Photo critiqueHere is where you can display your images and seek the comment, advice and, maybe, constructive critique of your work. Only post your images here if you are happy for frank feedback. If in doubt, use the beginners board instead. Only post your comments here if you feel you can make a constructive and polite contribution in response to what is, for some, a leap of faith in exposing their work to your critical comment.
Not my strongpoint Landscapes, taken on Tuesday, had a nice walk in my lunch hour above Marsden.
No cropping just a slight boost in contrast & a 75% boost with sharpness at 1 pixel radius and thats all Ive done pp, no polarizer but I did have the active d lighting function set on normal in camera.
Having metered just to the right of the reseviour I think the cam has done a pretty good job exposing the scene.
comments welcome.
Ash.
Looks OK to me also, proper Yorkshire Gritstone scenery with the Res in the valley bottom. This must be the same one I visited a while ago and photographed from the dam lower down the valley. Wish we had gone higher up now.
2 small points worth mentioning though. The sharpening is slightly overdone, notice the halo along the skyline. If you reduce the radius to around 0.7 and amount 30-40ish it usually does the trick. Secondly you have left the colour space as Adobe 1998, sRGB would be better for web display
I can't help but wonder what the possibilites, of recording this scene in Landscape format, were. I like the inclusion of the fence even though the growth of ferns makes the immediate foreground a bit untidy.
Landscape format would have reduced the amount of sky but it would also have presented better opportunities for lifting the horizon line away from the center that much more.
But it is a nice scene and you have recorded it well Ash.
Looks OK to me also, proper Yorkshire Gritstone scenery with the Res in the valley bottom. This must be the same one I visited a while ago and photographed from the dam lower down the valley. Wish we had gone higher up now.
2 small points worth mentioning though. The sharpening is slightly overdone, notice the halo along the skyline. If you reduce the radius to around 0.7 and amount 30-40ish it usually does the trick. Secondly you have left the colour space as Adobe 1998, sRGB would be better for web display
Yes - the colour looks a bit processed on my monitor but now that I know it's Adobe RGB that's explained.
Thanks guys, some good tips and pointers Ive taken onboard.
Just a quick query about the adobe 1998, Ive done nothing different to when I usually 'resize' and 'save as' for all my shots I post, there is a box to tick/untick for this and usually it stays ticked. Im wondering what the difference is with this particular shot, if somebody could explain that would be great.
I don't tend to use the 'save for web' option as it strips the exif data, and especially for critique I like people to see the settings so they understand more how the shot was taken, if help is needed.
Now Tom, it so happen's that just for you I took the same scene but different shot, in landscape format, as I new you would prefer it.
Same settings in camera, no crops, a bit more contrast boost was needed as I unticked the adobe 1998 box, and sharpened to Stephen's recommendation.
Just a quick query about the adobe 1998, Ive done nothing different to when I usually 'resize' and 'save as' for all my shots I post, there is a box to tick/untick for this and usually it stays ticked. Im wondering what the difference is with this particular shot, if somebody could explain that would be great.
I suspect your camera is set up to take pics in Adobe 1998 colour space. This has a wider gamut of colours and is ideal if you are printing your own photos. However most print houses/labs prefer sRGB and most web browsers cannot show the wider gamut of colours so they tend to appear rather flat onscreen. Some browsers like Safari can however and its possible to set Firefox to show the Adobe colour space. There is a thread somewhere on this forum that tells you how to reset Firefox.
I use an adjusted version of Firefox on my desktop, and Safari on my Laptop, so is possible your picture looks OK to me, its certainly seems OK to me unlike Ian
My own personal feeling is to set your camera on sRGB, you won't notice the difference really, but if you then choose a photo you want to print at home its easy to convert in Photoshop.
Thanks for this, I thought that adobe rgb was better but was unaware of the limitations of browsers and print limitations. I do however print alot of pictures myself so I think Ill leave cam as is.
Im still a bit confused as to why this showed up so much on this shot and none of my other several hundred Ive posted, confused.com
Linear Mode
