[clark]

hi there, unfortunately I just so happened to have a d300 in my hands when this was shot, but don't worry- I am a pentax guy!

Can't remember the apperture, but the shutter was about 11 seconds if I remember correctly, I'll find out the RAW


anyway i'm looking for critique and maybe some PP opportunities I might have missed, all i've done so far is push the saturation a touch, think I got it right in camera


I know this isn't a pentax shot, but I use a ist DL 99% of the time, the d300 is my dad's, we were on holiday, I was trying out his camera- and hey it's the result that counts, not the tool right!

[Adam]

No need to apologize for using a different brand, as it's perfectly fine.

As far as the photo goes- I really like the composition, lighting, and delicate colors. It seems a bit soft, however, and I'm having a hard time deciding whether it helps the picture or not. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, though The only other thing that caught my attention is that there might be just a little bit too much negative space (sky) at the top.

Very nice shot overall!

[clark]

No need to apologize for using a different brand, as it's perfectly fine.

As far as the photo goes- I really like the composition, lighting, and delicate colors. It seems a bit soft, however, and I'm having a hard time deciding whether it helps the picture or not. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, though The only other thing that caught my attention is that there might be just a little bit too much negative space (sky) at the top.

Very nice shot overall!

thanks- Yeah I agree with you on the softness (wouldnt have happened with a pentax lens ) and the sky

I might crop it to widescreen and see how it looks- but I'm actually trying to sell this image to the hotel we stay at which looks out over this lake, so I'll have to see what sort of cropping works best for them in terms of printing etc


I guess the softness was because I was shooting at f22, in retrospect I should have used ND filters but I didnt know about diffraction at that time


thanks

[tibbitts]

I don't notice the softness, unless there is a way to view higher-res than I'm seeing. What part seems soft? With a long exposure I'd expect many of the trees to be soft from motion. You might try cropping out some of the sky.

Paul

[Ash]

The foreground matter being silhouetted leaves little to look at for me, as there is no distinct form to the subject, making it less amenable to silhouetting. While the water is smooth and sky is clear and nicely coloured, they in themselves don't provide an impressive enough subject to focus on.

[clark]

The foreground matter being silhouetted leaves little to look at for me, as there is no distinct form to the subject, making it less amenable to silhouetting. While the water is smooth and sky is clear and nicely coloured, they in themselves don't provide an impressive enough subject to focus on.

I agree- got there too late, the sun was already behind the mountains and it was basically night


I might try cropping some off the right hand side

as I said, this was taken about 2 years ago, I think it's just pure luck it came out as well as it did, most of the photos I was taking then were truly awful- if I ever get the chance to reshoot this i'll do a much better job


it would be time consuming but not impossible to paint out the entire tree line at the bottom, so I might try this