What is wrong with this image?

[Dman65]

Originally Posted by christian

Turn the little dial until the camera doesn't think for you... most cameras have a setting which requires thought to make something happen... most are labeled "M".

I thought you were supposed to turn the dial to "P" for Professional.

[TCProd]

Wow, is it just me or are a couple of the comments a bit harsh. I'm all for constructive criticism, but some are just mean.

I don't know Igor's background, but we have met (at a RG workshop) and he is quite intellectually curious. He will soak up constructive comments such as those from RFS.

Igor, I think the main flaws are the lack of vertical lines, which happens when you tilt the camera, and also the inability to see the entire building. Using a wide angle lens, backing off, and keeping the camera parallel to the ground would improve it. (Or use a view camera and bellows.) As it is, it is difficult to identify the building.

The exposure is difficult in any case because the facade is in the sun while the (I don't know the correct architectural term) "porch" is in shadow.

[Stecyk]

Originally Posted by TCProd

Using a wide angle lens, backing off, and keeping the camera parallel to the ground would improve it. (Or use a view camera and bellows.) As it is, it is difficult to identify the building.

Alternatively, focus in on an interesting aspect, such as a door frame, door, window, or something else of interest.

[CatCynic]

Originally Posted by trwphoto

You have missed the whole point to photography. You should have had to work in a real darkroom with chemicals adjusting contrast, brightness, grayneness, ect with chemicals paper and time. Boy talk about being spoilded. Go back to basics. Get a k-1000 and learn to use it. You will be supprised what you will learn.

--- rant warning! ---

OK, I have had it with this attitude (and you get the points for triggering the rant)!

So you had to work with chemicals - get over it. Maybe you inhaled too many fumes, but working with chemical photography does NOT make you a superstar, nor does it make you superior to photographers without your experience.

The point is the image created, not the process of creating it. If someone can create a powerful image using a cell-phone camera, more power to them (and yeah, it doesn't happen often!). If they capture a still frame with a webcam, and it's an awesome shot, hooray! Feel free to look down your nose at them, feel free to sneer at their lowly equipment, but stop yapping about "the only way to learn is chemical photography". Chemical photography has gone the way of steam engines - the only ones left are the fanatics (who should meet in little groups, somewhat ashamed of their obsessions) and people with very special requirements. Most people are using digital cameras now, and those cameras are at least as capable as the old film cameras you revere.

I'm guilty of equipment snobbery myself - I use a 5D and I have a 1D Mark III on order - but I'm willing to give credit for a good image, no matter what was used to shoot it.

As for Christian and his/her rude attitude - try giving CONSTRUCTIVE advice, instead of sneering. Instead of saying "the only way to shoot is Manual", try suggesting something really useful, like: "if you spot-meter for the shadows you can get an exposure which can be combined with the current one to yield an image with greater dynamic range". Of course, giving constructive advice is more work than sneering... Read the sort of thing RFS posts - he is genuinely helpful, and a role-model you could do well to follow. (I am fully aware that I don't live up to his standard)

--- we now return you to your original programming ---

To get more than one line vertical on the building shot requires a bellows or a tilt and shift lens (fascinating beasties, but not cheap!) - if you read up on tilt and shift lenses you'll learn why this is so. With a regular lens, not mounted on a bellows, you can only get one line vertical, and different choices of which line to make vertical will change the composition. Try it: shoot the same building multiple times, each time making a different line vertical. Another option is to go for symmetry - pick two main verticals, and make them tilt inwards by equal amounts. Depending on the lens you choose to use, you can increase or decrease this effect. It could be an interesting compositional choice to exaggerate the effect, rather than trying to avoid it (the "lemons to lemonade" approach, you might say).

It looks like the dynamic range of this scene exceeds the reach of your camera. Others have suggested ways to attack this, including blending two shots of the same scene (made with different settings - one shot for the bright bits, and one for the dark bits). It starts with being aware that your camera has limited range of brightness, and that the scene a wider range than that.

[jimmyd]

Originally Posted by christian

...most cameras have a setting which requires thought to make something happen... most are labeled "M".

[ffppro]

I really appreciate all the constructive feedback I have received on my post, but unfortunately I should have used a different picture do demonstrate the problem I was talking about, since everyone missed the point of my original post and talked about the composition and the lines of the picture, and not the "hazy and dull" look of the image overall.

Here is another example of what I am talking about:

Re: What is wrong with this image? 

I know it's a bit underexposed, and YES I DID HAVE THE CAMERA ON AUTO

Here is a link to the original raw file if anyone is interested:

http://thrulens.com/sol.NEF

Thank you all for your feedback.

