skyline

[cheesy]

1. In what area is critique to be sought?
Composition, Colour etc.

2. What one hopes to achieve with the piece of work?
Something that is pleasing to the eye.

3. Under what circumstance is the picture taken? (physical conditions/emotions)
Took this shot sometime back, can't remember how it was like. :bsmilie:

4. What the critique seeker personally thinks of the picture
Sharp.

 

[coolthought]

you might notice that there is another critique thread with a photo that is similar like this one here. http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=788034
We would probably say the same thing here as over that thread.
Hope you don't mind.

I will just add a few things that are different.
For such photo, what you need is balance. The buildings are mainly towards the left making the photo left heavy.
The highlights are blown. I will probably play around with the ev+- to get the exposure right.

 

[cheesy]

ok thanks. how about the rest?

 

[Andrewkb]

Nearly similar shot, why is mine so orangey ? Due to cloudy day ?

Click here to view my photo

 

[daredevil123]

Ok. A quick review of what I see wrong with the pic:

1. too tight. You did not leave enough room to the left and top of the buildings.
2. The reflections. Either you cut off more, or you leave them all in. Now, you cut the tips off. making it unappealing, and tons of useless dead space.
3. composition is left heavy and unbalanced.
4. picture is slightly tilted to the right.
5. picture is slightly over exposed.

hope this helps.

 

[daredevil123]

Nearly similar shot, why is mine so orangey ? Due to cloudy day ?

Please post your own critique thread, I would gladly critique your photo if you do. But do not try to hijack other people's critique thread.

 

[cheesy]

Ok. A quick review of what I see wrong with the pic:

1. too tight. You did not leave enough room to the left and top of the buildings.
2. The reflections. Either you cut off more, or you leave them all in. Now, you cut the tips off. making it unappealing, and tons of useless dead space.
3. composition is left heavy and unbalanced.
4. picture is slightly tilted to the right.
5. picture is slightly over exposed.

hope this helps.

thanks. how do you tell if the picture is over exposed? did this on f22, didn't adjust the EV.

 

[daredevil123]

thanks. how do you tell if the picture is over exposed? did this on f22, didn't adjust the EV.

How to tell overexposure... Don't you find the lighted areas are way too bright? Those areas are so bright until all the details are lost. Look at the merlion... all you see is this totally white thing. Even windows are starting to disappear from the lighted parts of the buildings.

EV is there for a reason. You said you did not adjust EV, and that is precisely why the picture became over exposed. Camera determines what it thinks is the best exposure... but no matter what, the camera is just predicting. You as the photographer have to use EV compensation to tune the exposure to what you think is correct.

And avoid using apertures smaller than F16 (I am assuming you are using a cropped sensor cam here). Any aperture smaller than F16 will cause loss of sharpness due to small aperture diffraction.

 

[spongebob601]

daredevil thanks, that's very helpful

 

[cheesy]

How to tell overexposure... Don't you find the lighted areas are way too bright? Those areas are so bright until all the details are lost. Look at the merlion... all you see is this totally white thing. Even windows are starting to disappear from the lighted parts of the buildings.

EV is there for a reason. You said you did not adjust EV, and that is precisely why the picture became over exposed. Camera determines what it thinks is the best exposure... but no matter what, the camera is just predicting. You as the photographer have to use EV compensation to tune the exposure to what you think is correct.

And avoid using apertures smaller than F16 (I am assuming you are using a cropped sensor cam here). Any aperture smaller than F16 will cause loss of sharpness due to small aperture diffraction.

thanks will fine-tune it. do you use hot-shoe spirit too?

 

[daredevil123]

thanks will fine-tune it. do you use hot-shoe spirit too?

I am not into the supernatural... sorry dude.

But I do use a spirit leveler from time to time. But even with spirit level, you need to make sure it is done right.

This is a pic of the same view I shot. Hope this gives you some ideas.

 

[cheesy]

apology accepted.

thanks to your picture, i now have a better understanding. nice shot btw.

but how about situations where you have to take photos against the light? normally the shot would turn out to be bright in background while the foreground will be dark. any suggestions on how to fix this?

 

[anumericalevil]

First and foremost, I am a beginner at photography, although I have taken a class on it before, but I hope my comments are still welcome anyway. Also, note that my personal style is 'bold', which means I favour in-focus, macro shots more than wide-scape photography. Hence my comments will be affected by personal taste.

