Few Florida lake shots

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by HE15MAN, Jul 11, 2010.

  1. HE15MAN macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #1
    Most with the 100-400, two with 55-250

    Got a few ones I am proud of..Let me know how I did please!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    Well, they all seem over saturated and over exposed. Your animal shots are much better imho. The first one has potential but the sky is blown out. It appears that it was a very nice blue-sky day.
     
  3. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #3
    Do you think it was because it was very sunny outside, or because on Aperture I did the "Auto Enhance" preset on it?
     
  4. Eaton Photos macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Location:
    KY
    #4
    I agree with Jessica. They all look over-saturated & a couple are over-exposed just a bit too much.

    Its' possible, that Auto Enhance did a not so good job. Personally I avoid Auto Tools, except for actions/ batch edits. I prefer to take the extra steps & do the adjustments myself. I would suggest you repost your original images w/o the edits, so we can see how they looked straight out of camera (SOCC), compared to what Auto did. :)
     
  5. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #5
    Thanks. I just dont have much of a clue how to PP so figured that was an easy way to do it. Any tips? I will try to get the originals up tomorrow
     
  6. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #6
    Thank you. May I ask what adjective lances means?

    Anyone notice the gator in pic 5?
     
  7. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #7
    I agree with what the others said, but perhaps more importantly, most of these images lack a clear subject. Try composing your shots so that there is a strong subject and a clear point of visual resolution--an obvious place for the eye to "come home" after exploring the frame. Your last couple of shots do emphasize a particular tree, but those trees are quite centered within the frame and fill most of it, so the eye still searches in vain for a place to rest. This location looks like heaven for photography, so you should be able to do a lot with it.

    And no, I hadn't noticed the gator. It's very small in the frame, so it looks like a rock or a tree branch or something.
     
  8. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #8
    And how would I do that better? Not always use center focus and focus on like a tree to one side or something?

    It was hard with the 100-400 to get the full tree and be zoomed in close to the Gator at the same time. He was pretty good size also :)
     
  9. ManhattanPrjct macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #9
    Were all of these taken on the same day? I'm just trying to understand the light/environment.
     
  10. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #10
    First of all, I'm going to critique these against my standards, if you're proud of them, first and foremost be happy with that.

    There is no detail at all in the sky- and the horizon is dead center in the image. Personally, I probably would have shot much lower down and gotten rid of the sky. Clear skies are great for birds in flight, but the death of many a landscape image unless you have a really good negative space composition going on. Worse-yet, the sky is blown out a bit, so it's not even a nice refreshing blue color. You might also have tried shooting just the reflection with the far shore at the top of the frame, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but when it does, it's good.

    Tree trunks are blown out, but there's nothing interesting around the highlights, and the obvious line of the shore just leads our eye out of the image. Exposure-wise I'd suggest chimping the histogram when you shoot. A bit too much clutter on the left, the grass in the foreground is a great idea, but the mess at the shoreline behind it kills it for me. I'd think the central tree as a subject without the clutter would have worked a bit better.

    Trunks are way over-exposed losing detail that may have brought interest to the scene. I'm wondering if losing the top ~15% and starting lower would have helped the composition as well. This has potential if you can recover the highlight detail.

    The blown out leaves kill this, as does the lack of an interesting subject. The eye is generally drawn to the brightest spot in an image, and here there's no detail, no lines, and no real space to define anything of interest. I'm guessing the bright patch of sun drew your eyes to this, but it really takes a scene were the eye can be drawn in a circle around a bright spot for an image like this to work well. The branch near the center and the grasses also throw this off enough that had you been able to capture what you saw in this, it'd still be spoiled.

    An interesting tree, but again higlights blown-- if you can return nearer sunrise or sunset, it'd be worth it. Horizon tilts badly- consider a bubble level or straightening in post if you can. I'd probably shoot wider and put the trunk over to the right. Gator's too small to affect the entire image, but if the image were more balanced and better-exposed it'd be a bonus for sure.

    I'd go right with the main subject here too- to get it out of the center and to lose the bright white partial trunk on the right. The water at the bottom doesn't bring lots of interest, so I'd probably shoot higher here, or zoom in more to get more root details into the frame. Once again the bark's blown, and I think that's a shame. At least the sky isn't completely blown like the first two, and you can see the difference it makes overall if you compare the shots that have some color to those which don't.

    I'd recommend that you shoot earlier or later when the brightness range is lower, bracket some shots- worst-case a slight HDR would help most of these, and try zooming in on some details- the roots especially in this series could have given some visually interesting subjects in isolation.

    There's lots of potential here.

    Paul
     
  11. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #11
    To me, auto enhance is made for photos that are properly exposed or near enough ... in this case I call it a huge difference between sky and ground, so much so that a split ND filter may have been in order.
     
  12. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #12
    You are sort of moving around the place here. Some of these are shot with the T2 and some with the XSi. The shots from the XSi range from 18 to 35mm, so I guess it's the kit lens and not the one in the thread title. Two are in Landscape Mode and the rest, including the T2 shots are in Aperture Priority. The ISO is 100 on some and 200 on others. I can tell you from personal experience that the XSi (my camera) does not do well above ISO 100.

