Project 52 by Nicola

[Nicola]

thank you Donald, thank you Wendy
i'm thinking to increase a bit saturation... can be an improvement?

[Donald]

i'm thinking to increase a bit saturation... can be an improvement?

Oh no! It is, of course, your image and you have the right to present it as you think is best. But in my opinion, it should remain just as it is.

[Nicola]

Oh no! It is, of course, your image and you have the right to present it as you think is best. But in my opinion, it should remain just as it is.

thanks Donald,
I spent a dozen of minutes watching alternately this picture in the box with Internet explorer, with Photoshop and in "Windows Preview". The picture is different in all the 3 cases: in internet explorer the picture is less saturated and a bit more washed than in photoshop, in windows preview has more contrast than photoshop. my thought is: or i'm drunken tonight or the 3 softwares have 3 different jpeg management... is it possible?
hope my english is quite clear...

[Donald]

... my thought is: or i'm drunken tonight or the 3 softwares have 3 different jpeg management... is it possible?

I do not know the answer to this question. I hope some other members, with more technical knowledge than me, see this and are able to provide an opinion.

[Goldcoastgolfer]

thanks Donald,
I spent a dozen of minutes watching alternately this picture in the box with Internet explorer, with Photoshop and in "Windows Preview". The picture is different in all the 3 cases: in internet explorer the picture is less saturated and a bit more washed than in photoshop, in windows preview has more contrast than photoshop. my thought is: or i'm drunken tonight or the 3 softwares have 3 different jpeg management... is it possible?
hope my english is quite clear...

I'd say it's definitely possible (that you could be drunk AND the different software packages have different algorithms to generate the image). I actually just brought up your photo in Lightbox using Google Chrome and Internet Explorer - the Google browser was showing more saturation than the Internet Explorer. Given photoshop is a dedicated image editing program I would suggest that it is the truer version of colour than the Windows programs.

Great photo incidentally. I love sailing photos - took some in Sydney harbour last year. It's always a challenge getting the timing right while trying not to fall overboard in crammed spaces while booms are swinging back and forth

Oh, and I wouldn't touch the saturation either (I normally use Google Chrome, not Internet Explorer)

[Nicola]

I'd say it's definitely possible (that you could be drunk AND the different software packages have different algorithms to generate the image).

Thanks Mal for your estimation!
since you confirmed me that the differences are coming from softwares.....
I can keep on drinking... just kidding!
no seriously speaking, I do not touch saturation, as I like the "photoshop version" of this image

[Nicola]

I didn't produce any picture in week 9, so to cover this time I pick up a couple of pictures from the last december.
a typicall tuscany's view: an hill in chianti.
I don't know if the framing is quite good, small room on top and the lines lead the eyes out at bottom- left. anyway I wanted to capture the vineyard as main subject...



and here a more common view...
perhaps the sky is too bright, isn't it?



thanks for viewing,
C&C welcomed!

[arith]

It little more light in the shadows in my humble opinion; then it will be perfick.

[Geoff F]

A very difficult light there, Nicola, particularly with #2. Brightening the foreground will mean losing the sky.

Just a couple of ideas. I wonder about adding a gradient mask to apply more brightness to the foreground. Not sure if that would help.

Cropping square and reducing the amount of dark road in the foreground appears to 'lift' the overall scene a little.

Or change the size ratio to a landscape ratio, like 5 x 4 which could remove a part of the road and the brightest area of sky. What remained would probably take a slight increase in brightness.

But, as it is, that road adds a lot of perspective.

The first shot does work for me, apart from that pale line, whatever it is, in the top right corner. If possible, I would clone it out.

[FrankMi]

Hi Nicola. Nice subjects in both images! I like the second one better than the first and agree with you that a little more sky in the first image would go a long way to reducing the 'tight' feeling. For the second one, you might try positioning the image on your monitor so that about 1/3rd of the road is covered at the bottom and see how it feels to you. For me it is a bit 'bottom heavy' at the moment.

