Punggol Sunset

[HTCahHTC]

Hello everyone!



450D's my first SLR, and I took it for a 'ride' at Punggol last week. This photo was edited in photoshop before posting, and I think I over saturated the whole picture? I want to know what you guys think of this photo, and also on how this picture can be improved. Thanks!

[night86mare]

care to share the settings of the photo? it looks characteristically soft, that's why i'm asking.

other than that, the composition - while an attempt is there, it is not good, in my view. the rocks are all bundled together, that can work but here they are a mass of blackness. but other than that i would think the pp here isn't overdone, if that's what you're really interested in. better to care more about composition and technique first thoguh.

[HTCahHTC]

Originally Posted by night86mare care to share the settings of the photo? it looks characteristically soft, that's why i'm asking. other than that, the composition - while an attempt is there, it is not good, in my view. the rocks are all bundled together, that can work but here they are a mass of blackness. but other than that i would think the pp here isn't overdone, if that's what you're really interested in. better to care more about composition and technique first thoguh.

here's the settings...
Shutter Speed: 1/100
Aperture: F3.5
ISO: 200
Focal Length: 18mm

ok, so the composition ain't good. hmmm. guess i should have find a better spot. wat about technique? I don't really understand by the term 'technique'. sorry ya, but thanks alot for the comment.

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by HTCahHTC here's the settings... Shutter Speed: 1/100 Aperture: F3.5 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 18mm ok, so the composition ain't good. hmmm. guess i should have find a better spot. wat about technique? I don't really understand by the term 'technique'. sorry ya, but thanks alot for the comment.

well in general, punggol is a very cluttered place. i usually end up frolicking very close to the water's edge to simplify things, at the cost of salty tripods and wet shorts, etc. be careful with your camera though.

another way of doing it is to find something really big to fill up the foreground - generally landscapes work better with a prominent foreground, say, a huge log - there are loads of those lying around usually, for whatever reason.

yes, the aperture setting here (f/3.5) explains the softness. you should stop down (i.e. use f/8 or f/11) for this setting here, as you *need* the depth of field. as a result your shutter speed might increase. if you cannot manage to handhold it, use a tripod. also, best to keep the iso as low as possible - reason being that landscapes usually work well sharp, and without noise. having a low iso, using a small aperture, and then accepting whatever shutter speed that should be set as a result is best. although you can have exceptions in situations.

[HTCahHTC]

Originally Posted by night86mare well in general, punggol is a very cluttered place. i usually end up frolicking very close to the water's edge to simplify things, at the cost of salty tripods and wet shorts, etc. be careful with your camera though. another way of doing it is to find something really big to fill up the foreground - generally landscapes work better with a prominent foreground, say, a huge log - there are loads of those lying around usually, for whatever reason. yes, the aperture setting here (f/3.5) explains the softness. you should stop down (i.e. use f/8 or f/11) for this setting here, as you *need* the depth of field. as a result your shutter speed might increase. if you cannot manage to handhold it, use a tripod. also, best to keep the iso as low as possible - reason being that landscapes usually work well sharp, and without noise. having a low iso, using a small aperture, and then accepting whatever shutter speed that should be set as a result is best. although you can have exceptions in situations.

Thanks alot for these valuable informations. Appreciated!

[mrhello88]

Originally Posted by night86mare well in general, punggol is a very cluttered place. i usually end up frolicking very close to the water's edge to simplify things, at the cost of salty tripods and wet shorts, etc. be careful with your camera though. another way of doing it is to find something really big to fill up the foreground - generally landscapes work better with a prominent foreground, say, a huge log - there are loads of those lying around usually, for whatever reason. yes, the aperture setting here (f/3.5) explains the softness. you should stop down (i.e. use f/8 or f/11) for this setting here, as you *need* the depth of field. as a result your shutter speed might increase. if you cannot manage to handhold it, use a tripod. also, best to keep the iso as low as possible - reason being that landscapes usually work well sharp, and without noise. having a low iso, using a small aperture, and then accepting whatever shutter speed that should be set as a result is best. although you can have exceptions in situations.

its a good explanation of the technique...The big aperture cause your shutter speed increase and further that, the rock a bit under exposed..

[sunboi80]

Originally Posted by mrhello88 its a good explanation of the technique...The big aperture cause your shutter speed increase and further that, the rock a bit under exposed..

Actually i just tot the rocks in the foreground are ok, to me, it conveys the mood quite well sunset->sad... it's only the rocks between the foreground and background that are eh.. spoiling the picture, 1 big mess but that's not your fault.

Oh ya, i dun see the sun...

I think the picture could help with smaller apertures, a tripod and a cloudless day...

[HTCahHTC]

Originally Posted by mrhello88 its a good explanation of the technique...The big aperture cause your shutter speed increase and further that, the rock a bit under exposed..

actually, i photoshop the picture that caused the rock to be underexposed. maybe i should try using dodge tool on the rocks... thanks!

[HTCahHTC]

Originally Posted by sunboi80 Actually i just tot the rocks in the foreground are ok, to me, it conveys the mood quite well sunset->sad... it's only the rocks between the foreground and background that are eh.. spoiling the picture, 1 big mess but that's not your fault. Oh ya, i dun see the sun... I think the picture could help with smaller apertures, a tripod and a cloudless day...

LOL. still, everyone's talking about the underexposed rocks. i'll do something about it. thanks! and, i don see the sun too -.- but it's still a sunset, aint it? haha.
anyway, my aperture was at it's smallest possible, and i was using a tripod. lol

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by HTCahHTC LOL. still, everyone's talking about the underexposed rocks. i'll do something about it. thanks! and, i don see the sun too -.- but it's still a sunset, aint it? haha. anyway, my aperture was at it's smallest possible, and i was using a tripod. lol

there is some misconception here that you should correct.

f/stop number, i.e. f/1.4, f/2.8, f/3.5, etc

the number is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the size of the aperture. this is confusing, and i don't understand why it is that way, but i'm sure you can find an explanation on google, i can't be bothered.

you are right, you need a *small* aperture here, but you are using a -large- one.

stop down to f/8 or f/11. that will give you a reasonably small aperture.

[catchlights]

small aperture means the "hole" smaller, not the number.

and night86mare already given you many valuable suggestions, take note.

you can try other pre set WB for sunset, it will give better results than auto WB.

you shoot it with tripod, you should able to tell the horizon is tilted from the monitor and correct it to make another exposure.

If you didn't notice, you also can correct it using photoshop.

[HTCahHTC]

Originally Posted by night86mare there is some misconception here that you should correct. f/stop number, i.e. f/1.4, f/2.8, f/3.5, etc the number is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the size of the aperture. this is confusing, and i don't understand why it is that way, but i'm sure you can find an explanation on google, i can't be bothered. you are right, you need a *small* aperture here, but you are using a -large- one. stop down to f/8 or f/11. that will give you a reasonably small aperture.

-.- oh ya. i got confused. sorry. lecturer just revised with us today, and i still get confuse when people say small aperture meaning smaller f number. ok, i've cleared the misconception, and it's up in my head. sorry and thanks. i sure am dumb -.- lol

Originally Posted by catchlights small aperture means the "hole" smaller, not the number. and night86mare already given you many valuable suggestions, take note. you can try other pre set WB for sunset, it will give better results than auto WB. you shoot it with tripod, you should able to tell the horizon is tilted from the monitor and correct it to make another exposure. If you didn't notice, you also can correct it using photoshop.

i've taken note, thanks!

[nigel84]

Always double confirm with those saying small aperture, ask, is it the f stop value u are talking abt. Then things will be clearer.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by night86mare there is some misconception here that you should correct. f/stop number, i.e. f/1.4, f/2.8, f/3.5, etc the number is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the size of the aperture. this is confusing, and i don't understand why it is that way, but i'm sure you can find an explanation on google, i can't be bothered. you are right, you need a *small* aperture here, but you are using a -large- one. stop down to f/8 or f/11. that will give you a reasonably small aperture.

The reason why the number is inversely proportional to the diameter of the aperture is simply this:

f/stops are a measure of the the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture. For instance, the physical size of a f/4 aperture opening on a 200mm lens is

f (focal length) = 200mm
200 / 4 = 50mm

Hence, the physical diameter of the aperture opening is 50mm, when the lens is set to f/4, at 200mm.

