Critiques
This photo currently has 7 conforming critiques.
Since there are already at least three conforming critiques, if you write a conforming critique for this photo, then you will receive only the usual one critique point every time another user rates your critique helpful.
Write a critique
If you find one of these critiques especially helpful--or especially unhelpful--then please take a moment to register your opinion by clicking one of the buttons to the right of the critique.
|
|
from jim1952/James (672) 
on November 7, 2009 12:37:59 PM CST
(1)
This is a wonderful scene. It's well framed, great light, perfect time of the year, and I do like the foreground which adds interest. Unfortunately its soft and no amount of post sharping is going to help the foreground. Go back and shoot it again, I do that. Set your lens to infinity. Regards
Reply
Show ratings
|
 |
|
| | |
|
|
|
from paulabanks/Paula (50)
on November 6, 2009 5:00:35 PM CST
(2)
(2.5 thumbs up really!)
Gorgeous work! The quality of light is stunning. I love how the blue background sets off the warm tones. There is a painterly quality, with the softness in the trees and the still reflection. I think the boathouse could take a hint of extra sharpening. Everything is so very beautiful. (If the original is pin sharp you should be able to sharpen in post processing to show closer to the original. My technique is to sharpen the large image using Unsharp Mask sharpening: at amount: 150%, R:1.8,T:1 and then resize to 1300 pixels high and sharpen at approx 50%,R:1.8,T:1, and then resize to 800x and choose the highest quality that allows me to stay under 360k. Hope that helps.) All the best, Paula
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
From ianblanchett/Ian (4,676)
on November 7, 2009 1:50:21 AM CST
Hi Paula, thanks for the advice. I have suffered from compression quality when I switched from my 10D to 40D, My frustration is intense as most of my comments/critiques are about 'softness' thatI know was not the issue with the original prior to compression. I will try your technique. Thanks. Ian
Reply
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from garychisolm/Gary (12,551) 
on November 6, 2009 4:34:51 PM CST
(4)
Ian, This image is not working for me because most of it is out of focus and my eyes want to focus on something. Shooting at f22 I understand what you are trying to do, but you using the wrong technique. You do not give how far away you are from the reeds in the foreground. But for illustration purposes let me guess at say 15 feet away from the reeds which are in focus. At f22 with your lens set at 60mm the total depth of field you have is of only about 23 feet. (From about 10 feet out to only 32 feet out) Thus your background and your subject, the boat house, is going to be out of focus. What you need to do is get farther away from the reeds say about 30 feet focus on something about 40 - 50 feet away and the reeds and the boat house will be in focus. You may have to crop some to get the desired composition but at least everything will be in focus. You do have a great composition here! Your use of the 2 filters also works out really well, nice job on that front.
On a side note you might try using f16, your lens will most likely be sharper at this f stop. The way lenses are manufactured even more so with zoom lens the midrange f stops are usually sharper. Although not as much problem with pro level glass any more, this is why most pros use only prime lens (non zoom). Hope this helps, if you have any questions let me know. Keep shooting and thanks for sharing, Gary
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
From ianblanchett/Ian (4,676)
on November 7, 2009 1:41:53 AM CST
Hi Gary, thanks for your detailed critique and the time spent writing it up. My problem here is, I think, I need to re-sharpen my images post compression and before posting. The original is 'pin', but this is soft. The reeds were only 4 or 5 feet away and I took this from a section of ground barely wide enough to accommodate my tripod. In front is the drop into the lake and behind is a narrow busy road. There is no pavement or walking area. My choice of f22 is correct as I had a wide focal range wishing to get the reeds in as much focus as possible. I manually focussed on the vertical rails of the balustrade and used remote and tripod. As I said before the original is pin sharp where it needs to be. I need to work on post compression re-sharpening. Thanks again. Ian
Reply
|
|
|
From garychisolm/Gary (12,551)
on November 7, 2009 9:37:30 AM CST
Ian, Thanks for the reply. I agree that sharpness needs to be addressed with an image once it is resized for the web, along with changing the color space sRGB. If you were only 4 to 5 feet away the focus problem is compounded even further, it is just the laws of physics. So shooting with a Canon 40D with at 60mm lens set at f22 with a distance of 5 feet, you only have a total depth of field on only 1.8 feet. (from about a little over 4 feet to 6 feet out). I had this problem many years ago and found it very frustrating (I was shooting color transparencies, read expensive mistakes) So I did some homework and learned the relationship of the size of glass, focus distance and depth of field. In days past most manufactures used to have a scale on lenses that showed DOF, no longer though. Now I have an iTouch application that easily allows the calculation of DOF for any combination of Camera (sensor size), lens and f stop based on subject distance. Again this is just the laws of physics. Let me point you to a web site that allows one to do these calculations: Depth of Field Calculator. Just use the drop down menus on the left for your settings and the required info will show up on the right. There is other useful info there as well. Check out Hyperfocal information there also.
I understand you had limited room from which to shoot this, another possible option would be to go to the other side of the road and shoot with longer glass, increasing your distance to subject, giving you a wider DOF range.
