Project 52 - Q2 - David (Rufus)

[Rufus]

I agree with the others. The bridge and pylon shots are good, but the bird is just too far away so it has come out looking soft. I assume it is a Black-headed Gull. Sometimes I take shots like this just for identification purposes.

My purpose on this occasion was to find out what sort of quality of image would be produced when severely cropped. Although the bird is soft, I was pleasantly surprised; but I won't be making a habit of taking this approach.

[Shadowman]

Thank you for looking, John.

I am not too sure what you mean by a "double exposed look". Is it to do with the groups of miniature parallel ripples, for example about half way between the bird and the bottom of the image? I am just curious.

Hi David,

Yes, its the ripples of water.

[rpcrowe]

I like long lenses and prefer the long focal lengths to wide angle glass. I really like the Sony 70-200mm f/4 G and the Sony 85mm f/1.8 lenses on my Sony crop cameras. Taking the 1.5x crop of my APSC cameras into consideration, these two lenses have an effective focal length of 105-300mm and 127.5 respectively... However, I often shoot with a 50mm on one camera and either the 70-200mm or the 85mm on the second camera...

[Rufus]

Week 18
Finding general landscapes suitable for the 135mm lens is proving quite a challenge. I thought I might have found one with image #43, but it does not work well even though it has been cropped top, left and right to give more prominence to the property in the distance and to provide more balance to the image.

With #44 at I least I had a more subject matter, and this shot was from the best angle for the direction of the light. But it is still mundane.

#45 is a pleasant enough scene but sorely lacks some animal life, human or otherwise.

Your C& C are most welcome.

Image #43 – View from Rockford Common across former gravel pit (1/250 sec at f/13 and ISO 400)


Image #44 – Harvested timber (1/500 sec at f/13 and ISO 400)


Image #45 – Rockford Common (1/250 sec at f/13 and ISO 400)

[Shadowman]

For the first shot seems like a relationship to the subject issue if you have to crop that much from the composition, was there anything preventing you from getting closer? Nice efforts on the other two, both appear to be severely cropped or you weren't exactly aware of the elements within the viewfinder and their relationship to the overall composition. I often have the same issue where not everything fits within the composition and I often have to reshoot, this is where a zoom lens comes in handy.

[Manfred M]

Nice settings and images.

I wonder if a bit more mid-tone contrast might be worth considering and all the images, especially the first one, seem to have a noticeable green colour cast.

[Geoff F]

The first one #43 looks acceptable to me. OK, Manfred's edit gives a bit more of a dramatic effect.

With the other two I think you have too many elements competing for attention. Maybe, #44 crop a bit from the left side and bottom to make better use of the far distance and a decent sky ?

With #45, maybe lose most of that big tree on the right and a similar amount from the top ? So that the path 'moves' closer to the right side and acts as a lead in to the far distance

[Rufus]

Thank you for commenting, John.

For the first shot seems like a relationship to the subject issue if you have to crop that much from the composition, was there anything preventing you from getting closer?

Unfortunately it was not possible be closer as I was shooting across a valley. Here is an uncropped version:

Nice efforts on the other two, both appear to be severely cropped or you weren't exactly aware of the elements within the viewfinder and their relationship to the overall composition. I often have the same issue where not everything fits within the composition and I often have to reshoot, this is where a zoom lens comes in handy

As Q2 of my P52 project is all about the discipline of using my 135mm prime lens I do not have the option of using my 24-105mm zoom and of course I would have needed an even longer lens to frame the first shot as cropped.

As it happens, neither of the other two shots were cropped. I am not sure which "elements" you are referring to, so I will make some guesses.

I could have moved further away from the the stack of timber to include the ends of the logs on the left hand side. And I was aware of the path in the distance that "meets" the top of the logs but I could only avoid that by taking the shot form a position that was more perpendicular to the end of the logs so the length of them would have been less apparent.

The third shot was taken from land that was getting lower the further away I went. It was taken from as far away as I could go without the image being compromised by the lower viewpoint. The scene would have been improved had there been more of the two trees (one on either side).

Was anywhere near the mark with my guesses and self critique?

[Rufus]

Nice settings and images.

I wonder if a bit more mid-tone contrast might be worth considering and all the images, especially the first one, seem to have a noticeable green colour cast.

You have succeeded where failed I had adjusted contrast and colours globally but did not manage to get it right as your version clearly demonstrates.

Could you explain how to adjust contrast for just the midtones, please?

Many thanks for your comments.

[Shadowman]

Thank you for commenting, John.



Unfortunately it was not possible be closer as I was shooting across a valley. Here is an uncropped version:




As Q2 of my P52 project is all about the discipline of using my 135mm prime lens I do not have the option of using my 24-105mm zoom and of course I would have needed an even longer lens to frame the first shot as cropped.

As it happens, neither of the other two shots were cropped. I am not sure which "elements" you are referring to, so I will make some guesses.

I could have moved further away from the the stack of timber to include the ends of the logs on the left hand side. And I was aware of the path in the distance that "meets" the top of the logs but I could only avoid that by taking the shot form a position that was more perpendicular to the end of the logs so the length of them would have been less apparent.

The third shot was taken from land that was getting lower the further away I went. It was taken from as far away as I could go without the image being compromised by the lower viewpoint. The scene would have been improved had there been more of the two trees (one on either side).

Was anywhere near the mark with my guesses and self critique?

Hi David,

By elements I meant the additional items within the composition, the lake, the houses, the clouds, judging by your original there was nothing lost except a few pixels.

