So, I'm not generally a landscape person, but I saw an opportunity for when I was at my cousin's Bar Mitzvah recently to get a nice shot which could be a cover, or serve the Temple as a website photo or something. Since I live 3000 miles away re shooting is not an option, so please critique my processing. And any tips for future shots are appreciated, but please keep it simple, something I can just remember and not something involving lots of equipment or specialized landscape stuff.
Need critique please
- Thread starter Drizzt321
- Start date
Not a bad photo. But:
- horizon is sloping
- horizon is nearly at 50%. Try for 1/3rds.
- get closer to the sign. With an ultrawide, small changes in position result in large changes in composition.
- a person in the composition would have added interest
Colors and exposure are very good though.
- horizon is sloping
- horizon is nearly at 50%. Try for 1/3rds.
- get closer to the sign. With an ultrawide, small changes in position result in large changes in composition.
- a person in the composition would have added interest
Colors and exposure are very good though.
Upvote
0
Working with small jpeg is not good....
Cropped, knocked down highlights, tweaked tones and saturation, straightened sign (a bit, not able to do much, again, with jpeg). Gradient down the sky, brushed the building face a bit lighter. Couldn't get the roofline exactly level because I chose to straighten up the sign. Hills in background are fine, mountains aren't supposed to be level, or no one would go there
Uggh, I hate the clouds. Working on the raw file could avoid that....
Composition, maybe crop down some more sky, but I already threw away a bunch of pixels, and there weren't many to start with...could get rid of the purple chromatic weirdness below the sun.
Cropped, knocked down highlights, tweaked tones and saturation, straightened sign (a bit, not able to do much, again, with jpeg). Gradient down the sky, brushed the building face a bit lighter. Couldn't get the roofline exactly level because I chose to straighten up the sign. Hills in background are fine, mountains aren't supposed to be level, or no one would go there
Uggh, I hate the clouds. Working on the raw file could avoid that....
Composition, maybe crop down some more sky, but I already threw away a bunch of pixels, and there weren't many to start with...could get rid of the purple chromatic weirdness below the sun.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Nice exposure.
But....
What is of visual interest here? The signboard on the right or the building on the left? The signboard being nearer and more colourful it catches the eye first. But there is nothing from this to lead the eye to the house. Or was the sky and clouds the points of interest. In that case there is too much of uninteresting grassland occupying the frontal one third of the picture. However, you could not probably do anything if there was nothing to "anchor" the photo in the foreground to start with.
But....
What is of visual interest here? The signboard on the right or the building on the left? The signboard being nearer and more colourful it catches the eye first. But there is nothing from this to lead the eye to the house. Or was the sky and clouds the points of interest. In that case there is too much of uninteresting grassland occupying the frontal one third of the picture. However, you could not probably do anything if there was nothing to "anchor" the photo in the foreground to start with.
Upvote
0
My suggestion requires no equipment or new photoshop skills.
Outdoor/wildlife photography is sooo hard because you can't control lighting at a given time.
I don't find the photo particularly compelling (my passion is wildlife, so no offense meant), however, for the potential uses you state, it would be quite good.
Now for the tip. Although you can't control the light at any given moment, you can control WHEN you take the pic. I love the sky and clouds, but the problem is that the temple is under exposed, and detail is lost, which is one reason it doesn't resonate with me.
Next time have the sun behind you so that it lightens up the temple, best would be golden hour. Overcast would also even out lighting for you, but you lose the sky and clouds. Finally I would love to see people in the pics, not just cars. People doing things will give it context. Most people are not Jewish, so this could also be educational.
Outdoor/wildlife photography is sooo hard because you can't control lighting at a given time.
I don't find the photo particularly compelling (my passion is wildlife, so no offense meant), however, for the potential uses you state, it would be quite good.
Now for the tip. Although you can't control the light at any given moment, you can control WHEN you take the pic. I love the sky and clouds, but the problem is that the temple is under exposed, and detail is lost, which is one reason it doesn't resonate with me.
Next time have the sun behind you so that it lightens up the temple, best would be golden hour. Overcast would also even out lighting for you, but you lose the sky and clouds. Finally I would love to see people in the pics, not just cars. People doing things will give it context. Most people are not Jewish, so this could also be educational.
Upvote
0
D
dok
Guest
First and foremost I'd say the first photo is too much post processed : local contrast, saturation, nothing looks very natural. I'm the kind of people who doesn't like unreal representation.
As wtlloyd who croped the photo, I think that a slightly narrower field of view would be great, concentrating on the panel and the house.
Stepping back and zooming in could also allow to change you the size ratio between the house and the panel, leading to a slightly bigger house and slightly smaller panel.
As wtlloyd who croped the photo, I think that a slightly narrower field of view would be great, concentrating on the panel and the house.
Stepping back and zooming in could also allow to change you the size ratio between the house and the panel, leading to a slightly bigger house and slightly smaller panel.
Upvote
0
First off, there isn't a true horizon, so to say it's sloping is incorrect. Looking at the uprights of the building it is in fact level, so it's pretty obvious the hills are sloping naturally (as you'd expect really). However, many of the clouds are blown and it is a good example of where a neutral density graduated filter is needed, although if you shot in RAW, you may be able to recover a fair amount of detail with a grad filter in Lightroom. That still won't change the harsh lighting though and as much as possible, landscapes are best photographed in less harsh lighting, either under cloudy skies (where it may be difficult to get impact, depending on the type of clouds) or close to sunrise/sunset, when you have natural diffusion from the greater amounts of atmosphere that the sunlight travels through when the sun is low in the sky. Compositionally, the buidling would be better in the bottom left hand third. Having the main subject is usually (but not always) more pleasing to the eye, but in this case, it would also remolve the car park which isn't adding to the image and remove some of the grass, with too much blank space. This would also add dominance to the sign, which with the angle, could act as a leading line and of course is part of the story. Also, I'm not sure that a wide-angle is the best option here, due to the distortion and lengthening of the sign, so if you do get a chance in the future, try a standard focal length from a slightly different spot.
Upvote
0
I think the image is fine under the circumstances whereby you can't go back and take another. You want to make the best of what you have.
I would straighten the horizon and crop the image in a 5:4 landscape format getting much tighter to the sign and house (cutting out the cars on the left) and still catching a large chunk of sky yet cutting out the area of extreme glare where the sun is. I'd just darken it a tiny bit too.
If you crop so that the sign is in the bottom right corner of the image it will lead your eye toward the house.
Good luck
I would straighten the horizon and crop the image in a 5:4 landscape format getting much tighter to the sign and house (cutting out the cars on the left) and still catching a large chunk of sky yet cutting out the area of extreme glare where the sun is. I'd just darken it a tiny bit too.
If you crop so that the sign is in the bottom right corner of the image it will lead your eye toward the house.
Good luck
Upvote
0
I'd also crop out the carpark. If you feel like a short drive back there, maybe try getting down low and closer to the sign. With the slope of the land, you might be able to avoid the carpark entirely. Perhaps take in more of the trees to the right. Anyway, hindsight is always 20:20.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Yup like others have said, slanted, too far from sign, etc. and I have to add you took more than just one shot, where are the rest of the pcitures?
Peace! 8)
Peace! 8)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
