Framlingham Castle

Messages
743
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
No
We had a family day out to Framlingham Castle, these are two of the better photo's I took. Any comments welcome.

1.


2.


Thanks for looking.
 
Both look a tad over processed to me, sort of a still video image look.
 
Thanks for the comment, I didn't really do a lot of prosessing, just cloned a couple of people out of each one and sharpened a bit. Its the composition I normally struggle with, but I didn't think these were down to my normal standard.
 
They do look over processed. Like they have had some pseudo HDR process done on them and then a heavy noise reduction applied.

Are you shooting raw and what processing are you doing to them?

First one has exif which says auto exposure and f22. Not the cause of the problem but f22 may make things look softer. Try Aperture priority or manual at around f11 f13 for landscapes.
 
They do look over processed. Like they have had some pseudo HDR process done on them and then a heavy noise reduction applied.

Are you shooting raw and what processing are you doing to them?

First one has exif which says auto exposure and f22. Not the cause of the problem but f22 may make things look softer. Try Aperture priority or manual at around f11 f13 for landscapes.

Thanks for the comment, both shots were taken in raw with a Canon 5d and 17-40L lens at 100 iso using aperture priority.

No 1 was f22 and 1/25 sec lens at 40mm and convertsd to jpeg with DPP.

No 2 was f16 and 1/50 sec lens at 33mm and converted to jpeg with PSE 7.

The only processing i did was to clone some people from both and sharpen a bit.

I'm no expert at processing so I tend to do as little as possible.

What am I doing wrong?
 
I find this interesting. I like both images very much, and I agree that they have an HDRish look about them. The exposure is almost too good both on foreground and the sky, without any real shadows.

I am intrigued by Robert's critique. What makes you pick up on 'pseudo HDR' and 'heavy noise reduction'? I ask, of course, because I do one, and increasingly the other, quite often, and whilst I am not sure that my images look like these, I am curious to know what distinguishes them as such!
 
These are nice "post card" type photos. No. 2, in particular, is rather unique in it's presentation. I'd certainly be glad to have them in my portfolio. I do believe, though, that instead of f/22 had you gone to f/11 or so you would still have had the depth of focus you needed, and would have had a sharper image. The castle is a tad soft, I fear.
 
They look pretty processed. I like no2 as it reminds me of old photos from the 60´s. If this was your goal - well done.
 
I find this interesting. I like both images very much, and I agree that they have an HDRish look about them. The exposure is almost too good both on foreground and the sky, without any real shadows.

I am intrigued by Robert's critique. What makes you pick up on 'pseudo HDR' and 'heavy noise reduction'? I ask, of course, because I do one, and increasingly the other, quite often, and whilst I am not sure that my images look like these, I am curious to know what distinguishes them as such!

I tried to reply last night but Virgin media has decided my area doesn't need internet connection for more than 15 minutes in an hour.

what I typed but couldn't post was...

HDR is tone mapping. Dark shadow tones get changed to be very light semi shadows. Apart from the gatepost shadow (in the second one) none of the shadows there look particularly dark. Things with textures also look fuzzy with hdr and there is a bit of that too.

The NR look to the castle and grass near it in the first one may be down to diffraction at f22 or more likely and the slow shutter speed.

There is nothing terribly wrong here - it is just something I noticed. I don't use DPP but I don't doubt it can do a good job. Maybe play with the sharpening settings or output a full size jpeg and use something else to resize it?
 
Back
Top