    With all of that said, It looks like you are not applying a consistent approach to your photography. This is very important if you are just getting the hang of things. I don't know your level of experience. Settle on a simple setting like Aperture Priority with an ISO of 100 and work with it. Try Spot Metering and compare the results to Partial or Center Weighted. Set the camera to flash the over exposed parts (I forget how to set it). If the sky flashes, move the EV+/- setting to the left until it stops. Use a tripod, too.

    I have worked a lot with PhotoShop in my photography and have decided that no post processing is generally better than any of the one-click fixes like Auto Adjust.

    Keep shooting and show us more.

    Dale
     
  13. todd2fst4u macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #13
    my opinoins,
    #1 very nice, but the blown out sky kills it
    #2-4- no subject
    #5-6- poor composition
     
  14. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #14
    All too bright and over-everything :D, just like the others said.

    A good friend of mine and pro photographer gave me this piece of advice at the very beginning of my photography jounrey: Underexpose, you can always recover from a bit too little exposure but you can never recover blow outs.

    So far he has been right and on really bright and sunny days, try to dial down your exposure compensation. The pics will look darker on the screena nd in Aperture but then you can use a) the exposure slider to bring just a bit back or b) use the curves and paint tool to just change parts of the image (if you want to read more on Aperture 3 painting, you can do so HERE) .
    Lastly, I agree that the pictures are lacking a subject. The tree has the biggest potential and is possibly savable with curves and painting them on. Try it, you might be surprised.

    Oh and dial down the saturation just a tad. :)

    //F
     
  15. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #15
    Well when you are taking pictures with what can be dozens of subjects, how do you isolate one? I am very new to all of this, I only got my T2i 2 months ago!
     
  16. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #16
    I see lots of people purposefully underexposing digital and IMO it's just plain silly. DLSRs have histograms. DSLRs will *show* you the image on the screen after you've taken it. DSLRs have light meters built-in. There is little excuse for improperly exposing a landscape shot in conditions where the light is not changing rapidly.

    Worse-yet the "always underexpose" will reduce the tonal range available in your images significantly.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    You lost fully 1/2 of all potentially available information in your image by underexposing by one stop.

    Now look at these images, and visualize some tonal depth and texture in the overblown trunks- the images are much, much better if exposed correctly rather than underexposed.

    You spent good money on a DSLR to get high-quality images. Chucking out a good portion of that quality *on purpose* is the measure of a hack.

    Paul
     
  17. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #17
    Framing, composition, lighting, and depth of field are all good methods of isolating subjects.

    I have always said, and I still hold it to be true that the difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is more in the shots they don't take. Learning what doesn't work well leaves you with more room to explore the sites that will produce great images.

    Paul
     
  18. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #18
    Hi Paul... well I beg to differ (in some cases). first off, the histogram is based on a jpg thumbnail generation in your DSLR, NOT on the RAW file you just recorded. it can guide you but should not be used as a full 100% correct thing. Case in point, try doing ETTR (Expose to the right) and rely on your histogram alone, it won't work. It will show you blown out highlights when, in Aperture or Lightroom, in fact they are not.
    I agree with the rest of what you said, however in the case of the OP, underexposing might have saved enough information for the Post Processing to work perfectly. A Polarized or ND Grad might have also helped.

    I do underexpose regularly simply because the "correct" exposure in high contrast situation is sometimes too tricky when the light is changing rapidly.

    just my 2c :)
     
  19. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #19
    Are these any better? Straight out of the camera no PP or cropping

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]
     
  20. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #20
    These are much better. All are with Manual White Balance. There is a bit of inconsistency in the color temperature. The first one looks warmer than the rest. Beyond that, a big improvement.

    Dale
     
  21. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #21
    I'm going to have to back up Paul on this one, at least in the case of shooting raw. I suppose if you're shooting JPEGs, then it might well be a good strategy to err on the side of underexposure, but otherwise, you're just throwing away dynamic range and part of your color spectrum. It's true that today's cameras show a histogram that represents your JPEG preview (not your raw data)--even if you are shooting only in raw--and the histogram you see is therefore not accurate and generally shows a curve farther to the right than the raw data really is (that is, as you stated, it will tell you that you are clipping highlights when you really aren't). The solution to this problem is to use UniWB, which will give you a histogram that really does match your raw data. The downside is that UniWB will give you JPEG previews that look like green duotones on your camera's LCD screen and when you first import your images into a raw processor, but I think it's a small price to pay.

    Even if you aren't using UniWB, there is no good reason to underexpose raw files. Your histograms may not be accurate without UniWB, but at least they'll stop you from clipping highlights. They'll tell you you're clipping when you still have some headroom to spare, so at the very worst, you're just not as far to the right as you could be.
     
  22. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #22
    Thank you :)
     
  23. Mintin8 macrumors 6502a

    Mintin8

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #23
    The 2nd set of photos are a huge improvement, they show some skill unlike the first lot which were kinda snapshots, if you know what i mean.

    Nice improvement and keep on taking more !

    Edit: although sometimes snapshots are good for showing the family where you were, but still, if your keen with your DSLR you can pull off some amazing photos
     
  24. HE15MAN thread starter macrumors 6502a

    HE15MAN

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Location:
    Florida's Treasure Coast
    #24
    Does this look more like it should??

    Original

    [​IMG]


    New

    [​IMG]
     
  25. baypharm macrumors 65816

    baypharm

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #25
    Great shots overall. Definitely overexposed. I think they all could have been made better if you would have shot them with a polarizer filter over your lens. and a 50 per cent graduated ND filter.
     

Share This Page