Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2017 · Newbie here - Amsterdam

  
 
ceyerly
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


On a recent work trip I was able to take a single afternoon and wander around Amsterdam. Below are what I believe to be the best shots. It was very cloudy, which wasn't ideal. I'll gladly take any critique or suggestions. They were PP is lightroom. I'll gladly post a link to the RAW files if anyone really wants to mess with them.

Thanks!

Chris

















Apr 07, 2017 at 03:41 PM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


Welcome.
I have learned a ton here. Hope you find it as helpful.

In each of these shots you need to ask yourself what it the main message, key compositional element(s). Then prune away.
In the first you are clearly highlighting the street signs. Which means you want little else included, and probably prevent edges of the signs from being cut off. It's a challenging angle with so much in the BG, but consider a tighter crop, now that you have shot.
Second, to me, adds the repetitive elements of the BG, capturing the flavor of the local architecture, with an implied interaction or inter-relationshp between the cyclist and the cars on the road. Including a little more on the right (to get the whole car) and a little less on the left (to exclude the extraneous stop light) would tighten up the comp and message. However it's still tricky because there is so much space between the cyclist the vehicles.
I think you have attempted to include too much in your efforts at this point. Do you want the contrast between old and new? Or what about a statement about the colorful barges and old architecture behind them? Is the bridge adding anything?
I'd eliminate the right half of the image to focus on the barges ,but still wish the leftmost barge was fully in the capture.

Hope this helps.

Scott



Apr 08, 2017 at 10:27 AM
lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


Excellent critique from Scott so not much more I could add.
Of the set I like the 3rd image the most and I think that image justifies a little post work to bring it to it's full potential.

One thing I noticed is your camera settings might be hurting you a little. For scenes such as the river shot I think f/11 would have been a better choice. Shutter speed might have introduced a slight bit of motion blur on each of these. From what I've heard, your 80D can handle higher ISO so I wouldn't be afraid to bump it up if needed.

Dave



Apr 08, 2017 at 12:03 PM
ceyerly
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


Scott and Dave,

Thank you much for the critiques and suggestions. Composition is the hardest for me, as I'll focus on part of the image when taking the shot, often missing something extraneous the effects the picture. I know the 80D can do more ISO, I just tend to using the lower ISO's. A habit to be broken.

Thanks again!



Apr 08, 2017 at 02:49 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


Welcome to the Forum.

+1 @ much of Dave & Scott

ceyerly wrote:
using the lower ISO's. A habit to be broken.


I too am a "low ISO" junkie at heart. There's something ingrained into that psyche that says "low ISO" = best achievable possible IQ. To a degree, there is some truth in that ... ceteris paribus. However, if we stop to take the time to consider the other attributes that are compromised by our decision to latch on for dear life to "low ISO", then we can realize that our best achievable possible IQ may indeed warrant a higher ISO. Still, it's some tough medicine for this "junkie" to swallow, but here's a couple things that help me.

1) Most lenses are sharpest NOT wide open.

If I'm forced between my lower ISO and being up against the wall of my lens wide open (noting some $$$$ lenses are tack sharp WO), I'll typically be willing to move my ISO 2/3 - 1 stop to allow me to get off WO (read, wishful thinking by mfr's trying to be keep $$$ in check).

This is probably my most powerful reason for bumping ISO, considering this:

The low ISO junkie (this one anyway) wanted to have the best resolving capable film for being the detail junkie at the core of things. The fine resolving capability of the finer grained film, had me shooting Fujichrome 50, for its fine detail, while the K64 & K25 had similar qualities regarding color, etc.

So, if my objective is the finest detail retention, shooting low ISO through fuzzy glass WO, is a bit antithetical to the objective of detail (note, detail isn't always the holy grail). Thus, a recognition to the amount of impact to the image the difference in ISO makes vs. the aperture choice ... leads to a determination (glass depending).

Imo, this is really where the prime lenses come into play. Shooting our zoom WO @ f/4 vs. shooting a prime (50/1.8, 35/2.8, 85/1.8, etc.) at the same f/4 means we are shooting OFF WO, and more into the "sweet spot" of the glass.

But, in lieu of swapping out to the bag of primes, we carry the zoom, so when we make that choice we need to understand where our backs are up against the wall vs. where we have enough elbow room. In the case of shooting WO vs. bumping the ISO one stop, I'll typically move off of WO (unless I'm intentional @ WO for DOF reduction), and then am faced with a decision, to wit:

A) Do I reduce the shutter speed to offset the aperture, or
B) Do I increase the ISO to offset the aperture

Depending on my goals for the image, A) may incur camera shake or subject motion blur. It may warrant a tripod or reliance on IS. Factors that are for consideration on a case by case basis.

B) on the other hand really has little impact on the DOF or motion factors associated with the image. Raising the ISO one stop (especially @ 800 and below) and feeding it the light it needs doesn't degrade the image nearly as significantly as it did back in the film days or earlier days of digital.