First and foremost, I must say that I love the myriad colours the photo delivers. You have chosen a very good subject.

My criticisms would be on the following:

1. Foreground

It's too wide, and draws attention away from what should be the more aesthetically pleasing subject, which is the skyline. Here, I've cropped off a significant portion of the foreground. In my humble opinion, it looks a tad better as I don't have to gaze at the water too much, and can focus more on the beauty of the lights and architecture.



2. Exposure length

Looking at your exif data, I noticed that you set your exposure time to 30 seconds, which I think would have been better if you set it longer so as to get a more ethereal quality of the waterfront- the reflection of lights can be a tad distracting if the subject is the skyline (or rather, line of buildings). I think it would also make your picture a tad more emotive.

On the topic of exposure, some lights can appear to be too blurry, which some people may like, and some may dislike. I'm neutral, and I think it's okay, actually. I may not have noticed the merlion, but that's because I don't really care about the merlion as I'm more attracted to the skyline (which should be the subject) I may be wrong here with the technicality (do correct me if I'm wrong, thanks!), but if you want more precise and apparent depth of field, you could increase your f stop, though I'm not sure how many people like to look at a picture with so much details. (I'm a minimalist, so to speak )


3. Focal point

Like what others before me have mentioned, the picture is pretty 'left-side' heavy. I believe this can be corrected if you include a vanishing point; specifically, the last building on the left, which widens up towards the lake/water towards the right, hence creating a triangular-ish foreground that complements the backdrop. This would require you to angle your camera to the right and backwards, and you may capture more items on your right (which you can crop out later).

I hope this was useful in some way! I'm learning too, until I get my very own DSLR

 

[daredevil123]

2. Exposure length

Looking at your exif data, I noticed that you set your exposure time to 30 seconds, which I think would have been better if you set it longer so as to get a more ethereal quality of the waterfront- the reflection of lights can be a tad distracting if the subject is the skyline (or rather, line of buildings). I think it would also make your picture a tad more emotive.

On the topic of exposure, some lights can appear to be too blurry, which some people may like, and some may dislike. I'm neutral, and I think it's okay, actually. I may not have noticed the merlion, but that's because I don't really care about the merlion as I'm more attracted to the skyline (which should be the subject) I may be wrong here with the technicality (do correct me if I'm wrong, thanks!), but if you want more precise and apparent depth of field, you could increase your f stop, though I'm not sure how many people like to look at a picture with so much details. (I'm a minimalist, so to speak )


3. Focal point

Like what others before me have mentioned, the picture is pretty 'left-side' heavy. I believe this can be corrected if you include a vanishing point; specifically, the last building on the left, which widens up towards the lake/water towards the right, hence creating a triangular-ish foreground that complements the backdrop. This would require you to angle your camera to the right and backwards, and you may capture more items on your right (which you can crop out later).

I hope this was useful in some way! I'm learning too, until I get my very own DSLR

There are some concepts here you mentioned that are very new to me. Would appreciate if you can explain them further:

1. How will a longer exposure reduce the reflections of the lights? And how can that make the picture more emotive?

2. You mentioned the lights are "blurry". How are blurry lights related to exposure?

3. You recommend TS to increase the f-stop to get more "precise and apparent DoF". Are you asking him to use a smaller or larger aperture? Are you asking him to try to achieve a shallower or deeper DoF? From your statement, i think you are asking to use a smaller aperture (larger F-number). TS is already at F22. How much smaller are you asking him to go to? At F22, small aperture diffraction is already apparent, which will in fact make the pic loss sharpness. And you are asking him to go even smaller on the aperture? Would love your rationale on this.

 

[Kit]

apology accepted.

thanks to your picture, i now have a better understanding. nice shot btw.

but how about situations where you have to take photos against the light? normally the shot would turn out to be bright in background while the foreground will be dark. any suggestions on how to fix this?

You have to understand the effects of shooting with the sun behind you and with the sun in front of you. As you mentioned, you will get silhouettes(subjects in shadow) if you shoot with the sun shinning from in front of you. I don't think that's what you want?

