Great job, both Myer and Nelson!
Increasing contrast to bring out architectural details made a huge difference.

Now, I am truly not intending to be mean. Pavot, this may be the kind of photo many people take, but certainly not everyone. What is the problem? It is just a picture of an object, i.e. building. It has a decent composition, but is still mostly documentary, just an "I was here and saw that." kind of thing. A monument and some rooftops is not interesting enough to warrant a second look. Technical stuff like processing is really important, but if the image is not captured in some unique or creative way, no matter how technically proficient, it will still be only a snapshot. I can see that you have a very good eye for composition and details. Use it to seek and record images that will be interesting and exciting to people no matter what the subject is. I think you have the observation skills, understanding, thoughtfulness and ability to be critical that could make you a fine photographer.

Gray day, gray city...

Sometimes it can be effective just to turn the image monochrome, which reduces the whiteout in the sky and negates the (to me) jarring boundaries between the green grass and gray everything else.

I played with it for a minute (I use Paint Shop Pro, which costs 1/10 as much as Photoshop but has pretty comparable features) and went B&W, but then added some sepia toning to make it look like most old photos of Auld Reekie. IMO not a bad outcome, but YMMV.

http://gardyloo.us/wp-content/upload...C_0650-X3a.jpg

Pavot,

The second one has more life,simply because the day itself has more color. But in terms of composition, the first shot seems to me better composed, with more awareness of what you wanted in the frame and what you wanted left out.

Gardyloo's retro sepia is fun. And has emotion. Given the gray day, that is also the direction I would have experimented with post processing.

If I repeatedly wanted to take pictures of Carlton Hill, I would want a wide angle lens.

Well, the sky is more interesting in the second photo, but it was the first thing I noticed, which I doubt was the intention. There seem to be three focal points - the sky, the trees and the monument. If the point of the photo is the monument I think there is too much else in the shot. But I find cityscapes too busy and really often not very interesting, YMMV.

The second picture certainly has better light - but I'd still choose a different time of day to shoot it, if possible. It looks like you are still kind of shooting into the sun; you can see the highlights blown out in the sky.

I do agree that the skyline is kind of cluttered in this picture anyway, so it's probably not going to be an amazing scene. But I do find myself taking pictures like this all the time anyway when I travel - even if I know they won't be amazing. I want to show people what it looks like from this spot. I found a similar thing in Vilnius, Lithuania last year: from the great viewpoints down on the city, the skyline just seemed kind of cluttered no matter which direction I looked.

In this instance, sharpness may be less of an issue than contrast.

Oooooh, pretty, Gardyloo. I liked that.




I'm feeling kind of sorry I posted my own crappy travel snaps only to be told by some folks that they ain't art, though.

I think it's mainly an issue of framing, pavot. Are those two frames the only ones or are there more? Leveling the horizon also gives a less careless look. What you might also do is up the contrast a little bit, dehaze and add the tiniest bit of vignette to the corners.

One thing you might also do is selectively darken the sky portion a bit, but make sure your original exposure is up to this, because your highlights look burned out.

Next time, take the time to walk around a bit, and shoot from vastly different perspectives.

What I really like about the framing is that they read easily from left bottom corner to top right corner, and the eye is led easily through the photograph. There could have been more tension there.

Also what I learned in school is to compose from the edges, not the middle of your viewfinder. Also, set the exposure compensation to under expose 1/2 or even 1 stop and correct that in post. You'll have much more pixel information that way, that you can work with.

pavot,

I'm not sure I understand your complaint or goal.

You started off complaining that you photos aren't sharp.

Then you switched to complaining that your photos are nothing more than snaps.

Then it appears you're taken by gitchy effects like sepia.

Maybe you want to take some lessons in creativity and composition.

Perhaps I will, Myer.

As soon as I recover from that sick burn.

I took these on a trip about a month or two ago.

Hopefully I entered them correctly.

http://tinyurl.com/yd9jo7ep

http://tinyurl.com/y8gy3qbe

http://tinyurl.com/yazcfxow

http://tinyurl.com/ydbutxn5

Sorry I messed up the last one

http://tinyurl.com/yajzhbx4

@Myer - was that first one Sarajevo?

@pavot - maybe it will help if you consider WHY you are taking photos. I just want to illustrate my blog and have mementos, so I am not a perfectionist about them. If you want professional results, then I would think that some classes would be a good investment (or some are available free). Or maybe one of those photo trips with National Geographic.

Pavot,
I sincerely hope it was not my post that made you feel bad. It was not a put down, was actually a compliment because, even though you say you only take touristy shots, you are genuinely concerned with quality and you see the difference. You appreciated what others did with your photo. Many people do not see or understand the difference. Because you do, I think you would enjoy photography even more with as much attention to the artistic side as to the technical side, and they support the each other.

It was brave of you to post your photo. Frankly, I do not have that much courage, and I certainly throw away many, many more than I keep. Good reason to take shot after shot of the same image.

I also sincerely hope I didn't say anything in my post that could be construed as saying that the problem with the photo is that it failed to be art. All your posts have indicated that you are looking to improve your photos from a technical standpoint. I don't think every good photograph I see is art, and I think plenty of photos other people claim are "artistic" are just bad photos!

Anyway, I can see where some of the posts -- again, I hope not mine -- crossed a line in bringing in value judgements that aren't relevant to your question.

But I hope other posts have encouraged you.

thursdaysd,

1st is in Florence
2nd ans 3rd in Rome
4th just west of Cascais in Portugal

massimop,

You don't necessarily give up anything in the rest of the photo by making the sky more dramatic.

http://tinyurl.com/y8ntxay8

i do think some of the finer details is lost, but I appreciate your overall point. It does become more of a picture about the sky, however. I like it, but it might not be what the photographer wanted to accomplish. I generally hope to have a photography I like that works as a photograph, but it is certainly equally valid to want to know more about how to get a photo that makes visibile precisely something that that you wanted to photograph, something of that setting, that moment, that .... whatever moved you to take the picture.

<i>I agree with Andrew that it was just not the best time for photography. </i>

IMO, that is the number one reason photos, especially travel photos, fail to really "pop" out at the viewer. Or are "flat" as a description above went.

I agree that photo-post processing choices can vary and I personally think a lot of people oversharpen, or don't realise how unnatural some photos end up when trying to bring out an underexposed foreground. Or when increasing contrasts in the effort to emulate what better natural lighting might have provided.

The problem is mostly we're often not at the perfect location at the perfect time. Midday is usually pretty awful for photos. You end up with those blown out clouds over evenly lit landscapes... none of those dark shadows and manageable highlight colours that make a photo something special. So you try to get it home and make it better there. Only kinda-sorta works unless it was a pretty good photo to begin with. If we're going to be in town for a bit and I see a great view, I try to come back in the early evening, a while before sunset... or early the next morning.. depends on which way the best use of sunlight is going to come from. But if you're not coming back, you just have to do the best with the camera settings as you can.

ps, IF you're actually a post-process whiz kid, another way to go would be to shoot multiple frames from a fixed, stable point with one exposed for the sky and the other exposed on the buildings. So that you could layer the two and with some work, end up with an image where both sky and town were each about as well exposed as possible. I still don't think the effect though would end up as nice as just being their when the sun was an an angle enough to cast some shadows between the buildings and have an actual 3D effect as a result.

CounterClifton: <i>ps, IF you're actually a post-process whiz kid, another way to go would be to shoot multiple frames from a fixed, stable point with one exposed for the sky and the other exposed on the buildings. So that you could layer the two and with some work, end up with an image where both sky and town were each about as well exposed as possible. </i>

In digital photography, this process is called "High Dynamic Range" (HDR) photography, and some cameras do it automatically, even phones. Even if your camera can't do it automatically, there is software to create an HDR image from multiple frames or even a single RAW file. Done right, it can look OK or occasionally great - but most of the HDR images I've seen look unnatural. I've rarely played with HDR.

Or you can try a graduated neutral density filter on your lens to try the same idea optically (part of the filter is darker than the rest; adjust the darker side of the filter to the sky, so the darker part of your exposure gets more light through the filter.

massimop,

On that photo where I made the sky more dramatic absolutely nothing was done to the rest of the photo from the previous one.

I selected the sky alone and reduced the highs (darkened the sky) and then increased the contrast so the clouds were more prominent.

Andrew, I've played with the HDR type filters in post-processing and agree with you. It's way over the top for my tastes. My camera doesn't have it, but I'm pretty low maintenance and perfectly happy with what my Nikon d200 will do.

What I was thinking of though is essentially layer masking in post. Where the two main exposure areas each end up with only one, relatively unchanged, layer. The best sky is matched with the best ground without the dramatic effects. The hassle of it is that you need two frames, spot exposed on the two different areas, without moving the camera (some cameras will give you several frames based on a range of exposures, which can be helpful). If they're able to be overlaid, tying the two partial layers together is sort of like manual photo stitching.

ps - Andrew, also agree with you about the filter, though I don't do many sort of shots with a relatively flat horizon to align the gradient with. I sort of found myself not using it, so I haven't brought more than the UV filter the last couple of trips (which I don't think has much, if any effect on the photos but it's saved me a few lens scratches.)

<<< I'm feeling kind of sorry I posted my own crappy travel snaps only to be told by some folks that they ain't art, though.>>>

Pffft! :) If it makes you happy, if it makes you remember something wonderful or meaningful, then it serves a purpose other than just art. Art is very much like travel in that what makes one person happy would make another miserable. Some of my absolutely favorite photos from trips are crap compositionally, but they make me smile every time I see them because I remember the day or the situation that made me take that photo.


Take a class where you learn about your specific camera and lens. Take a class on post-production effects and how to play effectively. If you know what you want to be able to do with a photo after the fact, you'll better know how to set it up when you take the photo.

See if there is a book for your camera more than just the manual. Darrell Young is well known for books that explain various cameras on a non-professional level.

Determine your goal when you take a photo... do you want a snapshot to remind you of the day/place? Is there a place/person who is just irresistible to your eye and you want to capture that image? What is your timeline for that photo? Is it a fast shot that you don't have time to prepare for or is it a shot that you can take your time setting up and waiting for the best light?

Not sure whats going on because I havent seen his photos. My suggestion is learn to shoot with a Prime lens. You will do better at composition...zooms make people lazy.

You're being told maybe you didn't pick the best spot.

Maybe you didn't pick the best time of day.

The best spot is something you can work on.

Unless you are a pro on an assignment, the time of day is the time of day and the conditions are what they are. Most of us on a trip aren't in a position to stand (or sit) at a spot day after day and all day waiting for good conditions and time of day.

We take what we have and depending what our goals are we try to improve.

Some people want a record of their trip for memories.
Some people want them to look better.
And some people want to submit a few to competitions.

I agree with Myer's last comment.

I am by far not a professional but I love taking pictures. I've had people tell me my pictures look great and that is with my camera on my phone. I think picking the right angle helps and not trying to copy one done professionally is the key. Lately I've been loving how I can modify my pictures on my phone. I can make the dullest picture pop with color and better than on my laptop.

It really just depends on what you want out of your pictures. On my last trip to Rome, right when the sun started to set, I got some really good pictures on Ponte Sant Angelo. I didn't need to modify them. I think it was just the time of day.

<i>the time of day is the time of day and the conditions are what they are</i>

This is very true, to an extent. In some ways it probably ties back to travel style and what you're doing at the time besides photography. If you're snapping shots because you're there anyway and schedules dictate you aren't or can't come back under better conditions, then you take what you get... and yeah, the photo may turn out looking like it was "just a snapshot". We all have those. The memory motive is still a good reason to save it.

But, *if* you're a photography buff who also happens to be a more casual traveller who builds in free time... and happens to be hanging out in a particular area for a while... an idea *might* be to use the time spent out sightseeing midday to just jot down a few potentially cool photo ops instead of snapping them. A shot that could be great if only something was different as far as the light, the current crowds or whatever. Some people schedule or allow themselves a bit of hobby time with the camera separate from the time they're putting into museums and such. (I'm often back up early when family is sleeping in, taking an hour to revisit a city as it awakens. Not only great photo ops, but sort of meditative too... and I say this as someone who is NOT a willing morning person)

Not everyone wants to break out that time or always has that opportunity though. You're probably not going to double back several hours later on that Grossglockner drive! But maybe if it's a big thing for you, you can arrange to start near the drive that morning knowing you really wanted to photograph that particular scenery.

And, in the meantime, there are ways to play with sub-optimal conditions and possibly still make it an engaging photo as well as a memorable one. For instance, intentionally blowing the highlights on a mid-day, sun drenched church and going black and white with it. My profile pic is a snippet of another pain in the butt shot from Essaouira, Morocco where the sun was right in my face and is an example of embracing a disadvantage. Well, I liked how it turned out anyway. But it's probably better to start with optimal as much as possible and then learn how to push the margins.

This is a long thread.

Early on some one mentioned a class. Almost always a good idea. In addition spend time looking at other peoples work. Think about what you like. Don't like. Think about what they did. Both from the technical standpoint and from the artistic .

The class will hopefully teach you the "rules". You'll then be able to break the rules creatively. A dutch angle is either a screw up if done by accident or it's a creative tool if done intentionally. Or the classic suggestion not to centre your subject . But at times even a centred subject works. Usually you need to understand the rules before you can break them creatively.

Which gets to the next point. Take many many photographs. Experience teaches. Don't think a bad photo is a failure it's a learning opportunity. In the digital world what does a click cost you?

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5643/...98d91612_k.jpg

Light is only bad if it doesn't fit your vision.

Previsualize. Try to have an idea of the finished photo/print in your head before lifting the camera to your eye.

I belong to a couple of camera clubs. They both have competitions.

What really gets me excited is seeing photos taken by others of places I've been to that look very different than my photos.

Now, it's possible they may look at my photos of the same place and feel the same way. I hope so.