B&W, Doncaster River.

[wlou]

I tried a B&W for this, with a Orton effect of my composition. Is it any good? I have not cropped, this is how I framed the photo. C&C appreciated.

[ronlane]

wlou,

I'm not that experienced with B&W but it looks good to me. I like the water motion with the long exposure. About the only thing I can say and I don't know how to fix it, is that the lights in the trees do draw my attention away from the river. (This may be your intention, I don't know.)

What exposure did you use?

[wlou]

Thank you Ron. It is the sun light. It was a mix of sun and shadow, difficult to expose for. I was thinking of toning it down. Thanks for viewing.

[Polar01]

Louise: nice shot, my problem is it is flat, it needs more detail in the dark areas, cna you increase the exposure than using a mask darken down the overly brighten areas. I could suggest something else however I do not know what software you use. It is a very difficult location with those lighting conditions.

Cheers:

Allan

[wlou]

Thanks Allan. I use Lightroom3, and I would like very much to know how to "unflatten" an image.

[Donald]

Thanks Allan. I use Lightroom3, and I would like very much to know how to "unflatten" an image.

Very often when we talk about a flat image, we also talk about the image needing more 'pop'.

As we know, images need a reasonably good range of tone to work best. The thing that strikes me about this one is that there is not a huge range of tonal values in it. Or, put that another way, there are patches/blocks of the same tonal values which are creating, for me, a sort-of image in different parts; i.e. there is a block of 'this' and then there is a block of 'that'. So, I'm not sure you've got the best starting point to make an image that's got lots of 'pop.

So, as always, what we have in front of the lens is the important starting point. We can't make a great image out of a very ordinary scene. The raw material has got to be there to start with and working to be able to 'see' the finished image in your head before you ever press the shutter is, I think, a really important skill to develop.

One of the best ways of getting that 'pop' into your image is through the use of Local Contrast Enhancement (LCE). The CiC tutorial on the subject is, I think, as good a guidance tool as you'll get anywhere.

Others will, I hope, add to this small bit of advice.

[wlou]

Tank you Donald. I have checked the tutorial and I must say added to other info I received lately, I am a little confuse as to what to sharpen. Trying to put all this info in clear in my mind I get something like this:
a) always take a picture in RAW, it gives more leaway to do adjustments in post,
b) a RAW picture will always need sharpening contrairy to a jpeg one that has been sharpened in camera(the camera magicaly sharpen the jpeg? but not the RAW??)
c) the more I sharpen my pictures the muddier they get, so if I have to "pre-sharpen, sharpen and post sharpen" they dont look sharpened at all on the contrairy, they seem to get worst.
d) I do like the look of a soft picture, and some photographers here do some great ones.
e) I can get a picture relatively sharp after a lot of work
f) a camera with more pixels would render a sharper picture. Mine has 12.3 of effective pixels the book says.

Here is a picture of a flower that has turned to seeds, I liked the fluffiness and softness of it. I have tried to sharpen it some, what do you think?

[Donald]

Tank you Donald. I have checked the tutorial and I must say added to other info I received lately, I am a little confuse as to what to sharpen. Trying to put all this info in clear in my mind I get something like this:
a) always take a picture in RAW, it gives more leaway to do adjustments in post,
b) a RAW picture will always need sharpening contrairy to a jpeg one that has been sharpened in camera(the camera magicaly sharpen the jpeg? but not the RAW??)
c) the more I sharpen my pictures the muddier they get, so if I have to "pre-sharpen, sharpen and post sharpen" they dont look sharpened at all on the contrairy, they seem to get worst.
d) I do like the look of a soft picture, and some photographers here do some great ones.
e) I can get a picture relatively sharp after a lot of work
f) a camera with more pixels would render a sharper picture. Mine has 12.3 of effective pixels the book says.

Here is a picture of a flower that has turned to seeds, I liked the fluffiness and softness of it. I have tried to sharpen it some, what do you think?

Louise

There are people with much more technical knowledge than me on here who will be able to respond as well. For example, I'm not sure that what you say at f) is correct.

But I can say:
a) and b) - Yes
c) I think this is an issue related to your knowledge and experience. Sharpening will not result in images looking less sharpened. It is possible to over-sharpen, of course, and this relates to your next point
d) That is okay. But it is important that a soft image appears as such for artistic reasons and not because 8it is not sharpened properly. People will appreciate a soft image if that is the effect that shows the subject to best effect. But it is obvious when an image has not been sharpened and should have been. The skill is as much in knowing what to sharpen, by now much, when, as it is about having the technical skill to do it. So it is a mixture of artistic and technical talent.

I think your presentation of this image of flower seeds is very good. For me that is a subject that is well made for not applying a great deal of sharpening. You have done that very well. So, you do have the knowledeg and talent. Now it is about developing both your confidence and your experience. And that can only be achieved through lots of practice.

[wlou]

Thank you Donald for your comments. Sometimes I do feel frustrated that the effort I put into some images do not produce the results I was expecting. Between the vision of the result, the click of the button and the post production a lot of things can go wrong. I gess it is what we call the learning curve. All fun to do anyway.