Sunrise, Moonset
Nov 24, 2011 10:13:34 #
Anyone care to comment on this picture. It was taken about 6am in February using a cheap Olympus compact camera. In order to get the shot I had to use the full zoom and I was hand holding the camera (my friends tell me that I have a very steady hand). Terrible, bad or acceptable?
Nov 24, 2011 10:25:25 #
It is a good picture ....maybe little less sky ,and more foreground ,less trees more water for balance. Looks steady to me
Nov 24, 2011 10:35:06 #
I agree...if it were cropped into a panoramic landscape....I think it would be more appealing
Nov 24, 2011 10:37:09 #
I agree with Greg, my main thought is that is is over-exposed and even with the zoom it took me a minute to find the moon in the vast expanse of sky/ground.
I would have really ramped up the shutter speed and/or the Aperature would, depending on the camera been opened up a bit.
I would have really ramped up the shutter speed and/or the Aperature would, depending on the camera been opened up a bit.
Nov 24, 2011 10:50:45 #
You mean you prefer it like this?
I did explain that it was taken with a small Olympus compact P&S camera so there was no possibility of adjusting the apeture. Also bear in mind the difficult light at 6AM. It was quite literally a point and shoot shot.
I did explain that it was taken with a small Olympus compact P&S camera so there was no possibility of adjusting the apeture. Also bear in mind the difficult light at 6AM. It was quite literally a point and shoot shot.
Nov 24, 2011 10:52:59 #
GARGLEBLASTER wrote:
You mean you prefer it like this?
I did explain that it was taken with a small Olympus compact P&S camera so there was no possibility of adjusting the apeture. Also bear in mind the difficult light at 6AM. It was quite literally a point and shoot shot.
I did explain that it was taken with a small Olympus compact P&S camera so there was no possibility of adjusting the apeture. Also bear in mind the difficult light at 6AM. It was quite literally a point and shoot shot.
Yes,I think it looks much better as a pano
Nov 25, 2011 12:21:25 #
Gargle-did realize it as a P&S, BTDT. I pref the second one and do you have Photoshop to change the Bright/Contrast a bit?
Nov 25, 2011 12:35:19 #
No, I'm not techy enough to use Photoshop. I do have a different photo editing software that could probably do it but to you mean lighter or darker?
Nov 25, 2011 17:34:48 #
Well, not sure if it would make sense but I'd 'pop' the moon a bit with the light brush, drop the brightness a point or two overall then use contrast to pop the mountains and lake[?] then go back and use a combo of the light and dark brush to make the elements I wanted to draw the eye do so. :shr:
There is *nothing* wrong with the image and everyones taste varies a bit so lease don't think I am saying otherwise. :)
There is *nothing* wrong with the image and everyones taste varies a bit so lease don't think I am saying otherwise. :)
Nov 25, 2011 18:09:06 #
I agree with photophly. Pic looks a lot better stretched out in pano. Just my opinion. Nice shot.
Nov 26, 2011 03:13:29 #
Thank you for all your comments, however, believe it or not, the photo was an accurate rendition of what I saw. The sun was coming up behind the clump of trees on the left so that's why they are almost like a silhoutte. The "mountains" are in fact clouds on the horizon and the "lake" is the sea. I took the shot because I likes the colour of the sky and it's subtle graduation of colour from yellow to darker blue and that's why I left it as full frame and odd as it may seem, the moon was secondary. I only realised that it was there once I had downloaded it on to my computer.
Here are two other attempts. Do you like them any better? Personally I don't. They are no longer a representation of what I saw.
Here are two other attempts. Do you like them any better? Personally I don't. They are no longer a representation of what I saw.
Nov 26, 2011 04:47:35 #
Sorry but I am going to be the dissenting minority opinion. I like the original. I like the tension caused by the shallow foreground and the vastness of the sky. The cropped pictures look off because half the foreground is missing and you expect to see more. Because I like that vast sky, the panorama look contrived.
This is a rare picture that stands on its own. No post-processing really needs to be done except an optional sharpening of the trees and noise reduction in the sky.
This is a rare picture that stands on its own. No post-processing really needs to be done except an optional sharpening of the trees and noise reduction in the sky.
Nov 26, 2011 05:01:32 #
abc1234 wrote:
Sorry but I am going to be the dissenting minority opinion. I like the original. I like the tension caused by the shallow foreground and the vastness of the sky. The cropped pictures look off because half the foreground is missing and you expect to see more. Because I like that vast sky, the panorama look contrived.
This is a rare picture that stands on its own. No post-processing really needs to be done except an optional sharpening of the trees and noise reduction in the sky.
This is a rare picture that stands on its own. No post-processing really needs to be done except an optional sharpening of the trees and noise reduction in the sky.
i agree with you. in fact, i'd take the moon out entirely to fit it into the minimalist tradition
Nov 26, 2011 05:23:51 #
Well, I guess you can't please all of the people al of the time. I too prefer the original and I like the addition of the moon.
Let's leave that one for a while and I'll ask you good folks your opinion on another photo that has a slightly odd history.
I had visited the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles and when I came out, I had walked about a block and a half and turned and very quickly took this snap for a different viewpoint of the building than one usually sees. It was yet again, qute literally a snap, once again hand holding my Panasonic TZ7 and using the full 12X zoom. I now know that when I took these shots the mode dial had moved to what is known as the clipboard used for taking shots of timetables, maps etc. and they lodge in another part of the camera and they are only 1200 X 1600 instead of 3648 X 2736 and in spite of that, a surprisingly acceptable quality. What I think is is astonishing is that I took this shot from some distance, and it has still captured the reflection of the men in the metal cladding of the building. The only post editing I have done has been to remove a large poster on the right hand side that gave it a strange, almost surreal quality.
Let's leave that one for a while and I'll ask you good folks your opinion on another photo that has a slightly odd history.
I had visited the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles and when I came out, I had walked about a block and a half and turned and very quickly took this snap for a different viewpoint of the building than one usually sees. It was yet again, qute literally a snap, once again hand holding my Panasonic TZ7 and using the full 12X zoom. I now know that when I took these shots the mode dial had moved to what is known as the clipboard used for taking shots of timetables, maps etc. and they lodge in another part of the camera and they are only 1200 X 1600 instead of 3648 X 2736 and in spite of that, a surprisingly acceptable quality. What I think is is astonishing is that I took this shot from some distance, and it has still captured the reflection of the men in the metal cladding of the building. The only post editing I have done has been to remove a large poster on the right hand side that gave it a strange, almost surreal quality.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.