Thoughts for improvment please, compositionm and processing

[BeanAnimal]

Took some photos of the warden running the EQT ten miler this Sunday and took the opportunity to take a few photos of Pittsburgh's North Shore landmarks..

Thoughts please, as I am not all that happy with my results.

 

[JaYbIrD1969]

What exactly arent you happy with? I see good comp, GREAT use of lines and angles, nice lighting and what appears to be good post processing in levels and contrast. I particularly love the first shot with the lines and angles and the interesting brick piling under the bridge. This would be a fun picture to play with post processing filters such as "poster edges" It might also look nice in B&W.

 

[NTP66]

Maybe a little sharp on the water, IMO, but they look great to me.

That first one's the Andy Warhol/7th Street, right? I've got the Roberto Clemente and Fort Duquesne tattoo'd on my arm as part of a larger Pittsburgh theme.

 

[toothybugs]

My opinions are that these are all nothing to be ashamed of. The first one is ACE. The second is to me a little lacking in a defined subject (maybe a little zoom?) and the colors aren't as tack-sharp as the first and third, but having said that, I am not sure I could do better. The third seems off-center but that's the angle of the stadium so it plays with my eyes.

All in all I wouldn't be too upset.

 

[BeanAnimal]

What exactly arent you happy with? I see good comp, GREAT use of lines and angles, nice lighting and what appears to be good post processing in levels and contrast. I particularly love the first shot with the lines and angles and the interesting brick piling under the bridge. This would be a fun picture to play with post processing filters such as "poster edges" It might also look nice in B&W.

The post processing (to me) is a can of worms that I am having trouble mastering. I quickly lose track of what looks "real" and what looks "good".

I did convert to black and white (with the hope of decorating our home office with various contrasty black and white framed prints).

Maybe it is that I am too hard on myself, but I always feel that the photos posted in this forum are way out of my reach from both a composition and a technical standpoint.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Maybe a little sharp on the water, IMO, but they look great to me.

That first one's the Andy Warhol/7th Street, right? I've got the Roberto Clemente and Fort Duquesne tattoo'd on my arm as part of a larger Pittsburgh theme.

Yes, first is the Warhol with the 9th street in the background, second is the 9th street. Not shown to the left of the first photo is the Roberto Clemente bridge.

RE: Sharpness. I just processed in DXO and do not spot processing or correction in photoshop (where I would likely do more harm than good).

 

[BeanAnimal]

My opinions are that these are all nothing to be ashamed of. The first one is ACE. The second is to me a little lacking in a defined subject (maybe a little zoom?) and the colors aren't as tack-sharp as the first and third, but having said that, I am not sure I could do better. The third seems off-center but that's the angle of the stadium so it plays with my eyes.

All in all I wouldn't be too upset.

I tried to help the colors in the second one out, but bringing them out tended to turn the blacks an eerie blue, neat but unrealistic. I liked the effect, but struggle with "realistic" vs "artistic".

The ballpark is off center due to the angle and elevation. Further left and there was a light post and further right was the bridge pier. I fixed the horizon in DXO and it helped, but still looks oddly skewed. The colors are neat, but it was another one where I had trouble dialing in the color and still keeping things realistic.

Thanks for the comments everyone. Many of you regularly post amazing photographs and your input is extremely helpful.

 

[IPT]

What looks "good" and what looks "real" is always a interesting conversation. Fact is, back in the film days you'd have to choose a particular film to render the saturation you'd want as none rendered the same color pallet or saturation. For example Nature photographers loved Fuji Velvia for it's saturation levels, especially in the greens. Portrait photographers choose films that rendered soft neutral tones.

Personally, I always liked the saturated look. At the end of the day it always comes down to personal reference. I'm generally not a fan however of the highly oversaturated look as it just looks too fake. Overall I think you did a good job with the post processing and the composition both. Colors are good and not over the top. The first one is bordering on an HDR look but I still think it looks good and generally balanced. That's just my opinion though and at the end of the days yours is the main one that matters!

 

[Misled]

Hey Bill. I tend to agree with Louis, (IPT). Take a glance at both. When your eyes hit the images, on both they're drawn to the stone bases of the pillars. I like in the second seeing the townhouses. The colors are very good. The other bridges, clouds and trees provide some added interest in the first one. Now understand, I'm getting a lot of this by really looking at the images. Having the bridges in the forfront will almost always make them the point of interest, or where the eye is drawn.
The one of PNC park looks like a very slight crop would remove the out of balance black on the very outer part. Looks like you shifted the image to straighten it. That pic I'd rather see taken farther to one end. You are almost at the center. While it's great for a pic for the stadium, one from one side or the other will draw you more towards the opposite end.
Keep it up.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Thanks for all of the comments. My goal in the second photo was to capture the colors of the town homes with then structure of the bridge. I played with a wide aspect crop and was very happy with it but am not sure if non standard aspects are worth fiddling with, especially as I relearn this craft.

