Glow

[jpon2]

What do you think of these and how can I improve them?

[Walkingmanblues]

Not sure what the cause would be, maybe something in your PP workflow, but these images seem very noisy to me. But of the two I definately prefer the 2nd. The 1st doesn't have much to grab and hold my attention. The wave does that for me in #2.

[Flo]

They are indeed grainy, unless you added that..the horizon is titled.
I also would choose #2 .

[Robert_Lay]

I like #1 - it is great that you have a figure in there for scale - it really helps.

In #2 the bottom is chopped off - that was a mistake in my opinion.

Also in #2 you could have done with less sky and more terra firma mojado:D.
The horizon is smack dab in the middle, which is frowned upon:mad:.

[DerekSimon]

Way too noisy and I am not sure as to why. After check the EXIF info I see that they were both at ISO 100 and shot at 1/4000th. Strange

[tawcat]

I like #1 - it is great that you have a figure in there for scale - it really helps.

In #2 the bottom is chopped off - that was a mistake in my opinion.

Also in #2 you could have done with less sky and more terra firma mojado:D.
The horizon is smack dab in the middle, which is frowned upon:mad:.

Not trying to hijack.

Robert: I've seen several posts where you refer to "tilted verticals."

Could you explain what you mean and how does one correct that?

And when looking through the view finder, and things looks straight, how can one be sure they are?

Not trying to be a smarta$$, just trying to learn the terminology and learn through others mistakes. I am very new to digital SLR photography and need all the help I can get.

Thanks so much.

Stan

[jpon2]

Not sure what the cause would be, maybe something in your PP workflow, but these images seem very noisy to me. But of the two I definately prefer the 2nd. The 1st doesn't have much to grab and hold my attention. The wave does that for me in #2.

I think the noise might have come from oversharpening.

[jpon2]

I like #1 - it is great that you have a figure in there for scale - it really helps.

In #2 the bottom is chopped off - that was a mistake in my opinion.

Also in #2 you could have done with less sky and more terra firma mojado:D.
The horizon is smack dab in the middle, which is frowned upon:mad:.

How about cropping below the sun?

[Robert_Lay]

How about cropping below the sun?
I would like to think that there is some way to avoid that, but none of us know what was surrounding the image as we see it. My point was, and still is, that the bottom of the picture is leading the eye in with interest and then cutting it off.

[Robert_Lay]

Not trying to hijack.

Robert: I've seen several posts where you refer to "tilted verticals."

Could you explain what you mean and how does one correct that?

And when looking through the view finder, and things looks straight, how can one be sure they are?

Not trying to be a smarta$$, just trying to learn the terminology and learn through others mistakes. I am very new to digital SLR photography and need all the help I can get.

Thanks so much.

Stan
Whenever a scene has something that you know should be vertical and not tilted (flag pole, sides of a building or sign, columns of a building, etc.), those are the "verticals" to which I am referring.

Once the image is presented for viewing and those verticals are clearly not vertical in relation to the frame of the scene, then we have a problem. You can refer to them as tilted verticals or as verticals that are out of plumb.

As soon as we refer to a "viewfinder" in photography, we are talking about a camera component that has undergone many significant changes over the years - ground glass screens, lenses, live LCD displays, etc., are all "live", but a simple LCD display is not neccessarily a viewfinder, because it doesn't continuously show me what I'm going to get.

For example, my G5 has a "live" LCD display, but my Rebel XTi, like most DSLR's has an LCD display, but it's not live.

A live LCD viewfinder should accurately show the final image at capture time. So, if you capture scenes with tilted verticals, it's on you. If your viewfinder does not faithfully and accurately show you what you are going to get at capture, then you have an excuse - a feeble excuse, but an excuse, nonetheless.

The first lesson to be learned is that when the camera is rotated from level in either direction, that causes tilted verticals. If the camera is actually pointed up or down, then you will get what is called "converging" verticals - i.e. the verticals are not just rotated or tilted, they converge or diverge from the parallel. Some writers have named this the "keystoning" effect.

[tawcat]

Thank you Robert. My Rebel XS does not have a "live LCD" either. So while in viewfinder I shall attempt to remember this tip. Again thanks for taking the time to explain.

tawcat