The 80D (personal use here) suits this fine detail junkie well, enjoying it at base ISO the most ... but, it can still lend a helping hand with a few bumps or two without giving up the fine detail ... particularly when it affords you the opportunity to get off WO. The biggest caveat is when we go higher ISO ... AND ... underexpose. Going higher ISO and properly exposing (or slight +exposure) typically isn't a major problem.

Our other aspect for consideration is of course shutter speed and the use of it for camera shake vs. subject motion (stop motion / show motion). Most often we recognize that a blurry (camera shake) image @ low ISO is of less value to the overall image that a steady shot higher ISO. In that regard, getting off WO is a bit more subtle issue, but it still is an issue to give thought to.

Case in point, I rarely shoot my 100-400L II at anything less than f/6.3 ... staying off WO, even if just a touch. Same goes for my Sigma 50-100/1.8, I stay @ f/2.5. Run some test shots with your lenses and you'll likely find that most lenses have a noticeable difference between WO and that first stop. So, if I'm chasing best possible achievable ... ISO vs. WO ... imo, that one stop of ISO "hurts" less than mfr's wishful thinking that they achieved the same level of optical excellence WO as the rest of the lens provides.

Gone long ... and I know that WO wasn't Dave's point (more about DOF), but for those who struggle with being a "low ISO" junkie, we can take some time to ask WHY are we low ISO oriented, and realize that it is for the sake of the image. As such, it can be a question of "choose your poison(s)", and given the choice of WO (read optically softer) vs. higher ISO, the choice can be that moving your ISO higher IS the better choice. Same can / may apply to other scenarios ... with the salient point being ... no holy grail in all cases for "low ISO" at all costs ... so relax a bit, and bump your ISO a touch when warranted.

As to Dave's F/11 recommendation, I'd probably only go to about 6.3 or 8.0 to keep my ISO 800 or south, but the point really is don't feel stuck below 200. There does come a place where the higher ISO curve starts to be the greater "poison", and then this relationship reverses where I'll take WO (now the lesser poison) over uber-high ISO. But, we've seen some pretty sweet stuff in the 1600-3200 range (correctly exposed vs. underexposed) from a variety of folks (camera dependent) over the years. As such, 800 is "no fear" territory for me (with enough light) ... even though I'm always looking for 50 and a tripod.

Hope that helps with your "habit".






Apr 09, 2017 at 08:28 AM
Bob Jarman
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


Welcome!

I'm away from my system for a period of time and on a Linux system running an opensource 'Chrome'... the images I see appear to be very large and difficult to judge so I can't comment. Is this the case for Win users? Probably not.

That said, the comments offered are all on target. I'd only offer until recently I habitually went for the widest aperture but (after many, many years - slow learner) realized stopping down the f-stop can be a good thing. Carefully balance with ISO performance and I think you'll be happy. Caveat: have no experience with your gear.

Again, not knowing your system, by all means if at all possible, shoot RAW if you can - that leaves so much more headroom for detail and shadow recovery in post.

Looking forward to seeing more of your images,

Bob



Apr 09, 2017 at 09:05 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


Took a stab at the river.

Mostly a WB shift and some USM. Shooting in the uber-overcast conditions means we often have some blue lighting to contend with, as well as the diffuse lighting means our contrast is inherently low (coupled with WO for "double trouble" to acuteness for "soft" light + "soft" aperture).

You can of course land it wherever you like, but here is a crop with a few tweaks for consideration.







Apr 09, 2017 at 09:24 AM
ceyerly
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


Bob and RustyBug,

Thanks again I have carefully read through all notes (much of it multiple times), and am trying to break the habit of WO / very low ISO.

RustyBug - Thanks for the edit, I was just working a re-edit myself. I think the boat picture is salvageable (as you've shown), the street sign picture I'm working on a re-edit as well. I think the street view is pretty much a loss. Just too much going on in the picture for there to be any focus.

Bob - I always shoot RAW.

Thanks again!



Apr 13, 2017 at 07:20 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


ceyerly wrote:

am trying to break the habit of WO / very low ISO.


Just to be clear ... both WO and very low ISO definitely have their place as valuable tools ... just be aware that they may not be the BEST FIT for ALL situations. There are OTHER tools in the box. Kinda like how a sculptor has more than one size of chisel ... even if he does lean heavily on his favorite. He knows he has to put it down from time to time and use some of the others for certain things.

As to the street scene ... I wouldn't give up on it just yet. You've got a few pixels there to work with.







Apr 14, 2017 at 07:29 AM
ceyerly
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Newbie here - Amsterdam


@Rustybug - Thanks again for the encouragement. Here is what I did with the street sign image. Much tighter crop, adjusted the colors more. Trying to make the "Van Gogh Museum" part of the sign the focus.







Apr 14, 2017 at 11:47 AM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.