Singapore Skyline at Dusk

[YSLee]

[aaronLiu]

ah... Just love the colour of the sky...

Nice shot ... nice composition.

Just gotta go down town and grab some dusk shots!

[ckiang]

Very dynamic composition. The enhanced converging verticals tend to suggest growth, as in the growth of Singapore as a city. Good decision to shoot at dusk when the sky is still blue. Well done!

Regards
CK

[tomshen]

hmm... this is a bad angle to me

Pls kindly be more constructive about your post, instead of leaving an open post. Could you explain what's meant to be a bad angle?

Quote: Originally posted by tomshen hmm... this is a bad angle to me

[argent2]

maybe it would help to shift the perspective more to the left,

cos on the right, the SingTel building is cropped off.

my 2 cents..

argent

[tomshen]

Quote: Originally posted by MingGuan Pls kindly be more constructive about your post, instead of leaving an open post. Could you explain what's meant to be a bad angle?

Personal preference I'd rather go closer before tilting up a wide angle lens. A converging effect like this is not really attractive IMO. I am more in favor of this type of shot:
http://megaweb.clubsnap.org/gallery/...album07&id=aac
or
http://megaweb.clubsnap.org/gallery/...album07&id=aab

[ckiang]

Quote: Originally posted by tomshen Personal preference I'd rather go closer before tilting up a wide angle lens. A converging effect like this is not really attractive IMO. I am more in favor of this type of shot: http://megaweb.clubsnap.org/gallery/...album07&id=aac or http://megaweb.clubsnap.org/gallery/...album07&id=aab

Don't think YS can go any closer on this shot, unless he took a boat.

Personally, I find your 1st example not only "too boring" (too many people shot that angle liao), and the "slightly converging verticals" is rather disconcerting. If you want to tilt, tilt more. Otherwise, you get the effect that the buildings are tilting backwards, as is the case in that example. Many people's shot of the skyline from that angle exhibits the same problem as the tilt their camera up slightly to get the buildings in.

2nd example exhibits severe diverging verticals from the tilted down camera, which makes it even more disconcerting. The perspective distortion here is not helping the picture, and this kind of "diverging verticals" isn't quite suitable for this angle.

Regards
CK

[tomshen]

Quote: Originally posted by ckiang Don't think YS can go any closer on this shot, unless he took a boat. Personally, I find your 1st example not only "too boring" (too many people shot that angle liao), and the "slightly converging verticals" is rather disconcerting. If you want to tilt, tilt more. Otherwise, you get the effect that the buildings are tilting backwards, as is the case in that example. Many people's shot of the skyline from that angle exhibits the same problem as the tilt their camera up slightly to get the buildings in. 2nd example exhibits severe diverging verticals from the tilted down camera, which makes it even more disconcerting. The perspective distortion here is not helping the picture, and this kind of "diverging verticals" isn't quite suitable for this angle. Regards CK

CK, I have to disagree with you. A place shot by many pple does not mean it is boring at all. A good photo stands out from a crowd. Can anyone show me some other "not boring" shots pls? These two sample shots showed that the photographer actually carefully positioned his camera. All wide angle lenses have converging effects but I think the 1st example is excellent. If you want to have a no-converging effect, need to build a tower and climb up. 2nd example shows an interesting angle to me as well, emphasizing the grandness of bridge. To each his own, I like these two shots better.

[ckiang]

Quote: Originally posted by tomshen CK, I have to disagree with you. A place shot by many pple does not mean it is boring at all. A good photo stands out from a crowd. Can anyone show me some other "not boring" shots pls? These two sample shots showed that the photographer actually carefully positioned his camera. All wide angle lenses have converging effects but I think the 1st example is excellent. If you want to have a no-converging effect, need to build a tower and climb up. 2nd example shows an interesting angle to me as well, emphasizing the grandness of bridge. To each his own, I like these two shots better.

(At last we have some picture-discussion )

Personally, I don't think the 2nd emphasizes the bridge as it takes up only like a 1/4 of the picture. It's dominated by the buildings. Though the angle is unique, it don't quite work here due to the "diverging verticals" which I (personally) find is very disconcerting for such kind of shots.

Too many people have shot the same thing, from the same angle, as the 1st example. I don't see what's so special about this particular one. Almost everyone who shoot Singapore River from Hill Street Centre shoots it like that. Almost everyone who did night shots will have this picture in his collection (I do too). Have seen too many, but have never seen the skyline shot the way YS shot it, which in a way is unique, and like my comments posted, it can signify growth.

Agree that all wide angle lenses will exhibit the converging verticals problem when tilted up, that's why Perspective Correction lenses or large format cameras are preferred for architectural shots.

15 years ago, my photography teacher told us, "If you want to tilt your lens upwards to shoot buildings, emphasize that. Go closer, tilt more, and shoot. Emphasize the converging verticals. Never have a picture which has only slightly converging verticals as it looks accidental and disturbing". This is the case of Example 1. I myself is guilty of that as well. Even the postcard shots have the same problem.

