Turret

[Fred Berg]

1.

2.

3.

4.

Nikon P100

 

[jterry85]

Where were these taken at?

 

[manaheim]

Very interesting subject, huge array of technical issues (exposure, white balance, focus), and compositionally not very interesting.

 

[Fred Berg]

Where were these taken at?

Wittelsbacher Schloss in Friedberg, Bavaria.

 

[Fred Berg]

Very interesting subject, huge array of technical issues (exposure, white balance, focus), and compositionally not very interesting.

Not much point to these comments, unless you wish to expand a bit.....


I'd be delighted to learn from your input.

 

[Robchaos]

Lighting is key. Your photographs were taken at a time when there was a very wide range of lighting, which makes it hard to get a proper exposure that also looks good. If you expose for the turrets, the sky is blown out. If you expose to get the sky nice and blue, half of the photo is a silhouette due to the shade. There are unattractive shadows all over the building in #4. The best way to get around this is either wait for an overcast cloudy day where the lighting is more diffused, and the sun doesn't cast so many shadows, or bring a tripod and bracket exposures to make an HDR.

I'm sure the buildings are cool in person, but the area just does not seem like it offers a good composition to capture the whole structure. For this reason I think your photography would have been more effective if you focused on the building in pieces. A slit for the archers, the old brick doorways, the stairs and the barred window.
If this is a spot that you really like, what you should do is look at your own photos and decide what you like and what you don't like, and go back and try over and over untill you feel like you have the best photos you can possibly make from that area. Different techniques, different angles, different times of day for the lighting, etc.

 

[manaheim]

Very interesting subject, huge array of technical issues (exposure, white balance, focus), and compositionally not very interesting.

Not much point to these comments, unless you wish to expand a bit.....


I'd be delighted to learn from your input.

I love it when people tell other people that their comments are valueless.

The reason for the brevity of my comment is simple... there is very little in your pictures that isn't out of whack. This is not merely a tuning exercise. Therefore, to comment appropriately would require me to basically write a book. I'm not going to do that. You would be best served by reading your camera manual as well as some books on exposure and composition.

You would also be well-served by not telling anyone who takes time to comment in any way that their comments are valueless.

 

[thinkricky]

I'd at least tell him why the composition is not interesting. You don't have to write a book just help him figure out what book to read.

 

[manaheim]

I'd at least tell him why the composition is not interesting. You don't have to write a book just help him figure out what book to read.

The problem with that is...

1. It's not really about what's interesting. Interest is subjective and controlled by his interpretation of the subject and then by the viewers perception of the finish product. I can no more tell him what's interesting than I can tell him his mind... And mine.

2. Without seeing the subject personally I don't know much about it other than what he has shown us, so I couldn't really even guess how one might capture it... And again, see point 1.

 

[jterry85]

Where were these taken at?

Wittelsbacher Schloss in Friedberg, Bavaria.

Very cool! I'm in Baumholder over in Rhineland-Pfalz, I'm planning on doing some castle photography when I get back from Afghanistan in Feb.

I actually like the composition in #'s 1&4.
#1 like I said I think is good compositionally however the sky is blown out which is distracting and the rest of the shot looks a little underexposed as well.
#2 is underexposed as well and I have a hard time finding the point of interest or the point you are trying to get across with this composition. It looks nice but what's it supposed to show me?
#3 is also underexposed and I like the composition however I find myself wanting to see what it would look like from a different angle. The sky is not blown out on this one which is good and I clearly see the intended subject which is the turret itself, just like I said earlier, I would rather see it from a different angle perhaps.
#4 could have used just a little more exposure IMO, I like the composition and the mood it sets for the viewer. If you have a computer editing program that allows you to you could clone out the trash on the sidewalk.

I wasn't very familiar with your camera so I looked it up online and it is capable of shooting in a manual mode so I would recommend adjusting the settings and checking the light meter to allow for proper exposure. If you aren't familiar with the "exposure triangle" you can find some good info here on the forums or just by simply googling it.

Hope this helped you some and it's good to see another person in Germany here on the forums! We'll have to swap photo spots sometime!

 

[Joel_W]

Picture one could be improved considerably by cropping out that plain Jane house in the upper left background. That would also decrease the amount of sky you have to deal with. Then properly expose for the ivy walls.

Picture 2 I would just classify as a snap shot of personal interest. There is really no central subject.

Picture 3 has the same issues with the wrong era buildings in the background. I would have moved more to the right, and closer in. especially if I had to deal with whatever in the background on the left.

Picture 4 is actually your best. I would have enlarged the image either by moving in closer, or cropping in PP. Thus eliminating more of the blown out sky above and to the left. As others have suggested, HDR imaging from bracketing would really help.

 

[Frequency]

i like the compositions; what i felt was a lack of brightness; since you are positive to edit, i just adjusted the brightness and nothing else... Regards


DSCN5698-1 by Flashback'r, on Flickr


DSCN5726 by Flashback'r, on Flickr


DSCN5718 by Flashback'r, on Flickr


DSCN5739 by Flashback'r, on Flickr

 

[jterry85]

That does help a great bit actually.

 

[Fred Berg]

Thanks a lot everyone, I really appreciate the input!

@ manaheim
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my comments as personal, or my throwing my toys out of the pram. I welcome constructive criticism, to post here would otherwise be a little unwise, but also hope to have one or two pointers attached to it! Perhaps my tone was a little high-handed, and I apologise if so. Cool avatar, btw...live long and prosper!

 

[manaheim]

No problem, man. It's all good. Keep shooting neat places.