DSLRUsers.com

Recently went up to a mates place in Newcastle and took some images.









Also recently made my website so if you have time check it out:
www.wix.com/cwiewiora/photography

Cheers
Chris

Chris,
Some nice images there.

If I can offer my critique (and this comes from my own personal tastes so I hope I don't offend, that is not my intention)....

No. 01:
I like the narrow tonality of this image (my fave of the four you have posted). It suits the serene feel of the image IMO.
I think for this one I would have liked to see the horizon higher or lower and not so much in the centre.

No. 02:
I like the composition of this one but I'm not sure if the WB is set correctly as the sand looks quite red (on my monitor here at work anyway).

No. 03:
I'm sure the "horizon police" will be along shortly to tell you to straighten it....
I think this would be a stronger image if the "Y" made by the leading lines were across to the RH side more (instead of in the centre of the image)....which would probably suit a 3:2 aspect ratio more than a square.
Also if I am being picky (which I am) the framing looks just off-square, which I think it would look better if it was square (1:1)....unless my eyes are deceiving me (which is possible).

No. 04:
An interesting image of Newcastle however I feel the exposure is indecisive in it's intent. What I mean is that neither the sky or buildings (the two key parts of the image) are exposed for correctly.
If the hero of the image is the buildings, these should be exposed for and the sky would be blown out (or a HDR treatment applied to try and have the best of both worlds)....and if the sky was the hero of the image, the buildings would be in sillhouette....but the image seems to be half way between, neither suiting both IMO.

Just my thoughts and I hope you find this contructive...

Cheers,
Dave

Hi Chris - I quite like #2 (even the wrong colour ) - you can just say you intentionally made it this way and it's therefore art

Yep - I was going to comment on the leaning horizon in #3 but I've been beaten to it it seems - I'm not really a fan of this image however.

I think #4 would be nicer with something to tone down the upper sky so you could silhouette the buildings more (maybe a grad ND (which I don't have!! but should REALLY get )) or just let the sun blow out?

Aussie Dave wrote:Chris,
Some nice images there.

If I can offer my critique (and this comes from my own personal tastes so I hope I don't offend, that is not my intention)....

No. 01:
I like the narrow tonality of this image (my fave of the four you have posted). It suits the serene feel of the image IMO.
I think for this one I would have liked to see the horizon higher or lower and not so much in the centre.

No. 02:
I like the composition of this one but I'm not sure if the WB is set correctly as the sand looks quite red (on my monitor here at work anyway).

No. 03:
I'm sure the "horizon police" will be along shortly to tell you to straighten it....
I think this would be a stronger image if the "Y" made by the leading lines were across to the RH side more (instead of in the centre of the image)....which would probably suit a 3:2 aspect ratio more than a square.
Also if I am being picky (which I am) the framing looks just off-square, which I think it would look better if it was square (1:1)....unless my eyes are deceiving me (which is possible).

No. 04:
An interesting image of Newcastle however I feel the exposure is indecisive in it's intent. What I mean is that neither the sky or buildings (the two key parts of the image) are exposed for correctly.
If the hero of the image is the buildings, these should be exposed for and the sky would be blown out (or a HDR treatment applied to try and have the best of both worlds)....and if the sky was the hero of the image, the buildings would be in sillhouette....but the image seems to be half way between, neither suiting both IMO.

Just my thoughts and I hope you find this contructive...

Cheers,
Dave

This is the second time I'm writing this haha as the first time the page closed and deleted it.

No it is great you are commenting on what's wrong in the image Dave, as that's what I want so I can learn.

Image #1:
Yeah I cropped it to the rule of thirds but didn't like cutting out the the top part as it cut the wall on the left with the pole and the dark sky and cropping the bottom cut out the starting blocks which is too important. So I just left it how it is. I find it hard to follow the rule of thirds with a super wide angle lens.

Image #2:
Yeah it probably is off as I am on a different monitor now and it looks red and the sky looks purple (which it wasn't). Need to calibrate my monitors but don't want to spend money on a calibrator haha. Yeah I just check and it looks fine on the other monitor so that one must be wrong then.

Image #3:
Really? Haha I didn't notice that until I looked closer. I think my eyes looked at the railing and thought it was fine as the railing is perfectly level but yeah the horizon is off. Will change it straight away hehe so no one gets annoyed.
Yeah once again I didn't want to crop the top as I like the dark clouds and loved the brown/goldish concert in the foreground and didn't want to crop too much either as the iso is high (was really windy and didn't want to wait for ages as I was using a 10 stop ND filter and yes I should have just taken it off but wanted to use it as I just got it that day haha) . Yeah the image probably isn't 1:1 as I just cropped it manually. I might try a 3:2 crop and see.

Image #4:
Yeah a HDR would look nice. But then again I was composing another shot and just saw the sun pop out so quickly turned around and took a photo and check it and adjusted the settings and it was gone behind a cloud. Would look better with the foreground exposed better but I still like it how it is too.