I struggled even longer with the PNC park photo and am just not all the thrilled with it considering what my eyes saw from the same spot. In my haste to get it right I did not even notice the obvious black canvas that resulted from the horizon adjustment...

 

[NTP66]

You guys should take more shots of Pittsburgh and post them so that I feel more at home in the bad side of the state.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Jesse maybe we can grab a beer and take a few photos one afternoon. I would like to take a fall trip to one of the old mill sites and see if I can capture some of the bygone steel era in its rust belt glory.

 

[Misled]

You guys should take more shots of Pittsburgh and post them so that I feel more at home in the bad side of the state.

Here Nick

Bill, we can do that. You should know, my knees take away a lot of my walkability though.

 

[Breadman03]

Here Nick

Bill, we can do that. You should know, my knees take away a lot of my walkability though.

I'll grab a long skateboard and we could just push you around while you snap pics. It would make for some interesting perspective.

 

[jroovers]

These are some great shots! I like the second the best personally. Each image and how it is perceived is going to depend on each individual person as some have noted. I don't think you've gone over the top on the processing in any of these shots. Have you tried any HDR yet - you may get some interesting results if these aren't HDR and tried going that route - as some have already said, most tend to prefer HDR that aren't over the top. Another option is to go back and try some shooting in different lighting - things can look drastically different depending on the lighting, which a lot of the time makes or breaks a shot. Another option is to get some filters - either a polarizing filter or a ND filter, so you can play around with some different effects, can make things seem more dramatic without resorting to PP techniques.

I think the fact that you are your own worst critique lends itself well to improvement - when I look at a lot of my photos, I tend to focus on what isn't quite right, as opposed to what is in fact right, there is always room for improvement! Maybe that speaks more to personality type than anything though lol. Keep shooting and keep posting!

 

[IPT]

Another option is to get some filters - either a polarizing filter or a ND filter, so you can play around with some different effects, can make things seem more dramatic without resorting to PP techniques.

I agree. A polarizing filter is a must have in the bag for landscape. You really can't make up for a lack of it in post processing either.

ND (neutral density) I don't use much anymore. Aside from using it to force a long exposure and blur stuff I don't see the need. If I stop down all the way and keep the polarizer on I find I can usually hold back enough light.

I used to use a split ND all the time but find it much easier to do with post processing. Then it's essentially HDR but if it's done correctly it should just look as it would to your eye.

 

[BlueCorn]

Filters aside (I have a polarizer on every lens and generally only remove them for night shooting + 5 different split ND filters), the biggest hurdle folks usually have is learning to manage the frame from front to back. Nearly everyone sees what's in their viewfinder, what they struggle with is depth.

It's also very common to see people who are generally technical, struggle with composition. It's normal but it'll take you some extra work to get your creative side in control.

 

[NTP66]

If there's one purchase I regret making, it's my ND filter. Granted, it was only $50, but I think I've used it all of one time in the past year or so, and really don't see myself ever using it in the future. My polarizer, however, is worth its weight in gold.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I have a CP but it is pretty much garbage. Initial shots with the new kit showed it to be of little effect. I already added a quality CP to the wish list but seeing that I do not have my "wish" glass, I am hesitant to pull the trigger. I suppose I could get the 77mm diameter and use step down rings to fit whatever lenses I have or end up with. I like the idea of keeping one on all of the lenses, but that is a LOT of beer opportunity cost...

This is getting expensive fast and the worst part is that I am fighting the urge to break out all of my old film equipment and get the darkroom setup (its been 20+ years).

Doug, I would tend to agree with your statement regarding depth, as it is something I often struggle with when composing but never really realized until recently. Depth highlighted or leveraged is what actually makes many photographs work, irrespective of the processing or other aspects of the composition. Understanding DOF appears to only be a start, as the rest is imagination and understanding how the DOF will affect the actual composition. I suppose the camera is no different than a paintbrush or any other tool, it takes talent, imagination and practice to master.

 

[NTP66]

For what it's worth, I've been very happy with my B+W Kaesemann MRC circular polarized filter. As you mentioned, I bought it in the size of my largest lens and just use step downs for the smaller lenses.