Constructive Criticism welcome!

[Mike Langdon]

Hi, I am new to Cambridge in Colour. I have been learning photography for 5 years now, and have recently decided to concentrate on Landscape/Seascape photography.
Let me know what you think of my photo, whether you would of done anything different.
I feel that constructive criticism is the way that I am going to progress to the next level.

[Texas Dave]

I'm pretty sure I would of done SOME things different...not necessarily better though.

I like the fact that you're not going overboard on the post work and that it's not overly sharpened or saturated, albeit I probably would have added a bit more saturation to the water. I probably would have addressed what I assume to have been a water spot on the lens that is on the left side of the photo. I probably would have used my software to bring a bit more detail out of the darker tones. Lastly I might have added a bit more contrast to the sky just to get a little more dramatic clouds.

Over all though you've captured a very nice image of what seems to me to have a personally of being a sort of mysterious place. I like it!

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured, a bit dark (the rock formation) in areas but overall good exposure. That center bit of light, beaming through the clouds; in the center of the image sort of hinders any cropping from the top, however by keeping the horizon at center leaves a lot of nothingness at upper right.

[Mike Langdon]

Thank you for your comments. I like trying to keep my photos as natural as possible.
I have started to use a hand held spot meter with my cameras dynamic range profiled into the meter, this has made it easy to protect the high lights and maximise the shadow detail, as well as knowing correct filter strength needed for the sky.

[shreds]

Firstly, Hi and Welcome!

Its not the usual landscape on the seashore shot, but I think you could lose a lot of the sky and have that as a separate exposure as it is rather interesting.

What does bug me is that I want to keep looking further down, (to see your wet feet!) and the shot does not seem to cut off at a natural point in this respect. No doubt there was a good reason.

A boat or a gull (never there when you want them) might have given some interest in the middle ground for the eye to settle on. As it is I am left hunting around for something that isn't there.

I take it this was shot close to home on a typical British overcast winters day?

How long was the exposure? 1/30th?

[Mike Langdon]

Thank you Shreds, When I took this shot the tide was high, so my back was pushed up against the sea wall, having said that maybe taking the shot in portrait orientation would of solved the lack of foreground and the dead space in the top right corner.
I have a bad habit of spot healing boats and birds out of my photos
The exposure was 1/3sec F/11 ISO 100.
The one thing I feel I need to learn a lot more about is composition and the effects of different types of natural light, from what I have read, this shows in my images.

[IzzieK]

The image is good even if I am not a fan of smooth water...I like it.

But your title suggest that only some people will want to comment on this because you put a limitation on what they can say. I would suggest that you also take the good and the bad and lump it because that is how one learns. Some of us had gone through hurts or quips that wasn't meant as harsh to the photographer, e.g., me...but without the harsh critique I wouldn't have thought of improving my shot. Just a thought....

[Mike Langdon]

Thank you IzzieK for the suggestion. Do you mean take away the "Constructive" from the title?
I don't mind bad comments as well I will reword it.

[shreds]

Thanks Mike,

Always interesting to know a bit more behind the picture.

I am sure you know about composition really.

Just keep at, analyse others photos for the direction of light and how different elements are placed. What is the first thing your eye goes to in the picture. More importantly, does it immediately 'grab' you? Try following a few good photographers and see what they might have done to get the shot. All too often there seems to be reluctance to share this great secret, but its not a secret really.

A fashion photographer and strobist who openly shares his work is

https://www.facebook.com/ilko.allexa...graphy?fref=ts

No good for landscapes but there are others who similarly share their secrets.

One day you will just realise that you have not really thought about having to get a great shot you will have just done it automatically and the results will be there. Just keep setting yourself targets, and deadlines to achieve them. You will get there!

For others reading this thread, there is always this:- https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...-of-thirds.htm

[Mike Langdon]

Thank you Shreds,
I have been studying a photographer called Joe Cornish, I love the way he makes foreground elements look big and the sharpness of his photos, makes me feel like I can walk into the photo.
If I can get anywhere close to his images I will be happy, saying that I don't want to copy his style.
He uses a large format camera with bellows to get the front to back DOF, I use Hyper focal distance focusing to get the best results from my cropped sensor camera

[IzzieK]

Hey Mike...just commenting on your title...nothing harsh...besides you cannot change the title anymore once you put it in unless you ask the help of one of the moderators.

Post more shots...you seem to have a knack for composition. Does this place in the shot above anywhere near where you live? Just curious...I do not intend to visit you...

[Manfred M]

Mike - welcome to CiC nice shot. What struck me is your comment in one of your responses that "I like trying to keep my photos as natural as possible.". Making a two dimensional, still representation of a three dimensional moving object means you have a certain viewpoint as to how that can be achieved. It would be interesting if you at least gave us an high level view of what that means to you.

What strikes me about this image is how a few creative choices do come into play.

You've interpreted using a shutter speed that introduces a certain amount of motion blur. That works for me, but then I tend to bracket my exposure times on this type of shot to see which one looks best to me and I will often try a wide range of exposure times.

Both your comments and the looking shot suggest that you have used a grad filter to do the sky. Is my assumption correct?

I find that the balance between the sky and the foreground don't look quite right, but then I wasn't there, but it seems a touch dark versus the foreground. I also find that the rocks, especially on the left are too dark and they throw some unbalance into the whole shot; if it were my shot I would certainly dodge these to improve the shadow detail.

As I final detail, I would look at applying a slight vignette to the image; right now, there is nothing in the centre of the shot and our eyes tend to fall off the image, predominately to the left side (highlights and aforementioned rocks).

[bnnrcn]

Welcome Mike I like the water movement in the image. I find the piece of land on the upper left a bit too dark.

