# asking for ur criticism :-)



## santanuc (Dec 27, 2004)

Hi all,
Here is my first submitted photo.  I shall like to hear comments on composition and other technicalities.

This was taken in my home city Kolkata in India in the evening. This is the front side of the Victorial Memorial Hall.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 27, 2004)

Fraid all I get is a question mark. :-(


----------



## Bokeh (Dec 27, 2004)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Fraid all I get is a question mark. :-(



You got a question mark?? All I got was a red x - No fair! I want a questoin mark too...


----------



## santanuc (Dec 27, 2004)

Hey I can't get u people. There must be some mistake or many mistakes in my photo. Please let me know that clearly. 

Hope to learn from ur criticism. Am just a learner.


----------



## Alison (Dec 27, 2004)

It appears that the site where you have your photo on the web doesn't allow a direct link to the image. Try photobucket.com, a lot of people on this site use them with no problems. Good luck!


----------



## chrism (Dec 27, 2004)

A bit too dark I think. Also, think the big tree in the middle gets in the way too much.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 27, 2004)

santanuc said:
			
		

> Hey I can't get u people. There must be some mistake or many mistakes in my photo. Please let me know that clearly.
> 
> Hope to learn from ur criticism. Am just a learner.



Sorry Santanuc. Your picture is not coming up. All I get is a '?' which means a broken link.
Bokeh sees a red X which means the same.
If you can see the picture it means your site will only link it if you have logged on. As we haven't it won't let us see it.


----------



## chrism (Dec 27, 2004)

I went the the website that he posted before he made the edit. So I had already got it in my temporary internet files. If you want, I'll host the image for you.


----------



## santanuc (Dec 27, 2004)

Ohho...am sorry friends....and thanks Chrism. 

But first let me try it myself. I shall try to do the necessary updates tomorrow. Now I have to leave my office for home. I can access internet only from my office.

Sorry for inconvenience and thnx for ur response.


----------



## santanuc (Dec 28, 2004)

Hi friends,
I have uploaded my photo in photobucket.com and have already updated the URL in my previous post. Hope now there would be no problem viewing my photo.

here is another photo of the same location 






hope to recieve valuable comments on the two.

Thanks


----------



## 2Stupid2Duck (Dec 28, 2004)

You got a lean up to the right mate.


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 28, 2004)

what is the EXIF data of these pictures?

you should use a tripod to get a more clear shot...  also, make sure that your ISO isn't too high...

Composition need to get a little more even.... 

keep it up!  You'll learn a lot here!


----------



## santanuc (Dec 28, 2004)

2Stupid2Duck said:
			
		

> You got a lean up to the right mate.



Hi friend why do u think so? actually its a bridge, though a small one over a canal. Or is it due to the fact that the right portion of the photo is brighter than the left? Actually I wanted to capture those light posts and their shadows in the water.

Hope u will clear my confusion.


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 28, 2004)

2Stupid2Duck said:
			
		

> You got a lean up to the right mate.


He means you need to keep the horizon _level_ the horizon is lower on the right than the left....

Also, something I noticed... on your second pic.... you cut off the very top of the building... you should zoom out a bit more and try to fit the whole thing in a frame


----------



## chrism (Dec 28, 2004)

#2 is slanted a bit. If it wasn't slanted then you could crop the part were the lights and the tower is and their reflection in the water. I have tried to do this with the picture, but it just doesn't look right because of the slant of the building and lights.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 28, 2004)

Love the light in both - nice balance between natural and artificial. You do need to use a tripod or support the camera on something to stop camera shake. But a good start.
Looks like a statue of Queen Vicky in the second one. Which city?


----------



## santanuc (Dec 28, 2004)

what is EXIF data?? I snapped the photo with a digital camera.

ISO is 400. and what I can remember shutter was 10, apperture is set automatically depending on zoom which was, what I can remember, 2.1 optical zoom.

whats the problem with higher ISO?? plz explain...

hey if I give long exposure using a tripod don't u think the lights on the posts would be over-exposed???


----------



## santanuc (Dec 28, 2004)

Hey I have taken those photos in my home city. Kolkata. 