Thanks heaps Dave for the helpful tips and critiques
Chris

Remorhaz wrote:Hi Chris - I quite like #2 (even the wrong colour ) - you can just say you intentionally made it this way and it's therefore art

Yep - I was going to comment on the leaning horizon in #3 but I've been beaten to it it seems - I'm not really a fan of this image however.

I think #4 would be nicer with something to tone down the upper sky so you could silhouette the buildings more (maybe a grad ND (which I don't have!! but should REALLY get )) or just let the sun blow out?

Hey Remorhaz

Haha yeah lets say that

I was actually going to order the lee holder and hitech grads and ND's last weekend but once again Lee is out of stock!! When are they going to up there supply as there is such a big demand for them. Pretty much impossible to get in Australia and over the internet they never have them in stock haha.

Anyway thanks for the comment
Chris

Dave has given some great feedback here so I will keep mine short

#2 I like it, however the thing that sticks out liek dogs b... is the halo aroud te headland, this is immediately where one looks and hence it is really obvious and is quite the downer given the overal image. If you correct that and add a bit of distortion control to straighten that horizon I think it would be a very prime image.

#3, you have short changed the composition here by using the square format, any reason for the sq. format? I would rather see a portrait orient. or a proper landscape. Correct the cast too...heres a starter for ya (easier just to do rather than explain) - let me know if you want it removed or object to your images being edited.

Last night I order the lee Dslr starter kit, 77mm wide angle adapter and a lee nd grad 0.9 hard. Emailed the guy again asking if they have the lee holder in and he replied straight away saying they just got some in, so I bought them In like 10 minutes haha. Can't wait for them to come. Won't have to do hdr's as much finally.

biggerry wrote:Dave has given some great feedback here so I will keep mine short

#2 I like it, however the thing that sticks out liek dogs b... is the halo aroud te headland, this is immediately where one looks and hence it is really obvious and is quite the downer given the overal image. If you correct that and add a bit of distortion control to straighten that horizon I think it would be a very prime image.

#3, you have short changed the composition here by using the square format, any reason for the sq. format? I would rather see a portrait orient. or a proper landscape. Correct the cast too...heres a starter for ya (easier just to do rather than explain) - let me know if you want it removed or object to your images being edited.

Hey mate

I can't see the halo? Oh thats because I did some dodging and burning and did the dodging a bit dodgy haha. The distortion is because it was shot on a tokina 11-16mm and cropped so it stands out more. When is photoshop going to release a 11-16mm auto correction in CS5 or Lightroom haha. Never am bothered to do it manually.

In image number 3 I made it square because I like square crops in long exposures and it's something different as everyonedoes portrait and landscape only.
Yeah that edit looks much better. Can you tell me what you did exactly??? Change th WB? Play with the colour channel? My laptop monitor is definietly off ass it looks normal on it and then on other computers it looks way too purple and in real life the sky was plain. Your edit gives it a lot more punch and definition. Oh and you can keep it up it's a good edit.

Thanks for the comments
Chris

I can't see the halo? Oh thats because I did some dodging and burning and did the dodging a bit dodgy haha. The distortion is because it was shot on a tokina 11-16mm and cropped so it stands out more. When is photoshop going to release a 11-16mm auto correction in CS5 or Lightroom haha. Never am bothered to do it manually.

image #2 on the cliff just near the buildings on the hill.


Image #3 edits (this is in CNX2)

1) auto contrast/cast, select manual and adjust the colour cast slider, was probably around 60% mark. Select contrast to 0 (ie no added contrast in this step)
1A) d-lighting ~ 20-40% from memory
2) Adjust just contrast (global)
3) Adjust midtone and shadow contrast ~ 12% - this what gives it some more texture
4) gerrys standard progressive sharpening batch script - this just resizes and sharpens for web use.


hth

biggerry wrote:

I can't see the halo? Oh thats because I did some dodging and burning and did the dodging a bit dodgy haha. The distortion is because it was shot on a tokina 11-16mm and cropped so it stands out more. When is photoshop going to release a 11-16mm auto correction in CS5 or Lightroom haha. Never am bothered to do it manually.

image #2 on the cliff just near the buildings on the hill.


Image #3 edits (this is in CNX2)

1) auto contrast/cast, select manual and adjust the colour cast slider, was probably around 60% mark. Select contrast to 0 (ie no added contrast in this step)
1A) d-lighting ~ 20-40% from memory
2) Adjust just contrast (global)
3) Adjust midtone and shadow contrast ~ 12% - this what gives it some more texture
4) gerrys standard progressive sharpening batch script - this just resizes and sharpens for web use.


hth

Yeah I know what you mean and as I said before its from dodging and doing it too quickly.

