river dearne feedback required

[andydo]

apart from the exposure what else would you change about this pic

[Steve Bristol]

Hi, Andy

I can see what you have tried to do by getting the reflection symmetrical to the actual bridge, but the over exposure just pulls the eye right, I think a little more of the top of the bridge arch may have helped, but I can see the problem there with the tree branch hanging down.

I would have looked at increasing the ISO to give you more DOF, as some of the shot is out of focus also, may be to increase to 100 or 200 rather than the 64 that I think you were shooting with.

I took the liberty of cropping and blending just to see what could be quickly done, hope you don't mind.


http://www.photoradar.com/files/imag...d-168-copy.jpg

Hope this helps.

[Cathus]

andy,

I think you should have concentrated on either the bridge or the reflection. I'm guessing the top of the bridge is cut off because the completely white sky would have blown the exposure? (judging by the reflection of the sky in the water), but cutting it off seems to have cut the story short.

I'm not sure there is a defined focal point of the scene, I'm looking at the brickwork, then all the plants & bushes and that stark black area under the bridge so I'm not sure the entirety of the scene works for me.

It looks like a tough scene to meter for.

[andydo]

it was a tough 1 because the sky was that bright it looked white but the over hangin trees made it dark by the water i tried to get it so there wasnt as much glare on the water like in your version steve but with the reflection still in the water of the bridge i think i should have tried what you said cathus and just went for the reflection but then i would still have the over exposed sky in the frame which i didnt want so if i cropped it it would take out part of the arch....why do i always pick the awkward shots

[andydo]

this 1 shows just how bright the sky was...

[Cathus]

actually Andy I prefer the uncropped shot, OK the sky is way too bright but it makes for a better cohesive picture with he bridge forming a natural place in the scene.

You could have taken two shots, this one which exposes the bridge, river & foliage nicely, then another several stops under making everything really dark but leaving detail in the sky, and then combined them both into one shot.

(actually, you could take three with a big overexposure of the whole scene but leaving detail in the arch under the bridge)

[andydo]

i cannit get me head round that photoshop malarky so it would be no good takin the separate pics or i would do it that way in future

[markgozz]

Andy you could try an ND grad and angle it across the top right corner to see if that will help or try a different time of day when the sky isn't so bright , I agree with Cathus the wider shot makes your image a lot more pleasing to the eye .

Mark

[andydo]

hiya mark im gettin a dslr for xmas so im not really bothered over any filters jut yet cheers for the advice though

[markgozz]

Andy you don't need a DSLR to use filters in fact it would be good practice to use them before you get your new camera , there was a good review in this month Digital Camera Mag for filter kits and the SRB P size ND grad kit came out very well for only £46 . I used the Cokin P series filters with my Lumix FZ8 and then all I needed to do was to buy the right sized adaptor ring when I got my Nikon . Even if your camera doesn't have a filter screw thread you can still use them hand held to get the same effect .
One more tip for you would be to down load the manual for your new camera now if you know which one your getting and if you haven't already done so , I found it very useful to familiarize myself with all the buttons and menu options of my new camera so that it wasn't such a shock . I know it sounds a bit geeky but the manuals are more than just a list of your cameras bits , it gives you descriptions of how why and when you should use different settings to get the best out of any given situation . Good luck .

Mark