One of those shots !

no its not time to lock the thread.

ive seen nothing in the comments that i wouldnt take on the chin or expect in a debate, other than 'pathetic'

its the same old stuff, people post their opinion, if that opinion had been delivered in a pub it would be a friendly discussion and all smiles as we can see whats being said and the intention behind, but as its just words, the intent and meaning is lost, and offence can be taken.

keep it polite folks and we cant go wrong.

me 2p....i dont like the sky, would love to go to the area and have a go myself though!
 
For what it is worth, I like the light in the bottom half of the image although the sky and the halo effect on the tree on the right are a little jarring and makes the overall photo seem unreal to me. Ultimately however if the OP likes it, and it reflects what he wants, then that is the main thing.
 
And I think you're completely wrong.

How can Marie be wrong? She posted her opinion on the sky and the processing (that's her opinion, so can't be wrong by definition) and stated two facts -

there are halos and unnatural dark areas.

Which there quite clearly are, as everyone who looks at the image can see (even more obviously now there is a 'clean' JPEG to compare it to if you needed).

Andrew Davies Photography said:
This was shot with a prime so there was very little distortion present in the original shot but i did straighten out the horizon so may have caused it - or maybe the boathouse is slanted slightly

Wonky verticals are more likely going to come from the camera angle, than the quality of the lens you use - be it a 10 grand prime, or 200 quid zoom. They are slightly off here, you can see by the way the reflection isn't in line with the objects (balcony, etc). Not a huge issue though, personally I'm not too fussed about verticals - that's what the world looks like viewed from that angle after-all.

Overall, the processing could be more carefully applied. I get that you're going for the over the top HDR/exposure blending look that is popular with certain people. Whether you like that style or not though, it would still be improved if the haloing wasn't present on the hills, trees, and clouds.

As for calling people pathetic, and calling out typos in posts that disagree with you (when your own posts are riddled with grammatical errors) well, that's just a bit... pathetic, don't you think?

Oh, and I earn just as much from photography as you do - so I guess that means we're both right? ;)
 
It's hardly been polite so far

Want to relook at the number of posts that you think haven't been polite? Now have a look at how many from the op and how many from others that are reacting. Then look at the overall percentage.

Is it really a lot?

There's a thread running about people looking for things to be upset about. Sometimes things are taken out of perspective, then this forum gets a reputation for being unfriendly by some, which it really isn't. Just some take things out of context.
 
Original Jpeg middle shot of three exposures -

original.jpg

Cheers, that's the problem with cameras, never match what you see. I don't think there's enough details in the dark areas to pull out the details you have without the other images.

The sky is almost perfectly exposed, behaves a little darker required to bring put the details but I doubt it would be as much as one stop. What's the lighter and darker image look like? Did you use plus and minus one stop or more? Did you manually adjust, or use the camera 3 shot function?
It might be that the exposure for the set of images was slightly too dark, so in pulling out the details for the darker areas the program may have pushed too hard for the sky,

What HDR software did you use? Does it have the facility to use several images?

Is there a point in the day when the light would come from the left?
 
Last edited:
Sun rises from the left in winter and more behind your left shoulder in summer Byker. Its an early morning location in my opinion. I'm lucky enough to travel past it a couple of times a day (and another six times from the Lake side travelling backwards and forwards on the steamer).
 
Of course there is ... you may ignore it and be hailed as brilliant for doing so but that doesn't change the fact.
Look your image isn't some 'new world' innovation, it's simply an attempt to 'recover' an image and put something into it that wasn't there to begin with ... if you like it and others like it and you make money from it great ... but it doesn't change the facts.


Facts? Are you meaning technically (ie what you have been told is right and wrong) as stated the right and wrongs apply apply if your willing to live in its convention and stick to a strict ruleset to achieve a predictable outcome.

I agree that photography should have no boundaries, and as an artistic medium those 'facts' you talk about are meaningless. If it's donr for art 'facts' have no meaning.
Just get over yourselves will you, your allowed to disagree but stamping your rules all over someone else is like saying a van gogh is 'wrong' be cause you only like Constable. Widen your thinking.
 
