Whats wrong with this image.
- Thread starter Jessy11
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
It looks like the focus is on the reflection on the water, and the hill of which the reflection is of, is further back and so out of focus. 
Speaking as someone who does a bit of photography and a lot of design - you need to consider your 'rule of thirds'. The reason it doesn't look 'quite right' is it is perfectly symmetrical and that doesn't happen much in nature (certainly not when looked at with human eyes).
If you take the invisible line where the reflection meets the land and position it either one third from the top of the image frame or one third from the bottom (on in other words, add more sky or more lake) then you will get a far better looking and well proportioned image.
**screws the lid back onto his thermos, zips up the anorak and leaves**
If you take the invisible line where the reflection meets the land and position it either one third from the top of the image frame or one third from the bottom (on in other words, add more sky or more lake) then you will get a far better looking and well proportioned image.
**screws the lid back onto his thermos, zips up the anorak and leaves**
Bits of the reflection that would normally be seen are there, think about being at the level of the water, and what could be seen, the hill in the foreground would hide some of the background, its basically two images with one inverted on to the other.
looks too "processed" how much work has it had?
sometimes you have to admit the materials (original shot) you have to work with arent great and either go back or leave it.
sometimes you have to admit the materials (original shot) you have to work with arent great and either go back or leave it.
Adepture too high, out of focus, resolution too low, colours totaly differnet in the reflection.
If could re-take this pic, I would use a tripod, use a insane high F number like F30, iso 100 and using a timer expose the image for a good 5 - 10 seconds. Hope this helps!
If could re-take this pic, I would use a tripod, use a insane high F number like F30, iso 100 and using a timer expose the image for a good 5 - 10 seconds. Hope this helps!
Focus doesn't really relate to using a tripod or not (at least not with a landscape like this), a tripod will help with camera shake but in daylight you can usually get a shutter speed plenty high enough for it not to be a problem. That said, for landscapes a tripod is very useful to have as you can play around with settings while maintaining composition, or stick on ND grads for long exposures.
Ignoring any composition issues for a minute, the photo in general looks very soft, what did you use to resize the image? Usually decreasing the size of an image should make the image appear sharper and hide minor focus issues, however in this case it looks very fuzzy with quite pronounced compression artifacts.
Last edited:
The problem with using really small apertures is that you're well out of the sweet spot (usually around f/8) of the lens and in serious image quality drop off land, on top of that sensor boogers also show up much more. In my experience f/11 is a good starting place for most landscape shots, the lens is around it's f-stop sweet spot and if you focus at about 10m then the DOF will mean everything from ~1.5m to infinity will be in focus for a 35mm format body and a 24mm lens. If you do want longer exposures it's better to use ND filters rather than stopping down to a really small aperture.
Re-read post # 5
I've lifted your center a little thus..
But due to the unnatural stillness of the water ( should have thrown a stone into the water before taking it )I think that maybe lowering where land & water meet is prehaps best
it's better not to have an exact mirror image of the land reflected in the water.also your focal point or the main object you wish to take, should never be dead center....Remember: neither nature nor art likes symmetry.
Personally I think the photo would hve been a little more interesting like this
Hope this helps.
I've lifted your center a little thus..
But due to the unnatural stillness of the water ( should have thrown a stone into the water before taking it )I think that maybe lowering where land & water meet is prehaps best
it's better not to have an exact mirror image of the land reflected in the water.also your focal point or the main object you wish to take, should never be dead center....Remember: neither nature nor art likes symmetry.
Personally I think the photo would hve been a little more interesting like this
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
woodspirits
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
potentially a great shot, unfortunately nothings in focus, as has been said definately a tripod, kick off at f11 for landscape unless you want to isolate something, and yes remember the rule of thirds. a bit of foreground interest would have lifted the shot dramatically or just get down to a low angle to include whats in front of you and maybe stop down to f22 with a longer exposure. makes me wish i hadnt sold all my gear!
Last edited:
The "rule of thirds" is a tool which, while useful, is not a rule for every shot. It is very good at adding extra dynamism to a composition, makes things look more lively. But, as in your photo, if you are trying to emphasise the opposite, ie stillness and calm, placing the mirror line in the middle does this. If you had chucked a stone in and got ripples, then moving your camera closer to the water and having two 3rds of that would have emphasised the movement on the water...
IMHO, the problems with this picture are:
1. The reflection looks as though it is just a blurred version of the top half, it looks "photoshopped". This needs some darkening on an adjustment layer to look "natural".
2. I think you have not quite got the right depth of field.
3. Mainly composition. If you had walked further round to the left and got the shore curving in from the bottom left of your picture it would have drawn the eye into the picture, and helped differentiate between the hill and reflection.
Anyway, just my two penneth...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IMHO, the problems with this picture are:
1. The reflection looks as though it is just a blurred version of the top half, it looks "photoshopped". This needs some darkening on an adjustment layer to look "natural".
2. I think you have not quite got the right depth of field.
3. Mainly composition. If you had walked further round to the left and got the shore curving in from the bottom left of your picture it would have drawn the eye into the picture, and helped differentiate between the hill and reflection.
Anyway, just my two penneth...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice!
Here is a picture i shoot once. And the reflection is darker. So maybe you should to darken the water refledtion.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenanker/5053925410/in/set-72157625120013538/lightbox/
Don
Here is a picture i shoot once. And the reflection is darker. So maybe you should to darken the water refledtion.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenanker/5053925410/in/set-72157625120013538/lightbox/
Don
Similar threads
