Scotland re-edits
Jul 10, 2019 16:40:11 #
Thank you for posting and storing these new images. I looked at the details of the final image. The entire image is a very pleasing landscape as are the colors / mood.
But, the details of the image are missing. From the EXIF, the image reports 1/8 sec at f/3.5, ISO-100 using 16mm. I could find only the boulder in the lower center of the foreground to be in sharp focus. I would prefer the image details to be sharply focused at least through the small tree in the middle of the image, just beyond the water. This would require a smaller aperture and higher ISO or longer shutter speed. Seeking to avoid subject movement in the wind, I'd opt for a higher ISO along with the smaller aperture, placing the focus point further into the image, such as the rocks on the far side of the water.
Finally, look at image details and the slight grain in the darker portions of clouds. If this image was significantly brightened in your post processing, recognize this grain (digital noise) occurs as a result of brightened a dark image rather than exposing to the right and then darkening the image in post, even at ISO-100. That grain occurs only in the shadows of the sky and is very minor. A slight increase in the Luminance NR processing of your tool should clean-up via another pass.
But, the details of the image are missing. From the EXIF, the image reports 1/8 sec at f/3.5, ISO-100 using 16mm. I could find only the boulder in the lower center of the foreground to be in sharp focus. I would prefer the image details to be sharply focused at least through the small tree in the middle of the image, just beyond the water. This would require a smaller aperture and higher ISO or longer shutter speed. Seeking to avoid subject movement in the wind, I'd opt for a higher ISO along with the smaller aperture, placing the focus point further into the image, such as the rocks on the far side of the water.
Finally, look at image details and the slight grain in the darker portions of clouds. If this image was significantly brightened in your post processing, recognize this grain (digital noise) occurs as a result of brightened a dark image rather than exposing to the right and then darkening the image in post, even at ISO-100. That grain occurs only in the shadows of the sky and is very minor. A slight increase in the Luminance NR processing of your tool should clean-up via another pass.
Jul 10, 2019 17:16:20 #
jkfrankum wrote:
Please provide a critique on the following topics:
Composition, Post processing, overall impression.
Composition, Post processing, overall impression.
I enjoyed the compositions and moody effects.
Jul 10, 2019 18:13:33 #
like em! Just got back from Scotland and Ireland and though I did many sunny sky pics I think both countries are best suited to the more somber darker tones especially on the cloudy damp days. Pat
Jul 10, 2019 18:44:36 #
"But, the details of the image are missing. From the EXIF, the image reports 1/8 sec at f/3.5, ISO-100 using 16mm. I could find only the boulder in the lower center of the foreground to be in sharp focus. I would prefer the image details to be sharply focused at least through the small tree in the middle of the image, just beyond the water. This would require a smaller aperture and higher ISO or longer shutter speed. Seeking to avoid subject movement in the wind, I'd opt for a higher ISO along with the smaller aperture, placing the focus point further into the image, such as the rocks on the far side of the water."
EXIF info will appear according to order how the second set of images were posted.
All photos taken with Pentax K-70 w/ 16-85 pentax HD Lens
1: ISO 100, f 3.5, 1/6 sec, 16mm
2: ISO 1600, f 4, 1/60 sec, 23 mm
3: ISO 800, f9, 1/160 sec, 48 mm
4: ISO 200, f/8, 1/100 sec, 16 mm
5: ISO 100, f7.1, 1/250 sec, 16mm
6: ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/200 sec, 16mm
7: ISO 100, f 3.5, 1/8 second 16mm
Thank you for the time to help improve my photography. I'm still learning how aperture, ISO, and shutter speed affects final products.
EXIF info will appear according to order how the second set of images were posted.
All photos taken with Pentax K-70 w/ 16-85 pentax HD Lens
1: ISO 100, f 3.5, 1/6 sec, 16mm
2: ISO 1600, f 4, 1/60 sec, 23 mm
3: ISO 800, f9, 1/160 sec, 48 mm
4: ISO 200, f/8, 1/100 sec, 16 mm
5: ISO 100, f7.1, 1/250 sec, 16mm
6: ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/200 sec, 16mm
7: ISO 100, f 3.5, 1/8 second 16mm
Thank you for the time to help improve my photography. I'm still learning how aperture, ISO, and shutter speed affects final products.
