Photo Critique

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, I was wanting some photography critique on a couple photos from my recent trip. The shots are from the camera, no photoshop'ing. My one concern is sharpness. I'm really thinking my lens isn't getting sharpness very well and I may need to upgrade. My old Minolta, focusing was very simple, not as much with the Sony.

 

[another1]

The white twig in the middle, at the top of the picture.. it looks out of place. I'm stuck on seeing these things in thirds, dunno if you meant to do that or what. Second one I can almost smell because it is perfect. I'm not a photographer and I don't know anything about camera sharpness but personally I think you're good to go with what you have. Reminds me of a place called Cranberry Glades but I've never seen any waterfalls that cool at Cranberry.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The first one is pleasant, though it could probably do with some tweaking on its compositional cropping. There's more to getting sharpness in a photo than just focussing. Could you give more information about the photos? Like aperture, exposure time, iso setting, focal length, and lens and sensor type/characteristics?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Used a Sony Alpha 200 for both shots, typical medium range lens, manual focus due to lens filter.

First image was:

Aperture was about 7
24.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 60 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters

Second image:

Aperture was about 10
20.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 45 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters


I was new to the ND filter and was feeling it out. I've reading you modify the exposure time by multiplying 2^{ND factor} which my case was 10, so generally, multiply the exposure time without the filter by 500. However, based on my experience in using it, I was searching out for a 1/50 or 1/40 sec exposure time and finding that 20 seconds was the equivalent, so an effective ND of 11 (but I think that is the problem with such a high ND factor).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Used a Sony Alpha 200 for both shots, typical medium range lens, manual focus due to lens filter.

First image was:

Aperture was about 7
24.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 60 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters

Second image:

Aperture was about 10
20.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 45 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters


I was new to the ND filter and was feeling it out. I've reading you modify the exposure time by multiplying 2^{ND factor} which my case was 10, so generally, multiply the exposure time without the filter by 500. However, based on my experience in using it, I was searching out for a 1/50 or 1/40 sec exposure time and finding that 20 seconds was the equivalent, so an effective ND of 11 (but I think that is the problem with such a high ND factor).

Were you pressing the trigger to take the shot? That's a no-no with something like this--use a timer, a cable release or some sort of remote trigger. You do not want to touch the camera while taking the shot

 

[Shadowy Man]

Used a Sony Alpha 200 for both shots, typical medium range lens, manual focus due to lens filter.

First image was:

Aperture was about 7
24.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 60 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters

Second image:

Aperture was about 10
20.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 45 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters


I was new to the ND filter and was feeling it out. I've reading you modify the exposure time by multiplying 2^{ND factor} which my case was 10, so generally, multiply the exposure time without the filter by 500. However, based on my experience in using it, I was searching out for a 1/50 or 1/40 sec exposure time and finding that 20 seconds was the equivalent, so an effective ND of 11 (but I think that is the problem with such a high ND factor).

Were you pressing the trigger to take the shot? That's a no-no with something like this--use a timer, a cable release or some sort of remote trigger. You do not want to touch the camera while taking the shot

And if he didn't have a cable release or remote trigger, he could set it for multiple exposures and just throw out the first one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Used a Sony Alpha 200 for both shots, typical medium range lens, manual focus due to lens filter.

First image was:

Aperture was about 7
24.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 60 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters

Second image:

Aperture was about 10
20.0 mm
100 ISO
Exposure ~ 45 seconds
ND10 and Polarizing Filters


I was new to the ND filter and was feeling it out. I've reading you modify the exposure time by multiplying 2^{ND factor} which my case was 10, so generally, multiply the exposure time without the filter by 500. However, based on my experience in using it, I was searching out for a 1/50 or 1/40 sec exposure time and finding that 20 seconds was the equivalent, so an effective ND of 11 (but I think that is the problem with such a high ND factor).

Were you pressing the trigger to take the shot? That's a no-no with something like this--use a timer, a cable release or some sort of remote trigger. You do not want to touch the camera while taking the shot

Hmm, should I also not wiggle the tripod while taking a 60 sec exposure?!

For shots over about 1/3 I always go with the 10 sec delay. 30+ secs I got with the cable.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Hmm, should I also not wiggle the tripod while taking a 60 sec exposure?!

Don't breath on it, either. In fact, don't even look at it.

 

[blastula]

They seem slightly dark.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Were you pressing the trigger to take the shot? That's a no-no with something like this--use a timer, a cable release or some sort of remote trigger. You do not want to touch the camera while taking the shot

And if he didn't have a cable release or remote trigger, he could set it for multiple exposures and just throw out the first one.

Never thought of that approach but it would work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hmm, should I also not wiggle the tripod while taking a 60 sec exposure?!

Don't breath on it, either. In fact, don't even look at it.

Maybe I should also stop taking long exposures on metal grate platforms with a troop of bouncing kangaroos.

They seem slightly dark.

One trouble is looking at the images on a laptop and brightness can vary so much based on angle and the screen settings. I need to re-review these on a proper monitor and see if I have a little longer exposures that have more light.

After going through the shorter exposure with just the polarizer, I think I probably should have gone 120 secs on the first image shown. The one presented was the brightest one. It was overcast that day and I suppose I was still working under a sunny day mindset from the two previous days.

