Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!


Connect to User

11/10/2011 - 9:48 PM

White Fawn

White FawnUnfortunately the camera has focused on the grass in front of the Fawn, rendering the grass sharp, and the Fawn soft and out of focus. I dont know if the camera uses multiple focus points, - if you can get it to focus on the Fawn, not the grass, - it may well take a number of attempts to get it right, but it would be a very nice result.

09/10/2011 - 3:57 PM

Mothercap and millstone

Mothercap and millstoneHi Phil, - a good example of a really bad day!

The shot is underexposed quite a bit though, and I see you had tried a positive exposure comp of +1/3, however +1 would have been better I think. Check the histogram after the shot, - it takes a few seconds, and is well worth the time, as you would have seen this right away.

With the image adjusted as in the mod, - its also a little soft. Ive sharpened it in the mod, and I also notice that its softer further away from the lens, close to the horizon, so I wonder where you focused. The general guise for a small aperture landscape shot is to focus on a point about 1/3 into the scene, which provides best front to back sharpness.

remember to check your re sized image for sharpness before you upload, and apply some more if needed. This is a step missed by many, and its important to make sure you shot looks as sharp as your original.

In the mod, - Ive also cropped to a 10 X 8 format, and added contrast.

Hope this helps,


08/10/2011 - 9:56 PM

Girl in Venice 2

Girl in Venice 2Its a nice effort. You daughter however is underexposed as you shot against the sky, and using either fill flash or positive exposure compensation you have a much better shot. When the exposure is sorted out, she also has the nice warm glow you see on the buildings

The pose is framed too far to the right and the top to be really spot on composition, and this is easily rectified with some cropping, and adding some height to place her on a third.

The shot is a little soft overall, and gets gradually softer closer to her head, so some selective sharpening also improves the overall shot.

Ive loaded a mod to show what I mean,

Hope this is helpful,


Welby Church - Parish Of Melton Mowbray  AFTER CORRECTIONHello Tad.

Ive looked at both shots, and this is essentially the same as the first, with some brightening of the trees.

So I will start from the first shot, and answer your questions along the way.

First observation, and its the same for both versions is that the shot is underexposed. Bren mentioned this in the last shot, that you can tell by looking at the histogram graph. It doesnt extend to the right, which indicates its underexposed. So this is not simply a subjective viewing of the image on the screen, it is measured by the distribution of light from the cameras sensor.

You can easily resolve this in a few ways. I dont know what software you have, but if it Photoshop Elelements, open levels, and drag the right slider to the left until it meets the graph. Other versions has different and more effective ways to do this.

Why is it underexposed? I see you used manual exposure, - so I cant tell how you came up with your settings. If you had used the cameras meter and adjusted setting until it looked right on the meter, you would have needed to take the large amount of sky into your calculations and added about +2/3 to compensate for the sky, - otherwise the shot will be underexposed. hats the why.

Why use f/22? You can use f/22, however, it has some advantages, and disadvantages. The first, and only advantage it has is it provide a very deep depth of field, - and area of "apparent" sharpness from the camera to the horizon.

The serious disadvantage it has is how optical systems behave with small apertures. Beyond approx f/11, the level of sharpness of your image will steadily decrease beyond its optimal, which is found around f/5.6 - f/8. Small apertures below f/11 are almost exclusively used for deep landscape shots, and even then, f/16 is usually as far as you need to go. You shot is not a landscape shot, as you are only concerned with the depth of the church and the trees behind, so a larger aperture would have provided a sharper image, with a faster shutter speed. In addition, - focal length also plays a role, so at 25mm, the depth of field you will achieve at f/8 is well beyond what you need for this shot.

I will attach a reference link you will find helpful.

So thats the answer.

