Sunrise over Palazzo Tamba (Filo - Ferrara - Italy)

ntx · 08-14-2009, 06:14 AM

Aperture: f/20
Shutter speed: two shots (bracketing) 1.6" + 1"
Lens: DA 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL II

Here's a merge of two different exposures of a sunrise over the ruins of Palazzo Tamba in the country of Filo (Ferrara - Italy).

I have rebuilt the whole transparency mask (in postproduction) three times but I still find something is missing in the seamless merging of the two shots... (or maybe it's only my own feeling, don't know)
Any critics/suggestions are welcome.

Bye
Jenner

**Ash** · 08-14-2009, 07:40 AM

As nice as the composition is, it's a little too dull.
Sunset adds a nice touch to the image but isn't spectacular.
Colours are quite flat - but otherwise a nice job done.

ntx · 08-14-2009, 09:47 AM

Thank you for your comment Ash. What you exactly mean with "dull" and which mistake I did?
For example I noticed - some day after the shot - that using a so closed aperture produced unsharp details... would be better stopping at f/11... but unsharpness is visible in the original. Could this be related?

Thanks again.

Bye
Jenner

Damn Brit · 08-14-2009, 01:02 PM

The expanse of featureless sky plus the more exposed foreground serve to mute the impact of the sunset giving the whole image that dullness that Ash refers to. Also the composition itself doesn't make for an interesting perspective.
If you crop out about half the sky you'll see what I mean, the perspective changes and the sunset becomes more dominant. I would also crop just a little from the left to get rid of that partial tree just entering the frame which is a little distracting.
It's nice that you got some foreground interest on the right of the frame but unfortunately the position of the road at bottom left doesn't make for nice composition either. If you had taken the picture with the road entering the shot form the bottom of the frame, it would make a nice diagonal leading the viewer into the image.

Keep it up though, we learn more from our mistakes than our successes.

ntx · 08-14-2009, 02:52 PM

Thank you Damn Brit, I get what you mean... and I see that cropping half of the sky and the tree on the left (together with the sign on the bottom left corner) looks like the contrast of the two half (sky and ground) is reduced.

And yes, I'm absolutely sure that I will learn more from mistakes... and that's why I posted here!

Thanks again!

Bye
Jenner

Damn Brit · 08-14-2009, 11:40 PM

Call me Gary.

Jimbo · 08-15-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Call me Gary.

Just don't call him Johnson or JJ JIM

axl · 08-17-2009, 03:58 AM

I'd say crop half of the sky off and little bit from the foreground (so the road will start in the left hand low corner). And if you'll have the chance to go there again for sunset, go closer to the building (maybe much closer).

BR
Peter

Damn Brit · 08-17-2009, 11:35 AM

It's worth noting that, from a technical standpoint, many people frown upon cropping. It's more tolerated when it comes to macro.
With that in mind though, it can be a useful exercise because the crop will show you where you should have been and/or how the picture should have been composed.
From an artistic or commercial standpoint though, I think cropping is a perfectly acceptable tool for getting the picture that you want.

ntx · 08-18-2009, 02:31 PM

No, Gary, I've no problem on cropping my photos (expecially now with 10 megapixel available...

).
The crop I described above looks this way:

And you are right that I could compose the shot this way that morning (looking at the shots now I feel a bit stupid cause I never tried some more compositions... another lesson to learn).

By cropping my shot I think the result no more shows the vastity of the spaces of that place (to be honest the tree on the left side could never help on this). What's your (all) opinion about this? Maybe it isn't perceived even in the original...

Thanks,
Jenner

Damn Brit · 08-18-2009, 04:01 PM

This one is pretty much what I suggested and is much better. The composition is nice, it follows the rule of thirds pretty well, the diagonals are there leading you through the picture, the building looks much more like it is the subject and the glow of the setting sun isn't lost.

Miss Karine · 08-21-2009, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Ash

As nice as the composition is, it's a little too dull.
Sunset adds a nice touch to the image but isn't spectacular.
Colours are quite flat - but otherwise a nice job done.

