Air Control

[Gem]

So, I spent the last couple weeks in UAE (United Arab Emirates), or for those of you who don't know where that it is, it's the country which Dubai is in. Took this picture when we were landing in Bahrain during dawn. I know there's a lot of noise but I have non SLR, so it's kinda to be expected. Comments?

Canon S5
f/5
1/40 sec
ISO-200
focal length 26mm

[Marko]

I do like the colours but the tower is completely soft and there just isn't enough going on in this image to make it really interesting IMO.

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a really cheap used SLR or DSLR. Just changing cameras will improve your photography big time.

Hope that helps
Marko

[psykon99]

I really like the almost impressionistic feel of this image. I'm not sure if that's what you were going for, but in my opinion it's the noise and the softness of the tower that makes the image strong - especially in terms of fine art.

[Gem]

Thanks for the feedback, both of you.

Softness was intentional, but I would have like the noise to be less (especially on the tower). The impressionistic feel is what I get too when I saw it.

Hopefully, when I get a job in the summer I'll be able to afford a dSLR. Til then, I'm limited by my S5.

[tirediron]

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a really cheap used SLR or DSLR. Just changing cameras will improve your photography big time.


Critique notwithstanding, I'm going to jump in here and strongly disagree with Marko on this point. I could give you a 500CM and it wouldn't make one wit of difference to your photography. A good photographer can take good pictures with a crap camera. A crap photographer can't take good pictures with anything. Certainly a DSLR will give you a lot more versatility in your photography, and the ability to change lenses and easily use accessories such as filters is a huge benefit, BUT you, and only you, can improve your photography.

Don't misunderstand; I'm not knocking your work. Even the cheapest P&S is still more than enough camera with which to take good photographs. Remember, composition and subject are 90% of your image, and those are totally camera independant. Work with what you've got and continue to learn. Certainly I agree that everyone seriously interested in photography should have an SLR, BUT it's not mandatory.

</rant>

I actually rather like the image you've captured. I think a bit of a crop as there's a lot of empty space, but the technical issues are ones which could, in my mind, be attributed to being in the plane, and I'm not sure any camera would have overcome.

PS. There's a good camera store in the Mall of the Emirates; it's on the bottom floor, on one of the cross-passages near the entrance to the Carrefour.

[Iguanasan]

Critique notwithstanding, I'm going to jump in here and strongly disagree with Marko on this point. I could give you a 500CM and it wouldn't make one wit of difference to your photography. A good photographer can take good pictures with a crap camera. A crap photographer can't take good pictures with anything. Certainly a DSLR will give you a lot more versatility in your photography, and the ability to change lenses and easily use accessories such as filters is a huge benefit, BUT you, and only you, can improve your photography....

I have to agree. While I'm far from great, I've taken some great shots with my little Kodak point and shoot. A DSLR will definitely give me more control and I've already started saving for one but it won't fix the problems I would create with bad framing or poor selection of exposure levels, etc.

I'm not trying to gang up on you Marko but I've met too many people with high end gear (just because they can afford it) that take crappy photos.

[tirediron]

...I've met too many people with high end gear (just because they can afford it) that take crappy photos.

When did we meet? :confused:

[tomorrowstreasures]

when did we meet? :confused:


rotflmbo!!!!

[Iguanasan]

When did we meet? :confused:

Hehehehehe. :D:D:D

[Travis]

Thanks for the feedback, both of you.

Softness was intentional, but I would have like the noise to be less (especially on the tower). The impressionistic feel is what I get too when I saw it.



What settings did you alter in your camera to intentionally create the softness?

[Marko]

I can take it - :D People are free to disagree with me.

My comment on the point and shoot was SIMPLY because this shot is out of focus which is common with a good %age of shots on many point and shoots. Any autofocus DSLR would have likely gotten a sharper focus here.

Also I posted before I learned that Gem intentionally made this soft.

all good.
Thx
M

[Travis]

. A good photographer can take good pictures with a crap camera. A crap photographer can't take good pictures with anything.

</rant>



oh common... there's just a little of b.s. wrapped up in this statement.... but I guess it depends on the type of photography...

I don't think a sports journalist is as likely to get a headline shot with a Point and Shoot. They depend on 9 fps and high iso.

I don't think a wedding shooter is going to get winning images shot in a low lit church with a point and shoot. They depend on high iso and pricey glass.

I don't think a birder is going to get many wall mounts shooting with a coolpix.
They need 400mm glass and a sharply rendered image.

Even little Billys birthday party or any other indoor family event will benefit by the dumbest of shooters using a DSLR.

My sister picked up my D300 over Christmas and fired off a few hundred frames. To my surprise there were tons of great portraits she took. She knows nothing of photography, and the only help I gave her was to point the flash up and switch from AP to Program mode.

I suppose you could use a p&s(with a tripod) if your a landscaper without much limitation (aside from resolution). Or, if you are a fine art shooter where none of the principles of photography apply.

This image to me appears to be a wide open space with a dark blurry shadow in the lower right frame. IMO, it has no message to me even from a fine art perspective. OP - No disrespect to you, many people here like this image so maybe I'm wrong.

[tirediron]

oh common... there's just a little of b.s. wrapped up in this statement.... but I guess it depends on the type of photography...

I don't think a sports journalist is as likely to get a headline shot with a Point and Shoot. They depend on 9 fps and high iso.
...

Of course there is; I don't mean it literally, but in general terms where there are no specialized requirements (High frame-rate, high ISO, extreme focal lengths etc) the general point stands.

[Gem]

Wow, there's a lot of debate going on here. I just want to say, if you like that image that's cool. If you don't like the image, that's cool too. I'm not going to get offended if you don't (especially since there are certain photographs on here that I, myself, don't like). Each to his own, right? I guess all I really ask is why the image isn't working for people, and hopefully improve upon that next time :)

As to answer someone's question of how I intentionally made the tower soft? Used the manual focus to make it not so sharp; I guess being in a moving plane and having the shutter speed at 1/40 helped too, to blur the image.

And to whoever mentioned there being too much space above the tower, I agree. I remember I tried cropping it, but for some reason didn't like it. I'll go back and try to recrop it though.

Thanks for all the feedback from everyone. I appreciate it :)