Photo Feedback - Constructive Critique

[Alfonso_Frisk]

I think I have misunderstood the concept of this critique thread.
I had it in my head that the critique would be mainly pointing to how the shot could (if at all) be improved at stage one. I.E.  getting it right in camera.
Suggestions on framing, composition, exposure and metering etc

I'm crap at post editing and find the whole process boring and laborious, although necessary most of the time in my case.
I would like to put my efforts into getting it right in camera. Much more fun at times imho.
Therefore I can offer very little advice in this instance.

Cheers
Tony

[ABERS]

I think I have misunderstood the concept of this critique thread.
I had it in my head that the critique would be mainly pointing to how the shot could (if at all) be improved at stage one. I.E.  getting it right in camera.
Suggestions on framing, composition, exposure and metering etc

I'm crap at post editing and find the whole process boring and laborious, although necessary most of the time in my case.
I would like to put my efforts into getting it right in camera. Much more fun at times imho.
Therefore I can offer very little advice in this instance.

Cheers
Tony

"Let's start at the very beginning, that's a very good place to start" as Julie Andrews would have us do! Of course getting it right in camera is perhaps the most important stage, that's if circumstances, camera position, access to the subject/s allow, but those conditions are not always there at the time. Landscape yes, still life yes, portraiture yes, architecture yes, flowers yes. Where things are on the move it's a little different, mainly correct exposure and focus take front stage and things can be tidied up later.

I only put this in because I'm trying to keep the thread going and stop it dying after one 'critique' session, which as we all know always happens. Such threads disappear in a welter of competition posts as are buried never to be seen again. Perhaps a Bump now and again would help?

BUMP!

[Reinardina]

I interpreted it as a thread for advice on anything to get a better result. But it doesn't really matter, what form of critique is asked for/wanted/needed.

As Alan says, the opportunity is here, but very much under used. Not really used at all.

I have a few other high ISO shots of 'playlets' at Hampton Court (King George this time), where the actors were literally running around, through galleries and up and down a staircase. Thank goodness there was also a short period, where they were a bit more static. I'll have a look at them today. The appalling weather seems ideal for a bit of editing.

I may post another one here for advice/critique. I'll see how I get along.

[Reinardina]

I am now experimenting with the 'High Pass' filter and Topaz Denoise.
I'd never used the filter before, don't think I ever spotted it.

What is the intrinsic value of this filter, and what is it meant to do?

[Hinfrance]

High pass sharpening is just another tool in the armoury, if you find that the usual unsharp mask technique is a little too harsh at times. I personally rarely use it.

It can be used for other things too.

The detail recovery technique using Topaz NR does really need the surface blur stage to work, otherwise you just end up with more strident noise, and as you have noticed, more unwanted colour saturation. Serif's Photoplus has a surface blur filter (in the filter gallery) and supports Topaz plugins (only 8 bit in the current release, but the next release due soon is rumoured to support 16 bit plugins).

[Reinardina]

Thanks. I'll look into it.

[andydo]

Hiya been a while since I posted anything in here I took this last week any cc welcome and hopefully you will see my shots are better than when I last posted in here

[Reinardina]

I like the photo, very atmospheric, but for proper feedback, you will have to rely on other, more experienced photographers.

There are plenty on the site, I hope they pop in and advise you on things that are spot on, or might be improved (and how to do it).

It's good to have you back.

[andydo]

Thanks reinardina it's good to be back hopefully I'll get to enter some of those weekly comps again it's been too long

[StephenBatey]

First. a big thank you for posting! I was genuinely surprised to see a new entry in this thread, and very pleased to do so. However (there's always a caveat isn't there?) like Tony I read the purpose of the thread to be confined specifically to post processing - and my first concern is always the things that come before that stage.

I made a list of (so far - as I've only spent a few minutes on it) and have currently 8 points that I am personally not happy with. Having got that far, it became obvious to me that I had no idea what you were trying to achieve, and without that it's impossible to provide meaningful criticism. It's easy to demonstrate that you can list half a dozen obvious "errors" in an image and slate it for them, and yet turn it round and list the same half dozen points as being intentional and providing the key to correctly interpreting the image and praise it accordingly.

I intend to come back to this later when I have more time, but I will give my notes so far (which I'd normally expand to give reasons and explain what I mean) so you can see how my mind is working. The comments are in the order in which I saw them. Under "why" I began wondering about, well, why you took it/presented it like this as it makes a considerable difference. Knowing that would be a big help to me in knowing how to approach this.

Vignetting/dark top LH corner - dark semicircular band
Stray beam bottom centre
No detail in top centre - overexposed
Unsharp - may or may not be intended (fog/ethereal effect)
Limited tonal range
"Missed" triangles in centre - viewpoint
Foreground
Sombre with sun beams


Why?
Not a record or intended to show the structure - no detail
Evoke misty effect? Too dark

[andydo]

Thanks Stephen by missed triangles do you mean I should have got light coming through all the arches to show what they are also it was really foggy so that may be gave it the unsharp effect I don't know

[StephenBatey]

Badly drawn, but these triangles which, if complete, would have echoed the triangular shapes at the top of the arches and the shafts of sunlight. It looks as if a shift to the left would have closed the gap, but it's hard to be certain without being there. There's a slightly extended explanation in a short article I wrote for a local magazine which you can find here:

https://stephenbatey.wordpress.com/arty/moving-the-immoveable-object/

I've marked up your photo, but Firefox crashes if I try to post attachments. I'll try to edit it in in Opera in a moment.

[StephenBatey]

I hope that this manages to post; otherwise I'll have to try more oblique methods.

My list was only that - a list; to make any real sense I would have to explain, as it was only an aide memoire to myself, and posted just to give a vague idea of how my mind was working, and hopefully indicate why I found it difficult to be certain of what to look for.

[andydo]

Hmmm maybe if I was lower down I'd have hidden part of the triangle with the tree

[jinky]

Hi Andy and welcome back. Nice to see a fellow  suffering NUFC supporter on here!
I`m not bothered about triangles and the like and just how an image hits me and trying to guess what the photographer is aiming to portray. Without access to the exif details  and the original I`m left wondering what camera was used  / how it was edited.
For me what leaps out are the overexposed sections , especially that burn in front of the bridge but then shooting into a bright sun it is hard to minimise the effect without darkening the rest of the image. The rest of the image lacks clarity with the heavy vignetting only serving to emphasis the burned out centre more I am afraid. I think the foreground tree helps balance the bridge in overall image and so would not want you to  change position to lose that foreground light background to it. The placement of the foliage and trees draw attention to the viaduct - for me a train crossing it in silhouette and the prime point of focus would have lifted the image entirely and given it more appeal to me - but then I guess you couldn`t control the train arrival  . That aside it does put across a misty, ephemeral feel with that lens flare highlighting the brightness in the gloom. If that`s what you were seeking - not far off. I might have tried moving left to have the sun shooting through the leaves and leave less impact but then again I have no idea of the lie of the ground and what you were aiming for. Well done on putting an image up for critique on your return though