The Train is coming !

[shb]

I am relatively new in photography, C&C welcome :)
http://fc30.deviantart.com/fs36/i/2008/293/6/6/That_Train_is_coming_again_by_bantony.jpg (http://bantony.deviantart.com/art/That-Train-is-coming-again-100304102)

[jonklein611]

Good composure, but to me it seems a lil under exposed. Was it overcast that day?

[Scott McLoud]

Under exposed (check the sleepers for example - you can't see them)

Check the histrogram. Learn how to use that, its a good tool to use :)

[jonklein611]

Note: sleepers = railroad ties for the US crowd. It's a tricky shot because if you bump the exposure up, you'll blow out the sky even more. Almost needs a ND filter.

[Croasdail]

I don't think it was underexposed... it has just been over processed. Way too much contrast and saturation boost. Good location and all. I would go back and see if you can back it down a tad.

[jonklein611]

I don't think it was underexposed... it has just been over processed. Way too much contrast and saturation boost. Good location and all. I would go back and see if you can back it down a tad.

Just went to the host site:

"I just increase the shadow, highlight and increase the saturation"


So i agree, too much over processing. Was this shot in RAW?

[LeuceDeuce]

Underexposure was definately not the issue here. From the scene presented, there was no way (outside of HDR techniques) to capture this image with a single exposure.

Looks like a ton was already blown. Over 30% of the pixels are sitting on 237 which would indicate that the whole sky was completely blown, then selected and brought back down to 237. Then a few values above 237 were filled in with some sharpening.

Just because you bring the 255's back down to 237 doesn't mean they're no longer blown highlights. Once the damage is done, it's done. You have lost detail in over 32% of the highlights and 23% of the shadows which means you have no detail in over half of the image.

I would have to send this one to the recycle bin, and try again.

[shb]

Yes it was alittle bit dark when the picture was taken. I intentionally increased the saturation and the shadow to make this somehow different. Thanks for the response :)

[shb]

LeuceDeuce,
I am pretty new in photography. Could you please explain what the number refer to ?

Thanks for the info though :)

[jonklein611]

RGB scales. 0= black to 255= full color

one scale for each channel

Red: 0-255
Green : 0-255
Blue: 0-255

You were maxing out the photo (blown out). The sensor in the camera simply can't record a tone brighter than 255.

[Karizmatik]

I don't understand why some people feel the need to reduce Photography to a science in every single picture and can't simply take a picture for what it is, not what is wrong with it, technically.

I think this shot is great. Keep at it! ;)

[LeuceDeuce]

I think this shot is great. Keep at it! ;)

Anything but showing the technical failings is subjective and has little value.

People before me were seeing something wrong, but they didn't (couldn't) express what it was. They knew something wasn't right. I simply explained what it was.

Just telling someone you like/dislike without reason is of little value at all. What's to learn from it?

[Karizmatik]

^ Reducing a picture to it's technical aspects is stupid sometimes, though.

Photography is art. I'm sure Picasso was told his results weren't quite "technically" correct either.. But that doesn't make it any less of a great painting.

[LeuceDeuce]

^ Reducing a picture to it's technical aspects is stupid sometimes, though.

Photography is art. I'm sure Picasso was told his results weren't quite "technically" correct either.. But that doesn't make it any less of a great painting.

Look, the OP said they were new to photography, and by posting in this forum they are looking for ways to improve. I, and people before me, have shown what to look for.

This is not the "pat everyone who tries on the back, and everyone's a winner forum". People who are looking for help here, are going to get it. Don't come here looking for oooh's and ahh's.

[Karizmatik]

^ Fair enough.

Off topic: I'm definitely jealous of that Vietnam trip! Great shots.

[Walczak Photo]

I don't understand why some people feel the need to reduce Photography to a science in every single picture and can't simply take a picture for what it is, not what is wrong with it, technically.

I think this shot is great. Keep at it! ;)


I have to agree with LeuceDeuce here. The purpose of this forum is to "critique" images...(theoretically) people come to this forum to have their images evaluated by others, often with more knowledge on the subject, to have the mistakes (and the good aspects) of their images pointed out, hopefully so that they can learn from their mistakes. Simply saying "I like it" or "it sucks" is NOT helpful to most people. Why do you like it? What exactly is it about a given image that makes it "suck"? Personally if I wanted just a pat on the back and a hardy "good job", I can get that from my family and friends...people who don't know diddly-squat about photography.