I have used your original shot, and loaded 2 mods. Mod1 has the exposure corrected, and the saturation slightly reduced; the second has the verticals corrected, which can be done if desired. In my opinion, it better to leave the original, ans straightening a tilted image which has been shot from anywhere but straight on will cause some problems. The converging verticals are caused by lens distortion which is normal for a 24mm lens, and with this shot, I think it enhances the appearance.

heres the link:


Hope this helps,


06/10/2011 - 4:16 PM

Mist on the canal

Mist on the canalIts a very nice image, well composed. I find for me it needs to be a little lighter, to capture that nice glow of the mist, and Ive uploaded a mod to show what I mean.

I recovered some shadow detail using the shadow tool in CS4 to reduce contrast, and the applied a small amount of the diffuse glow distortion filter to enhance the glow. Finally, and slight sharpen and increase in saturation to bring out yellows.


04/10/2011 - 8:07 PM

Dunluce Castle, Co. Antrim

Dunluce Castle, Co. AntrimHello John.

Ive looked through your portfolio to find the original that you worked with, but couldnt find it. I was interested in what you though needed to be improved.

This type of shot is outside you normal focus, and its a nice image overall. there are a few areas visible by the left of the castle where theres evidence of some work you had been doing.

I find that the shot is light on contrast, - in that the blackest point in the shot is not completely black, so perhaps you were intending to light the castle detail a little (a guess)

I brought black back to where it needed to be, which darkened the overall image, and gave it a lot more contrast with deeper colours. The presence of the very bright sun, though covered by light cloud can be addressed by placing some more cloud over it by copy and paste process and adjust opacity.

I personally prefer the castle to appear darker, - its more of a silhouette. the final point I would address is sharpness, and Ive added a little to the mod. Always check your re sized image for sharpness before you upload t, as file compression can make it look soft.


04/10/2011 - 7:44 PM

St.Charles Bridge

St.Charles BridgeIts a really nice shot Martin, and I love this point of view, - not one Ive seen before.

Very little to critique other than to remember as per yeaterdays comment to compensate when there a lot of bright shy in the image by uing some positibe exposure compensation, - this would brighten the lower and mid section quite nicely.

Thats what Ive done in the mod, with a little space cropped from the top to place the cty closer to a third.

Hope that great weather keeps up for you.


03/10/2011 - 10:21 PM

Having a rest

Having a restIts a really good shot Mario. Youve improved so much. It cant be faulted, I agree, but it can be improved, and Ive suggested some things in the mod, some easy, some difficult, some possible at the time of composing in the camera.

First I would suggest that the choice of spot metering has resulted in a slightly underexposed shot. This is not at all unusual in spot metering, - having to adjust about 1/3 either way, - check the histogram to be sure.

The composition places him in the middle, and it does work her, but its worth zoomin out a little andplacing him lower and more to the right.

All done in the mod, and as always, since I dont like the heavy dark framesm Ive changed it, - just personal preference.

Well done


03/10/2011 - 5:12 PM


MikeGood portrait. The Canon tends to favour red in skin tones. Try this with the colour balance adjustment:

Move the Cyan slider towards Cyan, away from Red to about 12; Move the Yellow slider towards Yellow away from Blue to about 3, and compare the two.


02/10/2011 - 7:56 PM

Morning sun worship

Morning sun worshipWelcome to EPZ Rick. This is a lovely silhouette to start with. I love how there those small slits of light coming through the window.

The steeple is a very, very small amount off vertical, and its easily sorted out with a crop. I would also suggest you sharpen your re sized image before you upload it, as it can lose sharpness in the re sizing process.

Ive straightened in the mod, and sharpened. The workflow should be original image>re size dimensions>compress file size for site requirements>save as new file name.OPEN the new file>check for sharpness and adjust as needed>save>upload.

Hope this is helpful,


02/10/2011 - 7:39 PM


FlowHi Phil, - Ive uploaded 2 mods, - but first I have to make an assumption that you used a tripod?

