The Image Shredder

D.S.

I am going to disagree a little with the others and say that the lines created by the train in it's current downward position is my favourite part of the current composition. It's different and unique, and the diagonal lines create tension in the image, which i like. I also like the tones. However, given you are thinking of reshooting this again, you could think about:

- is it the stars or the composition of the train you are focusing on (it might need a different crop / FOV. I agree with the lads that the both the sky and the train in current state together don't quite work for me.
- I notice some weird orange lines coming from the RHS of the train - could be light pollution or something else, but it looks odd to my eye. Would clone out
- The trees fall off to the right which I think throws things out of balance a bit, not sure whether the tripod was on flat ground, but even if it was, I'd straighten that horizon (as you have the depth on the LHS)
- i reckon it could be a cracking shot if it was a wide angle shot, less sky, keeping the train's angle, with less exposure in the cabin, and some more light painting outside of it. But horses for courses on that one - everyone sees something different in their minds eye..

eoglyn

11811 - thanks for the tips - i guess that means i better set the alarm clock and see what i can capture in the middle of the bog.

D.S. the tripod is wonky - i should have corrected for that in post, the orange lines are clouds over a nearby crossroads - it is a bit weird i'll agree and i can now take them out - overall i liked the light pollution in this instance, i thought it made the tree line stand out and the orange blended well with the purple in the sky

Superfly - i can't say i was entirely in control of the composition at the time, it was very dark, but i had straighter shots from the night and I liked how this captured the slope of this particular piece of sculpture known as the 'sky train' in lough boora - it is well a well photographed piece generally but many miss this element of it and it just looks like a regular train. I think when i shoot again i will try something like this and a different angle more straight on - then it will depend on where the most interesting part of the cosmos happens to be this time of year

Brilliant feedback all round, thank you - i think this is how i will begin to improve and it has definitely inspired me to go out and reshoot this

superflyninja

@eoglyn where abouts is lough boora? never heard of it or the train. Sounds v interesting though. Looking forward to seeing the new shots!
Was that strobe you used in the cabin or is it lit up anyway?

eoglyn

Only ireland's only premier 50 acre sculpture park

http://loughbooraparklands.ie/

It's near tullamore in Co. Offaly. It is actually amazing - great photo opporunities at all times of the year.

It is a good bird watching spot too, if that is your bag.

I put a couple of torches in the cabin poorly covered with some cloth and left them there for the 30 second exposure - but i put in a regular bulb torch (tungsten possibly) and an led - so you have a blue/white and a yellow light - again something i'll do differently.

OldGoat

11811, sorry to be slow in getting back to you.
As I said I have the chance to get into some dark skys soon enough and hope to catch the Milky Way. My problem is gear. I have a slow wide lens or a fast long lens and a body that is incredibly noisey. Anything over 800 just about manageable and 1600 is dubious at best.
I intend to shoot with both lenses to see what I can catch but do you have any firsthand knowledge as to which might work out better, the 17mm f/4 or the 50mm at f/1.4 (both on a crop sensor).

The 17mm will give me a bigger slice of the sky and a longer exposure but I'll have to wind the ISO byond acceptable in noise terms.
The 50mm gives me a smaller view, a shorter exposure time but a cleaner image noise-wise.
Therein lies the rub. Should I be looking for a shorter exposure with more noise or a longer exposure with more noise?

...

or I could just use the excuse to buy a fast wide lens.

11811

OldGoat wrote: »

11811, sorry to be slow in getting back to you.
As I said I have the chance to get into some dark skys soon enough and hope to catch the Milky Way. My problem is gear. I have a slow wide lens or a fast long lens and a body that is incredibly noisey. Anything over 800 just about manageable and 1600 is dubious at best.
I intend to shoot with both lenses to see what I can catch but do you have any firsthand knowledge as to which might work out better, the 17mm f/4 or the 50mm at f/1.4 (both on a crop sensor).

The 17mm will give me a bigger slice of the sky and a longer exposure but I'll have to wind the ISO byond acceptable in noise terms.
The 50mm gives me a smaller view, a shorter exposure time but a cleaner image noise-wise.
Therein lies the rub. Should I be looking for a shorter exposure with more noise or a longer exposure with more noise?

...

or I could just use the excuse to buy a fast wide lens.

Ah that's a dilly of a pickle you're in! It's kind of much of a muchness, as the 50mm you'll only be able to expose for about 7 seconds before you'll get movement in the stars and it won't get you much in terms of width in your scene. A possibility would be to go wide with a high ISO to get your detail in the stars (most of its noise anyway!) and maybe take a much longer exposure at a low ISO of your foreground and blend the two? It's not ideal I guess but it's a workaround. Or esle treat yourself to a nice fast wide angle!

eoglyn

1.



2.



3.



i'd love some feedback on these images, they were taken during semana santa, or holy week, in cordoba, the kids are building wax balls from the nazarenos' candles - they are grainy as i was using a ricoh gr with a high iso in low light conditions - they are slightly cropped, shredding on everything is welcome

Sheeps

I probably wouldn't have gone with monochrome for #2

eoglyn

2 is my least favorite, i struggled with that one,

here it is in colour:

[

dirtyghettokid

colour version is much better.
i find my eyes keep drifting to the people in the background though, where the boy should be centre of focus/attention. perhaps the background people should be more out of focus.
what aperture (& lens) did you shoot this with? the exif data isn't available..

superflyninja

Yup I agree colour works better.And I agree with Janine, a wider aperture focused on the kid would be more effective IMO. And if it was me Id probably gone for a slightly lower angle.

eoglyn

Exposure
0.017 sec (1/60)Aperturef/2.8Focal Length18.3 mmISO Speed3200

All three have similar exif data, it was using a ricoh gr, which is a compact mirrorless fixed lens job with an APS-C sensor, 2.8 is as wide as it gets,

iso is high as i didn't want to use the on-camera flash as it would wash out the light source in the frame. Ricoh gr is often praised for the quality of it's digital grain -being almost film-like, i'm not sure about that, but i still like these images.

For all three i was leaning over with the camera at arms length above my head. I know what you are saying about getting low - quite often it can work better, but it wasn't really an option in this case.

eoglyn

i want to revive this thread as i liked the idea, i know its not supposed tobe just for night sky stuff but seeing as there was a relevant discussion on it before:

untitled-1.jpg by EoghanL, on Flickr

14mm, f2.8, 30secs, iso 4000

i know it would be better with no clouds in the sky, shred requested mainly for the post and how to improve

11811

eoglyn wrote: »

14mm, f2.8, 30secs, iso 4000

i know it would be better with no clouds in the sky, shred requested mainly for the post and how to improve

Some nice Milky Way action there!
If I was to suggest an improvement it would be to include some more of our own planet! Bit of foreground interest of a bit more of the landscape in the bottom would give a bit more context to the shot. If you're worried about missing out on some of the Milkyway you could always try some picture stitching?

superflyninja

Really nice. Where did you take it?
Only thing Id say is maybe to combine two exposures. One for the sky and one for the ground. The earth in the shot above is pretty much a black strip. More detail in there might add more interest.

magicbastarder

the biggest issue with shots like this is that everyone has seen the same image before - the trick is trying to do something new with it.

Logie-1

Hi eoglyn,
I have never tried starscapes before so I can't give any technical advice. What I will say is ,that I think there is too much going on at at the bottom of the shot, bright lights and grass at the very bottom. I think the milky way part is very good but maybe a better location is all they is needed. (personal opinion of course:))

OldGoat

Did you use auto white balance? If you use a custom WB using an image of the night sky it can help reduce the sodium glare.
Or you can spend a few hundred euro on a specialist filter.

magicbastarder

is there any ability in photoshop to remove a very specific colour, which would obviously be the one matching the sodium lights in that pic?

dinneenp

Good idea for a thread. I know people can post a 'C&C wanted' thread but few people do. Maybe they think it's too much bother for maybe 2 photos. I did propose ages ago the same as this; a random thread but where people give more feedabck.

Hope the thread lasts.

superflyninja

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there any ability in photoshop to remove a very specific colour, which would obviously be the one matching the sodium lights in that pic?

not sure about removing a specific colour for a specific area. but if you copy the BG layer, then do the Average filter,invert the colour and set that layer to overlay it should neutralise the colour cast(which might help with the sodium lights, could tdo the same as described but for the affected area of the image? ).

eoglyn

thanks for all the feedback - great points to think about next time - i tried a graduated filter applied in lightroom, i brought down the colour temperature and up the exposure, it was difficult to go overboard with this as you were starting to see a definite line. i think its an improvement. points about it not being that interesting are well made, i need to think about te locations and plan and set u the shot - this was opportunistic.

It was taken near ballydavid on the dingle peninsula - dark, dark skies but at the back of a house with lost of other houses around

milky way 2-1 by EoghanL, on Flickr

eoglyn

dinneenp wrote: »

Good idea for a thread. I know people can post a 'C&C wanted' thread but few people do. Maybe they think it's too much bother for maybe 2 photos. I did propose ages ago the same as this; a random thread but where people give more feedabck.

Hope the thread lasts.

i like it too,i'm here to learn and improve so i prefer it to the random thread. It will only last if people are submitting photos to it, and of course if shredding is given constructively and taken in the spirit that it is intended.

superflyninja

Ill try one next:

Poolbeg

by phorgan82, on Flickr

eoglyn

That looks great, love the sillouhette but with just enough detail in the towers. Also like how the four smaller chimneys do not breach the line of the hills (mountains) behind and i like how you maintain just sliver of daylight between them. i like the monochrome you've use - would be interested in exactly you've done in post, i wouldn't liek to guess.

I know the towers have been taken thousands of times before some might criticise for this, but i do like to think of them as a recurring motife, good for learning and comparing results with other photo enthusiasts. i've never taken them though.

I hate recommending rule of thirds, but in this case i'm wondering if there is more detail and interest in the sky than in the waves. would it benefit from a higher different crop? depends on whether you've shot wider and cropped as to whether it would be worth revisiting though.
Its difficult though, a rule of thirds conforming pigeon house picture could move the image from use of a motife to tired cliche.

eoglyn

Also, looking again I'm noticing very slight lens distortion, very mild moustache distortion visible on the water line, anyone else see this? Not really worth worrying about unless you plan to print big

superflyninja

eoglyn wrote: »

Also, looking again I'm noticing very slight lens distortion, very mild moustache distortion visible on the water line, anyone else see this? Not really worth worrying about unless you plan to print big

cheers! didnt do a lot of PP. added a little contrast,think then all i did was add a BW gradient layer to convert to mono.
It was a crop and the sky was very bland above where I cut off and I thought it harmed the photo more tbh.

What is moustache distortion?

dirtyghettokid

agree about the crop.. i'd have used the rule of thirds on this one, putting the water line on the bottom third and the rest on the top two thirds.
also, i prob would have tried to make the clouds a bit more detailed in PP, but that's just me. :P

always love those candysticks though!

also LOL i've never heard of moustache distortion before

eoglyn

superflyninja wrote: »

What is moustache distortion?

forget it, its not there, i'm not seeing straight.

i'm obsessed, as its a problem i can't figure out for a 14mm samyang i have there is distrotion corrections you can download for LR but i can't get it to work. Google "samyang moustache distortion", you'll see plenty of examples, when you start looking for it it appears everywhere, even where it aint.

AnCatDubh

superflyninja wrote: »

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7328/12902473394_03b8b1fb3e_c.jpg

Odd crop. Messing with my head. Otherwise i like it.