CCC Forum

This is something of a new direction/approach that I'm trying so would appreciate frank & as detailed a critique as you can about the technical and artistic sides of this. Don't be worried about offending, this is just an experiment


The Windmill by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

Do you have any technical details? Not only would I be interested in knowing how you set about this shot, there might be relevance for the feedback.

If you don't mind, I'll cover off on techie stuff soon Initially, any "camera club" style flaw spotting would be handy as would how the shot makes you feel.

Though to get started, I waited until we had clear skies before ordering a chinese takeaway from Addington hills then popped my kit in the car to pass the time waiting for it to be ready - the windmill is none other than our own Shirley windmill. I was also savagely licked by a friendly dog out for a walk who also knocked the tripod and ruined one attempt

Yes, I recognised the location as I had gone there late one afternoon last year when there was some rather agreeable light from the setting sun illuminating the windmill.

Given the likely exposure required for the stars compared to that for the windmill, I am guessing that there are at least two combined exposures here. There are some indications of image blending, which I'll touch on in the critique.

Having thus agreed to take on the role of a formulaic and pedantic judge, the image does have a number of issues, although I am sure that none will come as any great surprise.

• The biggest problem is the severe lean of the windmill, which is mirrored by the houses behind it on the right, but not those on the left. It is as if there have been two separate exposures for each side of the image.
• The sail at bottom left of the windmill does not appear to be complete, which further supports the combined image theory.
• There are some bright spots in the image, although not burnt out. There is not much you could have done about the street lights and it can be argued that the flare is not umpleasant, adding to the atmosphere of the shot. The illuminated bush at bottom left is much more of a distraction and I would at least tone it down or even clone it out entirely.
• The bright area at the top of the tree also troubles me. Together with the incomplete sail to the left, something just does look right about that part of the image. Not being experienced with this type of photography, it might be that's just the way it is, but I think that the positioning of a brighter area of the sky just above the tree is unfortunate. It would have been better if there had been some separation.
• The area at the top of the tree is at the end (or beginning) of a diagonal which leads from the edge where there is a bright spot taking the eye away from the main subjects.

All that said, do I really like the picture? Not really. I think the idea has potential, an illuminated landmark against the night sky, but the execution in this case lets it down. My enjoyment is spoiled by the conflicting elements which I have mentioned. I appreciate that this might just be a test shot to prove the concept so the post processing has not been applied to the fullest extent. If you are serious about this type of image, it would be worthwhile either going back or reworking this one. Hope this helps.

PS I really do not like dog owners who let their animals do as they please and have no regard for others. There are too many such inconsiderate people around. That the dog was being "friendly" is no excuse for allowing it to come in contact with you and knock over your tripod.

Thanks for the feedback, definitely useful.
I think I might bring this along to the forthcoming "member's images" night in the calendar. Some comments below.

Mike Farley wrote:

• The biggest problem is the severe lean of the windmill, which is mirrored by the houses behind it on the right, but not those on the left. It is as if there have been two separate exposures for each side of the image.

Though I wouldn't call it severe, there is a lean to the windmill which I've tried correcting and I'm not entirely sure which version I'm happiest with. Correcting the windmill distorts other areas of the scene. Something I am looking at correcting, somehow, likely with multiple layers. There is only one windmill exposure.

The sail at bottom left of the windmill does not appear to be complete, which further supports the combined image theory.

That's probably an error on my part - I can't see it but I'll look at a 100% crop just in case.

There are some bright spots in the image, although not burnt out. There is not much you could have done about the street lights and it can be argued that the flare is not umpleasant, adding to the atmosphere of the shot. The illuminated bush at bottom left is much more of a distraction and I would at least tone it down or even clone it out entirely.

I'm actually thinking about bringing it and the rest of the bush up more. Cloning it out would leave a dark void in one corner and I don't subscribe to the "bright spot = automatic distraction" theory of club judging In a marginal image I can see why that might apply - in images with a strong central theme or impact I think club judges are usually wrong & nitpicking to have an excuse to find fault with something

Having said that, I'm not sure I have frames where the whole bush is lit so that too may require blending of exposures. This one is actually lit from a passing car which also caught the bottom of the windmill! Painting with light at it's finest/most uncontrolled Bringing it up might introduce noise though

The bright area at the top of the tree also troubles me. Together with the incomplete sail to the left, something just does look right about that part of the image. Not being experienced with this type of photography, it might be that's just the way it is, but I think that the positioning of a brighter area of the sky just above the tree is unfortunate. It would have been better if there had been some separation.

I'll have to see if there is anything I can do about this but if I darken that area of the milky way, would that not cause the definition between the tree and sky to be lost? As in, two dark patches side by side would mean no detail to look at.

The area at the top of the tree is at the end (or beginning) of a diagonal which leads from the edge where there is a bright spot taking the eye away from the main subjects.

I'm assuming you mean the milky way as the diagonal? Which personally is a huge part of the appeal of the shot. I'll experiment artificially dimming down the edges, in what is basically a shot of the night sky I'm loathe to remove "bright spots" otherwise the entire frame will just be black

All that said, do I really like the picture? Not really. I think the idea has potential, an illuminated landmark against the night sky, but the execution in this case lets it down. My enjoyment is spoiled by the conflicting elements which I have mentioned.

Thank you for your candour.

There are two ways of looking at this photograph. One is as a documentary shot, showing a landmark against the night sky. In this instance, some of the things I have mentioned might not matter so much as the viewer is looking for different things in the image. The other is as "fine art", when reality might need to take second place to the overall impression. One example of this is modifying a chunk of the Milky Way at the edge of the shot to darken it down slightly. A keen astronomer might notice, but for most people it will not be a concern. If visual accuracy is important, one way to resolve the issue is by cropping out that portion of the sky, although I accept that could adversely affect the balance of other elements in the shot.

Regarding the top of the tree against the Milky Way, I can see the lower parts of the tree against the sky so with some careful manipulation it would be possible to show that part of the tree without having to rely on a brighter area of the heavens. As I said previously, the coincidence of these two elements is regrettable, but that sort of thing is something which we often have to deal with in photography. We don't have as much freedom to modify the scene as those who paint or draw, although Photoshop has gone a long way to addressing that.

The last point which I will make concerns the illuminated bush. For me, it is simply an oddity and without having the car in shot it is not even obvious why it is lit. It is well known that the eye tends to move from dark areas to light and we can use this to good effect in our compositions, as you have done here with some of the other components. For me, the shot is mainly about the windmill and the night sky; there is no reason to include anything else, especially when it is in a corner away from the main points of interest. Sometimes, less really is more.

In my post about the new Photoshop perspective warp tool, I have posted a link to a video which shows how it works. It looks as though it should correct the lean in the windmill without any problems and save you a lot of work.

Here's the link again so that you do not have to look it up.

http://www.iceflowstudios.com/2014/tuto ... p-cc-14-2/

Quick update, I tried correcting it using both perspective warp - tricky for a cylindrical object and still working on it- and LR5s auto-correct feature. Having played with both it feels like the PS option is a more controllable, sophisticated version of the LR feature.

Here is the image with it "photographically correct", i.e. the perspective shifted to remove the converging verticals.



In my opinion, the price for correctness introduces ugly, uncorrectable distortions on the windmill blades and would also require heavy further adjustment to finish the image.



I tried alternate corrections in LR and this is the "best" of the other options. Though personally I don't think it adds anything to the image really, the blades are still distorted, the milky way is wrong and the warping has impacted quality too with visible artefacting and image degradation now. Overall, I actually think the original is the best version and though the windmill is not vertical, it's not possible to do that and maintain image quality. I also have decided I don't think the original version was harmed by the slight tilt; in fact, canvassing for a few other opinions, the general consensus seems to be "tall things are tilted when you look up at them" so perhaps correcting all verticals is not always the right answer? I also think it's pretty subtle, and having one side of the windmill vertical helps too. So, on balance, I think the slight tilt adds to the shot more than it detracts.

Working on further adjustments/versions of the image now - is there a deadline for when an image for the member's session needs to be complete?

Thanks for the update about what you have tried. The automated tools go some way to helping correct perspective, but do not eliminate all the work. Personally, I am wondering if there is a case to buy a tilt/shift lens to avoid all the post processing hassle. The tilt on the windmill will always be a matter of taste, although of the two alternatives you gave I agree that the second one is the better and more in accordance with what I had in mind when I made my initial comments.

davidc wrote:
Working on further adjustments/versions of the image now - is there a deadline for when an image for the member's session needs to be complete?

You will need to speak to Wally about the members' session.