Its the statue of George the fifth of England. Probably, what I can remember he is the son of Queen Victoria...


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 28, 2004)

santanuc said:
			
		

> what is EXIF data?? I snapped the photo with a digital camera.
> 
> ISO is 400. and what I can remember shutter was 10, apperture is set automatically depending on zoom which was, what I can remember, 2.1 optical zoom.
> 
> ...



The EXIF data is the data your camera automatically stores with every picture you take. It contains data about the camera that took the picture, all of the settings(ISO, F-Stop, Exposure, etc...) 
You can see this data in most photo editors such as photoshop.

Your EXIF data was:
Exposure: 1/10 sec (how long your shutter is open)
F-Stop: 3.5 (how large the shutter opens)
ISO: 400 (how sensative the film is)

concerning the ISO.... the higher the number the more sensative the film(or with digital "plate") is.  So, the more sensative it is, the more noise you're going to have and the shutter doesn't have to stay open as long when the ISO is as high as 400.

what you should do for these pictures is:

Set the ISO to 100(lowest your camera can go)
set the F-stop to 5.6(highest your camera can go)
set the Exposure to manuel and play with how long the shutter is open... you will need a tripod with this setting though...

btw.... the higher the F-stop is your DOF(depth of field) will all be more in focus.  you had it set very low.... so if the lamp close to you was in focus than the building wasn't and visa-versa.

hope all that helped...


----------



## santanuc (Dec 28, 2004)

Thanx a lot for all ur help. yup I don't have a tripod. another thing is I could only control F-stop and shutter in my digital camera within a small range not like SLRs. moreover F-stop also depends on the zoom settings and it changes automatically as in zoom.

But its really valuable suggestions I got from u people and I learnt a lot today. 

Thanks u again friends..


----------



## santanuc (Dec 29, 2004)

LittleMan said:
			
		

> concerning the ISO.... the higher the number the more sensative the film(or with digital "plate") is.  So, the more sensative it is, the more noise you're going to have and the shutter doesn't have to stay open as long when the ISO is as high as 400.


Thanks friend! but I have one more question regarding the noise.
First is what type of photographic noise u are speaking about?
And, say I have changed the ISO to 100 then I should have to increase my shutter from 1/10 to 1/3 or 1/2 (i.e 4 times) to maintain the same exposure. So when the exposure is same won't my photo capture the noise the same way???

Hope to recieve a reply from you LittleMan.

Thanks again


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 29, 2004)

I took a couple photos at different ISO's to show you the difference.

Here is a lamp taken from 9 feet away.
F-stop 2.8
Exposure 1/8
ISO 80





and here is the same picture cropped at 100%(in photoshop)





Here is the same lamp taken the same way only with a different exposure and ISO.
F-stop 2.8
Exposure 1/40
ISO 400




Here is the same picture cropped at 100% the same way as the last...





As you can see the 400 ISO is MUCH grainier(noise) than the 80 ISO and with a slight adjustament of the exposure we get the same results.

The reason this happens is because if the shutter is only open 1/40 of a second than the light dapples on the film and the film picks up unnecessary light..... it's too sensative.... so it picks up light where it's not supposed to.

at 80 ISO the exposure was 1/8 of a second.... that means it had that much time to pick up all the little details.

____________________________________

The only time you would ever want to use a high ISO such as 400 is if you were shooting out-doors in full sunlight and you wanted to shoot something fast.... like a car.

You will need a tripod though when shooting at night with a low ISO(or even a high ISO)

Hope that explained it.... if you have any more questions please ask!
 

I never get to talk about photography and explain it outside of this forum


----------



## santanuc (Dec 29, 2004)

Many many thanks LittleMan ....

u have cleared a very big doubt that was lingering in my mind. actually I found that all my pics taken in shade got pixelated but pics taken in light are alright. I couldnot understand the reason. I thought may be that was due to improper resolution setting or lens problem. Now u helped me to understand that. Thanks a lot my friend.

But now I am in a problem!!! if I had to use tripod and slow shutter how can I shoot passing moments in artificial light with lowest ISO....coz such candid shots don't allow for setting up huge photographic equipments....


