Only the Brave - Honest Photography Feedback
Discussion
gothatway said:
singlecoil said:
gothatway said:
OK, I'll poke my head inside the lion's den and see how much of it gets bitten off with this one ...
It's an interesting image. A bit of background info would help. Was the situation set up especially for the shot? I'm guessing yes because it doesn't look like a practical set up for a gig. I'm sure that drummer's throne is going to bury itself when he sits on it.In any case, that seaweed could have done with taking out of shot, and the horizon looks to me like it's sloping to the left a bit. It would look more balanced (to me) if it was cropped in from the right. All the above IMO.
I agree about the seaweed, but I don't have enough post-processing experience to do that with confidence. And I see what you mean about the crop, but I wanted to keep the impression of emptiness (though there is a nuclear power station in the shot !).
Forgive me meddling... but this looked like a prime candidate to use 'dehaze' in Lightroom - to bring back the clouds.
(Can't do anything about the blown highlights I'm afraid)
Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 22 July 06:25
singlecoil said:
Seems to me that the focus isn't all it might be. I am looking at it on quite a large monitor though.
None of my photos look anything like as sharp when chrome, firefox, safari or explorer have done their dirty work - so I never worry about sharpness, especially when the file size is <1% of the original!I presume you mean sharpness in the focus sense rather than the digital image sense. But comparing it with other pictures viewed through the same medium it still seems to me that the focus isn't all it might be. That's the thing with wildlife though, you might well only get one chance so it's still a very worthwhile picture.
singlecoil said:
I presume you mean sharpness in the focus sense rather than the digital image sense. But comparing it with other pictures viewed through the same medium it still seems to me that the focus isn't all it might be. That's the thing with wildlife though, you might well only get one chance so it's still a very worthwhile picture.
Fair comment.singlecoil said:
I presume you mean sharpness in the focus sense rather than the digital image sense. But comparing it with other pictures viewed through the same medium it still seems to me that the focus isn't all it might be. That's the thing with wildlife though, you might well only get one chance so it's still a very worthwhile picture.
On Flickr it seems (to me) fairly crisp where I intended it to be - but this was using a 600mm handheld at a point where I expected the fox to spot me and run so certainly not the most steady of shots! Thanks for the feedback 
I think it would be a really good idea if posters on this thread were to include a bit of background info so that people could post comments which take into account the circumstances of the shoot. They might also mention whether or not they have access to Photoshop and know how to use it.
Pericoloso said:
What's wrong with this ?.....apart from everything.
I can't find a setting in the camera which prevents it.
singlecoil said:
I expect DD is spot on. But a bit more info would help, for instance type of camera.
You'll find that photos here show up much better on Flickr (which is why nearly everybody here uses it).
Agreed. Might also be something I've seen before: ISO left in a very high setting. Or exposure compensation wound right up?You'll find that photos here show up much better on Flickr (which is why nearly everybody here uses it).
singlecoil said:
There's a local horticultural show next month and one of the competition categories is "Photo taken in the countryside". I wanted to do something recognisably local and fancied getting a sunset shot over the landmark church with the bales in the foreground. The first evening I went down there was no sunset due to clouds and the next evening (which is when I got this shot) there still wasn't much sun getting through and most of the bales had been removed.
Have you tried cloning out the two bales on the right? That way the three on the left would lead the eye more to the church. DibblyDobbler said:
Well the main issue is that the car is 'blown' ie way too bright - what metering did you use? 'Spot' metering may have fixed this as it would have exposed for the car rather than the whole scene (as I guess has happened).
Thanks for that ,the camera is rather basic but does have adjustable stuff.I just think I need a better camera.
Pericoloso said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Well the main issue is that the car is 'blown' ie way too bright - what metering did you use? 'Spot' metering may have fixed this as it would have exposed for the car rather than the whole scene (as I guess has happened).
Thanks for that ,the camera is rather basic but does have adjustable stuff.I just think I need a better camera.
If you buy a better camera, it'll more than likely have even more stuff to adjust, that you won't know what to do with?
On a more helpful note, what is the exact make and model of the camera that you do have. People on here will be able to advise what the issue may be more easily if they know what camera you are using?
Pericoloso said:
What's wrong with this ?.....apart from everything.
I can't find a setting in the camera which prevents it.
If you can find the metadata and post that here, would be handy!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff