Critique What would have made these better?

really what you did to no 1 in no 2

they are vaguely soft...did you use a tripod and a fairly tight aperture?
any pp at all?

cheers
geoff
 
First
13sec @ F13 ISO200 Tripod (obviously:))

Second
was a parting shot so to speak
1/20sec @ F4.5 ISO3200 no tripod as I had packed it away.

shot in RAW, PP consisted of a little sharpening in Lightroom that is all.
 
The last one isn't sharp there looks to be a tiny amount of camera shake in there from a slow shutter speed plus unless massive crop I'm guessing a longish focal length for the shutter speed, it's a shame as for me is the stronger composition of the two

The first is a cleaner image, there looks to be a little haze in there maybe, but obviously the lower ISO and lack of camera shake helps it but for me the composition is lacking the scene is too unbalanced and also having the dark building site included on the edge of frame is a real shame as you've got that dark block against all those wonderfully illuminated buildings :(

Matt
 
Bosun8 said:
First
13sec @ F13 ISO200 Tripod (obviously:))

Second
was a parting shot so to speak
1/20sec @ F4.5 ISO3200 no tripod as I had packed it away.

shot in RAW, PP consisted of a little sharpening in Lightroom that is all.
Click to expand...

first would seem to fit the criteria for sharpness...if focus was correct
second is a possible scenario for camera shake...the 3200 frightens me really...i havent been courageous enough to get off 100..and my sensor doesnt deliver a good image at high iso...but i should really get adventurous and at least go up to 400?

cheers
geoff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top