Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
Thread started 11 Mar 2009 (Wednesday) 09:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Two landscapes

 
Roy ­ Mathers
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,847 posts
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Mar 11, 2009 09:44 |  #1

I took these landscapes (?) on a recent holiday and I have a mind to enlarge one of them. Before I do, though, could I have some honest C&C on them. Which one do you prefer? Is either actually worthy of enlargement?


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stirfried
Member
122 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Suzhou, China
     
Mar 11, 2009 12:01 |  #2

I like #1... I'd straighten it and crop out more of the sky, and I think its too hot - see the sky, the guy in white and the road. The colours also seem a little saturated, but that might be just me. You could also try playing with the balance by cropping out either the far left or the right (that small shed) - or not - its a matter of personal feeling.

I find #2 less interesting. Maybe a line of female butts isn't my thing? No wait...that IS my thing...so it must be that my eye wanders between the figures and the treeline.


5DmkII, 400D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 35mm f/1.4L, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0, Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5.... Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
THREAD ­ STARTER
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,847 posts
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Mar 11, 2009 12:25 |  #3

Thanks Stirfried - I'll do a little work on No 1 along the lines you suggested and re-post it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
THREAD ­ STARTER
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,847 posts
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Mar 11, 2009 12:53 |  #4

Is this a better treatment for No 1?


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stirfried
Member
122 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Suzhou, China
     
Mar 11, 2009 13:14 |  #5

To my eyes, yup - that's looking pretty good. But what do you think?
You'll likely get other advice in other directions...


5DmkII, 400D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 35mm f/1.4L, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0, Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5.... Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
THREAD ­ STARTER
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,847 posts
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Mar 11, 2009 13:41 |  #6

Yes, I think you were right. I think it looks better.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drprince89
Member
Avatar
35 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl
     
Mar 11, 2009 21:25 |  #7

I also think the second attempt looks better




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stirfried
Member
122 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Suzhou, China
     
Mar 11, 2009 21:47 |  #8

I still think it needs to rotate about 0.5 degrees anticlockwise (if it doesn't mess with the sharpness too much).


5DmkII, 400D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 35mm f/1.4L, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0, Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5.... Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
poppie ­ guy
I'm Sid. Don't be hatin' my hats.
Avatar
13,870 posts
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oregon
     
Mar 11, 2009 21:54 |  #9

I would print the first one, it's interesting and you can tell the story of it to your guests.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
THREAD ­ STARTER
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,847 posts
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Mar 12, 2009 05:16 |  #10

Thanks folks. Stirfried - why should tilting it another .5 degrees 'mess with the sharpness'?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stirfried
Member
122 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Suzhou, China
     
Mar 12, 2009 08:51 |  #11

Roy Mathers wrote in post #7507644 (external link)
Thanks folks. Stirfried - why should tilting it another .5 degrees 'mess with the sharpness'?

Hi Roy - you didn't mention the camera you used (i.e. which pixel resolution) but if you take one of these web images and rotate it 0.5 degrees you'll get some nasty aliasing effects, due to taking the grid of the image pixels and the grid of the screen pixels and twisting between them. This shouldn't be a problem with a full RAW image, but a medium-resolution jpg might suffer.
(Its yet another reason to shoot RAW, so you can do this kind of adjustment without the in-camera smoothing).

Because of this I (and I think most people) do any rotation at the very beginning, before applying sharpening etc.


5DmkII, 400D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 35mm f/1.4L, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0, Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5.... Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Mathers
THREAD ­ STARTER
I am Spartacus!
Avatar
43,847 posts
Likes: 2908
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
     
Mar 12, 2009 09:13 |  #12

Hi Stirfried - the camera was (is!) a 40D and the original shot was taken in RAW. I have made on more slight tweak in the straightening - without any noticeable effects in the sharpness.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stirfried
Member
122 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Suzhou, China
     
Mar 12, 2009 12:38 |  #13

Looking good!
OK, one more thing I'm going to throw out - and I'm *really* not saying its better, just have a play with it yourself before you hang it on your wall.

I see the people as the central part of the photo, but when I look at it from a distance they're lost in a sea of green. So what I've done below is crop a bit more (actually quite a lot :D) and given it a more classic 'rule of 3rds' composition, with the tree, the closer building and the horizon all being about 1/3 into the image, and cut out the far left building which I thought wasn't adding anything, and the far right one to bring the focus more to the people.
So on one hand I've simplified it in terms of compositional elements, but on the other hand lost some of the 'vista' feel that the original has.
Oh, I also tweaked the color balance because it looked a little red to me - *might* be this laptop monitor.
Also remember that an image can look quite different when seen on a monitor and on a wall/frame etc. I'd suggest printing a couple of different versions out on simple paper first and seeing how they look from a bit further away - I *think* the fuller version will have too much green there.

P.S. If its any consolation I spend days agonizing over mine too ;)
P.P.S. Oops, shrunk it a bit too much making it an attachment.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


5DmkII, 400D, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 35mm f/1.4L, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0, Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5.... Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scrumpy
Goldmember
Avatar
3,664 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2004
Location: Dorset, England
     
Mar 12, 2009 14:48 |  #14

Roy, you need to darken the skies. Here's a good how-to video. Give it a try before you finally decide.

http://www.photoanswer​s.co.uk …in-Photoshop/?&R=EPI-1447 (external link)


David: Canon EOS 400D - Canon EF70-300mm f/4-55.6 IS USM -Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC Macro - Sigma 50-500 'Bigma' - Speedlite 580EX 11 - Better Beamer
Have patience. All things are difficult before they become easy ;)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KimH
Member
49 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Mar 12, 2009 14:52 |  #15

I like the leading lines in number one. Where was it taken?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,363 views & 0 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it.
Two landscapes
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1606 guests, 141 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.