Cathedral of the Sacred Heart

[DGMPhotography]

Garaladin on deviantART

How is this one?

 

[Joel_W]

Personally, I feel it's just too tight a crop, the sky is blown out, the church looks somewhat under exposed.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Personally, I feel it's just too tight a crop, the sky is blown out, the church looks somewhat under exposed.

Okay, so you think I should have let more of the church show (aka less crop)? I wanted to, but I was up against a wall as is, and don't have enough angle I suppose. What do you mean by the sky is "blown out" though? And under exposed? I'm a total noob, please help?

 

[Joel_W]

Personally, I feel it's just too tight a crop, the sky is blown out, the church looks somewhat under exposed.

Okay, so you think I should have let more of the church show (aka less crop)? I wanted to, but I was up against a wall as is, and don't have enough angle I suppose. What do you mean by the sky is "blown out" though? And under exposed? I'm a total noob, please help?

As the viewer, not the photographer, I wouldn't have known that you had a space issue, and that's the reason for the crop of the Church. In that case a wider angle lens would have been appropriate, so that the whole, or at least more of the church is included within the photograph. The blown out sky is exactly that. There is no color, no clouds, no nothing, thus it's over exposed. You could have handled that in a few ways. Either a Graduated ND filter to darken the sky by limiting the amount of light in your exposure, or opting for a HDR image using a min of 3 bracketed pictures. That would require a tripod and a editing program to accomplish that. You could have also added color and darkened it somewhat in post production.

 

[Dahrol]

The cropping isn't an issue for me, but my tastes differ from others.

The sky, imo, is what takes away from the image. It's completely overtaking the building, and it's too blank.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Personally, I feel it's just too tight a crop, the sky is blown out, the church looks somewhat under exposed.

Okay, so you think I should have let more of the church show (aka less crop)? I wanted to, but I was up against a wall as is, and don't have enough angle I suppose. What do you mean by the sky is "blown out" though? And under exposed? I'm a total noob, please help?

As the viewer, not the photographer, I wouldn't have known that you had a space issue, and that's the reason for the crop of the Church. In that case a wider angle lens would have been appropriate, so that the whole, or at least more of the church is included within the photograph. The blown out sky is exactly that. There is no color, no clouds, no nothing, thus it's over exposed. You could have handled that in a few ways. Either a Graduated ND filter to darken the sky by limiting the amount of light in your exposure, or opting for a HDR image using a min of 3 bracketed pictures. That would require a tripod and a editing program to accomplish that. You could have also added color and darkened it somewhat in post production.

Well that makes sense. As for the sky, that's actually how it looked that day- the city is kind of a smoggy place, and this literally how it looked that day. Are you telling me I should have fixed that in Photoshop? Wouldn't that be like lying?

 

[Joel_W]

You presented a photograph of a church to us, & I responded with how I felt about it. Maybe a sentence or two to explain the scene to us would have helped, but it wouldn't have changed how I felt about the image.

I've often had to shoot in cloudy, lifeless sky days because that's what the weather conditions were, and that's when I had the time to go out and take pictures. I always carry a graduated ND filter, and a tripod. I also have two HDR imaging programs installed on my computer. Darkening the sky with either method is not lying, it's just enhancing to make for a more pleasing photograph. I'm not suggesting that you clone clouds or even change the sky. But using just two techniques that would have significantly enhanced your photograph.

 

[DGMPhotography]

You presented a photograph of a church to us, & I responded with how I felt about it. Maybe a sentence or two to explain the scene to us would have helped, but it wouldn't have changed how I felt about the image.

I've often had to shoot in cloudy, lifeless sky days because that's what the weather conditions were, and that's when I had the time to go out and take pictures. I always carry a graduated ND filter, and a tripod. I also have two HDR imaging programs installed on my computer. Darkening the sky with either method is not lying, it's just enhancing to make for a more pleasing photograph. I'm not suggesting that you clone clouds or even change the sky. But using just two techniques that would have significantly enhanced your photograph.

Okay, what is a graduated ND filter? And what are your two HDR imaging programs? I have an idea of what HDR is, thanks to Wikipedia, but what software would you recommend? Are there any free ones? I currently use Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 for most of my manipulation needs.

 

[Joel_W]

You presented a photograph of a church to us, & I responded with how I felt about it. Maybe a sentence or two to explain the scene to us would have helped, but it wouldn't have changed how I felt about the image.

I've often had to shoot in cloudy, lifeless sky days because that's what the weather conditions were, and that's when I had the time to go out and take pictures. I always carry a graduated ND filter, and a tripod. I also have two HDR imaging programs installed on my computer. Darkening the sky with either method is not lying, it's just enhancing to make for a more pleasing photograph. I'm not suggesting that you clone clouds or even change the sky. But using just two techniques that would have significantly enhanced your photograph.

Okay, what is a graduated ND filter? And what are your two HDR imaging programs? I have an idea of what HDR is, thanks to Wikipedia, but what software would you recommend? Are there any free ones? I currently use Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 for most of my manipulation needs.

A graduated ND filter limits the amount of light coming through it starting at the top, and becomes less and less till it's clear glass by the mid point. This allows for a much greater dynamic range of light, so that in your case, the sky isn't blown out as you set your exposure for the subject.

 

[DGMPhotography]

You presented a photograph of a church to us, & I responded with how I felt about it. Maybe a sentence or two to explain the scene to us would have helped, but it wouldn't have changed how I felt about the image.

I've often had to shoot in cloudy, lifeless sky days because that's what the weather conditions were, and that's when I had the time to go out and take pictures. I always carry a graduated ND filter, and a tripod. I also have two HDR imaging programs installed on my computer. Darkening the sky with either method is not lying, it's just enhancing to make for a more pleasing photograph. I'm not suggesting that you clone clouds or even change the sky. But using just two techniques that would have significantly enhanced your photograph.

Okay, what is a graduated ND filter? And what are your two HDR imaging programs? I have an idea of what HDR is, thanks to Wikipedia, but what software would you recommend? Are there any free ones? I currently use Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 for most of my manipulation needs.

A graduated ND filter limits the amount of light coming through it starting at the top, and becomes less and less till it's clear glass by the mid point. This allows for a much greater dynamic range of light, so that in your case, the sky isn't blown out as you set your exposure for the subject.

View attachment 5052

Hmm... that's rather interesting! Thanks!