African sunrise

[Deneys]

So the mood or idea behind this image was to achieve a dreamy feel to an African sunrise with out going over board.

1. The flare was added do you like it or not ?
2. The dreamy effect was created using a fast lens do you think I achieved it or not ?


Camera Nikon D60
Exposure 1/4000 sec
Aperture f/1.4
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash No Flash

[SwissJon]

First thing I noticed was that the photo wasn't horizontal, and to be honest, it spoiled the rest for me.

I think perhaps you added a little too much flare, it's taken over the photo. It's nice, just overstated. Personally I prefer the flare to come from the sun rather than the computer.

I think you were too late with this shot.. 5 minutes earlier with the sun JUST peeping the smallest amount over the mountain (And I mean, a teeny tiny bit of sun showing) would have changed the photo completely.

I think you got it spot on with the DoF.. But as with another recent photo, I think you may have oversharpened your Image.. It really shows on grasses when you do that, and it detracts from the image.

You got just the right amount of out of focus grass in the foreground.. I like that.

Yes, I think if you straighten the image, tone down the flare, and don't oversharpen, you've got a really nice dreamy photo here.

[gturner]

I think that has potential to be a really gorgeous shot, but I agree with most of the points above.
The flare looks fake to me, the biggers ones more so.

I would love to see a simpler version of the same image because I think you nailed the grass.

[wbrook13]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

First thing I noticed was that the photo wasn't horizontal, and to be honest, it spoiled the rest for me.

I think perhaps you added a little too much flare, it's taken over the photo. It's nice, just overstated. Personally I prefer the flare to come from the sun rather than the computer.

I think you were too late with this shot.. 5 minutes earlier with the sun JUST peeping the smallest amount over the mountain (And I mean, a teeny tiny bit of sun showing) would have changed the photo completely.

I think you got it spot on with the DoF.. But as with another recent photo, I think you may have oversharpened your Image.. It really shows on grasses when you do that, and it detracts from the image.

You got just the right amount of out of focus grass in the foreground.. I like that.

Yes, I think if you straighten the image, tone down the flare, and don't oversharpen, you've got a really nice dreamy photo here.

How do you know their camera wasn't level, SwissJon?
I see a lot of comments on here about "straighten the image", without the person even knowing what the terrain was like where the photo was taken! There are a lot of places on this earth that have hills, and photos have been taken on the sides of those hills. (With you being in Switzerland, I'm sure you probably have taken a few yourself)
Unless a photo has water or buildings in it (and they are slanted), how can any of us, other than the photog, be sure that an image is not "straight"?

[KRIS]

Originally Posted by wbrook13

How do you know their camera wasn't level, SwissJon?
I see a lot of comments on here about "straighten the image", without the person even knowing what the terrain was like where the photo was taken! There are a lot of places on this earth that have hills, and photos have been taken on the sides of those hills. (With you being in Switzerland, I'm sure you probably have taken a few yourself)
Unless a photo has water or buildings in it (and they are slanted), how can any of us, other than the photog, be sure that an image is not "straight"?

image is straight, going by the many vertical stalks of the grass. points about flare i agree. this image IMHO would have benefitted by more DOF, an army of grass on the foreground, with hazy distant mountains beyond. the grass is well backlit and would have been very interesting foreground. i agree the lighting would have been dramatic five minutes earlier, with directional lighting. this is a wow image in optimal conditions. the op should visit this place again if possible and try out more possibilities. all this is IMHO, and i request to be corrected if i am wrong.

[navcom]

Originally Posted by wbrook13

How do you know their camera wasn't level, SwissJon?
I see a lot of comments on here about "straighten the image", without the person even knowing what the terrain was like where the photo was taken! There are a lot of places on this earth that have hills, and photos have been taken on the sides of those hills. (With you being in Switzerland, I'm sure you probably have taken a few yourself)
Unless a photo has water or buildings in it (and they are slanted), how can any of us, other than the photog, be sure that an image is not "straight"?