Same thing applies to tilting your camera for shots like portraits etc. Don't tilt slightly as it will look like a mistake.

Regards
CK

[tomshen]

Fine CK, let's talk about picture.

I would call the second pic of this series as a dynamic angle: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...threadid=17823 It's well executed IMO. The problem of the top shot in this thread is: it looks not natural to me, more like a snap shot. Personally I won't shoot at this angle. btw, I think a good shot is a good shot, no matter how many ppl have repeated it. And honestly I don't see many city shots in THIS forum as impressive as the first sample I listed. Maybe you can show me huh?

[ckiang]

Quote: Originally posted by tomshen Fine CK, let's talk about picture. I would call the second pic of this series as a dynamic angle: http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...threadid=17823 It's well executed IMO. The problem of the top shot in this thread is: it looks not natural to me, more like a snap shot. Personally I won't shoot at this angle. btw, I think a good shot is a good shot, no matter how many ppl have repeated it. And honestly I don't see many city shots in THIS forum as impressive as the first sample I listed. Maybe you can show me huh?

Yes, at least this is a much example than the other one you show

Well, how did you tell it was a good shot when it's composed almost exactly the same way as several other people? To me, it's the same old composition. In fact, I've seen slightly better ones with blue sky (dusk) and car trails.

Anyway, I do have almost exactly the same composition, without the blue sky, with car trails, with not-so-sharp buildings and it even won me a Photo of the Day here:

http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/p...photoid=127265

And less of converging verticals too. I didn't think this is a great shot anyway, so was very (pleasantly) surprised.

Regards
CK

[Red Dawn]

Hi

i hardly post in the landscape forum cos i'm not really a fan of landscape work and don't really have very solid grounding in landscape photography.

however i do recognise a great landscape photo when i see one, and sadly tomshen, i personally feel none of the megaweb examples u listed are very good examples of great landscape / cityscape photos. megaweb - note that i'm not knocking on u. ur other shots (esp of insects) are all very good, but the 2 tomshen pointed out are not representative of your best.

Tomshen: the first one u pointed here:

http://megaweb.clubsnap.org/gallery/...album07&id=aac

is terribly mundane and oversharpened to the point of death (aka known as "optimised for the web") - it looks terribly unrealistic. Also, that's a very common viewpoint of the SG River. I must have dozens of similar shots, from different cameras - Canon G1, D30 (with several different lenses eg 28-135, Sigma 15-30 etc etc) all of the same shot. I'm not very good with compositional ideas then, and mega's example is one i would have shot as a beginner.....

you know how it is when one first gets a digital camera (my G1) - everybody wants to take night shots with it Same for me, when i first started out. Singapore River was my fav haunt (ask CK ) till i got sick of it, and converging verticals. I got even sicker of correcting perspective distortion, slight converging verticals in Photoshop.

Needless to say, unless I have a large format system with all the associated swings, tilts and other movements, or a Canon 24mm f3.5L tilt and shift lens, i've given up on such "landscape" photography. Much easier to stick to street work, concerts, weddings, photojournalism and other pple photography

Megaweb's second shot lacks distinct foreground interest to lend dynamism to the tilt he's trying. If there are enough car trails, the picture might look more interesting.

Simon's shot you posted out is excellent. tat one is appropriately dynamic.

CK: i was wondering when you will pull out that shot of yours. To me, CK's view of the Singapore River is one of the best i have ever seen - the composition is just perfect, with the bridge lending valuable foreground interest and it is angled very pleasantly.

tomshen: these are just my personal opinions. So u agree with me? if it means anything, I don't quite dig YS's shot either. the idea is there though, but nope, it doesn't grab me as much.

[tomshen]

Hi RD!

I like your honesty! But unfortunately I don't agree with you. I'm still in favor of mega's first example. BTW, CK also got a good shot. Anyway, this does not change my initial stand.

Have fun!
Tom

[jasphotography]

I am not trying to stir up anything here, I come in peace and I hope I leave here in a piece

Thought I want to share my thought ...

A picture, good or bad, is subjective. So is everything else ...

You may take the best looking pictures but yet to the more experience eyes, the pictures may be done to death by themselves or anybody else.

Just look at those competition winners and ask yourself, why the judges chose this picture over the others? I honestly believe the judges no longer look for just technically right photos (i.e., well exposed/composed shots) but rather hugely on creativity and uniqueness.

So, ever since I realised the truth and cold fact, I have been thriving myself to be different, photographically. If people shoot at this direction, I will aim at the other direction and at the same time dismissing the normal perspectives I would imagine other photographers would see or use before pressing my shutter.

Sometimes I failed but sometimes I came back with bags of precious shots I truly and deeply considered my own!

So, how would you know this photo is the best if you have not seen the best? My advice is keep observing, learning and shooting.

[YSLee]

Quote: Originally posted by argent2 maybe it would help to shift the perspective more to the left, cos on the right, the SingTel building is cropped off. my 2 cents.. argent

I wanted to leave OUB and UOB towers in the centre; if I ever print this I'll probably crop a bit and use a different aspect ratio.