Back Modifications (1)
Views: 61 (28 Unique)  Award Shortlist   

Celtic Cross

By xwang
This is the 8th century A.D. Celtic Cross on Eyam churchyard.
I liked the light at the back of cross, but I lost the detail and got a lot of noise on the cross when I brightened the cross up on PS.( I took a photo form the front, apart from a bit "boring" and a sign in front of the cross, the detail and colour were good.)I couldn't avoid the flares, I tried, I could see them through the view finder, eventually I had to 'click'. Actually I quite like them..My question is: Should I do anything about the flares or not? Most of the time I find it is difficult to get rid of them on PS.
Thanks for looking. Comments and advices are welcome.
BTW, lens hood was used when the photo was taken.I guess that either the hood is not efficient enough, or the combination of light condition at the very moment and this lens.

Tags: General Cross Architecture

Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!
This photo is here for critique. Please only comment constructively and with suggestions on how to improve it.


Peter23 9 23 2
29 Sep 2012 3:31PM
I'm afraid this image doesn't work for me! The flare is distracting, too many shadows with no detail and the direct light has not helped the shot at all. It's good that you spotted the subject which is something that would grab my eye but next time you come across something like this. If you are ever unsure take photos from every angle so you get an idea of how the light effects it.


Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

paulbroad 10 123 1249 United Kingdom
29 Sep 2012 6:31PM
A lens hood will only protect to a point and you have gone just a touch too far. The flare has effected the tones a bit too much and whilst you have retained detail in the cross well, the flare and flare spots are a bit too much.

xwang 9 56 8
29 Sep 2012 10:13PM
Thank you Pete.
Thank you Paul.
Davesumner 11 28 300 Australia
30 Sep 2012 8:00AM
Hi Xwang,

I tend to agree with Pete and Paul with added points of that you have shot this at the wrong time of day. In photography light is EVERYTHING and without it your shots won't work as well. This shot has the light coming from the wrong direction and at the wrong time of day. My guess is that your camera was on evaluative metering which means that the camera has looked at the entire image and metered for the bright parts and therefore underexposed the bits you wanted us to look at. Maybe you could have taken the shot from the other side of the cross where the light was coming from a better direction.

Also you've included a lot of other things that like the chain fence and other stone objects and so they really need to be there? If you were forced to take this shot at a particular time of day then I would have looked for a position where I could have lost the sky as a background, set my metering to spot or centre weighted and metered off the cross.I would have composed the shot and then croppedd it to lose the bits that weren't necessary in the image and all of that with the light coming from the right direction. If it midday and bright and harsh light, wait for a cloud if you can so you get much more even light and NO sun flare.

I also noticed that you used f/16 for this shot, why? Unless you wanted the trees in the background to be sharp I would have use as wide an aperture as I possibly could and your case that would have been f/3.8 according to the exif data. That would have blurred out the background and given you a much more focussed shot of the cross.

I've uploaded a rough mod to give you an example of what I was meaning with the blurred background and also the composition. unfortunately I cannot change where the light was coming from.

Hope this helps

xwang 9 56 8
30 Sep 2012 12:09PM
Thank you very much DaVeS.
I only take photos whenever and wherever I visit places, so I have no choice of light condition. Most of the time, I have to snap whatever I see and move on...
Why was F16? I can't quite remember, either I thought that the light was too strong, so small aperture to get less light in or I perhaps forgot to change it after I took a photo outside the church. More likely it was because of the strong light.
I understand what you meant. I took the photo not only simply wanted to record the detail of the cross, but also the environment. I saw the light shining on the cross from the right and the greens at the background looked very nice. It was the light made me want to take the photo. Obviously, I didn't achieve exactly what I wanted. The cross lost its perfect detail that I could have if I shot from the front. ( I did take a photo from the front). Thinking back, I wonder if I should try to use flash or bracketing...I have never tried under this kind of condition, I hardly use flash,it's too heavy for me. If I had more time..
Thank you very much again for yoru advice and time.
Tooth 13 5.8k 227 Ireland
2 Oct 2012 12:34PM
I agree with most of what's been said above - interesting subject but you were just unlucky with the conditions at the time and sometimes shots are just not to the fisherman's "one that got away"

With the particular harsh light conditions here, neither flash nor bracketing would have stopped the flare as it's a result of reflections within the lens before the light gets through the aperture to the camera

xwang 9 56 8
2 Oct 2012 2:52PM
Thank you Stephen.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.