I know it does not make sense to shoot at f16 vs. f22, even more so after looking at the above info. But if you do some detailed tests on your lens at various f stops and focal lengths (zoom lenses), I think you will find that you will actually have sharper images with the lens opened up a stop or 2. Again this is a manufacturing compromise to give one acceptable settings for the entire focal length of a zoom lens. I am not putting down your lens, I have several Nikkor lenses that cost several thousand dollars each, that are actually sharper opened up a stop. Again I learned this the hard way and wound up doing some testing to confirm it. If you cannot get a test target, try using some newspaper with print for a test target.
You are clearly doing most everything right: Tripod, cable release, you use of filters, but the physics is just not there. Hope this helps. Warm Regards, Gary
Reply
|
|
|
From marshall/Marshall (9,896)
on November 7, 2009 11:24:57 AM CST
Gary - I'm not the photographer - just jumping in here. But...
From the exif: this was shot at 30mm. At 30mm, with the focus set to 8 feet, the lens would offer sharpness from 3.7 ft through infinity. Opened up to f/16, you could get acceptable DOF from 5 feet through infinity. (For a shot like this, wouldn't the tradeoff against slight softening due to diffraction be worthwhile?)
More central to the issue, though, I find your recommendation to get 30 feet back a little puzzling. One of the great advantages of a wider-angle composition is the introduction of depth in the picture. Here, we see the depth between the foreground and background. In a composition designed to include the same elements, you couldn't show that depth - you'd be using a longer focal length and compressing the elements, as well as significantly changing their angles. In this case, it seems that proper hyperfocal focusing would actually work for the picture.
Reply
|
|
|
From garychisolm/Gary (12,551)
on November 7, 2009 3:49:56 PM CST
Marshall, Thanks for the comments which sheds some light on the focus issue. In the original posting by Ian, he stated that he shot this at 60mm. I did not open this in an editor to look at the exif info, I took look at the information that he gave and offered my opinion based on my experience. Even at 30mm, he states he shot this "4 to 5" feet which according to the DOF calculator would still yield limited DOF (14.5 feet), rendering the background not as sharp as one would like.
The point (obviously not very well) I was trying to make about getting further away from the subject is that DOF will increase again depending on the glass one is using. Using the above numbers, moving back just 2 feet more away from 5 feet to 7 gives (with hyperfocal settings) one the infinite DOF desired. Yes, using a longer focal length will compress, but sometimes that might be the only option. Gary
Reply
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from aureliamarucz/Aurelia (193)
on November 6, 2009 3:51:28 PM CST
(1)
Here I would like to see a perfect symmetry without that foreground grass and with the ground-water line at the middle. Otherwise the colors are nice, the overall composition is good too.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
From ianblanchett/Ian (4,676)
on November 7, 2009 4:15:32 AM CST
Hi Aurelia, It is not my favoured angle of this reknowned boat house on Ullswater. Please feel free to look at previous submissions of this boat house from alternative angles within my portfolio. This particular angle is the one that is preferred by professional photographers and is often seen adorning front covers of books about The Lake District. It is not my preferred choice though, but one that seemed the best to shoot from at that time and on that day. Ian
Reply
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from mvacca/Matt (397)
on November 6, 2009 3:40:22 PM CST
(4)
Great composition. I would have liked the structure to have been sharper and the foreground to have less contrast. I think that the foreground shadows are too dark. Otherwise, really nice
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from sidewinderphotograph/Rusty "Sidewinder" (328)
on November 6, 2009 3:37:08 PM CST
(4)
Nice tone and temp. Great reflection as well. It is composed well also. It just doesn't look as sharp as it could be for some reason. at f22 this should be quite sharp and crisp. Maybe there was the slightest movement in your camera or tripod? Did you use the self timer or a shutter release when taking this? Or did you make it a tad soft on purpose? Overall a great shot. Thank you for sharing it! Rusty "Sidewinder" Sessions
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
From ianblanchett/Ian (4,676)
on November 6, 2009 3:43:09 PM CST
Hi Rusty, thanks for the critique. Please see the reply I made below about the softness. The original is pin-sharp. Any softness is due to compression to 360k. Ian
Reply
|
|
|
From sidewinderphotograph/Rusty "Sidewinder" (328)
on November 6, 2009 4:17:45 PM CST
OK cool cool. I think that the previous poster and I were posting at the exact same time so I didn't see that comment. Great shot though I am sorry that the compression softened it up. If pin-sharp this is truly beautiful shot.
Reply
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from awisebacis/Amy (368)
on November 6, 2009 3:35:59 PM CST
(3)
Great color and I'm glad you included the reeds in the foreground. It lends itself for nice framing. Not sure if it's the image size, but it looks slightly blurred. Also, I think I'd like to see that left corner a little lighter. Did you do any shots w/o the ND2?
Thanks for sharing.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
From ianblanchett/Ian (4,676)
on November 6, 2009 3:40:22 PM CST
Hi Amy, thanks for the critique. The original is absolutely pin sharp using live-view focusing manually. Any softness is due to the massive decompression. I didn't shoot this without the filter as I would have had some burn out in the sky. This is the best lighting from a sequence of about 40 images. Ian
Reply
|
|
|
From ianblanchett/Ian (4,676)
on November 7, 2009 3:19:56 AM CST
And please see my comment above about why this was not sharp. Ian
Reply
|
|
|
|
Comments
Comments are different from critiques. Comments carry no rating, you may write more than one comment per photo, and you may comment on your own photos. If you want to rate this photo, then you should write a critique instead.
Add a comment
Return to photos
|
