If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions of my photo please
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
3D Photo Browser Light 8.01 freeware is now available | Mootools | Digital Photography | 0 | April 18th 05 11:46 AM |
3D Photo Browser Light 8.01 freeware is now available | Mootools | Digital Photography | 0 | April 18th 05 11:38 AM |
FA: Epson Perfection 4990 Photo Scanner - just released in March 2005 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | March 21st 05 04:32 PM |
FA: Epson Perfection 4990 photo scanner | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | March 17th 05 05:07 AM |
Photo Papers For Epson 2100 | John | Digital Photography | 5 | December 1st 04 10:09 PM |