Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Anoesis

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    69

    Default Anoesis



    1. in what area is critique to be sought?

    I would like some feedback on composition and post-processing (colours/contrast, HDR technique).


    2. what one hopes to achieve with the piece of work?

    Through this piece of work, I hope to capture the nice sky during sunset, and to present an uncommon, often overlooked perspective of the place.


    3. under what circumstance is the picture taken? (physical conditions/emotions)

    The rocks were generally quite small and clumped together, and I found it hard to isolate any particular one as a clean subject. Also, I had just bought my 10-20 and did not have the chance to get a ND filter of the right size for this lens. (I have just placed order for a B+W ND110 this morning on eBay!)


    4. what the critique seeker personally thinks of the picture

    When I first glance at the picture, it seems like still an OK shot. However, as I stare at it longer, it starts to appear more and more like a snapshot. I think if I was able to smoothen out the water, it would have enhanced the picture greatly. It might also have been better with a lower vantage point, but there were rocks behind this clump (upon which I was balancing) and my tripod was deployed on the rocks at the lowest possible height, so I was unable to go even lower.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    lulu island
    Posts
    6,131

    Default Re: Anoesis

    Perhaps "Anoesis" fits the title well - I might have felt the same.

    You wanted to capture the nice sky but apparently your photo didn't say so. Too much foreground (rocks) compared to the sky. Maybe you were trying to follow the rules of 3rds? But you could have framed 2/3 for the sky instead. Google for "evening sky" under Images, pick any 10 that you like and ask yourself how many of the 10 images framed like you did? You may have seen nice reflection of the sky on the sea water and thought it might be nice but then it didn't turn out well.

    Can you clarify on these 2 points? (1) You mentioned that you were trying to find a clean subject (a rock?) but wasn't the nice sky the subject you originally wanted? I am confused here. (2) How does the purchase of ND filter has to do with this photo? What do you think you could have achieved if you had used the ND filter? I guess that you probably wanted a smoky water effect?

    You wanted to capture an uncommon and often overlooked perspective, can you explain how is this picture or the location uncommon? I might disagree with you that a lower vantage point have been better. Often enough, a much higher vantage point presents a better image, do you agree?
    Last edited by Drudkh; 17th November 2011 at 02:48 PM.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Anoesis

    Hi Drudkh,

    Many thanks for your critical questions. It was interesting to have seen these points that I have overlooked during my conceptualisation and self-critique.

    Firstly, perhaps I was sloppy during the write-up and didn't fully describe my intentions. I admire the works of a certain cat-loving Pentaxian who used to be on Clubsnap as another name, and I was hoping to capture something along his style. An example of it would be this. From my beginner's observations, such compositions usually work better with some kind of dramatic sky, and indeed it was the dramatic sky that day which spurred me to get out of my room to take this picture. When I was doing the write-up, I didn't really know how should I describe the aims of such a kind of style, so I intuitively wrote it as the sky. But from what you have pointed out, perhaps the aim was really not the sky, and hence comparisons with shots related to "evening sky" might not be totally relevant. It's my mistake for the wrong description, and I apologise.

    When I mentioned about the "clean" rock, I was referring to a stronger, distinct foreground anchor element rather than the potential mess of rocks that I have captured.

    Yes, I would very much have preferred the water to be smoothed out with the usage of a ND filter.

    This picture was taken in West Coast Park, and many friends (admittedly, non-photographer ones) said they didn't believe there's such a place at West Coast Park. Being physically there to make the shot, I climbed across the railings at the "jetty" and went down to the coastline, attracting several weird stares from the people at the jetty. Also, I did a search on Google for West Coast Park shots before I set out to make this one, and I have never seen something similar to this. These lead me to believe that it might not be too common a perspective for that place, though I may be misled.

    Regarding the lower vantage point, it was an "after-action review" kinda thing that I felt I could have tried while I was there. You make a valid point, and I stand corrected. A lower vantage point could possibly lessen the separation between the rocks and the sky, decreasing the sense of depth.

    Thank you once again for taking the time to provide your feedback! =)
    Last edited by refraXion; 17th November 2011 at 08:07 PM.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    229

    Default Re: Anoesis

    Hi,
    Mind sharing what HDR technique you used? I was at west coast park too but couldn't get a proper HDR shot because the clouds were moving quickly and so the series of shots that I took were misaligned when merged together.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Anoesis

    Hi mds80,

    I don't know if there's a name of the technique that you're looking for. I took 5 shots at -2EV, -1EV, 0EV, +1EV, +2EV and then tonemapped it in Photomatix. Exported this from Photomatix as a TIFF file, opened it as a RAW file in Adobe Camera Raw, and did some final adjustments to the contrast and colours. Downsize, sharpen, and that's the final product you're seeing.

    I'm quite a noob at HDR, but my guess is that as long as you take your shots on a tripod, the important elements in your frame should be aligned. As for cloud movement, ideally speaking they would be blurred due to a long exposure shot, in which case further blurring that occurs when you blend the moving clouds together wouldn't really matter..? However I'm not too sure if I'm right, so would appreciate it if someone could point us in the right direction.

    Hope this helps! =)
    Last edited by refraXion; 17th November 2011 at 10:40 PM.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    229

    Default Re: Anoesis

    Quote Originally Posted by refraXion View Post
    Hi mds80,

    I don't know if there's a name of the technique that you're looking for. I took 5 shots at -2EV, -1EV, 0EV, +1EV, +2EV and then tonemapped it in Photomatix. Exported this from Photomatix as a TIFF file, opened it as a RAW file in Adobe Camera Raw, and did some final adjustments to the contrast and colours. Downsize, sharpen, and that's the final product you're seeing.

    I'm quite a noob at HDR, but my guess is that as long as you take your shots on a tripod, the important elements in your frame should be aligned. As for cloud movement, ideally speaking they would be blurred due to a long exposure shot, in which case further blurring that occurs when you blend the moving clouds together wouldn't really matter..? However I'm not too sure if I'm right, so would appreciate it if someone could point us in the right direction.

    Hope this helps! =)
    Thanks for sharing. I'm also trying hard to imrpove my HDR skills

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: Anoesis

    You're welcome. Thanks for dropping by!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •