Night Blue

[area0404]

1.In what area is critique to be sought?
Hope to get some comments of the composition & color.

2.what one hopes to achieve with the piece of work?
The night of Singapore which is just as exciting as its day.

3.under what circumstance is the picture taken? (physical conditions/emotions)
Tripod and remote shutter along Singapore river.

4.what the critique seeker personally thinks of the picture?
I feel that I should have cut off the bottom section (the area that's near black) or raise the camera a little more to capture more of the blue sky. The color of the sky is not under any post processing. I just love that color!

Any comment is most welcomed!

 

[Expat yorkshire]

I would crop the bottom part of the picture if i were you , other than that nice work

 

[area0404]

I agree. Thanks for the advise!

 

[scrambyjess]

very nice even without any post editing, what camera setting was used?

 

[area0404]

Camera: 5DM2
Lens: Canon 16-35L at 16mm
Aperture: F10
ISO: 100
Exposure time: 2.5s
WB: 3950F -6 tint
PP: Only to increase contrast VERY slightly.

 

[area0404]

Thank you! Can tell me what exactly you did so I can learn something about post processing as well?

 

[2.8photography]

no offense but i prefer the original to the edited photo. i feel the edited is a little 'artificial' and generally try to avoid blowing the highlights (i.e. brightening them to the extent that there's no more detail).; although the crop is nicer. perhaps try bringing out the pink in the sky by selecting it under 'replace color' which is found in 'images' then 'adjustments' and play around with the saturation/lightness. also, a longer exposure would have helped to make the water 'glassier' and appear more still.

 

[oracle0711]

Agreed with 2.8photography about the original picture being better without the post-processing. For one the original picture shows a more accurate metering. Increasing brightness has resulted in the ArtScience Museum building being blown out.

 

[area0404]

I liked the pink in that post-processing because the sky on that day had more pink than my photograph. I was thinking on having a gradient mask on top of his processed picture so I'll have a post-processed sky and a non-post-processed building & water.

no offense but i prefer the original to the edited photo. i feel the edited is a little 'artificial' and generally try to avoid blowing the highlights (i.e. brightening them to the extent that there's no more detail).; although the crop is nicer. perhaps try bringing out the pink in the sky by selecting it under 'replace color' which is found in 'images' then 'adjustments' and play around with the saturation/lightness. also, a longer exposure would have helped to make the water 'glassier' and appear more still.

I didn't realized that the ArtSceicne Museum was blow out in the post-processed picture. Guess I was just lucky on that day to have metered correctly. XD
Ah, but I don't really like replace color. Maybe it's because of my lack in photoshop skill but my previous tries with replace color have always yielded result that look really fake.
Agree that I should have a longer exposure though...
Thank you very much!

Agreed with 2.8photography about the original picture being better without the post-processing. For one the original picture shows a more accurate metering. Increasing brightness has resulted in the ArtScience Museum building being blown out.

Hahahahahaha! Thanks!

 

[2.8photography]

mmm yeah just tried replace colour on your photo and it doesn't work very well. but I think the subtlety of the pink is quite nice, because it's obvious enough to be seen but not obvious enough to detract attention from the main subject (which I guess is the museum)