I'm still curious if I need to discriminate on the aperture more, instead of choosing an aperture that allows a particular exposure length with the ND filter. It looks like the colors shift a little bit to the green side. One photo without is 31-52-95 (RGB) and with the filter it is 33 59-96. The shift is more noticeable in another with green up from 35 to 43 and red from 17 to 24. I'm wondering if this hue is catching my eye.

Regarding focus, I don't know if I'm shifting the manual focus a tad when putting on the filter (which I'm actively trying not to do), or if I'm changing the focal length of the shot by shifting the lens itself. I do have shots where focus isn't an issue, but the distance to the falls is larger.

 

[Malintent]

Those are gorgeous... ever play around with HDR (High Dynamic Range)? Same concept of taking multiple shots, except each shot is done with incrementally longer exposure.. then the images are overlaid with each other and blended such that the heuristics are fully balanced and the color depth is just insane... some don't like it because it can get 'cartoony' looking if done too extreme. Some cameras do all of that work automatically upon releasing the shutter (when in HDR mode). .but then latency between shots increases quite a bit due to the internal processing of the images. I think exposing that shot in HDR would have really brought out a good deal of contrast and made your greens really pop against the dark water and white froth... Still very nice shots, though.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I found a nice HDR program called "easy HDR3". It's not too expensive ($40 or so, I think). My camera can easily be set up to do bracketing exposures, so I've played around with that to get some higher dynamic range photographs. It works nicely, but as Malintent says it can get cartoony depending on the settings you pick. The software will also do some tone mapping fixing up of single photographs and that has helped out a lot of photos I've taken too.

Now that my new mac OS has gotten rid of iPhoto in favor of Photos, I have lost some photo editing tools, so I do more of the post-processing in easy HDR3.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those are gorgeous... ever play around with HDR (High Dynamic Range)?

I have a Sony hand held that can do a basic HDR in camera. I think HDR is the digital camera's solution to dynamic range, but I'm not high on them. I'm still in my no Photoshop 'I'm getting a picture out of the camera and that is it' phase. Having a young kid makes it even worse. I barely have time to take the photos (30+ sec exposures), forget post-processing them!

I do ponder when a better compressed format will come out for photos that'll compete with RAW, just without the work.

Same concept of taking multiple shots, except each shot is done with incrementally longer exposure.. then the images are overlaid with each other and blended such that the heuristics are fully balanced and the color depth is just insane... some don't like it because it can get 'cartoony' looking if done too extreme. Some cameras do all of that work automatically upon releasing the shutter (when in HDR mode). .but then latency between shots increases quite a bit due to the internal processing of the images. I think exposing that shot in HDR would have really brought out a good deal of contrast and made your greens really pop against the dark water and white froth...

Would be interesting. But my trouble with HDR is that it is, in many ways, fake, at least in a photographic sense. Don't ask me to justify it, there isn't much logic behind my disdain as all digital photography is are bits and lies.

Still very nice shots, though.

Thanks. I'm really trying to up my photo quality right now, especially in the sense of SOTC. I think I'll play with apertures and close up waterfalls and see if the sharpness is aperture or filter related.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But my trouble with HDR is that it is, in many ways, fake, at least in a photographic sense. Don't ask me to justify it, there isn't much logic behind my disdain as all digital photography is are bits and lies.

I know what you mean here, but I think of this way: because the eye has a greater dynamic range than the camera, using HDR can sometimes produce a more faithful version of what you actually see and therefore can be less "fake" that a single exposure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But my trouble with HDR is that it is, in many ways, fake, at least in a photographic sense. Don't ask me to justify it, there isn't much logic behind my disdain as all digital photography is are bits and lies.

I know what you mean here, but I think of this way: because the eye has a greater dynamic range than the camera, using HDR can sometimes produce a more faithful version of what you actually see and therefore can be less "fake" that a single exposure.

And that is true, but it is still kind of like using an aluminum bat. I don't want to hang any photos on the wall that were "touched up". Granted all digital pictures are "touched up" in the camera, so my threshold is full of itself.

I think maybe I should return to film so that I can be honestly pretentious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But my trouble with HDR is that it is, in many ways, fake, at least in a photographic sense. Don't ask me to justify it, there isn't much logic behind my disdain as all digital photography is are bits and lies.

I know what you mean here, but I think of this way: because the eye has a greater dynamic range than the camera, using HDR can sometimes produce a more faithful version of what you actually see and therefore can be less "fake" that a single exposure.

It's more that the eye can shift as you look at various parts of the scene, the camera can't.

 

[Malintent]

Ya, I agree that HDR is a "cheat" when you are a photography "purist". Fun the play around with, though. Another way one can look at it is that it is 'restoring' the vibrancy that the human eye detects, that is otherwise lost due to technological limitations... but, in my opinion, its the limitations that makes the art be art.

 

[Juma]

I know what you mean here, but I think of this way: because the eye has a greater dynamic range than the camera, using HDR can sometimes produce a more faithful version of what you actually see and therefore can be less "fake" that a single exposure.

And that is true, but it is still kind of like using an aluminum bat. I don't want to hang any photos on the wall that were "touched up". Granted all digital pictures are "touched up" in the camera, so my threshold is full of itself.

I think maybe I should return to film so that I can be honestly pretentious.

All photos are "touched up" for heavens sake. Otherwise they would just be a White paper.
What counts is the the effect end result has.

 

[LordKiran]

The first one looks "off center?" Like there's a lot going on with one half of the picture and the other half seems empty. Kind of unsatisfying to look at if you ask me.