Begging for advice

[BovrilArg]

So I read somewhere that you should only post the pictures you are happiest with. I am yet again violating this belief in search of some advice. If I post my best pictures then I learn the least. Instead I am trying to post pictures which I think have potential if only I would have done something different or processed it differently.

I was trying to get a less typical picture of the Eiffel Tower (another idea I got from a book) and grabbed this shot. I am not thrilled with it so advice is welcome.

10-24mm (at 11mm)
D300
ISO 200
1/80 F14

[blumesan]

An interesting perspective, but the tower structure itself shows little or no contrast. The details are all lost in the shadows. Try to lighten it up and increase the contrast, while being careful not to blow out the sky (mask). It's likely the lighting wasn't too great when you took the shot. If you have a chance go back when the light is better. (early morning or late evening)

[Kellycat]

Patrick, I note that you have indicated that editing is okay so I have taken a shot at an edit. You said that your intention was a less typical image of the Eiffel Tower. With the millions of images taken of that structure that is a pretty tall order and well beyond what I could do, but here is an attempt to do a few things with your image and build on what you have already done. I modified the tonal contrast, cropped, and rotated it:

[Rense]

Originally Posted by BovrilArg

So I read somewhere that you should only post the pictures you are happiest with. I am yet again violating this belief in search of some advice. If I post my best pictures then I learn the least. Instead I am trying to post pictures which I think have potential if only I would have done something different or processed it differently.

I was trying to get a less typical picture of the Eiffel Tower (another idea I got from a book) and grabbed this shot. I am not thrilled with it so advice is welcome.

10-24mm (at 11mm)
D300
ISO 200
1/80 F14

The composition is a bit heavy on the right hand side.
The blacks are too black, not enough detail in the central bottom part.

Did a fairly great amount of contrast enhancing in the shadows + a crop:

[BovrilArg]

Wow! What a difference. Ok is this any better? I cant seem to highlight the black as well without getting the sky too bright.

[Rense]

Yes it is much better. You need to work with masks in order to get it right.

[bill8131]

Try some HDR, the clouds are a little blown out but with the full res file it should work better. I used DCE ReDynaMixHDR program. My two cents worth.

[Chromenut]

It's a hard shot to work, it's only an 8 bit photo once uploaded here. If I had an original I could do a lot more but on this one, as you increase brightness and tonal contrast, you also magnify noise, so the lighter you get, the more noisy it becomes. My take was if you want to take the viewer's attention away from that noise after you've lightened it, then you need to do a little softening, maybe a vignette, and go with a sepia tone. So with those suggestions, you end up with what looks like an aged photo, where noise is no longer a factor but part of that aging. This one I didn't distress, as once softened and sepia toned I thought it was quite lovely.

[Rense]

Originally Posted by Chromenut

It's a hard shot to work, it's only an 8 bit photo once uploaded here. If I had an original I could do a lot more but on this one, as you increase brightness and tonal contrast, you also magnify noise, so the lighter you get, the more noisy it becomes. My take was if you want to take the viewer's attention away from that noise after you've lightened it, then you need to do a little softening, maybe a vignette, and go with a sepia tone. So with those suggestions, you end up with what looks like an aged photo, where noise is no longer a factor but part of that aging. This one I didn't distress, as once softened and sepia toned I thought it was quite lovely.

[Chromenut]

Thanks Rense, that means a lot coming from you. I've taken a lot of your advice since becoming a member here and really enjoy and respect your work!!

[Rense]

Originally Posted by Chromenut

Thanks Rense, that means a lot coming from you. I've taken a lot of your advice since becoming a member here and really enjoy and respect your work!!

that makes me blush, stop it .

[BovrilArg]

Chromenut, Great advice. I really did not realize how noise was being affected until you mentioned it.

Bill8131 I agree about the clouds. This is the frustrating part. I can either get a great looking tower or great looking clouds. In regards to HDR I have never touched it. This is the second time I have been recommended to use HDR on a shot. I have to figure out how to do it.

Ok guys thanks for your input. It is 06:30am here and time to head off to work. I will try one last time to get it right and we will see what I can do with it.

To everyone who helped I appreciate the advice and tips. I have learned allot.

[loeee]

You got some great suggestions and demonstrations here. Your composition of the original is good, as the edits in this thread show.

As for only posting shots you are happiest with, I would say rather it should be shots you have done your best with. Like this one; you took it as far as you knew how, then asked for input to bring it up to what you really wanted for the shot. A very sensible way of working, in my opinion.

[RJohnston]

Here is another example of things you can do, creativity is unlimited once you learn to do post processing. It takes time, but time spent is well worth it.

In PS used smart sharpen to add some contrast to the tower. Captured the clouds separately with the Magic Wand and adjusted the histogram to enhance them, so that brightest area of the sky was close to the tower, keeping the eye on the tower more. Then, did an inverse to capture the tower and adjusted shadows, highlights and mid-tones separately to enhance the tower, keeping a full range of blacks without detail to white without detail.

