Oregon Coast

[Hallen]

DSC_5030 by Eric Hall, on Flickr

I really liked this one, but am not sure I really captured it. It's nice, but maybe not powerful? C&C requested.

[IzzieK]

It is a nice view from here, but I would prefer a square crop with this one with the driftwood (?) at the left hand corner of the frame. There is no EXIF so I do not know which software you used for pp here. If you have Photoshop, if you go to ACR, you can use a gradient tool to make a dramatic sky. If you have NIK's software suite, you can use the Graduated Filter effect...

Hope this helps...and welcome to CiC.

[Shadowman]

I think you could crop the sky totally out of the scene and get a much stronger image. Nice effort.

[James G]

Hi Eric, for me it's the foreground that doesn't work too well. I like 'big' sky so if it were my capture I'd try cropping from the bottom of the image up to the fourth post from the right, in order to focus strongly on the island, keeping a 'letterbox' format.

I'd also look to increase the vibrance of the sky to emphasise cloud contrast more.

[Hallen]

I am using Lightroom to process. I don't know why the Exif does not come through here. It's in the .jpg files that I create and upload to Flickr. I haven't tried to dive into Photoshop yet. Lightroom mostly does what I want for now.

Nikon D7100
Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 @27mm
ISO 200
1/400
f/8

Cropped a bit and I used a gradient filter to try and bring out the sky more. The sky was very bright (very unusual for the Oregon coast, especially in January), so it was tough to get detail there and still not lose detail in the foreground. Played with the sliders a bit to try to balance things. Used some individual color saturation and luminance to try and make it more rich.

DSC_5030-1 by Eric Hall, on Flickr

Second crop. Square, less sky. It does focus more on the island. This may help since there is a lack of a main point of interest in the photo.

DSC_5030-2 by Eric Hall, on Flickr

Third crop. Less sky, but still the original aspect ratio. Picks up more of the green on the left.

DSC_5030-3 by Eric Hall, on Flickr


Thanks for the feedback. I am learning more about Lightroom and how to bring out what I want without over doing it. It is easy to over saturate everything because it really pops, but then again, it's not what I saw and not really what I want my pictures to look like.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Eric,

I really liked this one, but am not sure I really captured it. It's nice, but maybe not powerful?

My feeling is that compositionally, the fence and brushwood form a 'barrier' between the viewer and the scene.

The "5030-1" version, second in series, minimises this, especially as the brushwood and dead grass behind are the same colour, which lets us go around the fence on the right. It might have been even better if you could have seen a little uninterrupted water surface to the right of the last fence post too - i.e. shot from a sidestep further to your right (if possible).

I also like the sky in the "5030-1" version, so that's my pick of the series.

The knack (when shooting), and including some foreground content such as this (for interest, enhanced depth, etc.) is not to let it form a complete barrier to the eye (or our virtual feet) wandering from the foreground further in to the composition.

Hope that helps, Dave

[James G]

Eric, I'd echo Dave's comments, 5030-1 works best for me. As I said in my earlier post though, I would be going for a bigger sky, so would have gone for the letterbox rather than square crop .

The sky was very bright (very unusual for the Oregon coast, especially in January), so it was tough to get detail there and still not lose detail in the foreground.

As regards the brightness issue, applying a gradient filter to selectively darken the sky preferentially over the foreground should solve the problem. (I'm not familiar with Lightroom, so not sure if the option is available.)

[jcuknz]

I believe, since I do not use Adobe , that the loss of EXIF comes from using the 'save for the web' tool instead of first manually re-sizing and possibly increasing compression?

If Lightroom permits you to reduce the strength of the tool it can be better to apply several light strokes rather than a single heavy stroke which often shows up a sharp edge.

[Hallen]

As regards the brightness issue, applying a gradient filter to selectively darken the sky preferentially over the foreground should solve the problem. (I'm not familiar with Lightroom, so not sure if the option is available.)

Yep. I did use the gradient tool for that second batch. It works great for situations like ocean shots where you have a clear line to start from. Thanks for the comments.

[IzzieK]

I agree with the James and Dave regarding the crop. In the second crop, the fence seems to dominate the scene a lot...nicer with all the skies included too as the eyes goes back to the island from either the foreground and the background without straining the vision if you have more of the fence showing...

