It quite good crop-wise as it is. I did crop a little off the left, but its minor.
John has made the point that the foreground sharpness is a function of aperture and focal length, and where you focus, - the guide he mentioned is worthwhile to remember. The foreground water ideally should be sharp.
There are some overexposed bits in the water, not unusual for a shot like this, but just a few. The purist would prefer no burned out water, so a lower exosposure. Its another opportunity for exposure bracketing too.
Take a look at the mod. I made a single change, apart from the minor crop. And thats as John predicted, - white balance. It changes everything in the image.
I have stopped preaching the evils of auto white balance for a while, a lot due to negative feedback from people who simply do not understand how it works.
So, for your benefit: We, both here on the CT and in photo community at large, often encourage people to take control over the camera; to not use auto settings; determine what dof you need (as here) and understand the relationship between focal length and shutter speed, - all good advice; and this is because the camera wont always produce a decent result (it does in many cases); however, when it comes to what I believe is the single most important decision made in the photographic process after the basic exposure, - white balance, we are happy to leave it entirely up to the camera.That doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.
AWB works be making a guess; it tries to measure the temperature (WARM OR COOL) of the light illuminating the scene (REFLECTED from) by estimating what in the scene is neutral or white, - or in effect, detecting if there is a colour bias in what it believes, according to a complex algorithm, what neutral, or white SHOULD be. Sounds like a lot of guesswork? It is.
What INVARIABLY happens, and this is a PERFECT example of how AWB works, is that in warm light, which is 90% of all shots we take, it detects the warm yellow/red actual tone, decides it shouldnt be there, and adds BLUE to correct it. Thats what you see here.
Wouldnt it make sense, - as it does in accurate exposure metering, to measure the light illuminating the scene, not reflecting off it? There are numerous gadgets out there that do this, but to be honest, its a real paint to put a Expodisc (SEE HERE
on the lens, point it toward where you want to shoot from, and use that shot as a reference. I know this because Ive done it, and can tell you the result is always the same; the temperature it will measure, in daylight, is ALWAYS warmer that what AWB measures.
What I did was to remove that blue corrections, and what you see should be a lot more like what was there. If not, its someplace in between, since I didnt not have the RAW file to work with. I will ctually upload a"somewhere in between" mod shortly.
Beware that us humans believe we have a good memory for colour, and what a scene really looked like at the time. We have become, in the digital imaging age, to accept, and believe that what the camera decided was exactly what we remembered. But the real fact is that human colour memory is atrociously poor.
Light temperature is a function of physics and the wavelength of light.
So, as a rule: if you shoot in JPEG only, - set the white balance to what the actual light in the scene is. This one looks predominantly daylight.
If you shot in raw, leave it as AWB, and then is RAW post processing, correct it. It might be ok, but that very rare.
Here endeth todays sermon.