# Photo for your review please.



## sanj (Mar 26, 2015)

How could I have done better? Thx in advance. 

1dc. 16-35mm F4 IS lens. F22. 1/160 shutter. ISO 160. Tripod. I blended two exposures using layer mask in PS. I also changed focus according to what I was exposing for. Please critique.


----------



## rpt (Mar 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> How could I have done better? Thx in advance.
> 
> 1dc. 16-35mm F4 IS lens. F22. 1/160 shutter. ISO 160. Tripod. I blended two exposures using layer mask in PS. I also changed focus according to what I was exposing for. Please critique.


Looks nice. I prefer the horizon to be at or close to the top 1/3rd mark.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 26, 2015)

Perhaps the high camera, pointing down would put the horizon out of the center of the image.

Who knows, a beautiful woman sitting at the table? ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> How could I have done better?


I like the picture, I like the expression. Composition with the straights of the table leading into the background. Just really good.
I have nothing to criticize except for the horizon being exactly at half height (= compositon a little bit boring). 
But right now I have no feeling if getting it higher or lower would make the picture look better or not.
(_edit: I like both: the evening sky as well as the landscape_)
But that is nothing for post, so please no reframing or so. You should have tried this during the session (camera higher or lower).


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 26, 2015)

I like the perspective, it feels almost as if I'm sitting at the table, waiting for my friends to arrive. I like the light of the candles on the table and through the glasses. My only question is that it appears to have a bit of a "dead zone" between the table and sky: what would that look like slightly brightened so our eyes could walk continuously from table to cloud?


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 26, 2015)

I like the composition exactly as it appears ... sometimes, those rules (rule of thirds) need to go out the window and the allow the scene to emerge as presented. Because the sky has a dynamic sense already - with varying degrees of light change in it - one could actually state it is within that boundary if you choose a different line in that light variation as the point of transition.

It might appear different if the trees we absent, or less tall - but trees framing the scene to the degree it does allows a variety of interpretations of how the composition gets defined. 

It reminds me of an exclusive outdoor restaurant where we often dined in a farming community years ago -- Ojai CA -- called the Ranch House -- outdoors, but very classy. If anyone is in that area ever, and if it still exists, it's worth the price (not cheap, but excellent food) ... 

One comment:: It appears slightly soft -- and I'm not sure what any of us can do to change that in this kind of subdued light -- and in this case, I believe it adds rather than detracts from the image ... soft, intimate, romantic


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 26, 2015)

I like the colors and subdued lighting. The background looks great with the trees, hills, and sky exposed just right. I would turn up the brightness just a hair in the foreground and possibly on the tree on the right as there's a lot of pure black. The water in the pool on the right is considerably darker than the water on the right, with the the table obscuring the natural transition from light to dark, and it throws the balance off a bit. A small fill light or some careful adjustment in PS could fix that. Compositionally, I think the table and pool need a bit more separation as they blend together somewhat due to their reflective surfaces. An elevated or lower camera angle might do that for you. 

These are nit picks - I think the image is very nice, and the setting is beautiful. I wish that was the view from my backyard!


----------



## tolusina (Mar 26, 2015)

It looks to me like all the items were detailed, carefully placed 'just so', the lanterns, plates, candles, pillows etc..
You missed with the chairs!! :


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2015)

Personally, 24mm TS-E 12-18" higher and shifted down, that puts the emphasis on the table, it takes up more of the frame and is more inclusive, it will also show a bit more of the scenery, after all you are selling Africa not the sky, and cut out a bit of the dead space sky. If it was shot wider than 20 I'd use the 17TS-E and do the same.

The reason I say that is because your perspective is one of inclusion, you are inviting the viewer to sit at the table, but the table space is too small to do so luxuriously, also moving up would clear a space to make the pool more prominent. If the pool edge went past the top edge of the table, as it would if you raised the camera, it would join the two halves together, as it is the pool looks like a small pool on the left and a dark mass on the right, but it is clearly a good sized pool. I would put a touch more light in the rock above the table light to give that more definition and I'd light the pool water, probably very subtly.

I don't like the cushions on the left, they look out of place and over sharpened, but I agree you need an anchoring element on that piece of grass.

As always with your critiques Sanj, I mean my comments in the most positive way.

P.S. I really don't like the starbursts from some of the lights.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> How could I have done better? Thx in advance.



These starbursts are sooc and not done with a PS plugin? Interesting.

For my quick thoughts, also meant in the most constructive way: +1 for pdb's about the table/sky releationship, this is the main problem as now you're basially looking at tree outlines and a patch of sky.

But the whole composition is weired (not that you could have changed much, tough) - my view is directed to the right by the reflection on the table, but the table itself points to the left towards the sun. It feels like my eyes are crossing while trying to take in the picture.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> These starbursts are sooc and not done with a PS plugin? Interesting.


That's what the 9-bladed apertures in the new lenses all produce at f/16 and a little less so at f/11 - 11-24 f/4 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8 II, and others. It takes a little getting used to, but I've grown to like it. You can drop the aperture to f/8 to get starbursts closer in appearance to the 8-bladed lenses.


----------



## knkedlaya (Mar 26, 2015)

Image is really wonderful. Probably I would have used a flash(with blue/CTO gels) to light the stones on the right side of the frame a bit. Along with this, trying with painting the trees on the left side of the frame with a torch light/flash with gel would have opened up the trees a bit. Thats just my taste, feel free to disagree 

Naveena


----------



## TeT (Mar 26, 2015)

Horizon is good because to raise it would affect how much and the angle of the trees in the photo. Changing the horizon and the trees possibly become to much trees...

However a touch of light on the immediate background might be nice, but just a touch...

Good luck duplicating that scene just to throw some light on it...

Very nice photo...


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 26, 2015)

I want to know why you are complaining about Canon sensors whilst producing shots like that


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 26, 2015)

This is good, but from a commercial photographers POV, there is a conflict of interest... you got a gorgeous sky and ambiance... nice tablescape and setting... so what is YOUR intended subject, as you have 2. So i'm not quite sure, as a viewer, what to look at... There is nothing pulling my attention one way or the other... And you do that by lighting. If it is the tablescape you want the eye to go to, light it more... you have nice candle accents which is great, but add some directional lighting, some fill lighting... Make that the center of your focus... so your eye goes directly there... Likewise, if you want it to be more the scene and not so much the table, crop, burn, darken slightly... Make it there, in the foreground, but not bright enough to steal the attention from the overall scene... Just my 2 cents.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

rpt said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > How could I have done better? Thx in advance.
> ...



Hi Rustom.
Thanks for your suggestion. I will keep that in mind in future. I must not forget (or blindly follow) the rules! 
Hope all well with you.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > How could I have done better?
> ...



Thank you and I agree! Do you live in Europe? As I can't picture an American using the term "I like the expression" when discussing a photo. They will give excellent suggestions no doubt, but would not use that term. I think.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I like the perspective, it feels almost as if I'm sitting at the table, waiting for my friends to arrive. I like the light of the candles on the table and through the glasses. My only question is that it appears to have a bit of a "dead zone" between the table and sky: what would that look like slightly brightened so our eyes could walk continuously from table to cloud?



Yes, that is something I have been wondering if I should lift the blacks a little. Let me try! Appreciate.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> I like the composition exactly as it appears ... sometimes, those rules (rule of thirds) need to go out the window and the allow the scene to emerge as presented. Because the sky has a dynamic sense already - with varying degrees of light change in it - one could actually state it is within that boundary if you choose a different line in that light variation as the point of transition.
> 
> It might appear different if the trees we absent, or less tall - but trees framing the scene to the degree it does allows a variety of interpretations of how the composition gets defined.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your thoughts. I too believe that we should not forget the rules but break them as well. When I had visualized the shot I had thought that there will be lots of nice clouds in the sky but when I shot this they were not there and I did not re adjust my visualization. Must learn to be more spontaneous. My girlfriend is right!

But is is not soft on my monitor. Wonder what happened. I downloaded the photo from the forum and it is still sharp to me. Hmmm.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I like the colors and subdued lighting. The background looks great with the trees, hills, and sky exposed just right. I would turn up the brightness just a hair in the foreground and possibly on the tree on the right as there's a lot of pure black. The water in the pool on the right is considerably darker than the water on the right, with the the table obscuring the natural transition from light to dark, and it throws the balance off a bit. A small fill light or some careful adjustment in PS could fix that. Compositionally, I think the table and pool need a bit more separation as they blend together somewhat due to their reflective surfaces. An elevated or lower camera angle might do that for you.
> 
> These are nit picks - I think the image is very nice, and the setting is beautiful. I wish that was the view from my backyard!



Great observations - let me try and give some details in the blacks. View from back yard? That would be greatttttt. The view is of Meru National park in Kenya. I could hear distant roars of lions as I was wrapping the shoot. It was SUPER.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

tolusina said:


> It looks to me like all the items were detailed, carefully placed 'just so', the lanterns, plates, candles, pillows etc..
> You missed with the chairs!! :



 Yes you right. The chairs are misaligned.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Personally, 24mm TS-E 12-18" higher and shifted down, that puts the emphasis on the table, it takes up more of the frame and is more inclusive, it will also show a bit more of the scenery, after all you are selling Africa not the sky, and cut out a bit of the dead space sky. If it was shot wider than 20 I'd use the 17TS-E and do the same.
> 
> The reason I say that is because your perspective is one of inclusion, you are inviting the viewer to sit at the table, but the table space is too small to do so luxuriously, also moving up would clear a space to make the pool more prominent. If the pool edge went past the top edge of the table, as it would if you raised the camera, it would join the two halves together, as it is the pool looks like a small pool on the left and a dark mass on the right, but it is clearly a good sized pool. I would put a touch more light in the rock above the table light to give that more definition and I'd light the pool water, probably very subtly.
> 
> ...



