Bridge Shot, first submit

[rob-s]

Just got my XSi a few days ago and wanted to submit this shot. (I edited the exposure under the bridge and tweaked the contrast a little) How do you like the shot? is the bridge a little too dark still? any tips on how to keep the sky and the shadows exposed correctly?



Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi
Exposure: 0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture: f/13.0
Focal Length: 18 mm
Exposure: -0.10
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: -2/3 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

[Raigoki]

hi! nice implementation on the rule of thirds!

however, IMHO, i think it would be better to have it landscape and move a bit further away from the bridge to get the whole curve of it and the reflection of the river/pond.

[nathanbarlow]

what raigoki said, plus I would meter on the reflection, as that is what you are wanting to be the focal point - the bridge and its reflection. Plus if you did landscape rather than portrait, the sky wouldnt be so big, and not having perfect exposure for the sky wont matter too much but could always use HDR if necessary.

MAybe go a bit lower and get that plant which is in the bottom right into the shot more, it looks like accidental. So either get rid of it, or incorparate more to show it as delibrate. Same for the tree at the left top

Just my 2c

[rob-s]

Thanks a lot for the input, I thought I had a landscape standing back a little bit but I guess I didnt get one.

Maybe next time I will take a few pics from farther back as well and meter off a few other things.

[ryder]

Rob, I sense some confusion on the word "landscape". Your photo is of a landscape, but it is in the "portrait" proportions. When others suggest switching to "landscape" they are referring to "wider than tall" proportions. Say your original was printed, it would be an 8" wide by 10" tall. They are suggesting that it be 10" wide by 8" tall. I am not saying that it must be 8x10, just that it be in "landscape proportions".

[rob-s]

Yea, I got that. I was looking through the shots from that day and thought I had taken a landscape (wide) shot, but I guess I didn't.

[radityopradipto]

Hi... I agree with some people above (couldn't remember the names... Sorry ) to put your orientation on landscape view...
However, I don't really agree with the suggestion to use HDR to properly exposed your shots. HDR is used too much... Maybe people thought it looks cool, but it's going to be boring if you're shooting HDR all day... Landscape photography is more into implementing filters (Cokin, or Lee if you have the budget) to properly exposed and increased the colours of your photos.. This is just my preference though, coz it looks more natural than HDR shots too me.

Last thing, try to get rid of the tree on the top left corner... It's quite distracting the viewers...
Hope this will help
Best wish

[Tusia]

Originally Posted by radityopradipto

Hi... I agree with some people above (couldn't remember the names... Sorry ) to put your orientation on landscape view...
However, I don't really agree with the suggestion to use HDR to properly exposed your shots. HDR is used too much... Maybe people thought it looks cool, but it's going to be boring if you're shooting HDR all day... Landscape photography is more into implementing filters (Cokin, or Lee if you have the budget) to properly exposed and increased the colours of your photos.. This is just my preference though, coz it looks more natural than HDR shots too me.

Last thing, try to get rid of the tree on the top left corner... It's quite distracting the viewers...
Hope this will help
Best wish

Right on about HDR. It looks very interesting, but not natural. Great portfolio.

[nathanbarlow]

Originally Posted by radityopradipto

However, I don't really agree with the suggestion to use HDR to properly exposed your shots. HDR is used too much... Maybe people thought it looks cool, but it's going to be boring if you're shooting HDR all day... Landscape photography is more into implementing filters (Cokin, or Lee if you have the budget) to properly exposed and increased the colours of your photos.. This is just my preference though, coz it looks more natural than HDR shots too me.

Not to nitpick - but just because traditionally filters were used, doesnt mean it is any more correct. This would be a false appeal to authority - tradition is not an authority (some philosophy critical thinking for you). For film, filters are about the only thing available short of some insane darkroom work. The advent of digital means you can use a filter, or post processing. Neither is wrong per-say, just different.

Also you drop a brand name in there, which i admit is a good brand (possibly the best in filters), but this is analogous to saying Usain Bolt runs fast because he wears Nike shoes. Brand doesnt matter, although quality probably does.

"properly expose" "increase the colors" - HDR does this. If you take sh!tty photos, and make them into a HDR, you get a sh!t HDR. end of story. You still have to expose properly. You just expose differently to "normal". And you expose multiple times. Same goes for colour - if your colour balance is munted, your HDR will be munted.

I agree with you that HDR is overused, and often when you see HDR it is done badly. I think a good guide for HDR is to try not to end up with pictures that are more than 1 or 2 'stops' different from each other. It is when people take a -2 and a +2 exposure and then merge them that you get harsh results (my opinion). If you want this type of extreme, better off taking more photos with less stepping. But ultimately, a HDR shouldnt look like a HDR - it should look like an amazing photograph with that X factor that makes you go woah - HDR is just a tool to get this. Technically ansel adams did HDR - he just did it with black n white film, and using darkroom techniques. High range of exposure is all that defines HDR, nothing else.

examples obtained from smashing magazine

: Photo by Photographer Maciek Duczynski - photo.net

A postcard for the Margarita island on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Do these look "natural"? they do to me . . . .

Apologies for the rant, but I get annoyed when people engage in parroting this type of 'bashing' something because they heard someone else say it or they read it in a forum or magazine. This isnt just limited to this particular case, I make it a point to tell people that no matter the subject - so dont take it personally.

Nathan

[Raigoki]

Originally Posted by nathanbarlow

Not to nitpick - but just because traditionally filters were used, doesnt mean it is any more correct. This would be a false appeal to authority - tradition is not an authority (some philosophy critical thinking for you). For film, filters are about the only thing available short of some insane darkroom work. The advent of digital means you can use a filter, or post processing. Neither is wrong per-say, just different.

Also you drop a brand name in there, which i admit is a good brand (possibly the best in filters), but this is analogous to saying Usain Bolt runs fast because he wears Nike shoes. Brand doesnt matter, although quality probably does.

"properly expose" "increase the colors" - HDR does this. If you take sh!tty photos, and make them into a HDR, you get a sh!t HDR. end of story. You still have to expose properly. You just expose differently to "normal". And you expose multiple times. Same goes for colour - if your colour balance is munted, your HDR will be munted.


I agree with you that HDR is overused, and often when you see HDR it is done badly. I think a good guide for HDR is to try not to end up with pictures that are more than 1 or 2 'stops' different from each other. It is when people take a -2 and a +2 exposure and then merge them that you get harsh results (my opinion). If you want this type of extreme, better off taking more photos with less stepping. But ultimately, a HDR shouldnt look like a HDR - it should look like an amazing photograph with that X factor that makes you go woah - HDR is just a tool to get this. Technically ansel adams did HDR - he just did it with black n white film, and using darkroom techniques. High range of exposure is all that defines HDR, nothing else.

examples obtained from smashing magazine

: Photo by Photographer Maciek Duczynski - photo.net

A postcard for the Margarita island on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Do these look "natural"? they do to me . . . .

Apologies for the rant, but I get annoyed when people engage in parroting this type of 'bashing' something because they heard someone else say it or they read it in a forum or magazine. This isnt just limited to this particular case, I make it a point to tell people that no matter the subject - so dont take it personally.

Nathan

sometimes, i do HDR on my images when i didn't got the chance to bring Grad. ND filter on a lanscape shot. to properly exposed all elements. (in my case, it's the sky against the foreground/subject) drawback is that it takes me a looooong time staring at my pc for post processing... hehe!