| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2013 04:44:45 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Damon:
Ok Ill take some criticism on this shot. I really thought it would have done better as well considering how difficult it was to maintain the proper exposure at the distance I was at (which was less than 6 feet) I know its nothing special but it is different than whats normally entered.
 |
I thought the exposure on the fire was awesome.
However, the rest was a mess, I would have liked some fill flash, probably a side view, and no crowd in the lower left corner.
Plus, it seems tilted strangely. |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 04:53:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's a very famous church, actually, the oldest Catholic church in the United States, dating to 1598, although the original bunted down and was replaced by this one almost 200 years ago. It is much-photographed and much-beloved of photographers. It may not look very ornate to our French/Italian members, who are used to the much more elaborate ecclesiastical architecture of their part of the world, but it's a fine and well-balanced example of mission-style architecture. |
Thanks Robert! Of course Europeans can see much more complex and ancient buildings... and lately even super boring ones - religious art died a few decades ago, at least here in Italy. |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 05:45:06 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by vawendy:
|
Excellent edit, wendy! |
Thanks! |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 05:55:06 PM · #29 |
I found the Photographer's Notes overly verbose and gave it a 3. |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 06:48:28 PM · #30 |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 07:12:12 PM · #31 |
Hmmm. I don't mind the moon - that's the way it looks in snapshots (which is what I do, so I know these things) when you have things other than the moon to expose for. To truly get it right, you probably needed to shoot separate frames then combine them, which is fine for everything except a DPC entry in a non-expert challenge.
And I don't think 6.19 sucks, at all. I usually consider that a resounding success. But then your mileage may vary, I suppose! |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 07:31:54 PM · #32 |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 07:42:25 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I found the Photographer's Notes overly verbose and gave it a 3. |
I expect he woke up thinking he was  Gyaban or  vawendy, eh? Jejeje... |
Oooohhh!!! And here I thought I liked you a couple of posts ago. I'm taking back your 4th of July present! :P
Message edited by author 2013-07-02 19:42:46. |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 08:32:05 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
To truly get it right, you probably needed to shoot separate frames then combine them, which is fine for everything except a DPC entry in a non-expert challenge |
That's not true. That's what HDRI is for. Shoot a frame exposed for thje moon and a frame (or several, as need demands) exposed for the rest and put 'em together :-) |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 08:48:16 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, beat on me, I expected this to go 7+, so I'm curious why it just barely broke a 6?
Honest harsh feedback welcome/requested - |
I actually gave you a 7, so my opinion matched your expectations. I agree with the others about the moon, and think it looked better in your original, but the thing that didn't seem quite right to me was the warm tones of the church opposed to the cool ones of the sky. The building doesn't look moonlit.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2013 08:56:01 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, beat on me, I expected this to go 7+, so I'm curious why it just barely broke a 6?
Honest harsh feedback welcome/requested - |
I actually gave you a 7, so my opinion matched your expectations. I agree with the others about the moon, and think it looked better in your original, but the thing that didn't seem quite right to me was the warm tones of the church opposed to the cool ones of the sky. The building doesn't look moonlit. |
It's NOT moonlit; those are floodlights illuminating the church, it's like an attraction, it's lit up at night. |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 09:32:41 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, beat on me, I expected this to go 7+, so I'm curious why it just barely broke a 6?
Honest harsh feedback welcome/requested - |
First thing I saw was the church.........automatically gave it a 1.
Kidding of course... I liked it and gave it a 7.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 10:08:42 PM · #38 |
| In my opinion any flaws in compostion could have been forgiven if yhe building was a bit more orange, if you warmed up the colorto ccontrast/compliment the wonderful blue tone. |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 11:18:43 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It just didn't feel like night. To me, it's not just the moon -- it's the building -- it's sooooo bright. It feels like a daytime shot at night. Normally, such a wonderfully bright moon (and I like the overexposed), but normally it's what's creating the light. Here, it has nothing to do with the shot, except adding a blob of light that doesn't affect the scene -- no moon shadows, and the lighting is from artificial lights lighting the church making it look like day.
I think even bringing down the lighting on the building and making it moodier and more like a nighttime shot would have helped.
 |
Great edit. Now there is more than just a good but quite common picture |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 11:43:36 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by jomari:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, beat on me, I expected this to go 7+, so I'm curious why it just barely broke a 6?
Honest harsh feedback welcome/requested - |
I actually gave you a 7, so my opinion matched your expectations. I agree with the others about the moon, and think it looked better in your original, but the thing that didn't seem quite right to me was the warm tones of the church opposed to the cool ones of the sky. The building doesn't look moonlit. |
It's NOT moonlit; those are floodlights illuminating the church, it's like an attraction, it's lit up at night. |
No. I KNOW it's NOT moonlit. It's title is Lovely Moonlit Night and the floodlighting just doesn't combine well with the idea, or the rest of the image. It might be a good candidate for black and white.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2013 11:48:54 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I think even bringing down the lighting on the building and making it moodier and more like a nighttime shot would have helped.
|
Seems like maybe it would have (had) even more impact if done using some type of HDR so the Moon could show the usual detail we'd see live instead of only the blur of light it is now. |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 11:53:09 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I think even bringing down the lighting on the building and making it moodier and more like a nighttime shot would have helped.
|
Seems like maybe it would have (had) even more impact if done using some type of HDR so the Moon could show the usual detail we'd see live instead of only the blur of light it is now. |
All very true. :)
Of course, hand holding the S95 is hard enough for a 1 second shot - HDR would be even more challenging, since I'd have to manually reset the exposure, since there is no automated way to bracket that far... :)
I suppose I'll have to redo it without the moon, pretty funny actually, as I had really worked hard to get the moon right where it was - in hindsight, apparently quite the mistake! :) |
|
|
|
07/02/2013 11:57:19 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Of course, hand holding the S95 is hard enough for a 1 second shot - HDR would be even more challenging, since I'd have to manually reset the exposure, since there is no automated way to bracket that far... :) |
I'd just shoot it twice, aligning it as carefully as you can, then adjusting the alignment in PP and cropping away the parts which "hang over the edge." Then erase everything from the one layer but the properly-exposed Moon; maybe set the Moon layer to 80-90% opacity is you want to incorporate part of the glow.
Or, after cropping, export the two now-aligned layers and use your usual HDR software.
Message edited by author 2013-07-02 23:58:19. |
|
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: 07/18/2025 02:21:14 AM EDT.