Jul 10, 2019 18:45:33 #
pappleg wrote:
like em! Just got back from Scotland and Ireland and though I did many sunny sky pics I think both countries are best suited to the more somber darker tones especially on the cloudy damp days. Pat
Fully agree, I think the darker tones resemble more of what I saw with my eyes.
Jul 10, 2019 18:52:49 #
gilpog wrote:
Thank you for making the changes to the horizons. Splendid images!!! Congratulations.
Thank you! Not the first time I made this mistake. Had the same issue on some of the photo's I took in the Florida Keys. I actually just realized that the second one needs to be adjusted also.
Jul 10, 2019 21:24:26 #
Very nice images. Composition is really good. For the most part, I like the processing you did on them. For me, they are a little dark though, and I would have opened them up a little more, but thats me. I wasn't there to see the actual scene as you were, and I am sure you processed them as you saw them, or how you wanted them to look.
Photography is all about individual taste, and each person has their own vision and ideas on what looks good. They are really very nice photos.
Photography is all about individual taste, and each person has their own vision and ideas on what looks good. They are really very nice photos.
Jul 10, 2019 23:07:13 #
Vince68 wrote:
Very nice images. Composition is really good. For ... (show quote)
Thank you vince! When you say open them up more, can you provide your meaning? Not quite sure I understand the context.
Jul 10, 2019 23:09:34 #
Hello jkfrankum,
They feel a little dark overall, but otherwise, they are all very nice.
My favorite is 2, in terms of interest and overall composition. I like the sun's rays and the way the building is sort of a surprise on first view, and the colors are very nice. The main distractors to me are the amount of rock to the left, and the line of ocean & cliffs pointing right to the middle of the image. I would have cropped the image a bit closer in and moved the point of land to the left a bit more so the building becomes the main point of interest in that third instead of the cliff. I think it would be a bit more dramatic without losing the expansive view.
I also like shots 1 & 4, though I like 1 a bit more than 4 because 4 feels like it's canted to the right just a bit (where the water goes over the lip of the falls is the line that causes it to feel tilted). I understand odd angles make interesting shots, but I think both shots would benefit from a bit of slanting to the left.
Also, as with 2, there's a bit too much of the foreground in the image for my taste, or maybe too much of the slope uphill to the left of the stream. Basically, the amount of foreground kind of gets in the way of drawing my eye to the distance along the water line, and the far hills are just a bit too far away to be worth more than passing interesting. Maybe it'd be different with a larger version?
I hope this helps.
Cheers
They feel a little dark overall, but otherwise, they are all very nice.
My favorite is 2, in terms of interest and overall composition. I like the sun's rays and the way the building is sort of a surprise on first view, and the colors are very nice. The main distractors to me are the amount of rock to the left, and the line of ocean & cliffs pointing right to the middle of the image. I would have cropped the image a bit closer in and moved the point of land to the left a bit more so the building becomes the main point of interest in that third instead of the cliff. I think it would be a bit more dramatic without losing the expansive view.
I also like shots 1 & 4, though I like 1 a bit more than 4 because 4 feels like it's canted to the right just a bit (where the water goes over the lip of the falls is the line that causes it to feel tilted). I understand odd angles make interesting shots, but I think both shots would benefit from a bit of slanting to the left.
Also, as with 2, there's a bit too much of the foreground in the image for my taste, or maybe too much of the slope uphill to the left of the stream. Basically, the amount of foreground kind of gets in the way of drawing my eye to the distance along the water line, and the far hills are just a bit too far away to be worth more than passing interesting. Maybe it'd be different with a larger version?
I hope this helps.
Cheers
Jul 11, 2019 01:06:28 #
jkfrankum wrote:
Thank you vince! When you say open them up more, can you provide your meaning? Not quite sure I understand the context.
I would open up the shadow slider a little. Move it to the right to make the shadows a little brighter. You could also adjust your exposure slider a little too. Make minor, small adjustments to start. If the scenes were dark to begin with, then you might not want to open the shadows or the overall exposure up much at all.
Like I said, I wasn't there taking the pictures, so I don't know what the scenes looked like when you took the photos. It really is about what the scene looked like to you, what you saw, how you want to interpret what you saw, and what you want the image to look like. If the images please you, thats what matters.
Jul 11, 2019 08:34:47 #
Jul 11, 2019 08:43:47 #
Jul 14, 2019 19:52:54 #
Thank you all for the kind words and critiques. It will surely help my develop my photography hobby going forward!
Jul 16, 2019 16:22:13 #
Jul 28, 2019 11:02:52 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.