Fountain Photo - Critiques Please

[sudipta_shaw]

Here's the EXIF data -

Camera: Canon
Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XS
ISO: 100
Exposure: 10.0 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 41mm
Flash Used: No

Post Processing: Sharpening using Irfanview.


http://lh4.ggpht.com/_iMh20aOZXJI/Spxss3rgzlI/AAAAAAAAAvA/KnU_QDnWWxg/s800/Fountain.jpg

-Sudipta
http://www.pleasurephotography.com

[Robert_Lay]

I think the relative brightnesses are off.
The darker regions are too dark, and the one bright area is too bright.
It is better to have the majority of the pixels falling in the mid-range.

However, the fountain lights themselves are quite nice - it's the background that has the problem.

[mpistone]

Agreed, the background is a bit distracting. Maybe try for another angle with a cleaner background? Cool water though :)

[korrektor]

try a diffeent angle next time. Compose with regards of your backgrounds.

[sudipta_shaw]

Great Tips! Thank you very much for your precious time and comments.

I will definitely experiment with my compositions next time.

-Sudipta
http://www.pleasurephotography.com

[RyanMTaylor]

There's oodles of artifacting. Is that from Irfanview? I want to assume it is because this was shot at 100ISO. I agree about the bg too. Has a lot of potential though.

[joedlh]

This looks like a great subject. I don't think there's anything wrong with the exposure. The fountains aren't blown out and I don't see any featureless blacks. After all, it is night time. From a composition perspective, the reversed lettering of the Station sign bothers me. Apart from this, I disagree with others that the background is too busy. I think the background is interesting. However, a different camera position might improve the image. What is that structure on the left? The top is cut off. I'd like to see all of it with the fountains in the foreground. I think it's a great contrast between the dynamism and soft contours of the fountains and the harsh contours of this metallic structure.

[sudipta_shaw]

There's oodles of artifacting. Is that from Irfanview? I want to assume it is because this was shot at 100ISO. I agree about the bg too. Has a lot of potential though.

Initially the bg didn't bother me at all, probably my eyes are not yet trained for it. For now, I will first need to consciously put thought into it before it comes natural.

What do you mean by artifacts? Irfanview introducing anything is scary to me as I always use it for sharpening, color balance and cropping.

And thanks again for such a detailed and interesting comments.

[sudipta_shaw]

This looks like a great subject. I don't think there's anything wrong with the exposure. The fountains aren't blown out and I don't see any featureless blacks. After all, it is night time. From a composition perspective, the reversed lettering of the Station sign bothers me. Apart from this, I disagree with others that the background is too busy. I think the background is interesting. However, a different camera position might improve the image. What is that structure on the left? The top is cut off. I'd like to see all of it with the fountains in the foreground. I think it's a great contrast between the dynamism and soft contours of the fountains and the harsh contours of this metallic structure.

The structure is a old metallic drum like thing in the Station Square Mall (Pittsburgh,PA). I really didn't much attention to it when taking the photograph (my bad). Now I am getting it. You guys are great!

[RyanMTaylor]

There are some places that are worse than others. Where are you hosting this online? If it's photobucket it could just be the compression they use. Flickr is pretty darn good about it, though.

[Robert_Lay]

There are some places that are worse than others. Where are you hosting this online? If it's photobucket it could just be the compression they use. Flickr is pretty darn good about it, though.

Not my business, but here's a thought about artifacts from JPG compression.
The image as posted here and hosted by POTN, was downsampled to 800 x 534 pixels before being posted. An image that is downsampled to this size and then saved as a jpg file of 67 kB will suffer a bit more than if the entire 100 kB filesize limit were used. Hosting on the POTN has its size restrictions, and there's not much one can do about that except host your pictures elsewhere. However, it should have been possible to invoke a slightly higher JPG compression quality and still meet the 100 kB limit.

[RyanMTaylor]

Yeah that's what I was thinking too. I mean there's a myriad of reasons as to why it looks a little splotchy. There are crisp photos posted here all the time. Just something to investigate is all.

We want to see your photos how you took them, is all. Not potentially ruined by some crappy compression due to something that's not your fault. :)

[sudipta_shaw]

There are some places that are worse than others. Where are you hosting this online? If it's photobucket it could just be the compression they use. Flickr is pretty darn good about it, though.

Hosting on Google Picasa Webalbum. Just looked at the original version, no artifacts. Thank god.

Here's the version directly from my website -
http://www.pleasurephotography.com/photos/images/20090829234937_musical%20fountain.jpg

[RyanMTaylor]

Much cleaner. :D