| Author |
Message |
mehulnaik
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 172
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:15 am
|  |
Attempting another landscape.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
102.22 KB |
| Viewed: |
2882 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
119.05 KB |
| Viewed: |
2882 Time(s) |
|
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26159
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:22 am
| |
Composition and fringing.
Also how about a crop of the horizon.
|
|
mehulnaik
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 172
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:43 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Composition and fringing.
Also how about a crop of the horizon. |
I am struggling to find where is it fringing. would you be able to point out?
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
129.8 KB |
| Viewed: |
2863 Time(s) |
|
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26159
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:57 am
| |
Your crop of the horizon shows it is OOF with red fringing.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
54.98 KB |
| Viewed: |
2856 Time(s) |
|
|
|
mehulnaik
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 172
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 7:02 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | Your crop of the horizon shows it is OOF with red fringing. |
Red fringing can be fixed so as blue one. I guess its my lens which is causing it. I will work on Focus. Is it close enough or its far away from acceptable level?
|
|
digigandalf
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 5398
Location: Twinsburg, OH
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 7:34 am
| |
Aside from the focus, you're going to get a lighting rejection. Yes, I know it's meant to be dark, but the right side falls off into loss of detail. If you don't want to lighten it, you could crop off the right and go with a squarish format, like below (I upped the exposure a bit anyway, and it might still be too dark for SS's likings).
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
36.08 KB |
| Viewed: |
2836 Time(s) |
|
|
|
mehulnaik
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 172
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 7:42 am
| |
| digigandalf wrote: | | Aside from the focus, you're going to get a lighting rejection. Yes, I know it's meant to be dark, but the right side falls off into loss of detail. If you don't want to lighten it, you could crop off the right and go with a squarish format, like below (I upped the exposure a bit anyway, and it might still be too dark for SS's likings). |
I did take few more shots before sunset. Will upload it soon
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6465
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 8:16 am
| |
I very much like digi's version with stock photography in mind
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39140
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 9:46 am
| |
As do I But.....Great for your wall. A reviewer will see it differently.
|
|
mattgibson
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 601
Location: London
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 10:06 am
| |
Why the silhouette at all? walk 50 yards to your left and there is a shot there with the groynes leading the eye to the clouds in the distance. More interesting side lighting and more even exposure. You won't have the black to worry about, you have more interesting shot and one more likely to get accepted. Whehter it sells or not is as much you guess as mine but it has to be accepted to be able to sell.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3770
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 11:33 am
| |
| mattgibson wrote: | | Why the silhouette at all? walk 50 yards to your left and there is a shot there with the groynes leading the eye to the clouds in the distance. More interesting side lighting and more even exposure. You won't have the black to worry about, you have more interesting shot and one more likely to get accepted. Whehter it sells or not is as much you guess as mine but it has to be accepted to be able to sell. |
x2
The dead tree doesn't add much to the image. However, you have the potential of some elements with which you can create some great linear features in the image that would provide much more interest.
Hope you can go back to the spot and reshoot it.
|
|
mikenorton
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 3471
Location: Guide Book http://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-norton/nortons-notes/paperback/product-5079819.html
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 12:09 am
| |
Everybody, including me, preach about the virtues of the foreground object. It's a rule and rules are meant to be bent and broken. This is one where you would have a better image if you would have broken the rule. The subject of this picture is not the water, poles or clouds. It's the colors in the sky and the colors reflecting on the water. The foreground tree distracts from the color in the reflections. The rocks on the lower left provide enough foreground. Remember sometimes less is more. I like the fact that you shot when everyone one else was eating and that your picture has clouds, just lookout for that 1 too many tree next time.
|
|
mehulnaik
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 172
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 5:44 am
| |
| mikenorton wrote: | | Everybody, including me, preach about the virtues of the foreground object. It's a rule and rules are meant to be bent and broken. This is one where you would have a better image if you would have broken the rule. The subject of this picture is not the water, poles or clouds. It's the colors in the sky and the colors reflecting on the water. The foreground tree distracts from the color in the reflections. The rocks on the lower left provide enough foreground. Remember sometimes less is more. I like the fact that you shot when everyone one else was eating and that your picture has clouds, just lookout for that 1 too many tree next time. |
Let me know if you like this. This one was shot without the tree in it. I did take few shots at different location so that I learn more.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
121.34 KB |
| Viewed: |
2629 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
120.14 KB |
| Viewed: |
2632 Time(s) |
|
|
|
mehulnaik
Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Posts: 172
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:16 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | Your crop of the horizon shows it is OOF with red fringing. |
Also I wanted to know where would you focus in this type of shots? should I use infinity focus or should I use focus at lower third of picture? I have tried to research about this topic but everyone is having different opinions
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24059
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:14 am
| |
| mehulnaik wrote: | | ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | Your crop of the horizon shows it is OOF with red fringing. |
Also I wanted to know where would you focus in this type of shots? should I use infinity focus or should I use focus at lower third of picture? I have tried to research about this topic but everyone is having different opinions |
It depends on the shot you want to achieve and how far away certain elements are in the image.
The focusing 1/3 in sounds like you are talking about hyperfocal distance focusing. This is where you use an aperture small enough to get everything in the image in focus.
Using infinity focus is when all items in the shot are more than 40 feet away from the camera and DOF does not come into play and infinity focus takes over.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