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 29, 2004)

santanuc said:
			
		

> how can I shoot passing moments in artificial light with lowest ISO



one word...... "flash"
Just use the flash that's built into your camera.  

although, sometimes it makes a cool effect without the flash when done correctly.... like this one:


----------



## santanuc (Dec 29, 2004)

Hey LittleMan its always better not to use the built-in flash. at least thats my experience. coz whenever I used the flash it destroyed the lighting of my frame and made my frame appear very artificial due to uneven brightness. so I prefer not to use the flash.

Is there any other way to effectively use the built-in flash or any other technique to do the same thing....i.e. capturing moments in very low lighting condition...


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 29, 2004)

santanuc said:
			
		

> Is there any other way to effectively use the built-in flash or any other technique to do the same thing....i.e. capturing moments in very low lighting condition...


good luck.... I haven't found another way.....
It's either blur or "uneven light"


----------



## santanuc (Dec 30, 2004)

LittleMan said:
			
		

> It's either blur or "uneven light"



in that case I shall rather opt for blur . coz at least I can reduce it significantly by controlling my breath through practice. moreover by selecting a bit higher ISO though graininess would be introduced but it will not kill my composition. 

to me a good composition and a truthful capturing of the lighting ambience is very important.

what do u think about this trade-off LittleMan?


----------



## santanuc (Dec 30, 2004)

Hi LittleMan a good news  !!!!

recently I found a Noiseware Community edition software which removes all noise from a digital image. it has many features. I haven't gone thru all of them. I just processed my Victoria Memorial photo with it and got good result.

here is the output


----------



## fromEgypt01 (Dec 30, 2004)

ditto


----------



## santanuc (Dec 30, 2004)

friend I have reduced graininess of my photo not pic blur with the software, not only for this one but for some other pics too; and the software gave quite good result. I am not sure if blur due to camera shake can also be reduced with a software.


----------



## fromEgypt01 (Dec 30, 2004)

I'll reduce your blur!

hee hee


----------



## santanuc (Dec 30, 2004)

fromEgypt01 said:
			
		

> I'll reduce your blur!
> 
> hee hee



hey fromEgypt thanx but no need if u can't share ur knowledge.

Hi LittleMan I have some query for you that I already posted some messg before. Probably we are losing track of our discussion due to all these. plz contribute constructively fromEgypt!


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 30, 2004)

santanuc,
the software that reduces the ammount of noise in a picture works this way:

It takes the most prominent pixel color and makes the pixel next to it the same color.  The problem with it is.... if you look very closely to the edge of the building and the sky you will see a lot of grains in your photo... which is NOT good.
Also, NO program out there can get rid of the "blur" of your shaking camera...

Here is what I suggest...
Re-Take the photo.

Keep these things in mind:

1. Make sure the composition looks good.(take a lot of different compositions so that you can pick and choose)

2. Keep the horizon perfectly horizontal.(not leaning to one side or another)

3. Make sure there are no people walking in the way, unless they add to the composition.(there are two people at the bottom of your frame in your picture)

4. Set your camera up so that it has the highest F-Stop you can get and the lowest ISO you can get.(adjust brightness with exposure)

5. find something to rest your camera on, or use a tripod.

6. Take your time! 


Also, remember that photography is all about being able to do anything to get a good picture!  


The reason I want you to go and re-take the photo is because you shouldn't lean on digital manipulation to make a bad photo good...  You should learn to use digital manipulation to make a good photo better.

Good luck!
Keep me updated with your progress!


----------



## santanuc (Dec 30, 2004)

Thanx LittleMan 

yup I shall retake it, but that will take some time coz now its festive season out here so the place remains crowdy. but still I shall try my best.

I shall definitely update you. 

Goodnight for today as I am leaving my office for the day...


----------



## santanuc (Dec 31, 2004)

Hi friends
I cannot resist the temptation to show anothor photo I took in the same series. LittleMan I know this one also has the same three mistakes as before (graininess, horizontality and blur) but except that anything more? let me know . I just love to play with darkness and light and want to do it well .

yeah friends whats your opinion???


----------



## walter23 (Dec 31, 2004)

try downloading and running the program "neatimage" on it to clean up some of the digital camera noise.


----------



## LittleMan (Dec 31, 2004)

santanuc said:
			
		

> yeah friends whats your opinion???



My honest oppinion.... I like the composition, but like you said... it still has the same mistakes as before.... just practice on getting those things down and then everyone will be glad to crit. your photos


----------



## santanuc (Jan 3, 2005)

Thnax LittleMan for your honest opinion. 

Well as u have instructed to make pic with lowest ISO lowest apperture and high shutter required I have recently taken a pic of a temple here in Kolkata. But well one thing I couldn't have done yet that is I couldn't use a tripod. I don't have one yet. I have to buy and for that I have to wait some time. 

ISO was 100, apperture the highest for the zoom setting and shutter was 1/4sec (what I can remember). I just controlled my breathe to reduce the shake, didn't have any place to rest my camera on.






But horizontality is still a problem. I don't know why I do get tilted at the right hand side. Recently I took a pic of a pagoda in kolkata. I was cautious about my leaning right and I chose the frame properly. But still when I saw the snap I found I got tilted at right; probably at the time of pressing the shutter my position distorted. I don't know why? Is this any physical problem that I am suffering from? what should I do I am not sure, still I am trying hard to maintain horizontality.


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 3, 2005)

Santanu,

I like the temple picture!

Couple of pointers:

-You should get a tripod. You will find it useful for night photography.
-The tilt can be fixed in Photoshop. Get Photoshop if you do not have it yet. And also be gentle with the shutter release button. 

Good luck!


----------



## LittleMan (Jan 3, 2005)

Santanuc,
I like this last photo you took.  You didn't mess up the horizon, it's just an illusion because you are at an angle compared to the building.  
  All you need now is a tripod!  Then you can get those nice clear pictures!
Also, see how there is no noise since you used 100 ISO.... that's good.

Keep it up! You're doing good.


----------



## LittleMan (Jan 3, 2005)

Here is how the horizon is placed in your last photo.... at such an angle you did a good job of having it in there at the correct angle...


----------



## santanuc (Jan 3, 2005)

danalec99 thanks for ur suggestions, I shall keep them in mind.

LittleMan I was very cautious when taking this pic. There was a shot before this one where I missed horizontality and I retook it.

but I failed to manage it for the pic below. I was referring to this one in my last post. I don't know whats the problem with me!!!!!!


----------



## santanuc (Jan 3, 2005)

LittleMan I was taking some street photo on 1st January; it was about 4pm. I took them with low ISO and smallest apperture possible at the zoom level. But I think it made the background prominent, which should be a bit more blur. What do you think?

The Narrator - One

Here is a pic of a narrator who is narrating to the crowd from an Indian epic "Ramayana"

ISO100 shutter 25 (what I can remember)






The Narrator - Two

went near to him. shutter 15 or 20...






Couple and the statue

shutter is 15


----------



## LittleMan (Jan 3, 2005)

in the day time you can(should) shoot with a higher ISO  Like 200 or so.  That way it will catch everyone who is moving.


----------



## santanuc (Jan 4, 2005)

LittleMan said:
			
		

> in the day time you can(should) shoot with a higher ISO  Like 200 or so.  That way it will catch everyone who is moving.



But I think ISO400 should not be chosen even in day time. Because the potrait below was taken at day time; it was just 4:53pm. ISO was 400 with apperture set to the minimum for the zoom level and hence shutter was, as I can recall, 40 or so. Still you can find heavy noise in the pic.

so what should be my apperture setting at day time? should I use the minimum or the maximum one for a particular zoom level (in my camera for any zoom level I can only choose from two predetermined apperture settings)?


----------



## InSpiringPhOtographer13 (Jan 4, 2005)

LittleMan said:
			
		

> 2Stupid2Duck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ya i agree


----------



## InSpiringPhOtographer13 (Jan 4, 2005)

LittleMan said:
			
		

> 2Stupid2Duck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