Now please keep in mind that this is coming from a person who does consider himself an "artist" by nature. In addition to photography, I'm also a musician, I paint a little, I draw a little and I've even been known to write a story or two when the muse inspires me. There are aspects to each of these facets of my life that -are- technical. As a musician, I can't really play my guitar unless I understand chords, scales and even a degree of music theory (not to mention how my freakin' amp works! LOL). As a painter, I have to understand the differences between brushes and the different kinds of paints to create a specific desired effect. As a writer I need to have some basic understanding of the English language so I don't end up writing like a 3 year old. As such, I do very much approach photography from the view point of an artist. When I "snap a picture" that is only the beggining of my image creation...in most cases I do some very extensive editing on my pictures before I post or print them. However even I have to admit that photography by it's very nature is a very "technical" form of art. In addition to the aspects and elements of composition, you DO HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO WORK THE CAMERA to create images that (hopefully) will be appealing to others. Even if you never move the mode dial off of "Full Auto" you still need to understand how to correctly compose an image. You have to understand the interplay between light and shadow. You need to know about things such as "the rule of thirds". These things not only allow you to create better images but they also allow you to communicate with others so that you can learn what you've done well (and why) and how you can improve the next time.

Photography is a visual art and as such, is quite subjective by it's very nature...as is painting. Your comments about Picasso illustrate this very well..."I'm sure Picasso was told his results weren't quite "technically" correct either.. But that doesn't make it any less of a great painting". Now I don't know if ol' Pablo's work is "technically correct" or not, but personally I find nothing "great" about most of his more popular works. There is a very big difference between the technical aspects of something like painting and "aesthetics". Technically speaking, Pablo Picasso's work in the oils, brushes and canvas he used, the way he applied the oils to the canvas, etc., etc., could very well have been "technically perfect". Aesthetically however...actually I think the man may have been a serious nut case and that was simply expressed in his paintings! LOL!!! Very seriously, I have never found anything aesthetically appealing about most of Picasso's work. To me, a piece such as his 1921 "Three Musicians" for example simply looks like a jigsaw puzzle that was assembled wrong. His "Weeping Woman"...I really don't get it. It's "colorful" but that's about all I can really say about it...no sense of "realism" at all there (not that Picasso was trying to be "real"). To quote Crocodile Dundee, "I'm a drinkin' man myself, but I've never been *that* wasted". I could go into great depth with my analysis of Picasso's work here but the point is that "art" is quite subjective when it comes to aesthetics. However aesthetics and technical aspects are two very different things.

For arguments sake, let's say that instead of using "oils and brushes" to create his paintings, ol' Pablo used some venetian blinds and spaghetti sauce. Even if you like the aesthetic value of Picasso's work, do you really think they would still appeal to you if this had of been the case? The same is true of photographic images. Without the technical, you can't really have the aesthetic...one can't exist without the other. The difference here is that photography, also by it's very nature, is supposed to represent a "moment frozen in time". I'm not saying that an image has to "accurately represent exactly what the eye sees" (unless of course we're talking photojournalism which is a totally different subject) but there are certain rules as to what makes a good or great image vs. what makes a poorly done snap shot...and you do have to know what those rules are before you can effectively break them. Which brings us full circle here...saying "I think this shot is great" doesn't give the OP any useful information at all other than perhaps a mild ego stroking. If you go to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) and look up the word "critique" you will find that (part of) the definition is "1.an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review". The only way to do this with something such as photography is to, as you say, "reduce it to a science". No, photography shouldn't be strictly about the science of the subject...it should be equal parts science and creativity (in my ever so humble opinion at least) but to communicate vital aspects of a review does require some form of scientific analysis...and in most cases, the more, the better.

Now to keep this relevant to the OP, I have to agree with the others...at the risk of sounding rude or blunt, I think this image had issues to begin with and the over-processing just made things worse. As Deuce stated, this is a difficult shooting situation and could be well beyond the range of your typical digital camera...lot's of blown out whites to begin with and then the processing destroyed what little shadow detail there may have been to boot. My personal suggestion here, beyond the already suggested HDR attempt, would be to either try using a polarizer/ND filter and/or shoot in RAW and try under exposing the image and then adjust things in the RAW processing to bring the shadows back up. With digital, recovering shadows is much easier than trying to recover blown highlights (which with digital is impossible). Watch your histograms...they'll tell you if your clipping the highlights. I believe this was a well composed image, but it was simply poorly exposed. Of course, you could also simply try shooting at a different time of day as well such as early morning or late evening where the lighting would be more balanced :D.