I'am ok with Ash

08-14-2009, 06:14 AM	#1
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61	Sunrise over Palazzo Tamba (Filo - Ferrara - Italy) Lens: 18mm Camera: K200D ISO: 100 Aperture: f/20 Shutter speed: two shots (bracketing) 1.6" + 1" Lens: DA 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 AL II Here's a merge of two different exposures of a sunrise over the ruins of Palazzo Tamba in the country of Filo (Ferrara - Italy). I have rebuilt the whole transparency mask (in postproduction) three times but I still find something is missing in the seamless merging of the two shots... (or maybe it's only my own feeling, don't know) Any critics/suggestions are welcome. Bye Jenner

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hello from Italy	daniber	Welcomes and Introductions	2	02-19-2010 07:45 PM
Hello from Italy	alessandro63	Welcomes and Introductions	5	07-28-2009 03:32 AM
Another one from Italy	Dario	Welcomes and Introductions	1	01-25-2009 12:53 PM
Greetings from Italy	backpacker	Welcomes and Introductions	1	12-28-2007 12:10 PM
Hello from Italy	mito	Welcomes and Introductions	3	12-24-2007 09:02 AM

08-14-2009, 07:40 AM	#2
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	As nice as the composition is, it's a little too dull. Sunset adds a nice touch to the image but isn't spectacular. Colours are quite flat - but otherwise a nice job done.

08-14-2009, 09:47 AM	#3
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61 Original Poster	Thank you for your comment Ash. What you exactly mean with "dull" and which mistake I did? For example I noticed - some day after the shot - that using a so closed aperture produced unsharp details... would be better stopping at f/11... but unsharpness is visible in the original. Could this be related? Thanks again. Bye Jenner

08-14-2009, 01:02 PM	#4
Damn Brit Guest	The expanse of featureless sky plus the more exposed foreground serve to mute the impact of the sunset giving the whole image that dullness that Ash refers to. Also the composition itself doesn't make for an interesting perspective. If you crop out about half the sky you'll see what I mean, the perspective changes and the sunset becomes more dominant. I would also crop just a little from the left to get rid of that partial tree just entering the frame which is a little distracting. It's nice that you got some foreground interest on the right of the frame but unfortunately the position of the road at bottom left doesn't make for nice composition either. If you had taken the picture with the road entering the shot form the bottom of the frame, it would make a nice diagonal leading the viewer into the image. Keep it up though, we learn more from our mistakes than our successes.

08-14-2009, 02:52 PM	#5
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61 Original Poster	Thank you Damn Brit, I get what you mean... and I see that cropping half of the sky and the tree on the left (together with the sign on the bottom left corner) looks like the contrast of the two half (sky and ground) is reduced. And yes, I'm absolutely sure that I will learn more from mistakes... and that's why I posted here! Thanks again! Bye Jenner

08-15-2009, 11:41 AM	#7
Jimbo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Maple Ridge BC Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,368	Quote: Call me Gary. Just don't call him Johnson or JJ JIM

08-17-2009, 03:58 AM	#8
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	I'd say crop half of the sky off and little bit from the foreground (so the road will start in the left hand low corner). And if you'll have the chance to go there again for sunset, go closer to the building (maybe much closer). BR Peter

08-17-2009, 11:35 AM	#9
Damn Brit Guest	It's worth noting that, from a technical standpoint, many people frown upon cropping. It's more tolerated when it comes to macro. With that in mind though, it can be a useful exercise because the crop will show you where you should have been and/or how the picture should have been composed. From an artistic or commercial standpoint though, I think cropping is a perfectly acceptable tool for getting the picture that you want.

08-18-2009, 02:31 PM	#10
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61 Original Poster	No, Gary, I've no problem on cropping my photos (expecially now with 10 megapixel available... ). The crop I described above looks this way: And you are right that I could compose the shot this way that morning (looking at the shots now I feel a bit stupid cause I never tried some more compositions... another lesson to learn). By cropping my shot I think the result no more shows the vastity of the spaces of that place (to be honest the tree on the left side could never help on this). What's your (all) opinion about this? Maybe it isn't perceived even in the original... Thanks, Jenner

08-18-2009, 04:01 PM	#11
Damn Brit Guest	This one is pretty much what I suggested and is much better. The composition is nice, it follows the rule of thirds pretty well, the diagonals are there leading you through the picture, the building looks much more like it is the subject and the glow of the setting sun isn't lost.

08-21-2009, 12:54 PM	#12
Miss Karine Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 19	Originally posted by Ash As nice as the composition is, it's a little too dull. Sunset adds a nice touch to the image but isn't spectacular. Colours are quite flat - but otherwise a nice job done. I'am ok with Ash