A view for Critique

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

A view for Critique

Postby dawesy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:30 pm

Taken outside Crookwell, a small town about 40ks from Goulbourn prior to the recent rains. This is their water supply reservoir which is near full as a result of being spring fed so they have avoided much of the pain and water restrictions Goulburn have had to endure.

While it is a lovely spot, I'd like thoughts and suggestions on the image. It's been a while since I've put up something recent, and even this is from a few weeks ago. I'm hoping to start taking and posting at least one shot a week for a while to try and get myself back into shooting, and learn from the experience. So it begins here!

Image
dawesy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:44 pm
Location: Roseville, Sydney

Postby jamesw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:40 pm

What lens, exposure, aperature, was it hand held or tripod?

Although landscapes are not my forte, so to speak, something about this shot is lacking, imo.

I think shooting at sunrise/sunset would improve this shot, or perhaps even under exposing a little... For me, the sky (the way it fades from a blue to white) is off putting, and looks a little over exposed.

What I am getting atis that it looks like you metered off of the foreground, which compromised the exposure of the sky.
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601.
lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8.
flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4)
jamesdwade.com
dishonourclothing.com
User avatar
jamesw
Senior Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: norwood, adelaide

Postby jamesw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:44 pm

I must add...

FWIW I do quite like the composition, and I am guessing you shot during the middle of the day which would have created difficult exposure conditions for the scene.

Good work.
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601.
lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8.
flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4)
jamesdwade.com
dishonourclothing.com
User avatar
jamesw
Senior Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: norwood, adelaide

Postby dawesy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:57 pm

Shot with a Sigma 18-125, 1/125s @ f/16. [Edit:] Handheld [/Edit]

You are right about the time of day. One of those shots that was not planned, and I didn't get a change to get back that day. Will make a point of it sometime soon. I see what you mean about the sky, and I think it is a fair point. Having said that the original is quite underexposed, so I may have a play with it.
Last edited by dawesy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dawesy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:44 pm
Location: Roseville, Sydney

Postby dawesy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:02 pm

A darker version, don't think it helps the sky much but overall I like it better. Had a crack at burning in the sky just above the horizon a bit but didn't come up well, in no small part because my PP skill suck.

Image

Thanks.
dawesy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:44 pm
Location: Roseville, Sydney

Postby jamesw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:05 pm

dawesy wrote:Shot with a Sigma 18-125, 1/125s @ f/16. [Edit:] Handheld [/Edit].


sorry to nit pick btu what focal length were you at?

i much prefer the second shot btw
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601.
lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8.
flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4)
jamesdwade.com
dishonourclothing.com
User avatar
jamesw
Senior Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: norwood, adelaide

Postby dawesy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:21 pm

Do'oh.. it was at 18mm.

Thanks for the advice, the second is far better. I think sometimes I listen to the 'auto correction' feature a little too much!

Cheers.
dawesy
Senior Member
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:44 pm
Location: Roseville, Sydney

Postby jamesw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:10 pm

i think your going to have a difficult time PPing that shot. because of the time of day, the exposure conditions are ridiculously challenging, and using nd filters would be difficult aswell.

either use the raw file to create a HDR or go back and reshoot in the evening or early mornign... i really think your onto a winner!
body: nikon d200, d70s, f4s, f601.
lens:nikon 35-70mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 10.5mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8.
flash: nikon sb600, sunpak 383 (x1), sunpak 555 (x4), pocketwizard plus II (x4)
jamesdwade.com
dishonourclothing.com
User avatar
jamesw
Senior Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: norwood, adelaide

Postby big pix on Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:13 pm

the second pp is perfect...... don't touch it any more....... the simplicity of this shot is what makes it fantastic........
Cheers ....bp....
Difference between a good street photographer and a great street photographer....
Removing objects that do not belong...
happy for the comments, but
.....Please DO NOT edit my image.....
http://bigpix.smugmug.com Forever changing
User avatar
big pix
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4513
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW.


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques