gdw

Shot at the end of the seawall at Galveston Texas. Processed in

NX2 and manipulated in Nik Color Exfer Pro 3.

The general rule is to use a shutter speed of longer than 1/250 sec.

Larry, thank you for the reply. I am pleased to see someone else that is enjoying a point and shoot. I have a fairly nice arsenal of cameras and lenses but I greatly enjoy shooting with my pocket P&S.

It is not easy to make an interesting photograph without a focal point but I honestly believe that you have achieved it extremely well in this image. Actually, before I wrote the critique I browsed your portfolio. You have five or six image along this same line—the leaves in this same folder and Splash and I forget the name of the other one in your flowers folder. Actually even your pumpkins in this folder qualify. The pumpkins I personally do not find as successful but I find them interesting because they give an insight into the way that you see photographs.

Oksana, you are welcome. I am just pleased that you found it of value.

You are more than welcome. It is very nice just as it is but like almost all photographs it can be made stronger. It is unfortunate that we cannot carry a tube of hindsight in our gadget bags. LOL  Look forward to keeping up with your posts. Regards, Gary

Oksana, you have some wonderful beach photos in your portfolio, unfortunately this is not one of them—yet. It is an interesting photograph especially when coupled with your question about the driftwood. There are a couple of ways to approach—one brighten it up to make it look like a more pleasant day on the beach or to darken it to emphasize the atmosphere of a dull, lifeless day which the lack of shadow suggests that it was. The choice is the photographers.

There is an overall flatness to the photograph—partly because of the lighting conditions that day, partly because it needs a little post processing. The easiest “improvement” you can make is to open Levels or wherever the histogram is located in your software and pull the “white” slider, the one on the far right usually, over until the vertical line that moves with the slider just kisses the edge of the upward slope of the graph. That will lighten the photograph considerably—make it much brighter, less depressing. But it does not solve the flatness of the light. The lack of shadows robs the photograph of the suggestion of form and depth—everything is on the same “surface” of the photograph. A slight increase in overall contrast will bring back a little but there is no real substitute for shadows to create depth in a photograph.

I am attaching an example that takes the opposite approach and needless to say it may not be the approach you would prefer. I have worked the image more toward the dullness of the day by darkening even more, especially the beach and the driftwood, removing some of the color from the sky and lightening the lighthouse to bring it back to the center of attention. This is simply one approach.

You asked specifically about the driftwood, what it adds or detracts from the photograph. There again are a number of ways to look at it depending upon how much you want to make the photograph to be about the ighthouse. The first thing is to follow the lines of the driftwood, they are very interesting but not a single one of them ends up anywhere near the lighthouse. In every movement along the driftwood the eye is being drawn away from the light house. Because the driftwood is larger in the photograph and because it has more interesting shapes, the driftwood really overpowers the lighthouse. If you want the emphasis to be the lighthouse, that is not good. On the other hand the “Y” creates a nice frame for the lighthouse. In the revision I am attaching I have darkened the driftwood because things that are darker tend in most cases to recede and to become less important. Darkness is a great place to hide the non-essential or less important elements in a photograph. Since, in the original post, the lighthouse and the driftwood are about the same tone and things that are larger in a photograph garner more attention, the lighthouse seems more an extension of the driftwood rather than something being framed by the driftwood. To counter that when darkening the driftwood I have slightly lightened the lighthouse to help bring it more forward, give it more interest than the now more featureless driftwood. The last change I made was to reduce the saturation of the entire photograph to play even more to the dull, lifeless light of the day.

David duChemin, one of the best current writers on photography says that there are three stages to a photograph; the one you saw at the time of exposure; the one captured in the camera (rarely ever the same), and the one you create in post processing.

Sirinat, there is nothing wrong with the way you have presented this photograph. As far as making it look better there are a number of alterations that could be done. In the end you are the only person qualified to decide whether or not the alterations make the photograph look better.

This photograph is basically about three things, color, figure/ground and lines, any of which can be altered.

Color: you could intensify the color (which you may have already done to some degree.) Digital sometimes does not do the best job of capturing warm colors so by using a Color Booster that favors the warm colors, yellow/red, you could intensify that aspect of the image. You could play with Hue and warm the greens in the background to create a more monochromic color scheme. You could drop all color by converting to black and white which would leave only the two elements figure/ground and lines and put greater emphasis on contrast and form.

Figure/Ground: As you have presented the photograph the figure (the leaf) is slightly favored. You could make the photograph more about figure/ground by reducing the amount of the leaf to where it is equal with the ground (the negative space.) IMO, the extremely out of focus area at the bottom of the photograph doesn’t add much to the statement and could easily be removed (see additional comments below.) Conversely you could reduce the amount of ground and give even more emphasis to the figure.

Line: The two most prominent features of this photograph is first the Color and second the Line created by the rim lighted edge of the leaf. The weakest elements in the photograph are the severely out of focus are at the bottom, the sharp color change and the dark straight diagonal line of the stem on the lower right that competes with and draws attention away from the much more interesting line of the leaf edge. IMO, you may not agree. These weak elements do not add interest to the photograph—they are non-essential to the color, figure/ground or the line. Anything that does not add to the photograph detracts from the photograph and, again IMO, these two elements distract from the beauty of the colors and the interest of the edge of the leaf. As far as I can tell they are only there to fit the composition into a specific format.

Another Option, is to darken the lower edge and the lower right corner fairly heavily. That camouflages the out of focus portion and if it is darkened enough will hide the straight diagonal line and remove the lighter right corner while at the same time giving a stronger base to the image. 

Those are the elements that you have at your disposal. Changing any of them will create a different image with different emphasis. You might play with them to see if any feel a stronger presentation to you. And, in the end, you may come to the conclusion that what you have now is what you want
to say with the image.

Larry, this is an interesting photograph but one that is very difficult to critique. Lacking a specific point of interest makes the entire image the point of interest and therefore it seems to be more of an abstract or design photograph rather than a nature photograph. If there is a statement it is not about a specific element of the woods but rather about the complexity of the woods in the fall. There is a very nice play of lights and darks and of colors against each other. So I believe it is a photograph that would be very successful matted and framed. Among the things that I look for in a photograph are elements to do not add to the statement of the image, things that should not have been included within the frame. In carefully examining this photograph I do not find a single element that should be removed to strengthen the image. Personal opinion, beautifully done.

Sandeep, as far as the sky is concerned you can achieve a very similar look if your conversion software has an option to apply a deep red filter. In the film days you could get a very, very dark, almost black, in the blue sky by using either a 25a deep red or 29 dark red filter—very, very similar to what Lynn has achieved in this photograph. In using color filters on black and white the filter lightens its own color and darkens its complimentary color. The deep red filter would lighten, almost to the point of being white anything that is red and will darken its complimentary color which is cyan.
There is a lot of cyan in the blue of the sky so the sky goes very dark.

What you cannot do is achieve the same effect in foliage and skin tones which in infrared go very light. You can lighten foliage by using a green filter (can’t remember the number of the standard but the 58 tri color would work) but the green filter also lightens the sky because of the green component of cyan. The red filter that you can use to darken the sky will also darken any green foliage, the opposite of infrared. There is also a “glowing” quality to infrared that sets it apart from regular black and white.

Many imaging software programs have a pseudo-infrared filter/action/script which you can apply. It captures some of the qualities of infrared but never is quite the same.

Lynn, you originally asked about composition—I do not see how you could have done it any better. This is absolutely magnificent. The horizon is perfect, the slope of the beach keeps it the lower portion from being static. And the clouds define sweep. Great movement. But the most interesting thing about this photograph is that it puts into perspective our significance in the grand scheme of things. Everytime I see a photograph similar to this with people on a beach I want to grab Keat’s When I Have Fears That I May Cease to Be “…then on the shore of the wide world I stand alone and think till love and fame to nothingness do shrink.” This is a powerful image.

Here the only adjustment was moving the white slider to the edge of the graph. Does this look like the one you have on your computer?

I am still getting blocked when trying to reply directly from your posts. Not really a problem, I can always reply by going to your profile and issuing a new post or replying in the thread which might be better because it gives a permenant record in one place.

You asked if there was another way to whiten the whites. You can use your White Point Tool on an area of the cloud that is the very brightest. You may have to reduce luminosity after you do that to keep from blowing out some of the brighter whites. Using the white slider on levels is usually more controllable, not as drastic. Using Threshold my software does not indicate any blown highlights in this revision. There are some blocked shadows in the dark areas of the clouds but nothing to be concerned about.

Are you capturing the images in color and then converting or are the images originally monochrome? If you are going from color to mono what are you using for the conversion. You can see I don't do infrared. LOL

Lynn, here is a screen capture of the histogram my software is showing on the download from Pnet.

Michal, I am not entirely sure that I agree that this photograph will not stand well on its own. In a well constructed story each should be capable of standing on its own, just strengthened by the sequencingl

This is a wonderful photograph with an interesting message which seems to be contradictory to my assumptions about Lebanon. I wish that the note in the lid of the box were more legible and how that connects with what seems to be artifacts or coins in the lower portion of the box, which is where caption or narrative takes over. 

There are two things that can be done that I believe would strengthen the photograph because there are two very important areas that are in deep shadow, the top of the note in the box and the right side of the man’s face. I was able to lighten both quite easily although both required masking to contain the corrections to just those two area. In this small size it is still not possible to read more of the note but it might be possible in a larger size. Otherwise this is an extremely well handled photograph.