[Hallen]

I believe, since I do not use Adobe , that the loss of EXIF comes from using the 'save for the web' tool instead of first manually re-sizing and possibly increasing compression?

I don't use the save for the web option. The files I save out are pretty high quality. The EXIF data is in the file. I can see the EXIF data when looking at it on Flickr. It just doesn't come through here after I download the linked file. *shrugs* I dunno why that is.

[Hallen]

Hi Eric,



My feeling is that compositionally, the fence and brushwood form a 'barrier' between the viewer and the scene...

The knack (when shooting), and including some foreground content such as this (for interest, enhanced depth, etc.) is not to let it form a complete barrier to the eye (or our virtual feet) wandering from the foreground further in to the composition.

Hope that helps, Dave

It does help. That's a great thought. I'll try to keep it in mind when shooting.

[jcuknz]

I don't use the save for the web option. The files I save out are pretty high quality. The EXIF data is in the file. I can see the EXIF data when looking at it on Flickr. It just doesn't come through here after I download the linked file. *shrugs* I dunno why that is.

I do not know flickr and use CiC download programme direct from my computer to here ... it is simpl enough once you get the hang of it

[Round Tuit]

Hi Eric,

I'm coming late to this discussion but I would like to offer a few suggestions to make your photo stronger.
From a composition point of view, I would crop the left side up to the dead wood while keeping the same crop ratio as the original. This would remove the relatively featureless area on the left and some of the sky. The bright dead wood then anchors your shot on the left and brings your eyes to the fence which in turn leads to the water, the island and onward. This crop also shift the island slightly off centre which also strenghten the composition. I like the airiness of your photo so I would not remove more of the sky even though it is fairly bland.
From a technical point of view, I would expand the tonal range slightly by moving the white point, add a bit of contrast and sharpen the image. How much contrast and sharpening to add is a matter of personal taste but the line between enough and too much is easy to cross and too much is definitely not good!
Here is what those changes would look like. If you want me to remove this; I will



Andre

[Dave Humphries]

I don't use the save for the web option. The files I save out are pretty high quality. The EXIF data is in the file. I can see the EXIF data when looking at it on Flickr. It just doesn't come through here after I download the linked file. *shrugs* I dunno why that is.

It is just 'one of those things', Flickr let you share the image, but not the EXIF data.

I have got used to this now and since Flickr folks usually always obey their rules and give a url link back to the image, a perusal of that will reveal the EXIF data below the image. At least, that's the case if the photo isn't 'private' - and these are

Usually it is no great hardship to follow the link and Flickr get more page views; no doubt their goal.

[Donald]

It's nice, but maybe not powerful?

Second crop. ... This may help since there is a lack of a main point of interest in the photo.

I think, in those two statements, you nailed the key issue with the image. The fact that you did so yourself is the important bit. That's called 'learning'!

I think that all the various versions you've worked on provide the evidence that it's one of those that's close, but is missing that essential ingredient. I know I've done that before - worked a photo to death in the belief that there is a very good image there ... only to end up having to acknowledge that it's not going to make the grade because it's not got that vital ingredient.

[Hallen]

It is just 'one of those things', Flickr let you share the image, but not the EXIF data.

I have got used to this now and since Flickr folks usually always obey their rules and give a url link back to the image, a perusal of that will reveal the EXIF data below the image. At least, that's the case if the photo isn't 'private' - and these are

Usually it is no great hardship to follow the link and Flickr get more page views; no doubt their goal.

The BB Code link that Flickr automatically generates (and is presumably a permanent link) makes it a pain to remove the link back to the collection, so yeah, I just leave it there.

I have made this folder public on Flickr so hopefully you can follow the link back now. I'm not interested or worried about page hits at all. I'm 52 years old, have a good career, and I don't ever plan on making any money off of my pictures. But if you mean Flickr in general, then you are probably correct. It would seem like an intended thing when removing the EXIF data. It might be a bandwidth thing too where they compress the files for links. *shrug*

[Hallen]

Hi Eric,
If you want me to remove this; I will

Andre

No, no. I don't want it removed. It's why I posted and requested C&C. It is really interesting to see these different interpretations of the same picture. It really helps me to understand what is working and what isn't even if one opinion contradicts another. I do like your adaptation. It's cool to see and I appreciate the time it took to do that.

[Dave Humphries]

But if you mean Flickr in general

I do indeed