First Photo for Feedback - Castle Combe, England

[calebleehill1993]

Caleb, the standard advice to get more detail in a scene such as yours is to up the f-number with due deference to the onset of diffraction blur.

There is another approach which says to focus on the tops of your background trees and to expect acceptable sharpness almost to the foreground.

You shot at f/4.8 and 36mm. That is an actual aperture diameter of 7.5mm -about 1/3 of an inch. Lens theory says that only objects smaller than 1/3 inch will be un-resolved! Meaning also that objects bigger than that in the foreground will be recognizable and -instead of worrying about depth of field- instead set your lens to say f/5.6 and decide where to focus.

Warning - heavy going:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

Even heavier:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

HTH

Okay..... that's more than I can chew at the moment. I skimmed over the first article and I think I'm starting to understand better. This is actually really helpful. The science and math behind cameras is very interesting and I am going to look more into this. Thanks a bunch!

[xpatUSA]

I can definitely see what you're talking about with the CA. <> How would you recommend fixing this or not even having this problem?

I don't use Adobe stuff, but most other people here can tell you which LR sliders to use and what their effect is to fix it. However, most lenses do give visible lateral CA, so "not even having the problem" could be expensive.

I see the shades of green on the woman. The artifacts I'm still having a hard time with. Is it a little bit discolored?

Just above the top of the wall there's a darker then lighter red band on the shirt, parallel to the wall. Not immediately obvious, I must admit. Only the pedantic eagle eye spots such things usually. LOL.

I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out!

You are most welcome!

[pschlute]

How do you know how the image is supposed to look?

Apart from eyeballing it, go to the image in LR develop module and select View/Loupe overlay/grid. If the image is correct horizontally, the verticals should also be straight (assuming the building is not leaning !). The grid lines will help as a guide.

You mentioned filters and I recently bought some filters just to protect the lenses I have. Do you recommend taking them off when shooting?

You will get different advice on this, but I recommend no filter unless it is for a specific purpose. So use a CPL or ND/GND filters for effect. Or use a protective filter if you are shooting on a beach in high wind with salty spray. But otherwise, no.

[calebleehill1993]

I don't use Adobe stuff, but most other people here can tell you which LR sliders to use and what their effect is to fix it. However, most lenses do give visible lateral CA, so "not even having the problem" could be expensive.



Just above the top of the wall there's a darker then lighter red band on the shirt, parallel to the wall. Not immediately obvious, I must admit. Only the pedantic eagle eye spots such things usually. LOL.



You are most welcome!

Gotcha. You've been super helpful and I'm very greatful!

[calebleehill1993]

Apart from eyeballing it, go to the image in LR develop module and select View/Loupe overlay/grid. If the image is correct horizontally, the verticals should also be straight (assuming the building is not leaning !). The grid lines will help as a guide.




You will get different advice on this, but I recommend no filter unless it is for a specific purpose. So use a CPL or ND/GND filters for effect. Or use a protective filter if you are shooting on a beach in high wind with salty spray. But otherwise, no.

That's good advice on the LR tools.

As far as filters go, I'm just using UV filters because they're clear and don't seem to add an effect to the picture. Why do you recommend no filter?

[pschlute]

As far as filters go, I'm just using UV filters because they're clear and don't seem to add an effect to the picture. Why do you recommend no filter?

1. Because there is no optical benefit (except the ones I mentioned above). Digital, unlike colour film does not require the slight "warming up" that prevents a blue cast on film.

2. The digital sensor is more prone to flare than a film. So anything that may present more flare to the sensor should be avoided. Adding an extra layer of glass to the front of the lens can do this, especially if the quality of the filter is not top class. If I have spent possibly thousands of pounds on a really good lens I do not want to degrade the quality of the image it will produce.

Use a protective filter by all means but just not when shooting. Do however at all times make sure your lens hood is attached. Not only will this help reduce flare, but will also add some degree of protection if you bang the lens against something. I said above you will get mixed views on this, so the choice is ultimately yours.

[Wavelength]

"An image has brought immense Wisdom on this thread"....
I like this image very much; as Ted has mentioned a bit hazy look is there; that is all i can be critical about this image. if there were not that lady and, probably, her son was not there, i would not have been felt an emotional attachment to this image; the boy's red is sufficient to bring one's attention to the 'central' subject of the image. A very pleasing image

[calebleehill1993]

Use a protective filter by all means but just not when shooting. Do however at all times make sure your lens hood is attached. Not only will this help reduce flare, but will also add some degree of protection if you bang the lens against something. I said above you will get mixed views on this, so the choice is ultimately yours.

This makes sense. I don't have a lens hood, but it's on my list of things. They are very cheap. Thanks for the recommendation. Seriously, I've learned a ton of very useful things all in one day. Thanks a million!

