Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: St Andrew's after the storm

  1. #1

    Default St Andrew's after the storm

    Took this pic of St Andrew's Cathedral after a shower on Saturday afternoon. Was trying to create a moody gothic atmosphere.

    Got some feedback that it's got no obvious focus, too many distractions like the cars and the bright orange safety cone. Also tried to edit to bring out the greenery a little more, wondering if the colours in the shot can be improved further.



    Photo data
    Focal Length 10.0mm
    Lens: Sigma 10-20mm
    Auto White Balance
    Aperture: f/5.6
    Shutter Speed: 1/160
    ISO Speed : 100

    Thanks for comments!

  2. #2

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    the tree and the building at the back killed it for me.

  3. #3

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Well and truly distorted. Not to mention that there's no gothic feel. The only feel I get is this building is going to topple over.

  4. #4
    Senior Member knpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,651

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    looks like a normal everyday picture to me, what i can do is, shoot the building when there is direct sunlight only, so as to have even light between building and vivd blue sky.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,600

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Well your subject took up a good portion of the image so I wouldn't say this has no focus. I do find it disconcerting that little thought is spent on designing the composition. You need to know how to control a wide angle lenses. Scrutinise the scene and decide what's to be included and what's not. If you want through that train of thought, you will eliminate those distractions.

    A distorted view is not a bad thing as with this case because it actually present the building in a more dynamic perspective. Given the site constraints and equipment, it might not even be possible for you to correct the tilt..... maybe in photoshop. I would actually go closer to get an even more dynamic perspective and getting rid of the distractions on the road and background altogether. Probably underexpose a little to salvage some cloud details.

  6. #6

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by flipfreak View Post
    the tree and the building at the back killed it for me.
    You're referring to Raffles City at the back? True, but I also wanted to capture other elements in the building. The tree was meant to act as a frame, guess it didn't work for you.

    Thanks for the feedback though.

  7. #7

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Well your subject took up a good portion of the image so I wouldn't say this has no focus. I do find it disconcerting that little thought is spent on designing the composition. You need to know how to control a wide angle lenses. Scrutinise the scene and decide what's to be included and what's not. If you want through that train of thought, you will eliminate those distractions.

    A distorted view is not a bad thing as with this case because it actually present the building in a more dynamic perspective. Given the site constraints and equipment, it might not even be possible for you to correct the tilt..... maybe in photoshop. I would actually go closer to get an even more dynamic perspective and getting rid of the distractions on the road and background altogether. Probably underexpose a little to salvage some cloud details.
    Thanks Kit, your comments are much appreciated. Shall work to improve the next round.

  8. #8

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by earthen247 View Post
    You're referring to Raffles City at the back? True, but I also wanted to capture other elements in the building. The tree was meant to act as a frame, guess it didn't work for you.

    Thanks for the feedback though.
    nah. your framing with the tree didn't work. you need alot more trees if you want to try framing.

  9. #9

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by flipfreak View Post
    nah. your framing with the tree didn't work. you need alot more trees if you want to try framing.
    Ah...ok! So there should be another framing device on the left too?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    117

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    the picture is dull and not look alive. i think you should try bigger aperture f/1.4 or f/1.8.
    It should give you better depth of field. By having shallow depth of field the picture may look alive.
    BLOMQVIST

  11. #11

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by earthen247 View Post
    Ah...ok! So there should be another framing device on the left too?
    if u wanted to do framing, do get more greens to do it.

  12. #12

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by blomqvist View Post
    the picture is dull and not look alive. i think you should try bigger aperture f/1.4 or f/1.8.
    It should give you better depth of field. By having shallow depth of field the picture may look alive.
    My wide angle only goes to f/4 so had to work under those constraints too.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,600

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by earthen247 View Post
    My wide angle only goes to f/4 so had to work under those constraints too.
    That was a misleading comment.

    With a wide angle lens and the building at a distance away from you, bigger aperture will not give you a much shallower DOF that will have significant impact on the image.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    That was a misleading comment.

    With a wide angle lens and the building at a distance away from you, bigger aperture will not give you a much shallower DOF that will have significant impact on the image.
    indeed it was a misleading comment.



