Hadleigh Castle.

Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Had a little re-visit to Hadleigh castle today. Absolutely amazing place and location. Unfortunately as what happened before, the sun was dominating the sky and it is a royal pain in the .... for exposure. Would love to organise a TP trip to this place as I think there would be a lot to learn/teach about photographing this place.
Best from a bad bunch unfortunately but no regrets will just have to go back. (y)

ruin (1 of 1) by box.photography@yahoo.com, on Flickr
 
@Bobby uk

Compositionally it's well thought out. Just the right amount of flare from the partially hidden sun.

Technically there are some major issues you need to start considering though:

This image has the worst chromatic aberration I've ever seen. What are you using for a lens.. the end of a coke bottle??

GMXsEHS.jpg


Use Remove Chromatic Aberration in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw. You're shooting in raw and not JPEG, right?

Also... I suspect the castle was a LOT darker on the raw image, and you've recovered a great deal of shadow detail as the castle is noisy whereas the sky is not. You just can't recover a lot of shadow detail without paying a noise price.

There are sensor dust spots all over it.
sZ3dZXW.jpg



The other thing is that you appear to be called Rob, but the image's metadata is telling me that the author and copyright is attributed to someone called John Phelan.

vf4PV1N.jpg



Either A) This is not your image

or

B) You borrowed a camera from John Phelan

or C) You bought a used camera from John Phelan.

or D) John Phelan borrowed your camera and he input his details in the camera's copyright data.


Either way, you need to sort that out by resetting the camera's copyright data.


Oh... lose the watermark. It's not a press or sports image that are the usual targets for copyright infringement. Watermarks just make the image look amateur, as only amateurs tend to use watermarks (with a few exceptions mentioned above).
 
Last edited:
Paul-H said:
Or he his name is John Phelan or he bought the Camera from John Phelan or whats it go to do with the photograph,
Click to expand...

He appears to be called Rob in here.... (shrug) I already mentioned that it may be a used camera.

It has nothing to do with the photograph, but perhaps he'd appreciate knowing that his images are being attributed to someone else? Why you trying to be a smart arse? Ever thought he'd be thankful someone pointed that out?
 
Last edited:
Wow i didn't have any idea that it did that and yes I will have to look into it? Can you change the name "in camera". I bought the camera from him a few weeks ago. I did reset the camera but as i said I wasn't aware that it logged names?
Thanks for the advice on the image i obviously need to look into the processing a bit more to be honest i didn't even see the dust spots as i couldn't see them on the image as a whole.
And with regards to the water mark ....... does it really matter either or!
 
Bobby uk said:
Wow i didn't have any idea that it did that and yes I will have to look into it? Can you change the name "in camera". I bought the camera from him a few weeks ago. I did reset the camera but as i said I wasn't aware that it logged names?
Thanks for the advice on the image i obviously need to look into the processing a bit more to be honest i didn't even see the dust spots as i couldn't see them on the image as a whole.
And with regards to the water mark ....... does it really matter either or!
Click to expand...


Yeah.. you should be able to change it in camera. I'm not a Canon user, but I know you can on most Nikon's I've used.

Doesn't matter about the watermark, no. If you're putting it there for PR reasons, or advertising reasons, then sure, knock yourself out. It doesn't actually protect you from anything, as it would be a simple 10 second job to remove it should anyone wish to use it without your permission. It's far more important to make sure you have as much metadata nailed down to your name as possible... like John Phelan has done :) ...but even that can be easily removed. If you wish to protect your images, only post up low resolution versions, and change your flickr settings to stop the public being able to get access to your high resolution versions.



Watermarks just look amateurish is all.
 
Last edited:
castle h (1 of 1) by box.photography@yahoo.com, on Flickr

Well I have adjusted the highlights and tried to remove some of the Chromatic Aberration. I have cloned out the dust spots all though I must admit I struggled to find them. The lens was a 28-135 so yes admittedly not one of canons finest but hay ho. Could a big cause of the CA be due to the sunlight being so strong and maybe next time I should use a filter?
 
Oh yeah and i deleted the copyright info on the camera ;)
 
Hadleigh Castle is best shot in the afternoon / evening as the light is then falling into the ruin. You have shot it in the morning although your exif data says 21:18. As well as the name change you have now done, did you put the correct time into the camera as well?
 
Ploddles said:
Hadleigh Castle is best shot in the afternoon / evening as the light is then falling into the ruin. You have shot it in the morning although your exif data says 21:18. As well as the name change you have now done, did you put the correct time into the camera as well?
Click to expand...
lol obviously not as I think it would be a bit dark at that time :D.
Must pay a visit later on in the day, but then again I wouldn't have got the star burst!
 
Just checked the time on the camera and all looks good? Unless the data is showing the time of when I edited the picture?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top