| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2005 12:56:58 PM · #1 |
Anyone care to share their toughts on my entry. I'd especially appreciate comments from people who rated it less than 5. I got an average under 5 and did not get many negative comments and I was wondering what were the main faults in this image. I myself see some, but I am curious to hear yours...
I was also wondering if you would have prefered my alternate image which contained less distraction but was a bit less "special" to me.
Seb |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 01:04:46 PM · #2 |
The image suffers from 2 basic flaws that kept its scores in the middle range, IMO; the "leaning" and the exposure.
When you are forced to shoot a building with converging verticals, it's almost always better to orient the camera so the implied vertical through the center of the building's mass is a "true" vertical in the displayed image. In other words, equal convergence left and right of center. Too often we see a vertical edge on extreme right or extreme left set to true vertical, and this makes the whole image seem to lean dramatically. In your case it's the right edge of the building that you've oriented vertically. Your outtake is much more balanced in that regard.
For exposure, you've completely lost the roof line against the sky. The image would work better if there were some separation. This is most easily accomplished, as a rule, by shooting in late twilight, when the sky still has some trace illumination in it. Overall, both images seem underexposed as well.
The subject building itself is interesting. Of the two shots, I prefer the composition of the one entered (except for the "leaning" aspect); it's more dynamic and contextualizes the building quite a bit more as well.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 01:06:10 PM · #3 |
Here's my two cents :
The camera was tilted upwards for the shot, causing the verticals to converge, unless it is clearly intentional, I would avoid this.
The orange sodium vapour lighting washes out all other colors, maybe some white balance correction would have made things better.
The sky is rather dark, taking the photo approx 20mins after dusk would have made an intersting sky.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 01:16:46 PM · #4 |
Following up, here's a quick-and-dirty 'shopping of the image to illustrate my points. What I did would not have been legal in basic editing, but better framing and exposure at the time of the shot would have made the same results attainable eithin the basic ruleset:
Image skewed to square implied central vertical, levels used to bring up sky (which washed out the building), washed-out building autoselected and levels used to bring its values down to a more acceptable level. No color correction applied, although it easily could have been.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2005 01:23:49 PM · #5 |
| i gave it 8. there were just tooo many photos |
|
|
|
04/20/2005 02:38:47 PM · #6 |
Thank your very much bear_music (and the others) for your replies. I really appreciate when people take the time to read and comment on my pictures.
I never had the implied vertical in mind when taking pictures. I clearly saw the improved result in the edited version. I played a bit with the levels also, but I am not too familiar with the concept yet. I really liked going out to take this shot. (One of my first night shot). What do you usually recommend as a White Balance setting when taking night shot? Any special tips also on exposition time and f-stop?
Thanks
Seb
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/18/2025 10:14:51 AM EDT.