Facts? Are you meaning technically (ie what you have been told is right and wrong) as stated the right and wrongs apply apply if your willing to live in its convention and stick to a strict ruleset to achieve a predictable outcome.

I agree that photography should have no boundaries, and as an artistic medium those 'facts' you talk about are meaningless. If it's donr for art 'facts' have no meaning.
Just get over yourselves will you, your allowed to disagree but stamping your rules all over someone else is like saying a van gogh is 'wrong' be cause you only like Constable. Widen your thinking.

The basic principles of photography do not change, yes you can ignore them, do whatever you want with your camera and as said if you like them, others like them and they even sell fine ... doesn't make them great photos though.

"Just get over yourselves will you" ... not just us I think!
 
There is no right and wrong and the rules are not rules simply guidelines, and that is a fact. Being led by the 'basic principles' as you call them is fine to an extent, being able to step out of them and do your own thing ? well for me that is the fun of photography.

I have reprocessed the shot to attempt to tone down the sky which is not easy given the original and given it hopefully a more tranquil feel, personally this now loses something for me but given all the comments so far would be interested to see if this is more to the general photographic taste ?

lakes%20reedit.jpg
 
The basic principles of photography do not change, yes you can ignore them, do whatever you want with your camera and as said if you like them, others like them and they even sell fine ... doesn't make them great photos though.

"Just get over yourselves will you" ... not just us I think!

Doesn't make them great photos to YOU. You are not in a position to speak for the whole world.
 
Cheers, that's the problem with cameras, never match what you see. I don't think there's enough details in the dark areas to pull out the details you have without the other images.

The sky is almost perfectly exposed, behaves a little darker required to bring put the details but I doubt it would be as much as one stop. What's the lighter and darker image look like? Did you use plus and minus one stop or more? Did you manually adjust, or use the camera 3 shot function?
It might be that the exposure for the set of images was slightly too dark, so in pulling out the details for the darker areas the program may have pushed too hard for the sky,

What HDR software did you use? Does it have the facility to use several images?

Is there a point in the day when the light would come from the left?


Hi Byker, The shot was manually taken 1 stop either side and processed with Oleneo HDR. The shot was taken following a wedding late afternoon and although originally i had planned to wait around for a sunset i really liked the sky and clouds in the shots and decided to go for the unconventional and take some daylight landscapes ;)
 
My word this thread got everyone's boat up.

My instant thought was it look very interesting and thought sky looked weird but it has a dramatic impact. So as such I like it.

I'm not one for rules myself and good to see a photographer do/try something different. These rules are just fuzzy guidelines to help someone develop a photography self.

I think OP has explained himself and taken on board what people say regardless if he agrees or not.
 
I'm glad you like it, have you tried it monochrome. I would have a go for you but you have your edit options off which is a fair one,
 
Andrew, aside from the bickering and just out of interest, I was wondering if you used a grad whilst taking the initial shots or your approach generally is to bracket and blend or use hdr?

Having looked at some of your work on your website it appears that you lean towards the latter.
 
The basic principles of photography do not change, yes you can ignore them, do whatever you want with your camera and as said if you like them, others like them and they even sell fine ... doesn't make them great photos though.

"Just get over yourselves will you" ... not just us I think!
Your right with basic principles or the big 3 as I call them. That's all you need to understand to start taking photos the way you want. These are hard coded just like paint colours are, you mix them to get what you require. All the rest of the 'rules' and what people judge as improper use if the big 3 is opinion. If a photos too dark for your taste it does not mean it's wrong, merely your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

This type of attitude is what's wrong with most artistic endeavors in this country, throw what you know out and look at it with fresh vision.

You can keep your convention, I for one don't wish to live by it.
 
Your second shot is much better, the blending works and the photo looks cleaner and a lot more natural. More like something I'd put on the wall.
However, you've badly misaligned the land, giving a fuzzy look to parts of the boathouse the jetty and anything to the left of it.
It's getting better, just needs a little more work.
Sadly though, with a view like this that near enough everyone who shoots landscapes has had a go at, it's hard not to compare it to other images of the place, and that is where it falls short. Obviously that's personal opinion, but some of the sunrise shots I've seen here blow 99% of the images of this place out of the water. I understand though that some people prefer sunny days and blue skies to the cool tones of sunrise and warm tones of sunset.
As long as you're happy with it that's all that counts!
 
