I like this. One suggestion though, the aqueduct (is that what you'd call it?) on the left really doesn't add to the picture. I would have liked to see the rest of the cabin instead.
First, on this monitor, which is not too great, the image looks soft and a bit over saturated.
I'm not familiar with Pentax files, but the exif indicates a jpg with
# White Balance = manual (1)
# Focal Length in 35mm Film = 43
# Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
# Contrast = hard (2)
# Saturation = high (2)
# Sharpness = hard (2)
and no post-processing? IOW, straight out-of-the-box. If this is the case, and somebody help me here, I think you've probably closed the door on any major manipulations. If possible, I'd recommend shooting RAW so you can really manage WB, saturation, sharpness, etc. in post-processing.
Also, the composition for me seems to be in the middle - not tight enough, or not wide enough to include more of the mill. Just my opinion.
leadZERO wrote:
I like this. One suggestion though, the aqueduct (is that what you'd call it?) on the left really doesn't add to the picture. I would have liked to see the rest of the cabin instead.
That's called a "Sluice" (pronounced slew.)
Unfortunately, there was some contruction work going on and I couln't get more of the cabin in.
First, on this monitor, which is not too great, the image looks soft and a bit over saturated.
I'm not familiar with Pentax files, but the exif indicates a jpg with
# White Balance = manual (1)
# Focal Length in 35mm Film = 43
# Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
# Contrast = hard (2)
# Saturation = high (2)
# Sharpness = hard (2)
and no post-processing? IOW, straight out-of-the-box. If this is the case, and somebody help me here, I think you've probably closed the door on any major manipulations. If possible, I'd recommend shooting RAW so you can really manage WB, saturation, sharpness, etc. in post-processing.
Also, the composition for me seems to be in the middle - not tight enough, or not wide enough to include more of the mill. Just my opinion.
Well, unfortunately, I switched back to RAW just after I took this photo. And, I had the jpeg settings set a little heavy.
I was a bit handicapped as far as the composition was concerned. There was a truck just to the left of my photo and construction equipment just to the right and the entire mill was roped off with yellow tape so I really couldn't get it and wider/narrower.
One mistake that I know I made was not having a cpl on my camera at the time I took this shot. There is a great relection/glare on the roof that seems to draw the eye there. I'd like to not have the tree in the photo either but I'd lose too much of the photo if I cropped it out.
I did play with it just a little bit. Maybe this will be an improvement
Thanks for you comments.
I'll take this photo again sometime in the future but I really liked the lighting I had for this one.
Ed
Edited by Ed Woodson on Apr 06, 2008 at 08:47 AM GMT
If you have a chance, wander through the cementary behind the church and check the dates on the markers - several of those poor families lost an infant two or three consecutive winters. Helps one to appreciate what we have.
I played around with this one just for fun to get some interesting effects. I did a B&W conversion layer along with some moderate curves as well as burning and dodging. I don't know if I'd call this great art or anything - I was just trying to make it look different.
Ed-
Of the two you posted I quite prefer the second.
The less worn, more red, wood helps balance the color out a little against all the blues and greens in the original shot.
Also the change in angle reveals more texture to the walls and detail in the waterwheel, not to mention pulling the focal points out of the middle of the shot.
