[kNox]

I took these two pictures in Halstatt (I posted another one in another thread), and while I like them, they feel to me like they're lacking a subject. Are they, or are they good enough?

[Plantsman]

I took these two pictures in Halstatt (I posted another one in another thread), and while I like them, they feel to me like they're lacking a subject. Are they, or are they good enough?

To me they are superb images because I see a subject in each one. The first shows people going about their business in a the town and the second one shows the fine tower and the impressive mountain face beyond. All great subjects and to expect more would be to introduce confusion to the scenes.
I'm thinking you have nice clean/clear air in Halstatt - certainly something we are short of in much of Yorkshire.

[kNox]

Thanks Peter, good to see that you found subject in the photos!

I was only there on vacation, but the air is indeed amazing!

[EnglishBob]

Both to me have a clear subject, great images. My only comment is that I would like to see more of the clock tower, both the top and a foundation.

[kNox]

@EnglishBob: that's what I thought when I first pulled the photo from the camera! Sadly though, I won't be heading back soon

[MrB]

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.” (Ansel Adams)

Andrei, although the "rules" promoted by some people are likely to include the need for a discreet subject, or point of interest within a photograph, that is not really a rule, but a "guideline". Sadly, some photography judges/critics treat guidelines as though they are rules.

In my opinion, the two images here show just how pointless a "rule" can be. The second has an obvious subject - "The Clock Tower" in its surroundings. But the first could be interpreted as Peter has, or one could claim that the whole picture is the subject - "A Street in Halstatt" - and, for either interpretation, it is wonderful to explore all the many different points of interest within it.

I hope you don't mind comments on two other points - If the street image were mine, I would want to correct the wide angle lens distortion of the perspective; also the image has a blue cast, so I would adjust it towards a warmer white balance.

Cheers.
Philip

[EdMak]

Great, got away with "cutting" the clock tower, worked.

As Philip says, for the other.

This was all done on Auto, in Camera Raw. Ed.

[kNox]

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.” (Ansel Adams)

Andrei, although the "rules" promoted by some people are likely to include the need for a discreet subject, or point of interest within a photograph, that is not really a rule, but a "guideline". Sadly, some photography judges/critics treat guidelines as though they are rules.

In my opinion, the two images here show just how pointless a "rule" can be. The second has an obvious subject - "The Clock Tower" in its surroundings. But the first could be interpreted as Peter has, or one could claim that the whole picture is the subject - "A Street in Halstatt" - and, for either interpretation, it is wonderful to explore all the many different points of interest within it.

I hope you don't mind comments on two other points - If the street image were mine, I would want to correct the wide angle lens distortion of the perspective; also the image has a blue cast, so I would adjust it towards a warmer white balance.

Cheers.
Philip

Thank you, Philip! I don't mind you giving me your opinion, not at all! I agree with you on the blue tint, but the first (actually, both) pictures are taken with a 18-105 Nikon lens, not a wide angle one.

[kNox]

Great, got away with "cutting" the clock tower, worked.

As Philip says, for the other.

This was all done on Auto, in Camera Raw. Ed.

Thanks for your edit, Ed! It's a totally fresh perspective!

[MrB]

Thank you, Philip! I don't mind you giving me your opinion, not at all! I agree with you on the blue tint, but the first (actually, both) pictures are taken with a 18-105 Nikon lens, not a wide angle one.

Andrei, perhaps I should explain better:

The data in your first image file shows that you had your zoom lens set at a focal length of 18mm. This focal length gives a wide-angle field of view on the APS-C sensor of your Nikon D7100 camera, so your zoom lens was behaving as a wide-angle lens when you captured that photo.

Cheers.
Philip

[kNox]

Just checked in Lightroom - the image I posted is after I applied the Lens Correction. Here's the original version, it's only slightly different.

[MrB]

Good morning Andrei; perhaps further explanation might help:

The lens correction that you have applied, presumably an adjustment in Lightroom, is to compensate for lens distortions. In this case, it looks like the lens produces a slight barrel distortion when it is at its wide-angle setting, and the software has corrected this in your first image (Post #1).

However, as I wrote in my first post (Post #6), it is the distortion of the perspective that we are referring to here.

When a lens is tilted up or down, it changes the vertical perspective effect - lines that are vertically parallel in the real object become lines that tend to converge in the image. (This happens with our eyes - when we stand at the base of a building and look up, the side walls seem to converge, making the top of the building look narrower than the bottom.) Tilting a lens with a wide-angle focal length exaggerates this convergence, so that lines in the image that should be vertical (or only slightly tilted), e.g. the edges of walls, windows, doors, etc., become much more tilted.

In the first image, the view is up the hill, and the camera and lens must have been tilted upwards to get that particular view. The 18mm focal length of your zoom lens has caused the vertical lines in the buildings to tilt inwards at the top of the image, much more so than our eyes would see. (The view of our eyes is similar to using a lens at about 30mm on an APS-C camera.)

This is the distortion of the perspective that Ed has corrected in his version of your first photo (Post #7)

Cheers.
Philip

[kNox]

Gotcha! Sorry for getting it too hard, I'm mostly used to the lens distortion (I often correct that one on the GoPro) and I mistook the perspective distortion for that as well. I got it straight now

So, how do I correct perspective distortion, like in Ed's version - let's say, in Lightroom?

[MrB]

So, how do I correct perspective distortion, like in Ed's version - let's say, in Lightroom?

Is there someone who can answer Andrei's question? I don't have Lightroom, so I've no idea how it works!

Cheers.
Philip

[EnglishBob]

It can be done in lightroom using Vertical Transformation, and Free Transformation. Vertical is a little easier to use and works well on buildings.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/lightroom-for-...spective-/

[kNox]

Thanks for the link! I'll try it out on some pictures