[Chromenut]

Originally Posted by RJohnston

Captured the clouds separately with the Magic Wand and adjusted the histogram to enhance them, so that brightest area of the sky was close to the tower, keeping the eye on the tower more. Then, did an inverse to capture the tower and adjusted shadows, highlights and mid-tones separately to enhance the tower, keeping a full range of blacks without detail to white without detail.

That's what I should have tried with the clouds - handle them separately. Excellent idea, will try that on my next one similar. Love the effect on the clouds.

[Anderson Photography]

Instead of spending all of your time working on the image in post processing, try spending more time on getting a correct exposure right out of the camera.
Shooting a dark object like the tower against a light sky is difficult for most shooters as they generally get a dark subject or a blown out sky. If you are shooting at evaluative metering this is going to happen almost 100% of the time. When using evaluative metering the brightness of the sky is telling your camera's brain to darken the image as it is programed to do that since what it sees is too bright. Since the tower is already darker than the sky, the camera makes it much darker.
A few things you may want to consider and experiment with. One is fooling your camera's meter. Compose the same shot but open the exposure by one-half to one full stop. The downside of doing this is that your sky will be blown out but your subject will look well-exposed. Another option is to spot meter. Instead of using evaluative metering set your camera to spot metering, or partial metering if spot is not available. Now meter on the tower and lock in that exposure, recompose and take your shot. Again, the tower will look properly exposed but the sky might be blown out again. A third option is to spot meter on the tower as well as the sky and take an average of both and set your exposure manually as a reference point. Keep adjusting your exposure by a third to a half stop either open or closed until you get a balance of sky and tower that you like.
One thing to remember with digital cameras is that the range of exposure is not as broad as with film so you're almost always going to have the problem with a correctly metered subject and blown out sky or dark subject and well-exposed sky so that's why you need to experiment with your camer's metering system to get the best possible image right out of the box and not have to rely on post processing.
Best of luck!

[BovrilArg]

Chris,
Great point. As is plainly obvious I am still new at this game. This picture was taken the first time I really used the camera. I do not think I took it off "P" at all during the trip much less played with metering modes.

What I have begun doing for these types of shots (not sure if this is a good thing) is to use bracketing (I believe this is what it is called) which allows me to take three to five shots at differenct exposures. This gives me the chance to then select the one I want. I have also been told (once again no clue) that this can then be used to make a HDR shot...I guess I REALLY need to learn that.

I had no idea there was a difference between film and digital in terms of exposure range...it seems obvious now. Thanks for the help.

[Anderson Photography]

Originally Posted by BovrilArg

Chris,
Great point. As is plainly obvious I am still new at this game. This picture was taken the first time I really used the camera. I do not think I took it off "P" at all during the trip much less played with metering modes.

What I have begun doing for these types of shots (not sure if this is a good thing) is to use bracketing (I believe this is what it is called) which allows me to take three to five shots at differenct exposures. This gives me the chance to then select the one I want. I have also been told (once again no clue) that this can then be used to make a HDR shot...I guess I REALLY need to learn that.

I had no idea there was a difference between film and digital in terms of exposure range...it seems obvious now. Thanks for the help.

Happy to help. Before you start thinking of HDR images, learn to use your camera so it becomes second nature and using bracketing is an excellent start. Seeing which image looks best and then looking at the exposure data and figuring out why that image is your best will make you a better photographer. Post processing is nice to have available but personally, I think you'll be much prouder of an image that looks great that comes right out of your camera.

[RJohnston]

The difficulty here is not that there is not enough detail in either the sky or the tower and that it is so badly exposed.
But that being new he does not know all he can do, with the image he had if it was shot RAW. Many times, you are not able to go back and re-shoot a scene from a trip, due to expense, distance and other considerations. Giving suggestions about HOW to fix what you have, means getting the best shot possible from a RAW file.

Those giving suggestions about this image, are working from a JPG, which limits what can be done.
Using the suggestions received, the Original Poster can take the RAW file and create what he wants.

Even easier/simpler than attempting to compensate for such a range of light. The OP in the next situation can use a Neutral Density or Polarizing filter to reduce the brightness in the sky and expose for the Tower.

Raw AND a Neutral Density filter or a Polarizer can have all the detail from the sky and detail from the Tower, or the best of both worlds. If using Lightroom, then all the detail from the sky and tower can be pulled into the range to make the print wanted. Balancing sky with Recover and Tower with Fill sliders or using the separate curves available in Lightroom to adjust highlights and shadows.

Personally I never shoot landscapes or images with a sky in it, without using a circular polarizer.

[BovrilArg]

RJohnston, yes the picture was taken with one thing on my mind (sound like my wife here) which was to make a interesting shot of an overshot icon. Basically I was reading about doing this the night before and thought I would give it a try.

I do indeed have the shot in RAW. My problem is that I have no idea what to do with it. It is another case of doing something because I read it is good to do but having no clue what to do with it.

In terms of post processing I would love to get my hands on something that can tell me what to do with the RAW image.