DPRevived & The Photo
  • Web Site
  • chevron_right Threads
  • label All Forums
  • label Discussion News and Discussions
  • label Images Image discussions, critiques and challenges

Which do you think is better?

AlanSh
Nov. 24, 2024
chat_bubble_outline 6
  • link
    AlanSh
    Forum Admin 2965 posts
    Nov. 24, 2024, 6:49 p.m. Nov. 24, 2024, 6:49 p.m.
    link

    I was on a phot walk around Liverpool yesterday and took this picture:

    RBCF0069.JPG

    My first try and a picture I liked was this: Cropped out some of the leaves on the right.

    RBCF0069-1.jpg

    Still not happy, so I did some more cropping. But is it now too much?

    RBCF0069-1cr.jpg

    Your thoughts appreciated. Feel free to take the original and make your own adjustments to it.

    Alan

    RBCF0069-1cr.jpg

    JPG, 5.1 MB, uploaded by AlanSh on Nov. 24, 2024.

    RBCF0069-1.jpg

    JPG, 15.1 MB, uploaded by AlanSh on Nov. 24, 2024.

    RBCF0069.JPG

    JPG, 19.5 MB, uploaded by AlanSh on Nov. 24, 2024.

  • link
    xpatUSA
    Members 725 posts
    Nov. 24, 2024, 7:10 p.m. Nov. 24, 2024, 7:10 p.m.
    link

    Assuming that the subject is the buildings not the foliage:

    It would be better if the foliage were more blurred and less dark. Think aperture diameter ... in the first image it is 24/6.4=3.75mm. The larger the diameter, the larger the blur near to the lens ... I would have chosen say f/2.8 i.e. 24/2.8 = 8.6mm diameter = double the blur for the same shooting distance. Then, instead of cropping in post, I would have gotten much closer to the leaves and thereby used fewer leaves to frame the buildings as indeed you did in your last crop.

    This might be of interest as regards close-up blur:

    www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

  • link
    AlanSh
    Forum Admin 2965 posts
    Nov. 24, 2024, 7:53 p.m. Nov. 24, 2024, 7:53 p.m.
    link

    Ted, I wanted the chain link to be not too blurred. I think it works OK in the last image.

    Alan

  • link
    ArvoJ
    Team 770 posts
    Nov. 24, 2024, 8:48 p.m. Nov. 24, 2024, 8:48 p.m.
    link

    First is the best, then third, then second.

  • link
    DanHasLeftForum
    Members 4254 posts
    Nov. 24, 2024, 9:50 p.m. Nov. 24, 2024, 9:50 p.m.
    link

    The natural framing works best in #3 for me.

    The foliage is too busy in the first two.

    AlanSh likes this.

    favorite 1

  • link
    xpatUSA
    Members 725 posts
    Nov. 24, 2024, 10:51 p.m. Nov. 24, 2024, 10:51 p.m.
    link
    @AlanSh has written:

    Ted, I wanted the chain link to be not too blurred. I think it works OK in the last image.

    I see, Alan. Then another way would be to place the chain at a hyperfocal distance of what looks like about 4 meters in the first image and focus on it with a slight loss of detail at the dockside.

    Indeed, looking at the first image, it happens that your f/6.4 and 24 mm focal length gives a hyperfocal distance of 4.7 meters so, if the chain is to be a feature of the shot, then setting the focus distance to say 5 meters in manual mode would be about right, with little or very little loss of detail at the dockside.

    While some photographers can't function without focusing on something in AF mode, sometimes benefits can accrue from using MF like "real photographers" used to do all the time.

    AlanSh likes this.

    favorite 1

  • link
    mtgoatee
    Members 73 posts
    Nov. 25, 2024, 2:23 a.m. Nov. 25, 2024, 2:23 a.m.
    link

    rbcf0069-01.jpeg

    I liked the second crop the best. I cropped it even further so the sky and the fence offer some framing, made the blue boat the subject, deemphasized the building's colour, and emphasized the pillars and their reflection a bit. Lastly, I changed the tint to taste.

    rbcf0069-01.jpeg

    JPG, 3.1 MB, uploaded by mtgoatee on Nov. 25, 2024.

arrow_upward Go to top
  • DPRevived.com is owned and operated by The Photographer's Foundation Limited, registered in England, company number 14795583. Email: management@DPRevived.com
powered by misago