There are ways to overcome this problem. One way is to perform digital blending or HDR but it will not work all the time depending on the available lighting condition and your competency level with the softwares. I've always said this, nothing beats photographing a scene in the appropriate light. If you don't think the available light suits your intentions, then you probably will not get what you want. Simple as that. No short cuts.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

apology accepted.

thanks to your picture, i now have a better understanding. nice shot btw.

but how about situations where you have to take photos against the light? normally the shot would turn out to be bright in background while the foreground will be dark. any suggestions on how to fix this?

DD123 was making a tongue-in-cheek comment about your question regarding "hot-shoe spirit" hehehehe

Well, Kit has already answered this question. Don't think I can add any more!
If shooting into the sun, the brightness of the sky is much too great, compared with the buildings/foreground. Hence you run into problems. Best is to wait for better light, or else conceptualize a shot that benefits from such lighting conditions. You can't overcome mother nature. As landscape photographer, you gotta learn to admit defeat and come back another day/time

 

[cheesy]

First and foremost, I am a beginner at photography, although I have taken a class on it before, but I hope my comments are still welcome anyway. Also, note that my personal style is 'bold', which means I favour in-focus, macro shots more than wide-scape photography. Hence my comments will be affected by personal taste.

First and foremost, I must say that I love the myriad colours the photo delivers. You have chosen a very good subject.

My criticisms would be on the following:

1. Foreground

It's too wide, and draws attention away from what should be the more aesthetically pleasing subject, which is the skyline. Here, I've cropped off a significant portion of the foreground. In my humble opinion, it looks a tad better as I don't have to gaze at the water too much, and can focus more on the beauty of the lights and architecture.



2. Exposure length

Looking at your exif data, I noticed that you set your exposure time to 30 seconds, which I think would have been better if you set it longer so as to get a more ethereal quality of the waterfront- the reflection of lights can be a tad distracting if the subject is the skyline (or rather, line of buildings). I think it would also make your picture a tad more emotive.

On the topic of exposure, some lights can appear to be too blurry, which some people may like, and some may dislike. I'm neutral, and I think it's okay, actually. I may not have noticed the merlion, but that's because I don't really care about the merlion as I'm more attracted to the skyline (which should be the subject) I may be wrong here with the technicality (do correct me if I'm wrong, thanks!), but if you want more precise and apparent depth of field, you could increase your f stop, though I'm not sure how many people like to look at a picture with so much details. (I'm a minimalist, so to speak )


3. Focal point

Like what others before me have mentioned, the picture is pretty 'left-side' heavy. I believe this can be corrected if you include a vanishing point; specifically, the last building on the left, which widens up towards the lake/water towards the right, hence creating a triangular-ish foreground that complements the backdrop. This would require you to angle your camera to the right and backwards, and you may capture more items on your right (which you can crop out later).

I hope this was useful in some way! I'm learning too, until I get my very own DSLR

thanks for the valuable feedback. can see that you put in alot of effort!

 

[cheesy]

You have to understand the effects of shooting with the sun behind you and with the sun in front of you. As you mentioned, you will get silhouettes(subjects in shadow) if you shoot with the sun shinning from in front of you. I don't think that's what you want?

There are ways to overcome this problem. One way is to perform digital blending or HDR but it will not work all the time depending on the available lighting condition and your competency level with the softwares. I've always said this, nothing beats photographing a scene in the appropriate light. If you don't think the available light suits your intentions, then you probably will not get what you want. Simple as that. No short cuts.

how about strong lightnings instead of the sunlight that cause the foreground to be dark? was thinking of using speedlight not sure if it will help not.

 

[daredevil123]

thanks for the valuable feedback. can see that you put in alot of effort!

Effort is there with many big words. But I have problems understanding what he was trying to say. :dunno:

 

[cheesy]

DD123 was making a tongue-in-cheek comment about your question regarding "hot-shoe spirit" hehehehe

Well, Kit has already answered this question. Don't think I can add any more!
If shooting into the sun, the brightness of the sky is much too great, compared with the buildings/foreground. Hence you run into problems. Best is to wait for better light, or else conceptualize a shot that benefits from such lighting conditions. You can't overcome mother nature. As landscape photographer, you gotta learn to admit defeat and come back another day/time

yeah i was trying to give him a tongue-in-cheek reply too :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

your last sentence was.. good! :thumbsup:

how about strong lightnings instead of the sunlight that cause the foreground to be dark? was thinking of using speedlight not sure if it will help not.