Last edited:
You need to set it in your profile; go to "Personal Details" and set "Edit My Images" to "Yes".
 
second version for me is much nicer to look at, the distraction element has gone and now it feels like a more complete image.
 
second version looks faded on the LHS and the green banks on the RHS look radioactive. Its why this processing is often unnsuccesful, to me it looks like a nightmare. Some love it, others hate it. I hate it and if it were mine, I'd just delete it.

On the LHS side there is a lot of blurring, probably due to misalignment of images. its a mess
 
Last edited:
Hi Byker, The shot was manually taken 1 stop either side and processed with Oleneo HDR. The shot was taken following a wedding late afternoon and although originally i had planned to wait around for a sunset i really liked the sky and clouds in the shots and decided to go for the unconventional and take some daylight landscapes ;)

Interesting, I don't know that software. For me the second shot looks more natural but the software is still putting a halo around the edge of the hills and the tree line on the right. Not sure if that's shown on the high res image, but I've made this mistake in the past, printed it large and it looks really noticeable.

I know the contrast masking technique (as in the tutorial section) also does this, but you can use dodge and burn on the adjustment layer and the amount of gaussian blur, to reduce this effect.

It hasn't the punch of the first edit, but that might be adjusted by pushing the whites a little. If you use Lightroom, up the whites slider slightly, but you may need to pull back on the highlights.

Definitely a good location for an image and the reflection on the water works well.
 
second version looks faded on the LHS and the green banks on the RHS look radioactive. Its why this processing is often unnsuccesful, to me it looks like a nightmare. Some love it, others hate it. I hate it and if it were mine, I'd just delete it.

On the LHS side there is a lot of blurring, probably due to misalignment of images. its a mess

Quite agree it is a mess , i was using two images to try and get it to look right and did not even notice the missalingment. I will just stick with the original works for me and thats what matters.
 
Blurring is gone..good
clouds/sky, look more natural
beyond the boat house the grass is a bit too luminous, reducing green chanel luminisoty would be good.
Image now looks quite pleasant and as good as it can for the conditions bar the too green grass behind the boat house
 
Blurring is gone..good
clouds/sky, look more natural
beyond the boat house the grass is a bit too luminous, reducing green chanel luminisoty would be good.
Image now looks quite pleasant and as good as it can for the conditions bar the too green grass behind the boat house

Actually it looks boring, and i put it up for people to edit not talk about ! please feel free to show us your skills.....
 
Andrew, since a couple of posters have commented about halos, I was wondering how these shots come out in print? Does the printing process tone down the halo, much like what happens with noise? To me what the print looks like is what really matters.

I think your shot is lovely and right in line with the style you display on your website. :)
 
second version looks faded on the LHS and the green banks on the RHS look radioactive. Its why this processing is often unnsuccesful, to me it looks like a nightmare. Some love it, others hate it. I hate it and if it were mine, I'd just delete it.

On the LHS side there is a lot of blurring, probably due to misalignment of images. its a mess
Rather than using words like hate, nightmare, delete, mess etc, why not offer something that is actually constructive? Something that may be of help to others who might think it's ok, so that me may be able to avoid the mistakes (if they are mistakes).
Not having a dig, but I'm interested in what it would take to "fix" it.
 
Last edited:
Rather than using words like hate, nightmare, delete, mess etc, why not offer something that is actually constructive? Something that may be of help to op and others who might think it's ok, so that me may be able to avoid the mistakes (if they are mistakes).

Rather than just quote one post why not quote another of mine

I've saved you the bother

Blurring is gone..good
clouds/sky, look more natural
beyond the boat house the grass is a bit too luminous, reducing green chanel luminisoty would be good.
Image now looks quite pleasant and as good as it can for the conditions bar the too green grass behind the boat house
 
Rather than just quote one post why not quote another of mine

I've saved you the bother
Sorry, trying to read the posts on my phone whilst watching my grandson, so missed your second post. You could have offered the constructive parts in the first post, then I wouldn't have missed it:p
 
I quite like that but then I like B&W. Have you applied a vignette as it seems to dark on the edges. Why hide half your image?
 
Back
Top