Feedback appreciated on these shots

[TrishMac]

I have tried to attach 2 photo's..... I would really like feedback on these, be kind though, only a newbie!! I will post and see what comes up in the message???? Thanks in advance.
Trish

#1


#2

[carregwen]

Hi Trish

I moved your post from the 'Introduce yourself' thread to this new thread as that is really just for introductions. If you want feedback in future just start a new thread in the appropriate photo commentary section, post the shots and ask for feedback.

There are instructions in this thread https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread5745.htm about posting images. The bit you need is called 'CiC attachments'. You can also test the loading of shots in that thread, but you won't get any feedback there. You need to start a new thread (like this one I did for you) for that.

When you submit several shots, it's best to number or title them so commentators can specifically refer to them.

That was as clear as mud, wasn't it?

Send me a PM if you get stuck.

[David]

Hi Trish - A friend of mine spent some time this year on holiday on Whitsundays and I recognised the pier from some of his shots.

You don't give any info as to how the shots were produced (camera, exposure , post-processing etc.), but both the images are, IMO, smart shots, well composed, good colours, focussed and reasonably sharp. The second, in particular, introduces the drama (or movement at least) of the sea. It also has a good compositional balance between the land/surf, water and sky. The surf on the LHS takes the eye across to the rocks, up to the pier, along to the yacht and up the mast to the sky (absolutely intended I'm sure.

A possible idea for development would be to try some local contrast enhancement or LCE. There's a very good tutorial here on CiC about this if you've not come across it before (written by Sean McQ). Very simply, it uses an unsharp mask to enhance fine detail (hence "local"). Use a large radius, say 50, and a small amount, say 0.5 (I'm referring to the USM on the Gimp, there are other settings for the "software-that-shall-not-be-named"). Apply these and local detail jumps out - the "wow" factor. You generally have to play around with the precise values, but your eye will be your guide.

Cheers

David

[TrishMac]

Thank you Rob....you don't know how long it took me to get them there!!! hahaha

[TrishMac]

Gosh David, I think I have the "software-that-shall-not-be-named!" However that probably doesn't really affect anything too much as I have no idea how to use it
Thank you for your feedback, much appreciated! I used a Canon 7d with a 24-70mm 2.8f lens set at 24mm, 1/5 sec, ISO 100 and at f22 for the 2nd shot and for the first same set up only taken at 1/8 sec. I have since changed my tripod as my old one was quite wobbly and even though I had set it for a 2sec timer I think it was still slightly moving when the camera clicked. So have just ordered a kirk head and a gitzo tripod in the hope of stabilizing the shot.
And thank you, I am sure I absolutely intended for your eye to follow that line...(I will keep that in mind haha, for next time) and have also jotted down the instructions for post production.
Trish

[carregwen]

Trish

How are you resizing and saving your JPEGs to load up here?

[TrishMac]

Hi Rob, You will have to forgive me, no idea really on what I am doing....I load my raw images into dpp (canon software) and convert them into JPEG there and that is about it. I don't resize them on account of I don't know how It's really back to basics for me!

[Jim B.]

Hi Trish,
To resize an image in DPP.When you convert and save tick resize box at the bottom.For web presentation image quality at 8 is good. I would change DPI resolution setting to 150 or lower.For posting here the long side of the image should be set to 700 pixels,leave the Lock aspect ratio ticked.You want to keep the image size no higher than 150kb(I think).

[Donald]

Trish

Hopefully the above has helped in terms of getting the right size of image up onto the site (another illustration of the helpful attitude you'll find from the very, very nice people on CiC).

Going back to the images themselves and following on from David's comments. I'd make the point that, I think, #2 is streets ahead of #1 in compositional terms. Primarily because of; a) where you've placed the horizon (it's in the centre of #1 which cuts the image in half) and, b) in #2 there is bags more interest because you have included the immediate foreground. In #1 we have 'just' a big rock in our face. Now, it may be a very pretty big rock, but it's boring. As David says, #2 brings energy and movement into the scene. It's very, very nice.

[carregwen]

Hi Rob, You will have to forgive me, no idea really on what I am doing....I load my raw images into dpp (canon software) and convert them into JPEG there and that is about it. I don't resize them on account of I don't know how It's really back to basics for me!

The reason I asked is that one of your shots was just 56K in size. You might get better image quality if you go for about 150-200K. What Jim said above sounds good.

[TrishMac]

Fabulous, thank you Donald, it's the little things that count! I look at other photo's and am amazed at just how brilliant they look, but for me to actually pick out the bits that make them stand out I find difficult. So I suppose it is time to start dissecting the photo's and seeing what works and what is not so good. Am very appreciative of your comments on the details. Thank you!

[TrishMac]

thank you Jim, will follow your instructions from now on , I have been reading so much stuff, that I have confused myself, clear and precise instructions are just what I need!

[Klickit]

Trish, I very much like the composition and combination of peacefulness (at the top) and energy (at the bottom) in the #2 photo. Beautiful colour too.

[carregwen]

#1


#2

Trish

#2 is much better than #1, in my opinion. #1 is a nice scene but the horizon is at the half-way line (normally not good as it divides the shot) I haven't checked it, but you also have a lean to the left which is a bit off-putting.

#2 is much better. The horizon is at the top third line which creates a much better structure. The wave in the forefround gives a lot of energy to the shot contrasted with the relative stillness above the wave. There is much more of a sense of depth compared to shot #1. You need to watch the image quality when processing. Make sure you sharpen the images properly, and as I said earlier, try uploading a larger file (around 150-200k in size)

You are on the right track.