How can I make this shot better

[FlipsidE]

So far, I've gotten nothing but compliments on this shot, but I'm not quite satisfied with it. I don't necessarily mind that the background is blurry and the foreground is not, but it seems that there is a harsh line between the two versus a fade/blend.

The stump is still there, and the shot can be easily retaken. So, please offer up any suggestions, and I'll be happy to try them out. My *guess* is that I need to tighten the aperature a bit. But, please offer suggestions.

Edit: Resized image to fit the message board

http://www.wesculbertson.com/stumped_034_800.jpg

Thanks

FlipsidE

[lucasdigital]

So far, I've gotten nothing but compliments on this shot, but I'm not quite satisfied with it....

FlipsidE

Thats a good photograph!
I'd say the composition is good and the shot well controlled. It would be improved to my modest eyes if the forground grass and tree-bark were sharper, so you could see more of the fine detail.

<AFTER VIEWING FULL SIZE IMAGE>
Its not easy to crit a photograph that has been squeeze-sampled. Try not to post images that are larger than the forum can display (800 pixel limit).
Having viewed the full size image I can see finer detail in the forground, kind of shooting down my comment.

Good work though!

[FlipsidE]

"Try not to post images that are larger than the forum can display (800 pixel limit)."

- Yeah...sorry bout that. I will definitely keep that in mind from now on. And thank you very much for the compliment. I'm still thinkin of trying it again with a smaller aperature to see if I can get some of the background to focus...not all of it, but some of it.

Thanks again

FlipsidE

[flowe]

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

I can't stop wondering why most posters here steadfastly refuse to sharpen their pictures adequately. Honestly: where is the catch?? Please comment.

[tommykjensen]

I can't stop wondering why most posters here steadfastly refuse to sharpen their pictures adequately. Honestly: where is the catch?? Please comment.

Define adequate?

[flowe]

I deliberately used "adequate", since it is entirely up to the photographer to decide what and how much is adequate *to him* - as with a great many other aspects, actually with the whole of photography.

In the above example, the original version clearly is very soft - while discussing sharpness and depth of field! It *might* come straight out of the camera, and it wouldn't have got any better by downsampling. Digicams by nature work that way, and manufacturers hesitate with good reasons to "oversharpen". But many users appear to take the result as just the way it is. The vast shortcomings are obvious in remembering an equivalent print from a 35mm film.

The improvements by adequately sharpening are easily recognizable in my demo: a lot more detail and local contrast. The result is without *any* noticable adverse effects such as haloes (black or white rims) or "oversharpening" (difficult to describe, easy to be seen).


Tommy, there is still the double set of your lions, which IMO was an extraordinary example for "adequate" and successful sharpening, actually changing the entire atmospere of the picture for the better. If you agree, I would post them here again, to benefit the discussion.

I don't want to elaborate here on *how* I sharpen, because there are many different ways and means. And the whole workflow heavily depends on the own equipment - eg. camera. Only that much: USM (unsharp masking) is probably not anymore state of the art, and the on-board ready made sharpeners of most image editors even less. If you want to know *my* preferences, please read here (http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/incamshe.htm) (heavy download of sample pictures, but lots to read while waiting).

One catch of course might be the quality of the monitor many people are used to look at. If it's an elderly CRT, then probably the difference within my pairs and the effect and benefit of sharpening generally can't very well be assessed. Can you see the differences?

Further comments?

[tommykjensen]

Tommy, there is still the double set of your lions, which IMO was an extraordinary example for "adequate" and successful sharpening, actually changing the entire atmospere of the picture for the better. If you agree, I would post them here again, to benefit the discussion.

Please don't bring that discussion up here. You cannot use that photo. Further comments, send them in PM.

I don't want to elaborate here on *how* I sharpen, because there are many different ways and means.

Not wanting to tell how You got from A to B is of no benefit. Maybe someone like You just know how to get to the end result but not everybody knows that and if You don't want to explain exactly how You improved a photo then I see no point and I can't learn from that.



