Would appreciate some feedback on these 2 images, just can't make my mind up whether or not they're any good.
First one was shot in the Lake District - this is Lake Grasmere. It was the start of the 2018 drought in Europe and I could wade right in and shoot from within the lake.
Second one is from Portsmouth Harbour. I went there on a rather windy morning and shot this image, only to have my camera bag flooded with spray minutes later.
Hi Thorsten!
As for the first one - I think the bottom half is interesting and has nice flow, but it's totally disconnected from the upper half, which has totally different feeling and leading lines (except for the paralel lines of the bank and the edge of the small fall). Also, while the focus point of the lower half is obvious to me (the most white point of the cascade) I'm having trouble with finding a proper one for the upper half. It seems like it should sit around top-right intersection of the "rule-of-thirds" lines, but there is no interesting subject, no anchor. So, I like the bottom half, but not the upper one :D
As for second picture - I have a compositional idea, but I'd like to have your permission to alter the jpg you've uploaded and put it in the comment. Can I do that? It would be easier for me than to describe everything. ;)
Thanks Andrzej! Yeah, it was tough to create any sense of depth between the two parts of the image. Matter of fact, I took a panorama there and then only picked this single frame; maybe I'll try to come up with something that only involves the lower half.
As for the second picture and asking for permission - just go ahead, looking forward to seeing your idea!
I think that place from your first photo has lots of potential - maybe different light would have done the trick? Dunno, but I think you'll find it eventually. :)
As for the second shot - I didn't like that pole to the right so decided to clone it out (please, forgive the quick and lousy job). As for composition, I've cropped it little bit from the right side. That's it. For me, it's more compelling right now, than it was before. What do you think about that?
Yeah I like it, actually. The focus is on the lamp now, I think that is what did it - thanks a lot Andrzej!
Exactly - the lamp is what makes this photo work for me. One word - after my edit the lamp is ALMOST centered, but slightly to the right. If you'd like it centered, I'd rather crop it from the left rather than making more room from the right. When I tried adding more room from the right the photo started to look unbalanced.
first one is at an odd perspective color is good lighting is good. i think this should have been vertical setup not horizontal and propped up about a foot, so your not looking at the cascading water but down on it. this actually would have been a great opportunity for an extreme wide angle or fisheye.
second one love it looks great just wish i could see the dockside coming across the bottom diagonally just for grounding but those colors are a gorgeous
Yeah the perspective is what almost made me trash the image, but I went through the footage over and over again, that's just the way it looks, regardless of angle. I went ahead anyway, because I liked the color and contrast. I just checked, it was shot @ 24mm (full frame), where would you have an extreme wide angle pointed at?
Second picture keeps baffling me, I showed it to someone shortly after I had edited it and she loved it - which was beyond me. Now you are chiming in and I begin to think this picture must have some appeal after all haha :-)
Andrzej made a good suggestion and I think I'll go with that idea.
Andrzej idea was great ...i like the second image because i love simplistic images it doesn't always have to be an extra extraordinary photo with all the bells and whistles. the first one i would have focused on the lake but had it vertical and captured more of the sky so the real interest would have been split to bottom third and top third
Thorsten Westheider and Andrzej Muzaj i need to ask both of you from a professional opinion. I'm looking to upgrade already but what first? body or lens?
What lenses do you have? I wouldn't recommend upgrading the body unless you got your lenses covered first.
the lenses are the kit lenses under $300.00 so I'm sure they are good for starters but i want more clarity and I'm not sure if i get it from the bodies processing capabilities or the glass in the lens
The body will make no difference, the glass will. The D3300 has a crop sensor, but I'd ignore that fact when considering buying a new lens: Should you ever upgrade to full frame you won't have to sell your glass and image quality wise you'll use the center area of the lens while on crop sensor - the center is the sharpest area of any lens. Go with the 24-70mm f/4 (equivalent to 36-105mm on FF), you should see a big difference. Keep the kit lens for when you need to shoot wider.
awesome advice as usual thanks
I'm no pro, but from what I know lenses are "for life" while body is "for now". ;) "Always buy the best lens you can possibly get" - it's the mantra I've heard over and over again. It's similar to a guitar + strings combinations. Guitar also has a body but it needs strings to make a sound. Now, the rules is: poor body with good strings sounds better than good body with poor strings. I think that applies to the photography gear as well. Upgrade your lens and you'll see an overall image quality boosting up. Upgrade the body, and you'll have new features to play with and more shadows to work with (better noise handling and stuff).
Making long story short - I'd go with the lenses first. They last much longer than the bodies.
yeah that makes sense i need to do some more research and see what will be best and work on a body upgrade when i get to that point i was looking at a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8g ED currently $1896.95 but I'm looking for an over all lens as well like a 18-300mm that will cut down on the amount of lenses in the bag
I found that quality and versatility rarely go hand in hand (but it happens). If you want to shoot primarily and mainly landscapes I would argue that you don't need lenses faster than f/4. Suddenly, your weight and budget could be halved and you'll still have same quality! :D (all my lenses are f/4 although canon makes also f/2.8 versions).
so i guess the lower f/ is what makes it more expensive ....what the f/ ...haha see what i did there
Exactly, more light requires bigger lens elements, which are more expensive and weigh a lot more.
Lower f/ number always means two things: heavier, bigger lens and lighter wallet. If you don't need a very shallow depth of field or don't shoot much night photography (when this aperture may come in handy) then I'd go with f/4. Thorsten already recommended 24-70 f/4 which is a versatile, workhorse type of lens. I don't know exact Nikon setup, but apparently they have at least one or two of this type of zooms. Go with the more expensive (but not the f/2.8 - stick to f/4 :P ).
ok sounds good you just saved me 1k bucks .. ill do my research on those
There's a reason for the slash, by the way f/2.8 means focal length (e.g. 200mm) divided by 2.8 = min diameter of the front lens element. The higher the number, the smaller the front lens can become.
gahhh so much to memorize ...im going back to a point and shoot ....hahaha hell no
It's of no practical use but it explains a lot of things.
Yeah, I must admit I have the f/2.8 versions and they weigh a ton. However, the 14-24mm f/2.8 is worth it for night sky photography.
and that was my thought because i would like to shoot at night as well
You may also consider buying additional prime lens only for night photography. It will definitely have wider max aperture, will be lighter and won't ruin your budget. Heck, if you buy third party you may very well end up with two lenses (one zoom and one prime) for a price of one f/2.8 zoom. ;)
prime lenses are fixed lenses/no zoom correct?
Exactly. I was considering myself a Sigma Art 14 mm f/1.8 DG HSM. I've heard the Art series has better quality then other Sigma lenses. And given the fact that I would use it mostly at night I don't mind shitty autofocus system. ;)
Just don't buy DX lenses, they may be cheaper but they're a one trick pony.
Oh, one more thing. I believe that 14-28 f/2.8 is one of these lenses that won't work with any standard filters. They need some super expensive stuff to mount in front of them. Thorsten Westheider, please correct me if I'm wrong?
That is correct, you need a 150mm filter system plus adapter for that lens.
Then again, you don't need filters in night sky photography anyway. However, it's too expensive a lens to use only casually for that single purpose and you'll be better off with a prime, e.g. the Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 ED for around $400. I sometimes shoot with a 24mm f/1.4 and that gives me +2EV compared to the 14-24mm, which is massive at night (ISO 3200 vs ISO 800 or ISO 1600 vs ISO 400 makes a HUGE difference).
so i just looked and both of my current lenses are DX's so i think a trade in is in order ill be visiting my local camera shop this week to see about fixing the issue i'll keep you updated.....