# Glasgow uni and art gallery



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Critical review needed on these. It's the only way to improve. I've been putting a lot through editing software, but need to know if I'm getting it right or overdoing it. Suggestions most welcome. TIA


----------



## Mike V (Apr 7, 2007)

Your trying to convey the overall appearance of the uni/art gallery. I think the trees get in the way in a couple of them. In the first image the car is the subject. If thats what you intended thats fine:thumb:

The second is a good example of where the trees and scenery are taking up to much of the frame and distracting from your intended subject.

It also looks like a couple of shots are over exposed. I really like this one:








but it is over exposed and could maybe do with a touch more sky. I like how the trees are the same colour as the building.


----------



## S-X-I (Sep 6, 2006)

Nice shots Dougie!

As said above the trees do seem to take over some of the pictures but I guess you really can't do anything about that.

Also I feel that number 3 is a little over exposed and in the last picture the green grass leads the eye away from the building as it is a little over powering.


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

as others have said, few over exposed - to try bringing the sky back, maybe use a subtle hdr or what i'd do is try circualr polariser and/or ND grad soft filters 

drew


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Mike V said:


> Your trying to convey the overall appearance of the uni/art gallery. I think the trees get in the way in a couple of them. In the first image the car is the subject. If thats what you intended thats fine:thumb:
> 
> The second is a good example of where the trees and scenery are taking up to much of the frame and distracting from your intended subject.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mike, I'll look at composition then. In my defence though, it was difficult to get a good vantage point as there are so many trees. In the first one I tried to include the river but maybe I was wrong to do so. The one which you like gave me some real problems in editing. The buildings were in bright low sun and the trees were in heavy shade. (exposure latitude to great) I tried unsuccessfully to tone down the highlights but managed to an extent to lift the shaded areas. As for the sky, well I haven't quite worked out how to get an interesting sky(very overcast) as there was no contrast to begin with and editing it looked unnatural. Any tips on that would be nice.:thumb: Thanks for the input


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

buckas said:


> as others have said, few over exposed - to try bringing the sky back, maybe use a subtle hdr or what i'd do is try circualr polariser and/or ND grad soft filters
> 
> drew


Filters I don't have yet but on the shopping list. Which ones in particular would you say are over exposed as I used the auto lighting on a few and maybe this wasn't a good thing.


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

spitfire said:


> As for the sky, well I haven't quite worked out how to get an interesting sky(very overcast) as there was no contrast to begin with and editing it looked unnatural. Any tips on that would be nice.:thumb: Thanks for the input





buckas said:


> to try bringing the sky back, maybe use a subtle hdr or what i'd do is try circualr polariser and/or ND grad soft filters
> 
> drew


http://www.nd-magazine.com/articles/art1.php

read http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224448

just shelled out on some myself , lee holder + wide angle adaptor ring + hitech filters

some results from last week using 0.9 hard filter





















drew


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

S-X-I said:


> Nice shots Dougie!
> 
> As said above the trees do seem to take over some of the pictures but I guess you really can't do anything about that.
> 
> Also I feel that number 3 is a little over exposed and in the last picture the green grass leads the eye away from the building as it is a little over powering.


With little time to go wandering I had to make do with shots from the street making the trees more prominent. I thought the idea of the massive building rising from behind the trees would work but judging from the comments so far, it didn't. Ah well back to the drawing board. Good excuse to go out and take some more.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

buckas said:


> http://www.nd-magazine.com/articles/art1.php
> 
> read http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224448
> 
> ...


Some cracking scenery there Drew. I'll have a look at the links when I get a minute to read through.
Cheers:thumb:


----------



## mteam (Dec 8, 2007)

Hi mate

some nice shots :thumb: looks like it was a very grey sky 

I've had a play around with this one hope you dont mind

lifted the foreground a bit and a slight tint of blue to the sky and sharpened a touch










what are you using for editing

Jack :thumb:


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Jack, I could have brightened up the forground but I didn't want to steal focus from the main subject, maybe I could have went a tad lighter though. Unfortunately I think you've lost a bit of sharpness in resharpening what already had been sharpened. I'm using NX2 Capture from raw files.


----------



## M4D YN (Nov 24, 2007)

some super photography going on here guys :thumb::thumb::thumb:


----------



## mteam (Dec 8, 2007)

spitfire said:


> Jack, I could have brightened up the forground but I didn't want to steal focus from the main subject, maybe I could have went a tad lighter though. Unfortunately I think you've lost a bit of sharpness in resharpening what already had been sharpened. I'm using NX2 Capture from raw files.


Yes I thought I had overdone it 

sorry about that Spitfire :wave:


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

mteam said:


> Yes I thought I had overdone it
> 
> sorry about that Spitfire :wave:


That's Ok, I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong. Just my preference that's all.

Here, I've tried again with that one.








and the original in Jpeg form​


----------



## mteam (Dec 8, 2007)

spitfire said:


> That's Ok, I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong. Just my preference that's all.
> 
> Here, I've tried again with that one.


I like that  lifted just enough I think

I know what you mean about not taking away from the building, just a shame the sky was so grey/white

Didn't want to come across like a clever c**t as your one of the guys who's really encouraged me :thumb:

Jack


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

mteam said:


> I like that  lifted just enough I think
> 
> I know what you mean about not taking away from the building, just a shame the sky was so grey/white
> 
> ...


Far from it Jack, all critisism gratefully received. We all need encouragement at times, it spurs us on. 
:thumb:
Cheers!


----------



## mteam (Dec 8, 2007)

going off topic here mate I dont know if you saw this stunning photos



buckas said:


> no probs lads :thumb:
> 
> they did a section end of last year, "pics of the year"
> 
> ...


----------