Alot of contrast adjustments. Why don't you use photoshop? Does Photoshop CS5 have an option to adjust midtones and shadow contrast?? So you didn't actually adjust the WB just colour cast? I used B+W ND 10 stop filters so there should be this much colour cast. Does D-lighting just give it a better dynamic range? Won't it just get rid of the contrast?

Sorry about all the questions haha

dervish16 wrote:Does Photoshop CS5 have an option to adjust midtones and shadow contrast?? So you didn't actually adjust the WB just colour cast? I used B+W ND 10 stop filters so there should be this much colour cast. Does D-lighting just give it a better dynamic range? Won't it just get rid of the contrast?

 PS does have several options to do this.

Using curves is one way of manipulating any tonal range in an image. You can add points in on the curves graph and then manipulate them to increase/decrease brightness.
Adding multiple points allows you to only affect one "section" of the tonal range.
eg. if you put three points on the graph, and move the middle one, only the area between the 1st and 3rd point will change (according to what you do to the 2nd or middle point).

Using the Shadow/Highlight function also lets you adjust the darker and brighter areas of your image (quite similar to D-lighting)....and basically narrows the contrast (brightening the dark areas and darkening the bright areas).

They'd be the two options I'd probably use but as with anything Photoshop, there are always several ways to do the same thing....and I'm sure there are other ways of obtaining this.

Dave

Aussie Dave wrote:

dervish16 wrote:Using curves is one way of manipulating any tonal range in an image. You can add points in on the curves graph and then manipulate them to increase/decrease brightness.
Adding multiple points allows you to only affect one "section" of the tonal range.
eg. if you put three points on the graph, and move the middle one, only the area between the 1st and 3rd point will change (according to what you do to the 2nd or middle point).

Using the Shadow/Highlight function also lets you adjust the darker and brighter areas of your image (quite similar to D-lighting)....and basically narrows the contrast (brightening the dark areas and darkening the bright areas).

They'd be the two options I'd probably use but as with anything Photoshop, there are always several ways to do the same thing....and I'm sure there are other ways of obtaining this.

Dave

Ohh I always adjust the curves haha just forgot that it actually changed the contrast and dynamic range. But I usually only adjust the shadows and highlights and never touch the midpoint, so will definitely try playing with the mids next time.

Thanks Dave

dervish16 wrote:Alot of contrast adjustments. Why don't you use photoshop? Does Photoshop CS5 have an option to adjust midtones and shadow contrast?? So you didn't actually adjust the WB just colour cast? I used B+W ND 10 stop filters so there should be this much colour cast. Does D-lighting just give it a better dynamic range? Won't it just get rid of the contrast?

Sorry about all the questions haha

why don't you use CNX2

You can adjust the WB cast, this will have the same effect - what I actually use in CNX2 is the 'autolevels', this is where you can adjust the colour cast.

Aussie Dave wrote:Using the Shadow/Highlight function also lets you adjust the darker and brighter areas of your image (quite similar to D-lighting)....and basically narrows the contrast (brightening the dark areas and darkening the bright areas).

interesting question - I reckon CNX2 does a better job in this department and I don't think you can directly compare CS shadow to CNX2 d-lighting. Bear in mind that CNX2 has a shadow slider which aapears to work more closely like its CS counterpart.

just for kicks and giggles I took the following image (which is a very good example one, lots of range) and ran it thru both CNX2 d-lighting and CS3 Adjustment->shadow/highlights

1) unmodified image



2) CS3 edited



3) CNX2 D-lighting

why don't you use CNX2

Hey Gerry

I didn't say anything is wrong with CNX2, was just wondering why you picked it over photoshop. Do they have autolevels in photoshop? That would be handy as I use a lot of filters and they will give a bit of colour casts even the best ones.

You can adjust the WB cast, this will have the same effect - what I actually use in CNX2 is the 'autolevels', this is where you can adjust the colour cast.

interesting question - I reckon CNX2 does a better job in this department and I don't think you can directly compare CS shadow to CNX2 d-lighting. Bear in mind that CNX2 has a shadow slider which aapears to work more closely like its CS counterpart.

just for kicks and giggles I took the following image (which is a very good example one, lots of range) and ran it thru both CNX2 d-lighting and CS3 Adjustment->shadow/highlights

Yeah I have to agree with you CNX2 looks a lot more natural and does a way better job. Good comparison

The NX2 version does look more realistic, but I think the CS version could be made to look alot more realistic than the example portrays (IMHO).

I agree that NX2 does do a better job out of the box and I am of the belief that NX2 reads some info within NEF files that other software does not or can not read...as NEF files opened in NX2 seem (to me) to look far better out of camera than when opening in PS or any other program.....but NX2 is buggy and I much prefer using Lightroom 3 and PS CS5 for my post-processing (even though it takes a bit more work to PP them, whereas NX2 would make for slightly less PP work).

I did say that shadow/highlight was "quite similar" to D-lighting, which I think it is....but agree that it isn't strictly a comparable tool.

Dave