[calebleehill1993]

"An image has brought immense Wisdom on this thread"....
I like this image very much; as Ted has mentioned a bit hazy look is there; that is all i can be critical about this image. if there were not that lady and, probably, her son was not there, i would not have been felt an emotional attachment to this image; the boy's red is sufficient to bring one's attention to the 'central' subject of the image. A very pleasing image

That's very kind of you. I've looked at some of your work and I'm super impressed! Thanks for your support!

[DanK]

Given that you’re new to this, I strongly recommend that you read some of the basic tutorials on this site. They are well organized and clearly written.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Geoff F]

Thanks for the feedback!

When you say you would tone down the exposure of the woman's head and the kids cap, does that mean you would have to adjust those using an area adjustment tool in lightroom so it only effects those spots? I'm not super familiar with those tools yet, but that's something I'll have to look into.

Also, I don't think I really understand what aperture does. I know it has to do with focus and the bigger the F-stop, the more things that are in focus, but the less light the camera takes in to that leads to either higher ISO or exposure time. I think that's right. I'm just not sure what numbers I would use when for the F-stop.

Thanks, again.

I work with Photoshop not Lightroom, Caleb, so I would use a Curves Adjustment Layer with a mask, although adjustment brushes would be another alternative. In reality, I may create two copies from the original Raw file with different conversion settings then merge the two with a mask. But don't get overly worked up about those methods at this stage.

Also, don't get excessively worried about a little bit of CA or artefacts. If you were entering this image into a semi pro competition those items would count against you but the average viewer looking at a normal print would hardly notice them.

Much the same applies to the original image being a little on the 'flat' side. Yes, you can boost the adjustments to add a fraction more wow factor but, if in doubt, I would sooner see an image which is a little lacking than to see those measures over applied. Excessive use of these adjustments will magnify any CA or artefact problems. You will notice that Manfred's alternative image has just a small amount of extra boost which hasn't been overdone.

Are you shooting in Jpeg or Raw format? Raw gives you a fraction more control of those initial adjustments. Most of us will shoot in Raw and only switch to Jpeg when uploading to the internet.

There is a lot of good advice on using aperture/shutter speed/Iso settings on the CinC tutorial pages. For example

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ph...techniques.htm

[DanK]

The Lightroom adjustment brush is a very capable tool for this. I use it often, and the techniques I use are very similar to what I use with curves and masks in Photoshop.

You should read a bit about how to use the adjustment brush, but as a start, here is what I do:

-- set the flow to a low level. I often set it at 10. This allows you to paint in the change gradually.
--include some feathering. The amount depends on the image, but the last time I used it, I had it set around 15.
--try setting auto mask on. This stops the adjustment from bleeding into adjacent but different areas.

Note that you can change the settings for the adjustment at any time, as long has you haven't closed the adjustment box. I often set it for a more extreme change than I want, in order to see more clearly where I am painting, and then move the adjustment down to a more reasonable level. You can also tell LR to show the area you are painting with a colored mask.

[escape]

Caleb, I liked your photo very much. You have received a lot of information in your thread. I don’t have information but I can provide you with some advise. You stated,”Also, I don't think I really understand what aperture does.” A year and a half ago I didn’t know ether. The most important thing for you to learn is your camera. I suggest you put your focus there. Much success in your photographic endeavors. Daniel

[rpcrowe]

When shooting virtually any cityscape/landscape image during relatively bright conditions, you can seldom go wrong with selecting ISO 100 and expose in a burst with + and - one stop exposure bracketing. Most cameras can do this without any additional work beyond selecting burst and bracketing...

I know that many folks shudder when exposure bracketing is mentioned but I could hand a camera to anyone who has never shot a photo in their lives and recommend the bracketing using ISO 100 during bright and ISO 400 during darker conditions. Using a tripod for night cityscape images shooting at ISO 400 while bracketing up and down one stop with a minus one stop exposure compensation will put you in the ballpark. BTW: the bane of many night shots is the over exposure of brighter areas, this system will give you one shot as the meter reads, one shot a stop under and one shot two stops under the meter reading. Guarantee that one of those three will be in the ballpark...

I was amazed many years ago when I attended a lecture by a National Geographic Photographer who shot this way using 35mm Kodachrome II film. It was an expensive way to shoot and I never did so until I shot digital when every exposure didn't cost money...

BTW: for many who say that you cannot "learn" photography shooting this way, I contend that it is an excellent way to learn because you will be viewing the results of exposure change when you view your images in the editing program...

Do I shoot this way? Seldom but, the Sony cameras will show me the results before I press the shutter button. I just have to realize what good exposure looks like...

[senojbor]

Okay, for what it's worth!
A picture postcard shot of an English village shot on summers day.
The composition is great and the people add interest 10/10
However I'm not a fan of this sort of processing - sorry
For me the colours are over saturated and unreal.
If you are started a photography journey don't go down this road, In few years time you'll look back and shake your head.
Boom