PDA

View Full Version : Cross Creek: A Movie re Marjorie Rawlings in the 1920s


ginger_55
Jun-23-2005, 09:07 PM
She moved to rural Florida for 10 yrs, I am trying to depict the movie about her time there, with the birds, swamps, etc. So I had to pick one out of 4 shots for here........aaggghhh. I left a frame off. OK.
EXIF: ISO 400, F8, 17mm, 1/400thsec No EC.......
Worked up in photoshop: the usual, curves, saturation, USM, then maybe some more stuff. Or more curves, or.......... One thing that helped me over some other photos was changing the WB in RAW to cloudy. It helped bring out the sunset colors. I learned that if I forget to do that, I can't really make up for it in PS, have to start over in RAW......no matching that setting. Filters won't do it, not like RAW.

That is all the info I have rt now, except that I would like to have put up two photos.............was going nuts choosing. Oh, I don't usually go so bright and contrasty, but I have noticed others doing that in a sensational manner lately, am trying to find out what they do by trial and error. I also used Rutt's longer sharpening method, in layers, with lab, rgb, the whole bit.
http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/25933798-L.jpg


http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/gallery/604806/8/25933798

This photo is on one of the last pages of that gallery. The original can be had there.

I just realized I talked about PS rather than composition and the "taking" of the photo. This is to me a gimme shot. Looks good, look through the meter, it was the time of night, the type of shooting for a wide lens, I wanted to record the solstice, high tides, etc, in our creeks. So I went somewhere, had 15 minutes, staked out my usual place, no birds not there, what is there, Yup, that is there, to the rt, the left, up, down, etc.

In this particular one, it is framed by bushes on each side. The interest to me were the the clouds. Looked kind of like a storm, they were changing, a lot can happen in 15 minutes.

As I said, I had on the 17-40, framed the photo with bushes, I knew I wanted the clouds, took these every which way, framing with bushes usually, have one with a house and reflections, my second/or third choice. Exposure was a consideration. I could not stick with a minus EC as in shooting birds, usually, so I brought it up. a Plus was too much, I settled on 0. This was slightly underexposed. What I do, I shoot, look, then take the reading off of whatever area might correct the exposure problem. I take a straight shot, composed like I want, then I look, I usually take one of the sky, if the foreground looks impossibly dark, I then take a reading from something neutral like grass, take another photo and look. Unless they are way off I leave them on the card to make sure I made the correct decision, later. The nice thing about shooting later is that I can see the LCD thingy. In bright light I can't do that.

Here, I made sure the little house thing was to the left of center, not centered, I was very interested in the little reflections in the water so I crouched to get them in. Crouching is kind of precarious, so I will take several shots when I do that. It shoots in bursts, was trying to refrain from doing that, had very little memory left.

Enjoy....................can't hurt me with a landscape. I didn't raise them like I did the birds. So have at it.

ginger

luke_church
Jun-24-2005, 05:24 AM
Hi Ginger,

OK, I'll bite... I expect my critique will be a lot worse than your photo, so I can't do that much harm ;)

1. I like the photo, it's sharp and seems reasonably well exposed. I think my preference would have been to under-expose a little, the sky looks just a fraction burnt out (but that could be my monitor)

Composition:

2. It appears to be theoretically close to the thirds rule with the bright spot in the sky, and the horizon... But, I think there is a problem with the bush, they add contrast but they pull your eye down towards them, away from the colours of the sky [RHS bush]

3. The bushes cut off at the LHS look almost accident, if you like them there, I would have tried to keep them below the horizon. I would have either zoomed out and go more bush, or zoomed in and got less

4. I think the real strength of this image is it's colour. I think that there's too much in it that detracts from the colour, I would have liked the 'lonely' feel. Move left as far as you can, zoom on the 'pier house' and get the range of colour above it, the downside on this is that you'd have lost some of the lovely reflections. Personally I'm not such a big fan of the cloudsy bit, I would have been tempted to shift the horrizon up by a 1/3 and get down with the swamp. You might have even managed to get the reflection of the clouds in it, which would probably have allowd a broader exposure.

Image quality

5. Face half an inch from the monitor, you seem to be have artifacts. I can't tell whether it's JPEG corrupt (fair play) or over-sharperning.

So in conclusionish, I like it, take the bushes out, give me more of the reflections and less of the sky and there are real possibilities for the lonely sunset feel here....

Incidentally the composition on your other sunset + Bush photo in the link appeals to me quite a bit more...

OK, so that's from me now, I hope it was useful and not too rambling.

Cheers,

Luke

ginger_55
Jun-24-2005, 08:07 AM
Thanks, Luke, I appreciate it. That was as close as I could get to the marsh at the time, in any way. Not an excuse, just was. Those were all the reflections that were, they were just starting, the marsh ended there, I had to get home, so I can't give you more reflections in that photo, even in the same circumstances.

I am glad I put the link in, you gave me some valuable feedback on that. I will get back to you.

I do use bushes, and it is always a "decision" as to how much to include. I probably forgot where they were breaking while I was trying to get the reflections of the marsh in.
I will wait to see if anyone else critiques me, then when I have time I will work on that photo. Re bushes, et al.

thanks, ginger

Just woke up, glad to see a response.