Jools Elliott Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Afternoon all I am very careful about how I process my images preferring to capture things in camera rather than having to do multiple exposures etc to get what I need. This one though was different as it was impossible to grad. Any thoughts on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 It looks rather unlike a sunset, almost like a composite which I'm sure it isn't. The light on the buildings looks like ordinary daylight. I might crank up the saturation on the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Thanks Mark. It is in fact sunrise. I set the white balance on each image to be daylight balanced, which is something 99% of my images area treated to. The basics of it were an exposure for the sky and one for the foreground. Interesting on the saturation. It's got about half of what I would normally feel confortable about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Hello Jools, first let me say that I would not criticise another togs image particularly one who is better than myself, but as you asked I would suggest that the light on the buildings looks a bit on the light side (false) for a sunrise shot. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Sunrise is a bit different light-wise (so I recall from the last time I was up early, or late, enough) so I might tend to leave it as being a bit unusual and therefore eye-catching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Thanks Mark and Allan! Interesting. I can darken the Duomo if needs be as I made sure that I kept the original layered file. It took long enough to get something near to being acceptable! And Allan. Me better than you? Different I think is more apt We all work in different ways to achieve our aims with this business. I certainly don't rank myself here or there. I do have very precise ideas in mind when I click the shutter but that's as far as it goes. Still learning with eagerness and currently trying to rack my brains with video production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I think the image is over processed. I think it would be a great atmospheric shot if the buildings were allowed to go very dark, but just retaining some detail. You probably have a layer that has more atmosphere. It is a great subject, so some cross light with the sun at an angle of 30 degrees above the horizon in late afternoon coming from over your left shoulder would show the building detail to best advantage. The centre tower is corrected to be absolutely square. I think absolutely square is also an over correction. The eye sees buildings converging when you look up, but the brain knows they are square. Therefore the brain corrects somewhat for that converging effect when it looks at an image of a building. If the building is square, the brain overcorrects and the top of the building looks too big. When correcting for convergence I always allow the building to slightly converge, just to the point of being below the conscience level. The brain corrects and the building looks normal. I have to remind my geeky self that I can do a lot of things with software, but that does not mean that I should. Here is the treatment shot on film. With a digital shot I would probably retain a very slight amount of detail in the shadows. Enough to just discern that there is a clock face on the tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Thanks Bill. I did winder if a silhouette would work and maybe it would. I do have the same building shot in the afternoon light with the angle you mention. It was much easier to capture and no digital shenanigans were needed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Looks quite unnatural to me. So yes, I think it looks over-processed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I'd agree very much with what Bill Brooks has written above. Overall there are a few things I would probably change to personal preference (warmer, maybe kick up saturation/vibrance a bit, etc.), but that's just details and everyone will approach them differently. However, as Bill mentioned the tower on the building itself is WAY overcorrected and is the absolute fist thing the eye is drawn to in the image! I missed the sunrise and the nice view, just thought- wait, something's not right here... So I'd say fix that first, and then you can fine tune... -Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Well, just to clarify. It was corrected in-camera with a tilt-shift rather than in software. I suspect that is something that can't be undone now! Even my wife has noted it looked a little odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Well, just to clarify. It was corrected in-camera with a tilt-shift rather than in software. I suspect that is something that can't be undone now! Even my wife has noted it looked a little odd. I assumed as much, as the building is also very stretched. T/S is an awesome tool, but not for every situation and must be dialed in just right to be effective. Not overdone, as Bill said, though it's certainly not always easy. I do think it's still correctable with software though perhaps it's a bit backwards to do so! Might save the shot if you think it's worth it. -Jason edit: Hope you don't mind, Jools, but just had a quick go, and something like this looks more 'natural' to my eye (is the tower really so tall though?): Overall it's a good shot! All comes down to personal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Cool Jason. Did you just fiddle in Lightroom with it? And no, I don't mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Jools the next time you have this tower situation you might try the following. Line up the camera using a level, so that the camera back is parallel to the building face Now tilt the entire camera up slightly by a degree or two. Now include the top of the building using the shift function on your lens. This should render the tower slightly pointed when measured on screen but looking square to your brain. It should eliminate the top heavy look. Here is a shot of mine that has a tower corrected in software but that looks top heavy. Weird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Dramatic composition, but it looks unnatural to me too, if that means anything. It might sell as a print, though, especially the backward converted version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted August 24, 2014 Author Share Posted August 24, 2014 Jools the next time you have this tower situation you might try the following. Line up the camera using a level, so that the camera back is parallel to the building face Now tilt the entire camera up slightly by a degree or two. Now include the top of the building using the shift function on your lens. This should render the tower slightly pointed when measured on screen but looking square to your brain. It should eliminate the top heavy look. Here is a shot of mine that has a tower corrected in software but that looks top heavy. Weird Thanks Bill. Using a TS is still very new to me and my recent trip to Italy was the first time I really had to play with it. Off to Paris tomorrow but I fear that the impending cr@ppy weather is going to mean I will have a VERY long day in the French capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Cool Jason. Did you just fiddle in Lightroom with it? And no, I don't mind PS/Camera RAW, but Lightroom settings should be identical. If I remember correctly, this was +10 or +15 vertical, and -15 aspect to lessen the vertical stretching. You can probably tweak it much better if you spend a minute or so. Then you will have to scale down slightly and fill the sky (or else loose some edges in the crop). Better to do in camera of course, but in this case, a quick job after the fact. -Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 John took the words out of my mouth It would make a good print as IMHO its very pleasing aesthetically speaking. Sheila Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.