Peaceful Bright hill

[Saycheese78]

LOL! I wasn't expecting much if any response to this thread. Other than here, I've showed about 20 people this same set of pictures. Funny things is, in general, the hardcore photogs dun like them :thumbsd: BUT the non-photogs think these are great! :thumbsup:

@ redsouljaz: these were shot at Bright hill aka Kong Meng Sua. And I dun mean to say u like them means u are not a photog, I used the phrase in general above.

@ nemesis32: Agree on the saturation and sharpening. It was intentional.

The non photographers look at it and evaluate it purely depend on whether it is nice or not. Of course, their definition of nice is of course influenced by whether they have seen such shots or not.

The photographers are more concern in the techniques involved. (Exposure, got follow 1/3 rule, blah blah) They do look at it and ask themselves it look nice or not but some of us are too engrossed with things like the horizon not straight, CA. I ever visit an exhibition by some Japanese photographers whereby the horizon are never perfectly straight, but those were taken in the film era.

 

[Kit]

LOL! I wasn't expecting much if any response to this thread. Other than here, I've showed about 20 people this same set of pictures. Funny things is, in general, the hardcore photogs dun like them :thumbsd: BUT the non-photogs think these are great! :thumbsup:

So whether these photos can be considered good or not will also depend on the person who took them. Is he a photographer or someone who happens to have a camera?

 

[night86mare]

LOL! I wasn't expecting much if any response to this thread. Other than here, I've showed about 20 people this same set of pictures. Funny things is, in general, the hardcore photogs dun like them :thumbsd: BUT the non-photogs think these are great! :thumbsup:

so, if you think it is great, then so be it .

as much as i say that sometimes laymen give the best, unbiased comments because they aren't too caught up by artificial "rules" that sometimes people who claim to be in the know are.. for example, too much emphasis on rule of thirds when sometimes a centered composition is working for everyone..

it is also important to remember that a person who has not seen much will be easily impressed.

i will not comment on the colors, or sharpening done here, what i have a bone to pick is with the composition and minor, minor details that differentiate the spectacular from the good. everything is good to a certain extent for someone, but there is always room for improvement, don't you think?

for first post in thread, #1 feels a little cropped. compare this to #1 in third post, which feels better. why?

#2 has problem with dynamic range, i would exclude the part in sunlight because inclusion simply means that you cannot have an optimum exposure with retention of details all over.

i'm not even sure what is going on in #3.

for second post, all three pictures would have looked better symmetrical, don't you think? is there a reason for not doing it that way?

for third post in thread, #1 is a side-on composition that can work, i have seen it before, but showcasing that extra bottom row of statues can spoil the feel of the picture somewhat by introducing what appears to be a slight diagonal. obviously this is because of horizontal perspective distortion, but excluding this makes the picture stronger.

for #2, there is obvious slant, you see something extra peeking out (white and black) on the right side that isn't present on the left. the verticals as a result are also noticeably affected. this can be solved with a spirit level. actually, since this is singapore, i won't have shot this at this time, the light on the temple isn't favourable for this view, the left side is in shadow, the right side is bathed in sunlight - hence the right stone lion is overexposed, the left is dark.

the last two, i don't know what you wish to show. perhaps if you could elaborate.

 

[night86mare]

The photographers are more concern in the techniques involved. (Exposure, got follow 1/3 rule, blah blah) They do look at it and ask themselves it look nice or not but some of us are too engrossed with things like the horizon not straight, CA. I ever visit an exhibition by some Japanese photographers whereby the horizon are never perfectly straight, but those were taken in the film era.

are those landscape photographers?

for street, portraits, the horizon can take a side show because it is not that important.

 

[parampita]

Wow! I'd missed this thread for a day and.. All I can say is wow...

U guys really need justification on each shot you take?? Photography is supposed to be fun (as a hobby at least). Why so serious? I see a scene/subject that I feel is nice.. I shoot. I don't ask myself why must I shoot it or why I was standing at where I was standing when I shot them. :dunno:

Relax, bros. This is not work (at least for me), dun get so tensed up. Enjoy the hobby and relax.

 

[night86mare]

U guys really need justification on each shot you take??

yes, and i take a lot of pleasure in doing it.

doesn't mean that because i am serious, means that i lose all the fun.

the fun is enhanced when everything is right with the photo and i can like it even better. but there is always room for improvement.

 

[parampita]

Good for you, bro. Good for you.
To each their own then, cos I am enjoying the more casual pace in the hobby.

yes, and i take a lot of pleasure in doing it.

doesn't mean that because i am serious, means that i lose all the fun.

the fun is enhanced when everything is right with the photo and i can like it even better. but there is always room for improvement.