Church Landscape

true_one_picture

true_one_picture

Messages
397
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Here is one I took a while ago just posted it for comments!

X

28657599c269d1a83b0c7271f47200fb5c4.jpg
 
Hi
The image seems a little soft... Can you tell us what settings you used to take the shot?

As for the composition, it's quite pleasant, but for me it needs something more. First, I think it needs more of a focal point, because other than the church, I find myself scanning over the image waiting for a place where my eye can rest... Also I think it needs some lines which lead the eye into the shot. It's a shame the sky hasn't got that much going on, otherwise that would help alot... but in this case, you can afford to sacrifice some of the sky to include something more in the foreground (SP?). Perhaps a fence or hedge line leading off into the distance? It looks like a nice scene though, one worth revisiting!
 
D200, F32, 1/125", iso 800, Ap, center weighted,focal length 300 according to photome
 
looks like a filter has been applied in photoshop to me??
I agree with Woodsy though about needing something more to hold your eye to the shot.
 
Watermark looks crap.

The scene is pleasing, but the colours look a little washed out, a bit too pastel perhaps.
 
Slipper-one said:
D200, F32, 1/125", iso 800, Ap, center weighted,focal length 300 according to photome
Click to expand...

Ok, the first thing I notice is that the exposure time is too short for the focal length that was used. Generally it's best to use 1/focal length (in mm) as the longest exposure time when hand held. This could explain why the shot is soft.

I think the reason why the shot is washed out is because you applied some noise removal filtering to the shot? That would explain why there is no noise when the shot was taken at ISO800. My advice would be, aside from perhaps including a tad more foreground, decrease the ISO to say 200, and F number to around f/14 or f/16. This will result in less noise, and an image that is just as sharp as for f/32. As said already, a shorter exposure time :)
 
Woodsy said:
Ok, the first thing I notice is that the exposure time is too short for the focal length that was used. Generally it's best to use 1/focal length (in mm) as the longest exposure time when hand held. This could explain why the shot is soft.

I think the reason why the shot is washed out is because you applied some noise removal filtering to the shot? That would explain why there is no noise when the shot was taken at ISO800. My advice would be, aside from perhaps including a tad more foreground, decrease the ISO to say 200, and F number to around f/14 or f/16. This will result in less noise, and an image that is just as sharp as for f/32. As said already, a shorter exposure time :)
Click to expand...

Good constructive advice there Woodsy (y) well done :clap:
 
It's not a terrible shot, it needs some work to spark it up a bit. I've straightened it and adjusted the levels to brighten it up and a small amount of unsharp mask.

chu.jpg
 
when i first saw this one it looked for all the world like a 35mm scan, and then the sig says top has a '70's minolta
almost spot on rule of thirds,
not quite there, but worthy of a revisit..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top