Similarly, you can equate this to why at 18mm, when your lens is set to f/3.5, it is of a larger diameter than if you set your aperture to f/11, because 18/3.5 > 18/11

[Killer_Jay]

Originally Posted by night86mare well in general, punggol is a very cluttered place. i usually end up frolicking very close to the water's edge to simplify things, at the cost of salty tripods and wet shorts, etc. be careful with your camera though. another way of doing it is to find something really big to fill up the foreground - generally landscapes work better with a prominent foreground, say, a huge log - there are loads of those lying around usually, for whatever reason. yes, the aperture setting here (f/3.5) explains the softness. you should stop down (i.e. use f/8 or f/11) for this setting here, as you *need* the depth of field. as a result your shutter speed might increase. if you cannot manage to handhold it, use a tripod. also, best to keep the iso as low as possible - reason being that landscapes usually work well sharp, and without noise. having a low iso, using a small aperture, and then accepting whatever shutter speed that should be set as a result is best. although you can have exceptions in situations.

boss,

correct me if i am wrong. but i tot big aperture can work some time. it just depends on where is being focused.

remember my sunset shot at krabi? it was shot using f/5 @ 1/200. (http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=353031)

do u think it will still work if the TS focus it on the far away sun and by doing so will have the forground oof and thus not drawing the attention away from the sunset?

jay the learning

PS - to TS, please let me know and accept my sincere apology if you are offended tat i hijeck ur thread.

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by Killer_Jay boss, correct me if i am wrong. but i tot big aperture can work some time. it just depends on where is being focused. remember my sunset shot at krabi? it was shot using f/5 @ 1/200. (http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=353031) do u think it will still work if the TS focus it on the far away sun and by doing so will have the forground oof and thus not drawing the attention away from the sunset? jay the learning PS - to TS, please let me know and accept my sincere apology if you are offended tat i hijeck ur thread.

your sunset shot of the boat?

that is different, there you focus to infinity, also very hard to get oof.

here, it is a wide view, most landscape shots, you want sharpness and depth from front to back, therefore small aperture is needed. definitely you can try with foreground oof, but i wager that 80% of the time it will not work well, since people want to see more than just blur in the foreground

[Killer_Jay]

Originally Posted by night86mare your sunset shot of the boat? that is different, there you focus to infinity, also very hard to get oof. here, it is a wide view, most landscape shots, you want sharpness and depth from front to back, therefore small aperture is needed. definitely you can try with foreground oof, but i wager that 80% of the time it will not work well, since people want to see more than just blur in the foreground

hmm... maybe i go try and see how it turn out.

[night86mare]

Originally Posted by Killer_Jay hmm... maybe i go try and see how it turn out.

heh, well i have an example actually, had my tripod, but got lazy and didn't want to wait so long for a long exposure, so took the picture with f/8.

this one here.

it looks fine at websize. a bit larger, and gone-case, you can see a 100% of the sky here:

100% crop

and this is with aggressive sharpening.

[Killer_Jay]

Originally Posted by night86mare heh, well i have an example actually, had my tripod, but got lazy and didn't want to wait so long for a long exposure, so took the picture with f/8. this one here. it looks fine at websize. a bit larger, and gone-case, you can see a 100% of the sky here: 100% crop and this is with aggressive sharpening.

nice photo. i get wat u mean.

[2nd-Hamsterlord]

Did you use unsharpen tool to sharpen the whole image? Somehow can see noise in the picture. A landscape Apert normally dont fall below 8. That explain why the rocks and the relevant object nearer to you are sharp but blurer as distance goes further from your shooting point.

If you are gonna take photo there again. Use your 18mm, get a tripod to do the 1sec and above exposure shot

The following setting are

Aperture,ISO, Shutter, EV
F8 / 100 / +1 / 0.0
f14 / 100 / +2-3 / 0.7
f14+ /100 / 3+ / optional

The above setting work only under dark places and night shot. So the rock/sand is not under exposed plus the it can gather light from the shipyard and the reflection in the sea.

Aperture,ISO, Shutter, EV
F8 / 100 / 50+ / 0.0
F8+ / 100 / 50+ / 0.0+

Try this setting next time for your picture. See any improvement. Yup, Just a humble opinion of mine.

You can go http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262904

Our fellow CSER work. Very inspiring.