As always, just my $.02 worth,
Jim

[LeuceDeuce]

Jim,

You express my own thoughs better than I do. In my caveman way, this is what I meant.

[shb]

thanks for the comments guys ! surely learn ways to improve from this

[Walczak Photo]

Jim,

You express my own thoughs better than I do. In my caveman way, this is what I meant.


Just my typical "long winded ways" at play again :D. I had a feeling that's what you had meant, but considering the nature of the comment there, not to mention where said comment had been posted (aka the "Critique" forum), I just felt unusually compelled to elaborate just a little more. I dunno...I guess it just bugs me when people don't understand what a critique or "constructive criticism" actually entails. I've ran into this on other forums...people will post an image (or music in the case of the guitar forums where I hang out) and ask "What do you think of this?" and then they get all bent out of shape when the crowd doesn't give them a standing ovation for their efforts. I guess some folks just don't get it (kind of like with me and Picasso! LOL!!!). As I've said so many times, I prefer when people are super critical of my work (be it photography or music) and are able to make suggestions on how it can be improved. Even if I don't agree with them, I always remember what was said for future reference. I feel that this is one of the ways that I learn best, so I just provide others with the same kind of feedback that I expect myself.

Of course....I also had to finish laying new carpet on the stairs yesterday too and this gave me a good excuse to procrastinate for a bit! LOL!!!



Peace,
Jim

[Karizmatik]

^ You realize

1 - It wasn't my picture that I was getting "all bent out of shape" over

and

2 - A simple "This is a constructive criticism section" would've sufficed.. Compared to the crazy rant I didn't read. ;)

[Walczak Photo]

^ You realize

1 - It wasn't my picture that I was getting "all bent out of shape" over

Yep...I did realize that. Since the OP's log on name is "shb" and your's is "Karizmatik", seems pretty clear to me that you were NOT the OP (that's the "Original Poster" or the person who originally posted the image in case you were wondering). Further more, while I could be wrong here the OP actually seemed grateful for the assistance (which I, as well as others I'm sure, were happy to provide) which again seems to indicate that you were not this person. Doesn't change the point of what I said one bit...which of course you wouldn't know since you said you didn't read it.


2 - A simple "This is a constructive criticism section" would've sufficed.. Compared to the crazy rant I didn't read. ;)Well, one would assume that when a person logs on to a forum entitled "Critique Corner" that one would understand what the word "critique" actually means (I did include part of the definition for you above so there would be no question). You didn't log on to the "Pat on the back" forum or the "Praise Only" forum or the "Stroke My Ego" forum, you clearly chose to click on a forum where the title included the word "critique". If you didn't understand what this entailed, perhaps you should have taken the time to do some research and to understand this before you popped off with your comments which were aimed at people who were honestly trying to be helpful to the OP.

More over, after reviewing the messages in this thread, it appears that LeuceDeuce DID try to explain this to you after your initial comment and then you started on about Picasso. Regardless, if you didn't understand what the word "critique" meant in regards to the forum topic, why in the world should anyone believe you would understand what "constructive criticism" means either? "Critique"..."criticism"...hhmmmmm. Doesn't seem like a terribly difficult concept there my friend! If you don't get one, chances are you're not going to get the other.

As far as not reading my commentary...
My words were simply meant to educate as well as express my own view point for the consideration of others. Often times people usually find my detailed commentaries to be helpful in some way and occasionally, such as in Deuce's case, even agree with my thoughts to some degree. Regardless, as always they -are- strictly meant as my own personal opinions...I've made this quite clear time and time again...and they should ALWAYS be taken as such. That said, I am NOT a man of few words...to me the details are everything. If you can't say what you mean, you can NEVER mean what you say. In any case, if you simply choose to disregard what others are trying to explain to you for your benefit without any consideration what so ever...what else can I say? That is of course your choice and it is your loss.

Since you appear to be uninterested in reading or providing details I'll leave it at that for you.

Have a Lovely Day,
Jim

[Nathan]

This doesn't look like an unmodified photo. It looks like contrast was increased and it became oversaturated. Blacks are too dark and the lights are blown. If I'm right, can you post the original?

[shb]

yes you are correct.
it was over processed :p