- Messages
- 17
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi All,
First off, a little background info -
I've had an interest in photography for 20 odd years, but up until 6 months ago had only ever used "point & shoots". In conjunction with purchasing my first DSLR (Canon 350d), I took the OU - T189 Photography Course, which I found very rewarding.
I discovered this forum last week, and thro' scouting about, have found many threads/posts/users extremely informative. So feeling brave enough now, I'm taking the plunge with my first post
Now, to the question...
As part of the final assessment, a panel of 10 images are submitted. This was one of my 10.
Examiner's comments -
"The two boats suffered from underexposure (the right third of the histogram is empty). I wondered if you had checked the histogram after all your manipulations and conversion to b/w, there also seemed to be some digital artifacts in the sky."
Now, two things concerned me here.
1) As far as I was aware, from comments on the course, and my own individual research. The histogram of any given image doesn't have to be filling the whole graph, in order to produce a "pleasing picture?" Or am I wrong?
Obviously, we are dealing with something, somewhat subjective here, but following those comments, I returned to the image and lightened the picture. It just didn't look right to me.
2) The sky, in fact wasn't touched at all in PP, iirc. In fact, ironically, alot of cloning was carried out in the water & sand, bouys & gulls abound, were all removed. Even parts of the water line were adjusted. Anyone else see these "digital artifacts?"
Thanks for your time & any thoughts appreciated.
First off, a little background info -
I've had an interest in photography for 20 odd years, but up until 6 months ago had only ever used "point & shoots". In conjunction with purchasing my first DSLR (Canon 350d), I took the OU - T189 Photography Course, which I found very rewarding.
I discovered this forum last week, and thro' scouting about, have found many threads/posts/users extremely informative. So feeling brave enough now, I'm taking the plunge with my first post
Now, to the question...
As part of the final assessment, a panel of 10 images are submitted. This was one of my 10.
Examiner's comments -
"The two boats suffered from underexposure (the right third of the histogram is empty). I wondered if you had checked the histogram after all your manipulations and conversion to b/w, there also seemed to be some digital artifacts in the sky."
Now, two things concerned me here.
1) As far as I was aware, from comments on the course, and my own individual research. The histogram of any given image doesn't have to be filling the whole graph, in order to produce a "pleasing picture?" Or am I wrong?
Obviously, we are dealing with something, somewhat subjective here, but following those comments, I returned to the image and lightened the picture. It just didn't look right to me.
2) The sky, in fact wasn't touched at all in PP, iirc. In fact, ironically, alot of cloning was carried out in the water & sand, bouys & gulls abound, were all removed. Even parts of the water line were adjusted. Anyone else see these "digital artifacts?"
Thanks for your time & any thoughts appreciated.