Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: another sunset  (Read 1715 times)

shutterpup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
another sunset
« on: October 03, 2009, 01:07:05 pm »

[attachment=16946:Lorraine...Photo_99.jpg]
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
another sunset
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2009, 01:53:04 pm »

I like the color in the water.
Logged

Ed Blagden

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 502
another sunset
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2009, 02:11:21 pm »

Pup,

That's a nice sunset, but I have two criticisms, one minor and one major:

- The minor one is that the horizon isn't straight: it needs to be tilted a bit clockwise.
- Looking at the exif data (f/5.6, 1/3 sec, ISO 1600) I'd hazard a guess that you weren't using a tripod.  You can't really do shots like this without one, IS or no.  The foreground is OOF and the in-focus distance is motion blurred.  This shot would be a whole lot better taken at f/11+ (so everything is sharp), ISO100 (so no noise), and a loooong exposure (the water gets nice and milky).  And on a tripod (so no motion blur).

Otherwise, it is a well composed and well exposed shot (although I would perhaps taken it up a stop or two and then played around with the tone curve in Lightroom).  What is lacking is the technical execution.

Please take this criticism in the spirit in which it is intended: you are a learning photographer (like most of us, just at different stages) and I am trying to give you straightforward constructive advice.


Ed
Logged

shutterpup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
another sunset
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2009, 02:22:51 pm »

Quote from: Ed B
Pup,

That's a nice sunset, but I have two criticisms, one minor and one major:

- The minor one is that the horizon isn't straight: it needs to be tilted a bit clockwise.
- Looking at the exif data (f/5.6, 1/3 sec, ISO 1600) I'd hazard a guess that you weren't using a tripod.  You can't really do shots like this without one, IS or no.  The foreground is OOF and the in-focus distance is motion blurred.  This shot would be a whole lot better taken at f/11+ (so everything is sharp), ISO100 (so no noise), and a loooong exposure (the water gets nice and milky).  And on a tripod (so no motion blur).

Otherwise, it is a well composed and well exposed shot (although I would perhaps taken it up a stop or two and then played around with the tone curve in Lightroom).  What is lacking is the technical execution.

Please take this criticism in the spirit in which it is intended: you are a learning photographer (like most of us, just at different stages) and I am trying to give you straightforward constructive advice.


Ed

Ed,
It was a hasty grab shot, I'll admit. I was washing dishes inside, hubby went outside and came running for me to get my camera. Light was going fast; no real time for setup. I think I was more interested in the color displayed and getting decent composition than anything else. In less than two minutes, it was gone. This was actually the best of five shots I clicked off.

Your advice is taken the way it is offered. Thank you.
Pup
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
another sunset
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2009, 02:29:25 am »

Personally I find the 1/2 tree on the left and the vascular plants in the foreground distracting.  Remove those and straighten the horizon, maybe increase the contrast a bit, and I think you'd have a much cleaner and better image.

My $0.02

Mike.

Something like this maybe...

[attachment=16951:Lorraine...Photo_99.jpg]
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

shutterpup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
another sunset
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2009, 03:15:21 pm »

Thanks for all the feedback.

Pup
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up