[Mike Langdon]

Thank you all for your feed back. I used the cameras light meter for the first photo which was taken back in 2014, I now use a hand held spot meter which makes sure that I don't over filter the sky and under expose the shadows.
I use Lee filters to lower the DR of the image and to slow down the shutter speed as I like to add motion into my images.
Its funny you should say about adding a vignette, I tend to add a -10 highlight priority in effects (Lightroom 5) on my latest images, but I never used to do this in 2014.
Here is another photo from the same beach from earlier this year.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the explanation on your technique and tools.

I have used a spot meter much as you do to explore a scene (a 1° head that can be attached to my flash / incident meter). I would totally agree, it really lets the photographer explore and understand the details of a scene. I tended to use in more when I am looking at doing panoramic shots that encompass a wide exposure range. That being said, I really wonder how much it really buys me in the end.

Where I do use it a lot is in determining the light drop off in studio shots, especially when I am trying for a particular level of lighting for a background. For outdoor shots, I don't ever use it the way you do. With a large dynamic range on my camera, the only time I get blowout tends to be when I shoot into the sun or when there are specular highlights in the shot.

The other thing I was wondering about is if you are being held back by the limitations of a parametric editor like Lightroom. Looking at the first image, I suspect that a pixel based editor with layers, blending modes and layer masks could make improvements to that image that a parametric editor simply cannot handle.

[JBW]

Thank you all for your feed back. I used the cameras light meter for the first photo which was taken back in 2014, I now use a hand held spot meter which makes sure that I don't over filter the sky and under expose the shadows.
I use Lee filters to lower the DR of the image and to slow down the shutter speed as I like to add motion into my images.
Its funny you should say about adding a vignette, I tend to add a -10 highlight priority in effects (Lightroom 5) on my latest images, but I never used to do this in 2014.
Here is another photo from the same beach from earlier this year.

You have gotten the horizon nicely higher in this shot. The stones in the foreground have beautiful contrast in both colour and form.

My problem and it is as much personal taste as anything else is that the water near the shore doesn't seem to fit with anything else.

Last but not least welcome to the group.

[Mike Langdon]

Thanks for the explanation on your technique and tools.

I have used a spot meter much as you do to explore a scene (a 1° head that can be attached to my flash / incident meter). I would totally agree, it really lets the photographer explore and understand the details of a scene. I tended to use in more when I am looking at doing panoramic shots that encompass a wide exposure range. That being said, I really wonder how much it really buys me in the end.

Where I do use it a lot is in determining the light drop off in studio shots, especially when I am trying for a particular level of lighting for a background. For outdoor shots, I don't ever use it the way you do. With a large dynamic range on my camera, the only time I get blowout tends to be when I shoot into the sun or when there are specular highlights in the shot.

The other thing I was wondering about is if you are being held back by the limitations of a parametric editor like Lightroom. Looking at the first image, I suspect that a pixel based editor with layers, blending modes and layer masks could make improvements to that image that a parametric editor simply cannot handle.

I agree that it might not be necessary to use a light meter in the way I do if you are using a camera with a high dynamic range. unfortunately my camera has only got 6 1/3 stops of dynamic range according to the meters software and I am often taking photos of landscapes that are 2 stops outside of my cameras dynamic range.
I am saving up for a Canon 5D MIII. When I get this camera, hopefully I won't have to rely on ND Grads to control highlights as much as the camera should be able to capture it more easily.

I do own Photoshop CC2014 as well, but I am not very confident in using it at the moment as I haven't owned it for very long, whereas I have been using Lightroom since version 3. Maybe when I get better at using photoshop, it will open up new possibilities for me

[Shadowman]

Thank you all for your feed back. I used the cameras light meter for the first photo which was taken back in 2014, I now use a hand held spot meter which makes sure that I don't over filter the sky and under expose the shadows.
I use Lee filters to lower the DR of the image and to slow down the shutter speed as I like to add motion into my images.
Its funny you should say about adding a vignette, I tend to add a -10 highlight priority in effects (Lightroom 5) on my latest images, but I never used to do this in 2014.
Here is another photo from the same beach from earlier this year.

Nice capture and editing. I often find myself going back to older images and applying processes displayed on this forum.

[depthcharge101]

For the first picture, I find the top half of the picture (i.e. the sky) a bit under-exposed. Composition wise I think it's fine although the half-rock on the right seems a little out of place. I'd either include its entirety or exclude it when framing the image.

[Manfred M]

I agree that it might not be necessary to use a light meter in the way I do if you are using a camera with a high dynamic range. unfortunately my camera has only got 6 1/3 stops of dynamic range according to the meters software and I am often taking photos of landscapes that are 2 stops outside of my cameras dynamic range.
I am saving up for a Canon 5D MIII. When I get this camera, hopefully I won't have to rely on ND Grads to control highlights as much as the camera should be able to capture it more easily.

I do own Photoshop CC2014 as well, but I am not very confident in using it at the moment as I haven't owned it for very long, whereas I have been using Lightroom since version 3. Maybe when I get better at using photoshop, it will open up new possibilities for me

Based on other posts, I assume you are using the D7000 for these shots?

That camera has a dynamic range of 13.9 eV (stops).

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D7000



The Canon 7D Mk III is at 11.7 eV

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-III


While I can't comment on the newest FF Canon, as a general rule the Sony sensors used by Nikon over the past 3 years have definitely got better dynamic range than the Canons. I would be highly suspicious of the 6-1/3 stops you are getting from you lightmeter. Something does not add up. If I were to upgrade, I'd likely be moving to the D810, not the 7D Mk III.

What lightmeter are you using? You should be nailing these shots without the use of a spotmeter with that camera.