Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Please give your criticism  (Read 3658 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6310


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2011, 11:52:52 AM »
ReplyReply

...
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
sanfairyanne
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2011, 11:55:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks very much, I'll stop bothering everyone, I don't want to hog the forum. Grin
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8309



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2011, 12:57:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, the new version's better.

And both of yours are better than the other guy's cloudless photo. His photo looks enough oversaturated to be unrealistic to me. I have spent a fair amount of time in mountainous situations and both of yours ring pretty true to me, whereas his still looks overcooked. I have never seen a sky that dark, even though skies are generally darker at high elevations (less atmosphere in the way).

I seem to be in a minority here, but I like my landscapes to look plausible.

Nice work. Keep it up, and don't bother with a polarizer above, say, 6000 feet elevation, IMHO.

Eric

P.S. I generally like the way Slobodan processes photos, but this time I think he overdid it. His version looks like overdone HDR to me. Sorry, Slobodan!
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 01:12:52 PM by Eric Myrvaagnes » Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2011, 01:45:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I've gone through my files and found one series of shots at f13 I'll play with that and see if the detail and colour improve but to be honest I can't tell any difference.

All the images were shot at 70mm. I didn't use a wide angle lens as Theodoros suggests. Theodoros my image looks only slightly lower, I was aware of the height issue at the time but I couldn't get further back because there's a river. I went to the opposite bank but the angle is all wrong. Even stood in the river it's wrong because the banks drop down too much. So I must have shot it from the same spot therefore with the same focal length (more or less). I have a Feisol tripod with a 59'' height, that's pretty high, but yes the other shot does show ever so slightly more mountain than foreground.

And to RSL, this isn't strictly speaking an HDR, there's no tone mapping I just blended the best attributes from two exposures in Layers.
I'm pretty disappointed with my photography, even attempting to copy someone's work (pretty low I know) I still get crap shots. Although as Theodoros points out there's nothing that strikes him in an artistic point of view from either image.
I Didn't say a wide angle, I said a wider lens. The lens he has used is much more powerful than yours and the difference in height is not "slightly" its rather considerable, look at the perspective (or better "study" it) and you will realize that I am correct, I am not trying to judge you here, since you mentioned that you are a "starter", I am trying to help you so that you will advance earlier. Perspective control is a major aspect that you will have to master in your technique so that your photography will develop. My experience says that out there, there are many people that declare them selves as photographers but a few that are. You will have to reach a point where you vision the actual photo that you shoot, most people look through the viewfinder and think that what they see is the image, you 'll find (soon.... because I think I can see your passion to be a photographer) that when you will be able to vision the printed image when you look through the viewfinder,  ....you will have a new pair of eyes that will of course make your mind look better. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2011, 01:58:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I've gone through my files and found one series of shots at f13 I'll play with that and see if the detail and colour improve but to be honest I can't tell any difference.

All the images were shot at 70mm. I didn't use a wide angle lens as Theodoros suggests. Theodoros my image looks only slightly lower, I was aware of the height issue at the time but I couldn't get further back because there's a river. I went to the opposite bank but the angle is all wrong. Even stood in the river it's wrong because the banks drop down too much. So I must have shot it from the same spot therefore with the same focal length (more or less). I have a Feisol tripod with a 59'' height, that's pretty high, but yes the other shot does show ever so slightly more mountain than foreground.

And to RSL, this isn't strictly speaking an HDR, there's no tone mapping I just blended the best attributes from two exposures in Layers.
I'm pretty disappointed with my photography, even attempting to copy someone's work (pretty low I know) I still get crap shots. Although as Theodoros points out there's nothing that strikes him in an artistic point of view from either image.
What I first quoted..., is exactly the same as what "louoates" quoted a few feedbacks later using only different words. So now you have two identical criticisms. It can't be an accident ...can it? Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6310


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2011, 02:14:28 PM »
ReplyReply

...

P.S. I generally like the way Slobodan processes photos, but this time I think he overdid it. His version looks like overdone HDR to me. Sorry, Slobodan!

Boooo!!!  Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
sanfairyanne
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2011, 02:28:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Louoates say's the foreground and trees fight for attention, I can understand that, I guess at the time I liked their attention! Sorry to miss quote you Theodoros, you did indeed say a wider lens not a wide angle. Regarding the height, short of carrying a pair of step ladders (I've thought of it) there was no way I could get higher. I have studied both shots and yes the perspective appears higher in the pro shot. If you look very closely at the peaks, you have the largest to the right, then the next left (Cerro Poincenot) then another smaller one to the left and to the left of that a tiny peak. When I look at both shots that tiny peak seems the same. Is it possible the trees have grown in mine and are taking up more of the image. Also there is more snow in mine which may alter the perspective.

