Venice Picture

[Nigel Wallace]

Folks

Just started using a web host to display my pictures. Would you please click on the link below and give me some feed back , as usual honesty is the best policy :lol:

http://nigelwallace.fotopic.net/p8176977.html

Sigma 28 - 80, 1/40 sec, f5.6, ISO 100
Thanks

Nigel

http://nigelwallace.fotopic.net/

[JK]

I like the bridge of sighs pic, but I'd try lightening it a bit in the shadows to bring out some more detail. Could also be interesting in black and white.

[Radtech1]

Looks like a great trip, but I would say that overall you need to pay more attention to postprocessing before posting. With the exception of the first one they are all too blue. Try color correcting, or better learn to shoot at the correct color balance in the first place. Additionally, many of the shots also need rotating and/or perspective correction. Here is a QUICK (<2 min) color and perspective correction on one.

Rad

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/78486/Canon/Venice_Basilica.jpg

[Nigel Wallace]

Folks

Thanks for the feedback, I actually used a Grad Blue filter on these to bring out the sky and bit more. Bit of a novice so perhaps i have over done the blue a bit. :oops:

Radtech1, Thanks for posting your version. It's really helpful to see what others view as a good picture too, really useful.

Cheers

[flowe]

Nigel

Rad has already mentioned levelling. Unmotivated tilt to me kills every picture, and nothing is as easily corrected. Here it is immediately obvious with the crooked steeple.

Then I would suggest less empty sky and more interesting gondolas, thereby moving the mooring in the middleground away from half height. The same applies to both your pictures #2 and #4. A polarizer filter might have helped to increase variation in the sky, more so than the Grad Blue filter you mentioned.

http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/img/venice.jpg

Something very unfavorable happened while resampling the gondolas from 3072x2078 to the presented 800x533px. I've taken the full size picture, resampled to 25% and sharpened a little - the result underlies my demo. Much more pleasing...

Then I considered DOF - depth of field. Focal distance and best sharpness appear to lie somewhere near the bows of the gondolas (AF?), but too little is left for the buildings in the backgroud. I think that focal distance could have been (manually) set further back - to about at 2/3 of the gondolas lenght - and the DOF along with it.

You stated 1/40sec., f5.6 and ISO100. More ISO would allow a smaller aperture to increase DOF. And to probably retract your position as far as the situation permits while leaving the focal plane in the same spot.

Of course, the shorter the focal lenght of the lens, the bigger the DOF too. Since you didn't state the focal length (within the lenses range) actually used, there is no way here to estimate the hyperfocal distance HFD (indicating DOF from half the HFD to infinity). This would certainly help very much in such a critical situation. (Much) more about that you'll find here (http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/hfd_dof.htm).

Nigel, don't be discouraged by my comments - it is and remains an interesting and most rewarding venture, while very few of us ever reach perfection.

flowe

[Nigel Wallace]

Flowe

This is all good stuff to me and i thank you for taking to the time to look at my pictures and commenting on them aswell. The points you have drawn my attention too does certainly give it a different view and I will certainly bear this in mind for future. I am back in Venice next year so will make sure i print off everyone comments and re do the pictures and compare the results. Another year older and another year wiser

Once again Thanks

Nigel