On the waterfront

[jc1305us]

Taken in Hoboken, NJ, where the film of the same name was made. If those old timers saw what Hoboken turned into, they'd be rolling in their graves! Shot on a Sony a7ii.

 

[mikemorrell]

I'm not sure why no one has yet responded to your request for critique but I'll kick off and I hope others will join in.:)

 

It's been many years since I played around with night exposures but this photo looks to me to be a challenging exposure to get right. You have big street lights in the foreground and (presumably) less luminescent on the buildings in the background. So you did really well in getting this exposure just right!

 

In general, I like the scene and the photo. The bench and railing provide a foreground and give the photo plenty of depth. I also like the depth provided by the promenade and the city training away into the distance (left). The foreground has lots of texture on the promenade and on the railings. The city in the background has enough 'texture' (windows) to make it an interesting backdrop. I like the '2 triangles' that add interest to the skyline, the clouds which break up the sky, and the reflections on the water.

 

From the Exif data, I noticed that you took the photo in semi-automatic mode with shutter priority (2.5 sec) and ISO 50. The aperture was set at f/2.8. I wonder whether a narrower aperture with a longer shutter speed and/or higher ISO might have given you an even sharper background. But TBH, you have to 'pixel peep' to notice any unsharpness on the windows of buildings. So it's not really a problem when viewing the picture as a whole on screen.

 

A minor suggestion is to check the white balance of the photo (again). WB is as much about personal choice as it is about being 'technically correct'. But for me, the WB is a tad on the warm side (promenade and sky). A small adjustment reduces the 'yellow cast' on the promenade and gives the sky a deeper, clearer shade of blue.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

[jc1305us]

I'm not sure why no one has yet responded to your request for critique but I'll kick off and I hope others will join in.:)

 

It's been many years since I played around with night exposures but this photo looks to me to be a challenging exposure to get right. You have big street lights in the foreground and (presumably) less luminescent on the buildings in the background. So you did really well in getting this exposure just right!

 

In general, I like the scene and the photo. The bench and railing provide a foreground and give the photo plenty of depth. I also like the depth provided by the promenade and the city training away into the distance (left). The foreground has lots of texture on the promenade and on the railings. The city in the background has enough 'texture' (windows) to make it an interesting backdrop. I like the '2 triangles' that add interest to the skyline, the clouds which break up the sky, and the reflections on the water.

 

From the Exif data, I noticed that you took the photo in semi-automatic mode with shutter priority (2.5 sec) and ISO 50. The aperture was set at f/2.8. I wonder whether a narrower aperture with a longer shutter speed and/or higher ISO might have given you an even sharper background. But TBH, you have to 'pixel peep' to notice any unsharpness on the windows of buildings. So it's not really a problem when viewing the picture as a whole on screen.

 

A minor suggestion is to check the white balance of the photo (again). WB is as much about personal choice as it is about being 'technically correct'. But for me, the WB is a tad on the warm side (promenade and sky). A small adjustment reduces the 'yellow cast' on the promenade and gives the sky a deeper, clearer shade of blue.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

Thanks Mike, your critiques are always well informed and welcomed. New camera, new system for me (Nikon to Sony) so I'm still learning the ropes as it were. The idea was to show some sort of emptiness, with the bench being unoccupied. As if there was something or someone missing. I usually don't do "message" shots, but having lived there for 10 years, maybe it was a way of saying I was missing. Who knows? Thanks for the feedback, be well

[michaellinder]

I like this image much more than the first one you posted. For openers, it appears that the crop is different, resulting in less clutter. Secondly, the sky has much more of a natural look and feel, especially the clouds. Finally, I offer another version that may help to satisfy your wanting to show emptiness.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by michaellinder

[jc1305us]

I like this image much more than the first one you posted. For openers, it appears that the crop is different, resulting in less clutter. Secondly, the sky has much more of a natural look and feel, especially the clouds. Finally, I offer another version that may help to satisfy your wanting to show emptiness.

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1418689[/ATTACH]

You nailed it. Thank you!

[michaellinder]

You nailed it. Thank you!

 

You supplied the foundation; my role was just to the grunt work.

[Robin Smith]

I am not enamored of the bench which seems to occupy a large part of an otherwise interesting image. Agree that cropping off all the empty sky and making it a panorama much improves it. We are often taught to fill empty foregrounds, but it might have been nice to have people in the foreground, if possible, sitting on the bench. My guess it there was no one there, or you would have done it, and I can see it is difficult to get this shot without a bench.