I'm going to go back one day and try again, if anyone has ever thought of going to Patagonia I can wholeheartedly recommend it. I stayed so long the locals thought I should have found a local girl and settled down. It will be coming into spring there now, a wonderful time to photograph the lakes as they begin to thaw. Can I suggest looking at Luis Franke's website, he has some wonderful images.
Logged
fotometria gr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2011, 03:05:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Louoates say's the foreground and trees fight for attention, I can understand that, I guess at the time I liked their attention! Sorry to miss quote you Theodoros, you did indeed say a wider lens not a wide angle. Regarding the height, short of carrying a pair of step ladders (I've thought of it) there was no way I could get higher. I have studied both shots and yes the perspective appears higher in the pro shot. If you look very closely at the peaks, you have the largest to the right, then the next left (Cerro Poincenot) then another smaller one to the left and to the left of that a tiny peak. When I look at both shots that tiny peak seems the same. Is it possible the trees have grown in mine and are taking up more of the image. Also there is more snow in mine which may alter the perspective.

I'm going to go back one day and try again, if anyone has ever thought of going to Patagonia I can wholeheartedly recommend it. I stayed so long the locals thought I should have found a local girl and settled down. It will be coming into spring there now, a wonderful time to photograph the lakes as they begin to thaw. Can I suggest looking at Luis Franke's website, he has some wonderful images.
I insist it wasn't shot from where you was standing, it was shot at more than double your distance from the trees (perhaps triple) and if you used a 70mm, then he used something like a 200 or so... He is considerably higher than you as well, next time you'll be there look behind you past the river and higher up. That's where he was. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6310


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2011, 08:45:38 PM »
ReplyReply

At Andrew's (sanfairyanne) request, I will provide the steps I took in getting to my version of his image. But before the how, I usually like to explain the why.

I agree with Lou's and Armand's comments. I also prefer the semi-pro's version for the similar reasons they do. The crucial differences are: 1. better light 2. use of a polarizer 3. different focal length and/or different standpoint 4. rule of thirds composition

It all boils down to the foreground in Andrew's image dominating it, instead of the mountains. The slight difference in perspective, coupled with positioning of the tree line roughly in the middle (instead into the lower third), HDR's color/contrast-mudding and a too bright foreground all contributed to the mountains playing the background to the foreground (pardon the pun), instead of being the center of interest.

The use of a polarizer: nothing wrong with using it full-strength on tele lenses. The uneven sky is typically a problem with ultra-wide lenses, i.e., wider than 28mm. Nothing wrong with a deep, dark, almost black sky, especially at those altitudes. One thing often overlooked when using a polarizer is that it acts as a natural fill-light (i.e., opens shadows). Hence using it kills two birds with one stone: you get a dramatic sky and a natural-looking shadows (no need for the dreaded HDR).

So, in light of the above, I did the following in Lightroom (no HDR though):

- cropped the bottom a bit to make the foreground less dominant and more within the lower third
- darkened the foreground with a graduated filter to further visually diminish its influence (minus 1.25 f/stop)
- used Recovery to prevent snowy highlights from blowing out
- opened up shadows just a bit (+10)
- used Punch preset (Clarity +50, Vibrance +25)
- used Vignette to frame and focus attention (-25/25, Amount/Midpoint)
- the most dramatic change is in the HSL panel, with the Blue +20/+40/-100 (Hue/Saturation/Luminance), done to mimic the use of a polarizer
- this turned the clouds a bit more bluish than desired, so I used a White Balance eyedropper to bring the clouds more toward neutral

Again, given that I was playing with a small jpeg, the numeric values and impact will likely be different when working with RAW, and the final result undoubtably better.

Did I go too far? Perhaps. Apart from the obvious that I did not want to spend too much time on someone else's photograph, my main idea was to demonstrate the possibilities, rather than seek perfection or universal approval. When/if Andrew decides to play with his RAW files, he will ultimately decide how far he is ready to go.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
sanfairyanne
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2011, 01:23:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, Thanks very much for that reply, sorry I can't even read it right now as I'm about to jump on a plane to France. Will look into it thoroughly ASAP.

Regards Andrew
Logged
sanfairyanne
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2011, 01:22:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, as I mentioned I'm pretty new to PP but I'm learning day by day, I understand what you did I'm just not quite competent to do all those things myself. Of course I realise I shouldn't necessarily try to replicate you're PP as others have said we all have a differing opinion of how a photograph should look. Eric for instance doesn't like the polarised look.

Theodoros you have made some very valuable comments regarding the compositon of the shot, the pro shot is more compressed, the distance between the mountain and the trees is significantly compressed. I did try shooting it across the river and couldn't find that angle. I guess once I'd convinced myself I was stood in the right place I just blindly accepted it. When I go back to Patagonia I'll definitely check it out. By the way thank you also for saying you think you can see my passion for being a photographer, I do have a passion for it and am learning more and more each shoot and each chapter of a PP book.

Thanks again to everyone, I'm shooting in the U.S next year but will be back in Patagonia in 2013.


Andy

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad