Some scenery pictures I took on vacation

[ziggo]

I took this pictures using a Sony DSC-W210 pocket digital camera. I am curious to hear your opinions on these:

1.

Dag 8 by b8i, on Flickr
2.

Freiburg by b8i, on Flickr
3.

Sky by b8i, on Flickr
4.

Bloemetje, dag 8 by b8i, on Flickr
5.

Solar flare by b8i, on Flickr
6.

Hill by b8i, on Flickr
7.

Huisje in een dorpje, dag 4 by b8i, on Flickr

 

[MohaimenK]

very good for a P&S camera!!! I like #2 and #7 the most! I like how you captured #2 with perfect exposure. Everything looks to be in zone 3 - 7 in #2 :thumbup:

 

[RobNZ]

I'll have to disagree with Mo on the "perfect exposure" for No.2, the foreground is underexposed big time.

The shot that I do see as having potential is 7, maybe a recrop, a sneaky lens correction and some level adjustments and a sharpen. I would have liked to have seen a little more at the bottom of the frame though.

 

[MohaimenK]

I'll have to disagree with Mo on the "perfect exposure" for No.2, the foreground is underexposed big time.

You can if you want. But looking at the image, the sky falls just at zone 5 where the clouds fall in zone 7, foreground falls in perfect zone 3 and 4.
Even if he went +1/3 exposure but that would blow the clouds and the sky away.

BUT, it would be ideal if there was some sun shining on the foreground to give it a bit more light.

BTW, I do like your edit on #7

 

[AprilEye]

#7 is my favorite. #4 would be pretty good too if the little flower were not out of focus

 

[ziggo]

Thank you for the comments so far.
@ RobNZ
I like the crop, but did you apply lens correction as well?
And about no 2., I could not get a better image than that out of the point and shoot camera as it would adjust it's exposure automatically. When pointing at the sky the city turned dark, and pointing at the city the sky overexposed. I found this to be the best option (as shown in no 2.).
I tried editing it in photoshop and iPhoto to lighten the dark city but that just made the image "ordinary" and it was not interesting to look at.

 

[MohaimenK]

made the image "ordinary" and it was not interesting to look at.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[RobNZ]

Ziggo, yes I did apply lens correction to stop the building leaning backwards.

No.2 Is a hard one, the scene has a much greater dynamic range than even a DSLR could "probably" capture in a single exposure without the use of HDR or a graduated ND filter. The sky is very very bright and the foreground has some very heavily shaded areas, massive dynamic range.

When I do post on an image for any end result I always try and get the image to a point where it looks as I remember it or as close as I can get it first, then I decide how it will end up looking, get the basics correct, start with a good pallette and work from there. With that in mind here is how I think this probably looked in real life?

and this is really pushing pixels hard

VS how your camera captured and processed it....

The sky in the original is exposed correctly, the foreground is about 4 stops under IMO.

 

[LightSpeed]

I'll have to disagree with Mo on the "perfect exposure" for No.2, the foreground is underexposed big time.

The way it is exposed, you can pull the foreground back in. Had it been exposed for the foreground, the sky would have been so over exposed , there is no way you could pull it back in. In my opinion , a good balancing act on this photo, #2, as exposure goes.

 

[Tight Knot]

Hi Ziggo,

My favourite is number 7, and next is number 4.
What were you trying to focus on in #. 4? The flower or the grass in front?

 

[Tight Knot]

The shot that I do see as having potential is 7, maybe a recrop, a sneaky lens correction and some level adjustments and a sharpen. I would have liked to have seen a little more at the bottom of the frame though.

Hi RobNz,
A question from a noob. How did you achieve the "sneaky lens correction"? What an amazing difference there is in the quality of the photo with the lens correction.

 

[ziggo]

@RobNZ
I see now by comparing the images side by side the lens correction effect. The reason why this building is bulged and leaning backwards is because I used the "wide-angle-mode" on the camera which allowed me to take a picture of the whole house in one go without stepping back too much.
Next time I'll keep in mind to compensate for the lens distortion.
Thank you for your thorough explanation and edit of picture 2. But as you may see the sky looks quite different in the edit which removes the atmosphere (as I remember) that was there at the moment I took the picture. The sky was yellowish because of the sun setting behind the mountain on the right and it all had a sort of warm feeling. I guess I can achieve the same result with photoshop, but it feels like cheating.

@Tight Knot:
Number 4 is actually one photo of a series of photos of this flower. I have some which are focussed on the flower itself, but I liked this one more. I think (can't remember for sure) I focussed on 'infinity" i.e. the city in the background.

I guess RobNZ used the lens correction utility found in Photoshop under Filter->Distort->Lens correction.

Edit:
I suddenly remember why the flower is not in focus. My camera couldn't focus this close. If I moved further away I would get the focus right but then I wouldn't get the effect of the out of focus grass.

 

[ziggo]

I also have posted several analog photos which I've scanned in. Maybe you could take a look at them as well:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/226139-pictures-misprinted-film-roll.html

 

[Tight Knot]

@RobNZ
@Tight Knot:
Number 4 is actually one photo of a series of photos of this flower. I have some which are focussed on the flower itself, but I liked this one more. I think (can't remember for sure) I focussed on 'infinity" i.e. the city in the background.

I guess RobNZ used the lens correction utility found in Photoshop under Filter->Distort->Lens correction.

Edit:
I suddenly remember why the flower is not in focus. My camera couldn't focus this close. If I moved further away I would get the focus right but then I wouldn't get the effect of the out of focus grass.

Thanks for the explanation about the "Lens Correction" Ziggo.
The reason I was asking about the flower, is because without knowing what YOUR focus and intention was, the flower being out of focus, may have been deliberate for a specific affect you were trying to achieve.
The goal is also getting to know your own style as a photographer.

 

[RobNZ]

Ziggo, thanks for expaining the lens correction, yes it was how you described, the leaning back effect though is from not having the camera dead level (compared to the face of the building, tilted slightly back) when shooting wide, easily fixed post when its only slightly out.

No problem with picture 2 and I understand your point of view, and as I think I said I wasnt there so my version was done on a best guess situation as to how I think it appeared. You can put that warm feeling back in by simply adding a warming filter overlay, thats not cheating , thats called artistic license.