"Straight" is not related to horizon alone. Straight refers to the image composition...in other words, the relative average of compositional lines. It is sometimes preferable to take a shot where the horizon is not level in order to get other lines in the composition properly straight or risk losing the viewer.

A straight horizon produces balance in a landscape. Our eyes naturally try to find the horizon in a landscape shot even if it's not visible in order to achieve this "balance", just like our inner ear does to keep us standing straight. When the horizon is not visible, our brain takes cues from other elements in the image to see if everything is balanced. If those lines lead the brain to think it's crooked, then it's crooked. Art by it's definition produces emotions and feelings in the viewer, even if what is evoked is not reality. Sometimes you want that angled effect as it supports the composition but most of the time you don't. When you do, it's usually very obvious.

I agree with Swiss that the image is slightly leaning down to the right as the feeling I get is that the image is slightly falling off the right side. This has more to do with the lines present in the image. To my eye, the majority of plants are ever-so-slightly bowing to the right. And the line where the mountains meet the field is also slanting to the right as it follows the hills. It gives the optical illusion that the horizon isn't straight even though it probably is. It's more a matter of elements in the composition that don't mesh with each other quite right than it is a bad aligned horizon.

I do happen to like the saturation though. But the flare seems just a bit much. My opinion though.

Hope that helps!

[Sterling]

^^I agree. If an image looks crooked then it is crooked. If an image has to be accompanied by an explanation that the "bubble in the level said it was straight" then there is a problem with the image.

[SwissJon]

Thanks

That's exactly what I was going to say. Quite frankly I don't care whether the camera was level or not, I don't KNOW anything. This is a critique section, and in my minds eye, the camera looked out of kilter so I told you. The left side looked higher than the right. Maybe it's an illusion but that's the illusion. Put a piece of art on your wall with a wonky horizon and people will continually try to straighten the picture.

And yes, in Switzerland I've taken plenty of shots with wonky virtual horizons, still do occasionally, that's how I "know" that people find wonky horizons disturbing.

If you don't want to know what people really think about a photo and just want a pat on the back and for people to say "well done", don't post it in the critique section. I don't particularly want to waste my time critiquing a picture that you think is perfect.

[wbrook13]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Thanks

That's exactly what I was going to say. Quite frankly I don't care whether the camera was level or not, I don't KNOW anything. This is a critique section, and in my minds eye, the camera looked out of kilter so I told you. The left side looked higher than the right. Maybe it's an illusion but that's the illusion. Put a piece of art on your wall with a wonky horizon and people will continually try to straighten the picture.

And yes, in Switzerland I've taken plenty of shots with wonky virtual horizons, still do occasionally, that's how I "know" that people find wonky horizons disturbing.

If you don't want to know what people really think about a photo and just want a pat on the back and for people to say "well done", don't post it in the critique section. I don't particularly want to waste my time critiquing a picture that you think is perfect.

Hey SwissJon, I actually agree with everything you said in your 1st post, except for the "straighten the image" suggestion. How would you straighten it? It appears to me that the stalks of grass are vertical already. . . . . . I don't particularly like the composition of the image myself, but think it would look more "wonky" or "disturbing" if the grasses were not vertical.
Nobody said anything about wanting a pat on the back and not wanting critique. The person that posted thisimage hasn't re-posted anything yet!

[navcom]

Whoa fellas!

Swiss...wbrook was not the OP.

Wbrook...Swiss was just giving his advice as he saw it.

Deneys...I've taken the liberty of "straightening" your image and attaching my revision to this post. If you don't want it to stay up, just say the word and I will delete it immediately. I used Photoshop to rotate it about 5 degrees. It makes a huge difference to my eye anyhow. I like it much better balanced as it flows tons better. Even the flare now looks more symmetrical.

A level composition is important and is why so many people immediately jump on that item in the critique area...because it's that obvious and it tends to be very distracting to the brain. We've all taken them, especially when we were new. There isn't a law against it...it's just good photographic practice to be conscious of it.