Private. 
Ohhhh. You are much advanced than me in photography. I have no idea how to use tilt shifts yet. Must learn! 
Will crop the sky bit more.
The cushions are so intrusive! The grass at that point was eroded, the light was fading fast... excuses excuses..!!

I dislike (hate) the star bursts myself but lenses seem to produce them at small f stops. Will be careful in future. Love the learning curve of photography!

Yes of course I take all comments in a positive way generally as there is no name calling (unless of course they are from a self proclaimed grand daddy of this forum who is totally blind to progress in tech with companies besides Canon and loves to be rude).


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > How could I have done better? Thx in advance.
> ...



Wow. You have a great eye for compositional elements. These did not cross my mind even once. 
I would never ever add these star bursts either in post or with filters... no no no.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

knkedlaya said:


> Image is really wonderful. Probably I would have used a flash(with blue/CTO gels) to light the stones on the right side of the frame a bit. Along with this, trying with painting the trees on the left side of the frame with a torch light/flash with gel would have opened up the trees a bit. Thats just my taste, feel free to disagree
> 
> Naveena



Thanks Naveena. I so agree. That would be the perfect solution. But I had no lights... But I will see what I can do in PS. Will post, please let me know if it improves the photo.


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

TeT said:


> Horizon is good because to raise it would affect how much and the angle of the trees in the photo. Changing the horizon and the trees possibly become to much trees...
> 
> However a touch of light on the immediate background might be nice, but just a touch...
> 
> ...



Thank you!!


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I want to know why you are complaining about Canon sensors whilst producing shots like that



Hahahahaha. Not complaining, just wishing that I can get more details out of blacks and whites in post - something that is possible with other sensors. Canon being our choice of equipment and being the market leader should look into this pending issue to help it's loyal users. Nothing wrong with this right?


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> Do you live in Europe?


I am from Germany!


----------



## sanj (Mar 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Do you live in Europe?
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Do you live in Europe?
> ...



+1 for knowing that Europe is not a country :->


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 27, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


*lol* and +1 for those reading a user profile


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> View from back yard? That would be greatttttt. The view is of Meru National park in Kenya. I could hear distant roars of lions as I was wrapping the shoot. It was SUPER.


Wow, that sounds like a fun shoot! I bet listening to lions never gets old. I look forward to seeing what you're able to do in PS.



Marsu42 said:


> +1 for knowing that Europe is not a country :->


It's not? What about European, isn't that the official language, just like the Euro is the _only_ currency? I thought the EU made all of you into one country, just like the U.S.A, right?


----------



## rpt (Mar 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


Thanks, I am well. 

I presumed that the area of interest was the table so I cropped off the top to get the horizon at the top 1/3rd. Now the table looks big in comparison and one focuses on the table which leads you to the sunset point. Otherwise, my eyes were confused whether to look at the table or the sky - which has a beautiful colour! I did a quick and dirty edit to show you what I mean.


----------



## sanj (Mar 29, 2015)

Thank you RPT. Looks good.

For others: I failed at getting more details in the blacks - it cased noise. Three possible reasons: a) Me not doing it right, b) I perhaps underexposed it too much c) Canon sensors do not allow details in the blacks without creating ugly noise.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 29, 2015)

sanj said:


> For others: I failed at getting more details in the blacks - it cased noise. Three possible reasons: a) Me not doing it right, b) I perhaps underexposed it too much c) Canon sensors do not allow details in the blacks without creating ugly noise.



Nikon clearly is superior at low iso dynamic range and shadow noise quality - but in this case, you weren't doing it right. With a 14bit resolution file, you can only expect to raise the shadows so much before resolution drops to rock bottom.

That's why you bracket scenes like yours - there is no movement except for the flames, you could have easily done a 7x bracket with 2/3ev spacing and post-processed yourself silly merging 'em... this is more work, but results in superior iq for high dynamic range scenes like sunset if you want details in the shadows.


----------



## sanj (Apr 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > For others: I failed at getting more details in the blacks - it cased noise. Three possible reasons: a) Me not doing it right, b) I perhaps underexposed it too much c) Canon sensors do not allow details in the blacks without creating ugly noise.
> ...



Thank you for the tip. Will keep in mind. Appreciate!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 1, 2015)

I haven't read through the whole thread but IMO more details in the blacks could kill the picture. I think you have the balance spot on and created a beautiful but slightly mysterious image.


----------