    Quote Originally Posted by blomqvist View Post
    the picture is dull and not look alive. i think you should try bigger aperture f/1.4 or f/1.8.
    It should give you better depth of field. By having shallow depth of field the picture may look alive.
    blomqvist, please be advised that comments in Critique Corner are supposed to help others instead of mislead others.

    thanks.
    Last edited by eikin; 11th December 2007 at 10:41 AM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by blomqvist View Post
    the picture is dull and not look alive. i think you should try bigger aperture f/1.4 or f/1.8.
    It should give you better depth of field. By having shallow depth of field the picture may look alive.
    find me a 10-20 with f/1.4 or f/1.8 and i will give you my kingdom.

    i do not understand where you are coming from.. most wide scenes.. work better with good depth of field rather than shallow.

    in any case, with regards to ts' picture.. st andrew's is very, very, very hard to capture in entirety nicely. i have circled it a number of times, inside, outside the gate.. even with the sigma 10-20.. very, very hard to frame without distractions, etc.. because of the huge amount of trees around the place. it would be better to do close-up detail.. or not capture it entirely, like so: link

    even then i had to do significant cloning, if you look closely you should be able to spot it.. top left corner area.

  16. #16

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    find me a 10-20 with f/1.4 or f/1.8 and i will give you my kingdom.

    i do not understand where you are coming from.. most wide scenes.. work better with good depth of field rather than shallow.

    in any case, with regards to ts' picture.. st andrew's is very, very, very hard to capture in entirety nicely. i have circled it a number of times, inside, outside the gate.. even with the sigma 10-20.. very, very hard to frame without distractions, etc.. because of the huge amount of trees around the place. it would be better to do close-up detail.. or not capture it entirely, like so: link

    even then i had to do significant cloning, if you look closely you should be able to spot it.. top left corner area.
    Haha, yeah, I'd give my kingdom too.

    Nice shot, took a few from that angle too but for mine the contrast with the sky was too low, can't really make out the shape of the building, it looks as if it's merging with the heavens.

    Thanks for all the comments to date everyone, very grateful.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    708

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Overall, I feel it is a good effort. However, here's a few things you can probably improve on.

    Highlights are all burnt out.

    A tripod and either a polarizing or ND filter would probably be better. The tree framing does not work for me as well.

    Cone on left is distracting. Overall, positioning could be better by taking a step or two left and moving nearer to the church would have help. Cropping the cars on the bottom right would be a good idea.

    The gothic effect would probably be better achieved as a B&W or HDR (I have not tried HDR but I've seen HDR with similar composition).
    A camera cannot teach you how to see.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Where the wind blows...
    Posts
    4,528

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    I agreed with Kit that the perspective is nice for this composition, not necessary to correct it. For the tree framing, I won't allow the tree to cover the canopy of the church, the Cross is up there.

    Underexpose abit like Kit said to get more detail from he clouds then PP. But since its taken, the only damage control now is to do some tone mapping to bring back some details from the clouds, get back some blue colour to the sky by PP, crop away the cars and if you are ambitious, clone away the Raffles City.

    Just my opinion for your considerations.

  19. #19
    Member/Tangshooter Redsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    7,932

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    I find that this place is not easy to shoot too
    Have to walk around a bit to find some nice angles.
    Even so,its hard to fit the entire place into the frame
    best way is to shoot parts of it like what night86mare
    i had to go all the way outside to shoot this

  20. #20

    Default Re: St Andrew's after the storm

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesW View Post
    Overall, I feel it is a good effort. However, here's a few things you can probably improve on.

    Highlights are all burnt out.

    A tripod and either a polarizing or ND filter would probably be better. The tree framing does not work for me as well.

    Cone on left is distracting. Overall, positioning could be better by taking a step or two left and moving nearer to the church would have help. Cropping the cars on the bottom right would be a good idea.

    The gothic effect would probably be better achieved as a B&W or HDR (I have not tried HDR but I've seen HDR with similar composition).
    Actually, I had just walked over from Funan where I tried to buy a polarizing filter from J3:16 but they said they good one was out of stock. And I agree about the cones and the cars, should have thought of moving the cone away.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •