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.