[CatCynic]

I'm not sure what RAW file processor you are using. I'll assume you have PhotoShop, and can use Adobe Camera RAW (ACR).

It looks to me as though you need to establish the black and white points for your photo in the RAW processor. RFS did an excellent tutorial on this subject (search on "workflow" and "tutorial", or maybe RFS will point us to it?).

In ACR, you need to set the Exposure slider so that something white in the photo is pure white (Hold the Alt/Option key down while sliding the Exposure slider - stop when you see something other than black, then back off a squidgeon). Then you set the Black (or Shadows) slider so that something black in the photo is just black (again, hold the Alt/Option key down, slide until something is not white, then back off a touch).

These settings mean that you are stretching the content of your photo as far as you can - you are using the entire dynamic range of PhotoShop for your image. It also means your brighter colours are as bright as they can be, and your darker colours are as dark as they can be, without clipping.

I'd be interested to see how much impact this has on your image.

[johnw]

Not sure what your in Camera settings are or if your shooting raw or jpeg. You might try to bump up the in camera contrast as well as sharpening. To eliminate some of the haze.

[christian]

Originally Posted by CatCynic

--- rant warning! ---

OK, I have had it with this attitude (and you get the points for triggering the rant)!

So you had to work with chemicals - get over it. Maybe you inhaled too many fumes, but working with chemical photography does NOT make you a superstar, nor does it make you superior to photographers without your experience.

The point is the image created, not the process of creating it. If someone can create a powerful image using a cell-phone camera, more power to them (and yeah, it doesn't happen often!). If they capture a still frame with a webcam, and it's an awesome shot, hooray! Feel free to look down your nose at them, feel free to sneer at their lowly equipment, but stop yapping about "the only way to learn is chemical photography". Chemical photography has gone the way of steam engines - the only ones left are the fanatics (who should meet in little groups, somewhat ashamed of their obsessions) and people with very special requirements. Most people are using digital cameras now, and those cameras are at least as capable as the old film cameras you revere.

I'm guilty of equipment snobbery myself - I use a 5D and I have a 1D Mark III on order - but I'm willing to give credit for a good image, no matter what was used to shoot it.

As for Christian and his/her rude attitude - try giving CONSTRUCTIVE advice, instead of sneering. Instead of saying "the only way to shoot is Manual", try suggesting something really useful, like: "if you spot-meter for the shadows you can get an exposure which can be combined with the current one to yield an image with greater dynamic range". Of course, giving constructive advice is more work than sneering... Read the sort of thing RFS posts - he is genuinely helpful, and a role-model you could do well to follow. (I am fully aware that I don't live up to his standard)

Oh Cat... how I adore you. You're like a baby seal that delivers the bat

How about this... when someone wants advice on how to click crap and correct later - you answer. When someone wants advice on how to actually improve the images they're starting with - I'll answer. When someone asks which clicker will make them look/sound cool... and might make up for some of their incompetence, you answer. When someone wants to learn to manipulate light in the camera so very little post work is needed, I'll answer. You coddle - and I'll sneer. You can play role model - and I'll push like a coach would.

As to your runny little pile of bullshyt about film - you might look around at the biggest shooters on the planet. We do gather in small groups... usually in editor's offices. Almost all of the biggest shooters are still using film... and since you don't know why... I'll let you educate yourself. What you don't know IS hurting you. If you can't make a strong image on slide film - you're not a photographer... you're a photoshopper. And if you identify your work by the brand name on your camera - I'll go ahead and guess which of the two you are.

Now have a nice fcuking day

christian

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

It is more than a bit underexposed and that is one of the major problems. I downloaded the RAW file and processed it and here are the histograms for your current rendition of the shot and the one I processed in ACR to overcome the 1.75 stops of underexposure. I think they show a good amount of difference:

Your original upload with histogram:


The RAW image using ACR to correct underexposure:

Here is the aritcle that CatCynic mentioned:

http://www.glamour1.com/forums/digit...tml#post219883

Keep in mind that you need to work on getting closer to the correct exposure in camera. Notice the change in the histogram and the rgb color spikes. Note how they move quite a bit right and spread out. This gives the photo more range and pop as you can see.

Auto mode will rarely work on a shot like this. The meter gets fooled by all the sky in the photo. If you camera has a spot metering mode, shift to that and you'll get better results. But since you're shooting digital, you can use a "chimp" method to zero in on exposure. Set your camera's LCD to about 1 notch above is lowest brightness setting. Now shoot the shot and look at the image and histogram. If the histogram for a shot like this is bunched up on the left, then open up and shoot again. You're trying to move the histogram further right.

Cheers,
rfs