[Rufus]

...With the other two I think you have too many elements competing for attention. Maybe, #44 crop a bit from the left side and bottom to make better use of the far distance and a decent sky ?

With #45, maybe lose most of that big tree on the right and a similar amount from the top ? So that the path 'moves' closer to the right side and acts as a lead in to the far distance

Yes I think that improves them Thank you for your ideas!

#44 cropped


#45 cropped

[Rufus]

By elements I meant the additional items within the composition, the lake, the houses, the clouds, judging by your original there was nothing lost except a few pixels.

Yes I cropped out the extremities that added nothing to the image. They just repeated what was next to them.

You had said earlier "..the other two, both appear to be severely cropped or you weren't exactly aware of the elements within the viewfinder and their relationship to the overall composition." I sense that you had something specific in mind when refering to the elements and their relationship to the overall composition which I have not yet grasped. I would just like to tease this out if possible to help my understanding.

[Manfred M]

Sorry David - I lied (a little). I had a senior's moment when typing. I did a few other tweaks first and these affected colour balance and global contrast. I generally do the black point, white point and mid point adjustments to most of my images. Sorry about the confusing response. I hope this clarifies things a bit.

I after doing a colour balance adjustment, I tweaked the white point and then adjusted the mid-point using curves adjustment layers in all three adjustments. The last two steps are where the improved contrast comes from. I just did a new version where I pulled up the mid-tone contrast as well. Here are screen shots of each adjustment layer in the order I did them.


Step 1. Adjust colour balance





Step 2 - Adjust the white point. This brings up the global contrast.






Step 3 - Adjust the mid point to get the overall image luminosity to look right (to me).





Now for the mid-tone contrast. Apply an "S-Curve" as shown.





Finally the image after those adjustments. The first image I posted only has the first three adjustments.

[Shadowman]

Yes I cropped out the extremities that added nothing to the image. They just repeated what was next to them.

You had said earlier "..the other two, both appear to be severely cropped or you weren't exactly aware of the elements within the viewfinder and their relationship to the overall composition." I sense that you had something specific in mind when refering to the elements and their relationship to the overall composition which I have not yet grasped. I would just like to tease this out if possible to help my understanding.

The cropping of the logs in the second image and the tree in the third, the second gives impression of broken leading lines and the tree adds an unconnecting negative space where portion of tree is cropped.

[Rufus]

...I generally do the black point, white point and mid point adjustments to most of my images. Sorry about the confusing response. I hope this clarifies things a bit.

I after doing a colour balance adjustment, I tweaked the white point and then adjusted the mid-point using curves adjustment layers in all three adjustments. The last two steps are where the improved contrast comes from. I just did a new version where I pulled up the mid-tone contrast as well. Here are screen shots of each adjustment layer in the order I did them.

Step 1. Adjust colour balance
Step 2 - Adjust the white point. This brings up the global contrast.
Step 3 - Adjust the mid point to get the overall image luminosity to look right (to me).
Now for the mid-tone contrast. Apply an "S-Curve" as shown.
Finally the image after those adjustments. The first image I posted only has the first three adjustments.

Thank you for this, Manfred, it is very helpful. I often use the curves adjustment but perhaps my main mistake was to try to adjust the colour via the White Balance sliders rather than the individual colours.

In the light of this I have revised all three, following your approach on the first one.
#43:


#44 (the edits are less apparent on this one).


#45

[Rufus]

The cropping of the logs in the second image and the tree in the third, the second gives impression of broken leading lines and the tree adds an unconnecting negative space where portion of tree is cropped.

I now see where you are coming from. Thank you, John.

[Manfred M]

Thank you for this, Manfred, it is very helpful. I often use the curves adjustment but perhaps my main mistake was to try to adjust the colour via the White Balance sliders rather than the individual colours.

These edits work for me.

I generally do my colour balance / white balance adjustments during raw conversion. When cleaning up colour balance issues after I bring the image into Photoshop a generally use a curves adjustment layer but adjust individual colour channels. It's less intuitive to use when demonstrating, so I tend use a Color Balance Adjustment Layer instead.

[Wavelength]

These images continue to be very interesting....

[Rufus]

Week 19
This week the images have a little more variety and were all taken along the coast on the western approach to Southampton.

The lighthouse looks like a folly or as though it is stranded inland, but it was actually set above the beach. Its apparent isolation from the water was what prompted me to take the shot and frame it this way.

The beach along this particular stretch of shoreline has a vast number of wooden groynes most which now protrude no more than a couple of feet (60 cm) out of the beach. That is was coastal erosion is doing as well as currents which can shift sand and shingle from one part of the coast to another. In the image we can also see the land overhang where trees and grass are determined to hold on for little while longer.

The Austin Seven was parked in the car park and I just had to take a photograph of it as my father owned one of these, although that was before my time. I wanted a view of the front and side, but of course the wooden barrier was always going to spoil that shot. The grille shot was more successful.

Image #46 – Lighthouse (1/125 sec at f/11 and ISO 200):


Image #47 – Shoreline (1/350 sec at f/19 and ISO 200):


Image #48 – Austin 7 (1/350 sec at f/8 and ISO 200):


Image #49 – Austin 7 Grille (1/350 sec at f/16 and ISO 200):

[skitterbug]

The dialogs for week 18 are very interesting and I really appreciate the sharing of information! Now on to week 19 and what sort of helpfulness will be offered. My take on both week 18 and week 19 is that your images provide good detail and a glimpse of what you see and think about when you are on your photo trips! Love the Austin Seven even with the structure blocking it a bit. Too bad the owner didn't make an appearance and back it up in a better position for you to capture in full glory!