[Ryogenetic]

Nicola I like both images, In the first I think the foreground at the bottom distracts from the image as it has no real seperation from the feilds below the hill top house. IMHO if you cropped just above the lower road, and behind the hill top house. (I say this as I hold up 2x 3x5 cards to my monitor) In the second I love the road it is welcoming to my eyes and it starts them on a zig zag journey up the picture to the house. I would not crop out any of the image, but try dropping in a gradient as Geoff suggested. The only distraction and it is very minor would be the white tree off the right sided of the road.

Ryo

[Nicola]

thank you very much Steve, Geoff, Frank and Ryo for your really interesting and detailed feedback!
I do like this kind of comments!
I quickly start to work on them!
you will ssee the results asap!
ciao
Nicola

[Nicola]

here a new version, re-processed
any improvements?
thanks!

[Geoff F]

You have managed to brighten that quite a bit, but haven't overdone the clouds.

[Donald]

I would describe this as a classic Chianti countryside scene. It captures all the beauty of the rolling hills that we know that are of that glorious area. A very strong composition, in my opinion.

[Nicola]

In that week (I'm late, I know...) I tried to have some practice on birds photography, but it has been a fail!!
I went to a marsh near here with two of my photo-amateur friends. The "official" goal of the meeting is to let them try my new EF 70-300 L .. (absolutely a stunning lens!) so we decided to try with some herons, ducks etc
we completly failed
we couldn't get closer to birds than about 40 meters, too far for a 300mm on a crop camera!!
we and other photographers and birdwatcher in the area too. I'm used to go much closer (a few meters) to birds like seagull, sparrows, cormorant and other city-or-sea birds
So I would like to ask you: do you use special camouflage for herons, egret, duck...? what's your technique to approach them?
thanks to give me some advices!!... I will try again soon in one of the several WWF oasis in the area! let me say, that the goal of this week - practice in birds photography - is just postponed to a new adventure

turning back to that bad day, after some time spent with telezoom and without pictures, I mounted on the wide angle and captured some landscape.. below one of those
thanks for viewing and help
cheers
nicola

[Goldcoastgolfer]

I am once again in awe of your landscape photos. I don't need to go into any technical stuff there - I think the others have covered it off but I just love the lines you always manage to capture into your photos.

I'll leave the bird photo techniques to the experts - mine's all luck when I get them. By the way, in the photo with the boats, there's a sign post sticking out in the grass that I think would be better off cloned out.

[Geoff F]

Bird photography is something of a specialised subject, Nicola. As Chris found out here Formation Flying although his final outcome worked OK.

For most species, other than hungry gulls around the fish quay etc, I use a 500 mm lens and often this is insufficient. The really serious bird photographers spend hours sitting in damp 'hides' just waiting for their 'models' to approach close enough.

But you have ended up with a nice tranquil scene of some interesting design boats.

[Nicola]

I am once again in awe of your landscape photos. I don't need to go into any technical stuff there - I think the others have covered it off but I just love the lines you always manage to capture into your photos.

I'll leave the bird photo techniques to the experts - mine's all luck when I get them. By the way, in the photo with the boats, there's a sign post sticking out in the grass that I think would be better off cloned out.

Mnay thanks Mal! you are too kind!
I saw the sign post, and asked myself: "to clone or not to clone?" not to clone, was the answer, it is barely visible!
I was wrong and 2times wrong... as well I am lazy!!
thank you for the suggestion!
ciao
Nicola

[Nicola]

Bird photography is something of a specialised subject, Nicola. As Chris found out here Formation Flying although his final outcome worked OK.

For most species, other than hungry gulls around the fish quay etc, I use a 500 mm lens and often this is insufficient. The really serious bird photographers spend hours sitting in damp 'hides' just waiting for their 'models' to approach close enough.


But you have ended up with a nice tranquil scene of some interesting design boats.

thank you Geoff for the feedback!!
I will try to work on this subject.. next month I'll be on holday on the beautiful Camargue.. the home of Flamingos! even if I will not get closer, they are much bigger! aren't they?

PS a cousin(or something similar) of my girldfriend is a professional wildelife Photographer... it's time to meet him and try to learn something...