in clairvoyance aren't working just now ;o)

Any chance of telling us, in which part of the world that is.

Many thanks.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:50:24 GMT, "BernieM" wrote:

"Jaqian" wrote in message
roups.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


Hey dude,

The attached is your photo that I Photoshop-ed using highligh/shadow
adjustment. It brings out some graininess, only to exemplify the
difference between the dynamic range of film versus our retinas...

I perhaps would recommend the use of a neutral-gradient filter to tone
down the sky, allowing for a longer exposure of the darker parts of
the composition.

Singh-Ray and Cokin each have their own versions; Sing-Ray is the
better of the two.

http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html

jim.hutchison@n; o; s; p; a; m; shaw.ca wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 09:50:24 GMT, "BernieM" wrote:

"Jaqian" wrote in message
groups.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


Hey dude,

The attached is your photo that I Photoshop-ed using highligh/shadow
adjustment. It brings out some graininess, only to exemplify the
difference between the dynamic range of film versus our retinas...

I perhaps would recommend the use of a neutral-gradient filter to tone
down the sky, allowing for a longer exposure of the darker parts of
the composition.

Singh-Ray and Cokin each have their own versions; Sing-Ray is the
better of the two.

http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html




Hey their a great idea. I never kney they existed. I'm off to my local
camera shop right now..

Thanks for the info.

BernieM

People keep saying that the photo is underexposed, or isn't. Yes it is,
no it isn't, yes it is. Here's a different take on the discussion:

In the real world, it's difficult or even impossible to take a
perfectly exposed photo. If highlights are properly exposed, shadows
will be underexposed, and vice versa. If mid-tones are properly
exposed, highlights will be over exposed and shadows underexposed. If a
scene contains specular reflections or other intense sources of light,
those parts of the image will be overexposed to the point of being
blocked and quite free of detail. A properly used incident light meter
provides the best opportunity of exposing a photograph for the average
range of light, which will be the correct exposure if the entire scene
were photo gray.

It seems to me that Jaqian's photo is pretty much properly exposed *for
the sky,* which is what he was trying to photograph in the first place.
So what if the foreground, which is in shadow, is underexposed? It
really doesn't matter! Of greater concern is the cropping, or lack of
it. How about a portrait orientatation 2/3 of the image concentrating
on four cranes and the beautiful clouds...and birds! A higher ISO might
have allowed a faster shutter speed, which might have captured the
birds more clearly, but a bit of sharpening served well. The bridge
could mostly go; I find the lights on it, and most of the other lights,
distracting. The bulk of the dark building at the right tries to
upstage the sunrise, but succeeds only in degrading the image.

Here's my take on Jaqian's image:
http://www.ingraham.ca/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg.

Bob

wrote in message
ups.com...
People keep saying that the photo is underexposed, or isn't. Yes it is,
no it isn't, yes it is. Here's a different take on the discussion:

In the real world, it's difficult or even impossible to take a
perfectly exposed photo. If highlights are properly exposed, shadows
will be underexposed, and vice versa. If mid-tones are properly
exposed, highlights will be over exposed and shadows underexposed. If a
scene contains specular reflections or other intense sources of light,
those parts of the image will be overexposed to the point of being
blocked and quite free of detail. A properly used incident light meter
provides the best opportunity of exposing a photograph for the average
range of light, which will be the correct exposure if the entire scene
were photo gray.

It seems to me that Jaqian's photo is pretty much properly exposed *for
the sky,* which is what he was trying to photograph in the first place.
So what if the foreground, which is in shadow, is underexposed? It
really doesn't matter! Of greater concern is the cropping, or lack of
it. How about a portrait orientatation 2/3 of the image concentrating
on four cranes and the beautiful clouds...and birds! A higher ISO might
have allowed a faster shutter speed, which might have captured the
birds more clearly, but a bit of sharpening served well. The bridge
could mostly go; I find the lights on it, and most of the other lights,
distracting. The bulk of the dark building at the right tries to
upstage the sunrise, but succeeds only in degrading the image.

Here's my take on Jaqian's image:
http://www.ingraham.ca/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg.

Bob

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /bobsinterpretationweb.jpg on this
server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an
ErrorDocument to handle the request.

wrote in message
ups.com...
People keep saying that the photo is underexposed, or isn't. Yes it is,
no it isn't, yes it is. Here's a different take on the discussion:

In the real world, it's difficult or even impossible to take a
perfectly exposed photo. If highlights are properly exposed, shadows
will be underexposed, and vice versa. If mid-tones are properly
exposed, highlights will be over exposed and shadows underexposed. If a
scene contains specular reflections or other intense sources of light,
those parts of the image will be overexposed to the point of being
blocked and quite free of detail. A properly used incident light meter
provides the best opportunity of exposing a photograph for the average
range of light, which will be the correct exposure if the entire scene
were photo gray.

It seems to me that Jaqian's photo is pretty much properly exposed *for
the sky,* which is what he was trying to photograph in the first place.
So what if the foreground, which is in shadow, is underexposed? It
really doesn't matter! Of greater concern is the cropping, or lack of
it. How about a portrait orientatation 2/3 of the image concentrating
on four cranes and the beautiful clouds...and birds! A higher ISO might
have allowed a faster shutter speed, which might have captured the
birds more clearly, but a bit of sharpening served well. The bridge
could mostly go; I find the lights on it, and most of the other lights,
distracting. The bulk of the dark building at the right tries to
upstage the sunrise, but succeeds only in degrading the image.

Here's my take on Jaqian's image:
http://www.ingraham.ca/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg.

Bob

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /bobsinterpretationweb.jpg on this
server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an
ErrorDocument to handle the request.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.ingraham.ca Port 80

My apologies. Even I don't have permission! The correct URL:
http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg

Bob the Foggy

wrote in message
oups.com...
My apologies. Even I don't have permission! The correct URL:
http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg

Bob the Foggy

yep that one is worki g

On 27 Jan 2006 18:03:51 -0800, wrote:

My apologies. Even I don't have permission! The correct URL:
http://www.ingraham.ca/bob/bobsinterpretationweb.jpg

Bob the Foggy

You can't be serious. That picture is horrible.

John H