Baker Park, Frederick MD

[Robchaos]

The water you see is Carroll Creek, it splits and some of it goes down a spillway down a different path. c&c appreciated


DSC_0104 by Robchaos, on Flickr

 

[xolauren22]

it's amazing

 

[jwbryson1]

it's amazing

Umm...which part?

Kinda snapshot'ish to me.

 

[Joey_Ricard]

Being from that area originally I will comment.

That is a pretty sky, surely you could have incorporated that sky into a much more pleasing composition some way.
Looking at this and then to your Flickr I know you can take more than just a snapshot.

 

[Scuba]

I grew up not to far from there in Gaithersburg/Germantown. This show is blurry. I see a 2.5 sec shutter did you use a tripod? Aside from that the sky is ok but the rest is distracting and boring. Also remember rule of thirds and not to put the horizon in the middle. If you did use a tripod which you probably did you just missed the focus. It shows 3.5m focus distance or ~12 feet which is why the buildings are not sharp. Read about hyperfocal distance as it will help with a shots like this. You also may want to consider opening up the aperture some. You most likely don't need the f/22 and probably could have gotten away with f/14 or so. I am still learning exactly why but too small a aperture actually hurts image quality.

 

[jwbryson1]

I live in Montgomery County, MD currently, and I am familiar with Frederick--it's about 20 minutes from me. The image lacks good composition and it is also split in 1/2 with 1/2 being sky and 1/2 being ground. This is generally not a good idea from a compositional standpoint. 2/3 and 1/3 are better, either direction.

The stones leading up to the center bottom of the image at first appeared to me to be trash. It was only when I looked closer that I could see they were stones. The building are just buildings--nothing interesting, and the image is OOF.

 

[Robchaos]

Thanks for the critique all.
I'm always looking to improve, and even though I pretty much have the basics down, every once in a while I let a picture slip through that isn't up to par . I understand about hyperfocal distance, I just wish that modern lenses didn't do away with distance scales . This was one of those times I just didn't feel like calculating.
@scuba I believe the term you are thinking of for the small aperture opening affecting image quality is called diffraction.

 

[Robchaos]

perhaps this one sits better with everyone?

DSC_0106 by Robchaos, on Flickr

I went back to my shots that day and found one I had shot at a more reasonable aperture, I think with the one I had posted, I was trying to get the water to look smoother and had no ND filter with me, hence the high aperture and longer SS. I should have paid more attention when I was pp'ing.

 

[Robchaos]

No one to pick apart the new version for me? I do plan on revisiting this spot sometime to try a different approach.

 

[cannpope]

The 2nd one is so much better than the first. Tones are more saturated and it looks much sharper.

 

[jowensphoto]

Second is much better in all areas! I like how you used the rocks on the shoreline to lead the viewer into the photo.

 

[dwightdegroff]

(I'm from Westminster, MD, too... small world.)

I definitely like the colors and sharpness better on the second photo. I can't help but feeling that the negative space of the water in the bottom-right quadrant isn't sufficiently balanced, but I'm really not experienced for my input to be worth too much weight. Keep shooting.

 

[Cyclographist]

I like the second a lot better for the focus and color saturation. I would recompose though, because you still have the 1/2 sky, 1/2 ground split. The rocks and grass aren't that interesting and the sky really pops out with those colors. When you go back, if the sky is as it is in this shot, try shooting 1/3 ground and 2/3 sky.

 

[iresq]

Annapolis checking in! The 2nd one is much better. Maybe crop the bottom were the spillway turns out, creating a panny.