Lynn, I don't want to wear out my welcome, if I have not done so already, but I do have a suggestion--like that's a surprise.

I enjoy your photographs for two reasons; first they are extremely interesting, above average and done with purpose and secondly because you are one of the very few photographers that seems to be expressing any intent in your comments. I almost never critique a photograph otherwise. I make an assumption that a photograph posted to a critique forum is to be critiqued, it is not necessary to mention that but it is necessary to mention what the photographer is trying to do with the photograph so the critic will have some idea where to start or at least what the photographer wishes to know beyond, "great photo." You do that so you are getting stuck with me. Sorry. LOL

This is another exceptional photograph that you have handled beautifully well. The suggestion: I do not know what software you are using but find the histogram. Sometimes it is combined with Levels. You will notice that there is a sizable gap between right edge of the graph and the right edge of the box which indicates that your whites are not quite as white as they could possibly be. Below the right corner of the box is the white adjustment slider. Slide the white slider over until the vertical line that moves with the slider just kisses the right edge of the graph. The photograph will be much more dramatic and of course you can adjust the slider back and forth until you find just the amount of drama that you want.

Lynn, first, thank you for the kind words on the PM. I tried to reply but you apparently have it set to reject receiving messages through the PNet system.

When I first saw this image I thought that I had goofed and overlooked it before I critiqued the previous shot. This is very much what I was suggesting. I am very pleased that you approve. I do have one other suggestion. I believe I understand why you cropped out the tree on the extreme left—it removes the dark triangular area on the lower left. However you could  leave that tree in the image and although the very top of the dark area remains it becomes lost in the shadows of the trees.

Here is my reasoning. Photography takes a three dimensional world and compresses it to two dimensions. Sometimes that is not bad, such as in design photography or when you want to create or strenghten a relationship between two or more elements within the photograph. But in most cases where the photographer wishes to convey reality then it is necessary to work toward creating the illusion of depth within the flat surface of the photograph. There are many ways of doing this. You have two of the ways working in this photograph: diminishing perspective (the trees become progressively smaller) and vanishing point (like railroad tracks the lines progressively getting closer together until at some distant point they converge.) I have highlighted the lines in your photograph that lead to the vanishing point. One of the strongest of those lines is the dark road or lane between the two rows of trees, part of which has been lost in your crop. By moving the crop back to the left edge of the original post you regain that strong line. I would also suggest a narrower format. You have used a 3:4 but take a look at a 2:3 which will allow the frame to be moved to the left without losing hardly any of your clouds. Or you could use a free crop and make it even wider. With a small amount of cloning you could use the entire width of the original and clone out the top of the dark triangle on the right. That would retain all of your dramatic clouds. I know that we all have a tendency to work within the format of our camera or within the format of standard paper sizes but it is much better to fit the format to the composition rather than fitting the composition to the format. And I will confess, I am about as guilty of doing this the wrong way as anyone so I’m not allowed to cast stones. LOL Just allowed to make suggestions.

As you might have surmised, I am quite opinionated when it comes to photography. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with my suggestions.
Which is okay.

Amy, had I read your profile prior to posting I would have been more reluctant to share my very undereducated opinions. LOL Think of your photographs not as the subject matter--not as collard greens, but as lines, tones, forms. Think of leading the eye of the reader across the surface from left to right, just as if you were reading a short story, which is what I tried to do by repositioning the stalk in the lower right corner to make a roadway to the gilding. I tried to prevent the eye from wandering off that roadway by darkening the areas on either side, making them less interesting. It's all about directing the eye of the reader within the frame of the photograph. I am pleased you found it possibly helpful.

Amy, you have a very interesting portfolio. It appears that you are having a ball exploring the abstract of form and shadows with your fuji.

I am always pleased when a photographer is attempting to capture something more esoteric than simply documenting, as you are doing here.
Yes you are documenting the collard steam, but you are doing something much more important—you are photographing a memory of something you saw as phenomena that caught your attention when you were younger. There is no better excuse for clicking a shutter than making a statement about our individual lives. You can mimic all the more accomplished photographers, follow all the rules, learn all the processing tricks and you will never take a photograph that is more important than the ones about your life experience—that is something that the individual can give to the photograph that no one else will ever be able to do.

I hope you don’t mind if I have played with your photograph to put more emphasis on the gilding. It is the photographer’s responsibility to do whatever they can to lead the reader to what is important in the photograph. I have tried to strengthen that in your photograph by eliminating some of the leaves that are non-essential and by using the light colored steam as a lead-in line from the left of the image to the area that is important. I have also darkened some on the left and bottom of the photograph to keep it from competing with the important area.

To tree or not to tree—that is the interesting question. I see in your portfolio that you have a number of photographs that contain interesting clouds so I make an assumption that clouds are something that you enjoy photographing. On most of the photographs it appears that the clouds are used as backdrop, not as the primary subject matter. This one is not so clear since there is no particularly interesting subject matter other than the cloud and the relationship the photograph draws between the cloud and the tree—which personally I find interesting.

So I guess my primary question would be, what were you photographing? Was it the clouds, the field, the tree? Or was it something more esoteric, like the way the scene made you feel?

How many ways have you cropped the photograph to see which one comes closest to what you want the photograph to be about?

You could crop out everything except the sky. You could include the wisp of cloud on the top left and then clone out the tree altogether or you could crop to the right edge of the tree. Both are interesting cloud photographs.

Personally I am more disturbed by the triangular dark area in the lower right corner—it is much too straight, looks manmade rather a shadow cast by an object from nature. You could crop in from the right to remove that area without losing a great deal of your cloud.

Cropping up from the bottom to just below the trunk and shadow of the nearest tree will but even more importance on the sky and the clouds. There is little or no importance to the area below the shadow of the tree. This would still leave you a vanishing point, a feeling of depth.

You could drop just above the far tree line and put all the interest in the relationship between the tree and the clouds. This removes the vanishing point and any suggestion of depth. It flattens the two elements the tree and the clouds therefore strengthening the relationship.

It is always good to examine your images this way in order to learn what makes the strongest statement of what you want the photograph to convey. The idea is that it is a learning process that can be carried over to your in camera composition rather than after the fact in post processing.

I find the relationship between the right edge of the three and the left edge of the clouds to be very interesting—the permanence and the stability of the tree contrasting with the temporary and ever changing clouds. I also like the feeling of depth so my pick of the bunch would be to crop below the tree shadow and from the right to remove what appears to be a vignette of a lenshood (there is an equal one on the left, just not as noticeable.)

Of course, the final composition is your choice—the one that tells the story that you wanted to tell when you clicked the shutter.

Marieke, this is an interesting image by virtue of the subject matter. Basically you have transferred a two-dimensional subject matter into a two-dimensional photograph which, IMO, makes it difficult to access with the standard critique tools. 

You do not mention whether this is the full x-ray or if this is a composition within the x-ray. The information you supplied regarding the x-ray is interesting, but attempting to read the photograph without knowing that it is an x-ray is possibly more interesting. There is considerable mystery, ambiguity within the design. There are many elements that could be read as possible landscape elements which give considerable mystery to the actual cockle shells. There is an interesting range of tonality and texture. 

Were it mine I would print it fairly large, frame it very nicely and never tell anyone exactly what it is. As a tool for psychoanalyzing your friends and family it is possibly far superior to a Rorschach Inkblot Text.

It is impossible to determine how you could improve this photograph without seeing the original x-ray. Even then it would depend upon how
objectively or how subjectively you approached the subject matter. As far as objectively, saying you wanted the photograph to mimic the original, you should, with the original, be able to determine how close you came in reproducing the tonal range, how find the reproduction of detail between the two. Subjectively, using the x-ray as a point of departure to create an image with possibly a totally new connotation (which I think you actually have regardless of intent)—would be dependent upon knowing your original intent, actually knowing the original, especially if this is a crop from within the x-ray. Regardless, as it is it is an image that stands well on its own. I surely would not be hesitant to have it hanging on my wall.

As a suggestion, have you thought about printing this as a negative image?

Janice, you have considerable posterization, especially in the skin tones. That may be intended, it may be a result of your downsizing or it could be due to the processes that you are using. Without knowing whether it was intended or not makes it difficult to access the quality of your use of the
clone and burn tools.

Posterization is the bands of colors that you see in all the flesh areas of the photograph. On the arm under the instrument there is a band of reddish purple then a weird green and inside that a deep pink. On the hand playing the instrument it goes from the reddish purple to orange to deep pink to yellow to a blown out flesh color. Is the posterization something you intended to be in the image?

A brief trip to layers and voila, yellow. LOL

Jeff, this is a fun photograph. I do not know how well it would do in a contest but I see no reason why you shouldn’t give it a try. As far as a critique the only thing that is bothersome about the photograph is the excess area of gray on the bottom. I would be tempted to crop up to where the orange area on the right comes out of the right corner of the photograph. It is a photograph that offers numerous possibilities for manipulation—not saying you should do it this way but to give you an idea of what can be done when you want to play.

Imo, keeper. This photograph would not be nearly as interesting
if it were sharp. I might be tempted to format it as a tall narrow but it works
well this way.