I deliberately used "adequate", since it is entirely up to the photographer to decide what and how much is adequate *to him* - as with a great many other aspects, actually with the whole of photography.
What is adequate to You may be oversharpened/too soft to others. What is adequate to others may be oversharpened/too soft to You.

Saying that You don't understand why most don't sharpen adequately imply that You alone have the answer to what amount of sharpening is right for each image. But different people = different opinons.

[stopbath]

Sharpening...

Anyway, on to the image itself instead of nitpicking about sharpening a downsized image...

I think the focus is too much at the front of the stump. I think the 'rings' are vital too... Exposure itself is very nice, but the shadow in the front of the stump is kind of dark. Maybe a reflector board, or a tweak with the crurves tool...

Perhaps a full field of depth of focus would work great on this image as the stump would be able to stand out of the pattern of ground litter better.

The oak leaf in front, is sort of distracting. Perhaps if it was removed, or delegated to the top left quadrant, it might work better...

[tofuboy]

How much DOF one uses is personal preference in this type of image. You could choose...
1. Have the stump be in focus while the foreground and background are not.
2. Have the entire image in focus
3. Anything in between.

The composition of this image works well. I agree with flowe about the sharpening. In my opinion, black and white images of this nature have more impact when they are sharp. Black and white images don't have the color aspect to grab a viewers attention, so you need to use other means to make a black and white image jump out at you.

[JCK]

I agree with Flowe.

[rick barclay]

You have a digital camera, so why don't you just go out and shoot several
dozen pictures at different apertures and shutter speeds and see how
they affect your exposures? The best way to learn is simply by doing.
Since it's a still picture, use a tripod. The wider the aperture setting the
shorter the depth of field and the brighter the exposure. Faster shutter
speeds get you a darker picture. Your camera's a toy. Play with it.

[Steven M. Anthony]

While it is right to say that the amount of sharpening, dof, etc. employed on an image while taking or post processing it is "up to the individual," it misses something. To me, all those things and more (angle of attack, general composition, etc.) are tool to help the photog get across what they are trying to communicate with a given image.

To answer the question of "how can I make this shot better?" ask yourself what you were trying to communicate with it first. Once you have a sense of WHY YOU TOOK IT IN THE FIRST PLACE (not shouting, just emphasizing...) you can begin to ask yourself what techniques will help get that meaning across. By telling US what you intended to get across, we can then give you meaningful answers (theoretically) instead of "I like to do this" or "you should do that."

Of course it is sometimes no easy matter to uncover what a scene "says" to us--i.e., why we were moved to take a shot.

For me (and each of us might have our own associations) a scene like this speaks of desolation, alienation or even "forgottenness" (if that's a word... I think for any of those, a wider shot would help communicate that (assuming there is a lot of empty space around the stump).

This could also speak to "usefulness" in that the tree might have been cut down to make something. If so, showing almost anything in the background that is man-made might help to communicate that.

Anyway, I think you catch my drift.

Good luck!

[DanielM]

This photo looks best to me as a study in composition, shape and movement(!), not detail. I think sharpness for the foreground is neither here nor there, and fiddling around with depth of field might ruin the background.

Here's why: when I saw it, my eyes were immediately drawn to the inner curve of the stump (nicely placed where rule-of-third lines intersect), and then my eyes followed the directional soft background lines (blades of grass) in a counter-clockwise direction around the stump. Ultimately, the flow of eye movement (for me) ended at the leaf at the base. The edges of the leaf then point up, to the top of the stump, where the cycle begins again. So, it's an interesting image because it keeps my eyes moving.

Altering the background to be more in focus would likely ruin that movement because the blades of grass pointing in other directions to the flow of the eye would likely become more in focus. Sharpening might prove helpful in giving the eye more to study, but I don't find my eyes resting to study it.