wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 3:16 pm, HK wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.

I am interested in any feedback.

Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your
feedback too.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB

Looks artificial.

I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is
not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to
manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see.

Well, of course! But in photography classes they do tend to teach you
to manipulate photos, it's called art.

All photos are manipulated to some extent, it's just a matter of personal
opinion on how much is too much.

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.

I am interested in any feedback.

Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your
feedback too.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB

I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good.

To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size,
you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended
effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can
see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect.
On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is
also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed
through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes
from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which
the wrong areas were highlighted.

What I might have done in this instance was to take double the
exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary
dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones -
longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and
shorter for the top zone.

This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size
photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the
aperture/shutter relationship.

So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times
three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light
levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR
combining the best of the exposures.

It would be a much better image that way.

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.

I am interested in any feedback.

Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your
feedback too.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB


Great shot!

--Vic

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.

I am interested in any feedback.

Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your
feedback too.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB


Looks artificial.


I should add that I am not a fan of photos depicting nature as it is
not. I take lots of landscape and nature photos, but I never try to
manipulate photos so they don't look like what my eyes see.

That is definitely a common school of thought in photography.

Here is the same photo processing it to look more natural. Shooting
into the sun will result in loosing the all detail in the foreground, so
I have been playing with HDR and Photoshop to extract the foreground
detail. I really can't decided if I like the HDR yet, but I do enjoy
experimenting.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/279...92789669cZfGwh




I like the less processed one better.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.

I am interested in any feedback.

Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your
feedback too.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB

I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good.

To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size,
you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended
effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can
see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect.
On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is
also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed
through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes
from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which
the wrong areas were highlighted.

What I might have done in this instance was to take double the
exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary
dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones -
longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and
shorter for the top zone.

This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size
photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the
aperture/shutter relationship.

So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times
three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light
levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR
combining the best of the exposures.

It would be a much better image that way.

Thanks, I will give it a try.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.

I am interested in any feedback.

Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your
feedback too.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB

I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good.

To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size,
you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended
effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can
see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect.
On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is
also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed
through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes
from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which
the wrong areas were highlighted.

What I might have done in this instance was to take double the
exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary
dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones -
longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and
shorter for the top zone.

This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size
photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the
aperture/shutter relationship.

So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times
three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light
levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR
combining the best of the exposures.

It would be a much better image that way.

Thanks, I will give it a try.


Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should
look.

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:02:09 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

The link below is a photo I took of a Sunset in Atlanta.

I am interested in any feedback.

Harry, since you really know photography I would like to hear your
feedback too.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/276...92789669UfrTAB
I know what you tried to do, but frankly, it's not very good.

To start with, it's way over sharpened. Viewed in it's original size,
you can see where the over sharpening detracts from the intended
effect. Looking at the hotel windows on the left and right, you can
see where it's over pixalated and the bleed through ruins the effect.
On the right where the squared towers, you see ghost pixels which is
also indicative of over sharpening. You can also see this bleed
through in the two curves arches - in fact, the one on the left goes
from white through green. There is also an exposure problem in which
the wrong areas were highlighted.

What I might have done in this instance was to take double the
exposures, maybe even triple the exposures to obtain the necessary
dynamic range for processing focusing on the different light zones -
longer for the bottom third, a tad shorter for the middle zone and
shorter for the top zone.

This is largely a shutter speed photo as compared to an aperture size
photo - meaning that the shutter/aperture is more important than the
aperture/shutter relationship.

So, to put it down in one sentence, three zones, three exposures times
three, color correct slightly to compensate for the different light
levels, noise process (Noise Ninja is the way to go), then HDR
combining the best of the exposures.

It would be a much better image that way.
Thanks, I will give it a try.

Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should
look.

Why can't it be done by tweaking a photograph? Aren't the end results the
same?


It's a matter of taste, I suppose. If I want impressionism, I go to an
art gallery and look at paintings.

"HK" wrote in message
...



Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should
look.


My worthless opinion?

I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the opinion
that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are more
representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well
composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape.
The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing.

This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic
competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied with
this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the interests
of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore.
Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental
health doctor or therapist.
No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion.

Eisboch

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...



Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should
look.


My worthless opinion?

I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the
opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are
more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well
composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape.
The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing.

This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic
competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied
with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the
interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore.
Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental
health doctor or therapist.
No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion.

Eisboch

BTW, what is your opinion? :)


about what?

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...



Or buy a set of oil paints and paint nature the way you think it should
look.


My worthless opinion?

I liked it. Obviously it's not natural looking, but I am not of the
opinion that every photograph need be. Images processed like this are
more representative of an art form or interpretation as opposed to a well
composed but otherwise faithful image capture of a landmark or landscape.
The visual effect in a picture like this is appealing.

This opinion is offered as is. No claims of knowledge or photographic
competence or qualifications to judge contemporary art form is implied
with this opinion. This opinion may be withdrawn without notice in the
interests of forming a different opinion. Or not caring anymore.
Consider this opinion only under the direct supervision of your mental
health doctor or therapist.
No warranty, expressed or implied applies to this opinion.

Eisboch

BTW, what is your opinion? :)