If so, and your intent was to get a "milky" water effect, a slightly slower shutter speed might have been in order, - though I do realize the water was moving fast to offset this (Where was it shot, - Im from Dublin so might know the place)

The original for me is better than your V1, and I used that as my starting point. The main advice I can give is to sharpen your re sized shot before you upload it here. Ill bet you original shot is quite a bite sharper than whats here?

So the work flow is original shot>re size dimension>save as and compress file size to site requirements>save with new file name>OPEN the new file>check for sharpness>sharpen as needed>save>upload.

Apart from that its a decent shot, There are variations in the colour across the shot that youve worked on in your mod, - and I think that, as I did, you decided which part should be white and worked from there. Youve also lightened the upper part, as I did.

My mods are cropped to a 10 X 8 format, and they remove that little bit of rock in the bottom, and place the focus on what I think is the main section of the waterfall. In do9ng the mods, I also thought that the top adds nothing to the shot., - its largely a dark section of flat water, and apart from risking your life in the middle of the stream to get a shot straight on, the only way to approach it is using some trickery in Photoshop.

So I cropped to make the top level, then used a feature which is in CS5 called content aware scale, along with some copy and paste from the original to get into the middle of the stream from the computer. Its also something you can do without this feature but you would end up with a long, narrow shot, - like a pano, - but it might work.

Anyway, - just some sharpening is all it needs.

Hope you find this helpful, and if youre not from Dublin, (especially Kerry) dont hold it against me!


02/10/2011 - 6:47 PM

Fire in the sky

Fire in the skyA nice shot Martin, - lovely fiery colours.

The clouds look a lot better if sharpened a little more (are you remembering to sharpen your re sized image), and thats essentially all thats done in the mods. There are two, one is a standard 10 X 8 crop which gives the impression of a higher sky.

Heres something to try if you have another opportunity at a shot like this. Its hard as it requires infinite patience, and a belief in something that sounds counter intuitive. Wait until the Sun has disappeared below the horizon. Thats the time when the colours are deepest, contrast highest, and you dont have to Sun itself to cause a burn out.


02/10/2011 - 4:21 PM

Ladybird on Thistle

Ladybird on ThistleA very well composed shot, with accurate colours, (many Ladybirds I see are way too red) and a good result for a long range macro.

Its a little soft, and can be just a little sharper, - as in the mod.

One thing to keep in mind when re sizing shots for uploading to EPZ:

Original shot>re size dimensions>save as and compress file size>save new file name>OPEN new file>check sharpness>sharpen as needed>SAVE>upload.

The compression phase of re sizing, causes loss of sharpness in many instances, and can be improved following this flow.


I Sayle this don't 'alf itch me lordVery amusing shot, well taken. It suits the pano style well, and though ,y first thouygh was to crop to place the cow more to the right, I realized that wherever it it, its the focal point, so left it as is. The mod simply has a little more shadow detail in her face, and saturation toned down a little.

Well done


01/10/2011 - 11:04 PM

Grasmere reflectrions

Grasmere reflectrionsThe layers are really nice in this, a very nice scene.

I would like to see it just a bit sharper, - and if theres more contrast between the various layers it might look a little better.

Ive loaded 2 mods, - both are cropped to an 8 X 10 format; the first has more contrast between layers, and a slightly warm tone, the second has a slightly cool tone, - depending on the mood you want.

Hope this is helpful


01/10/2011 - 10:13 PM

I'm all Ears Again.

I'm all Ears Again.Much better shot that the last "ears" shot. This has a lot to do with the angle your shooting at, and the expression on his/her face, - much more engaged with the camera. The open space to the right works very well giving room to run into.

There is, unfortunately, - even thought its real and as shot, a branch which gives the impression the Deer is impaled on coming out from the right, - and if you have the skills or inclination, its worth removing it, - Ive done it in the mod.

I understand you comment about producing a shot that as it was, - real, not touched, and Ive had this discussion with many people over the years. It fair enough when we get to taking stuff out (like that branch) or putting thinks in that werent there, however a blanket statement about never changing any shot, and leaving it as a record is on very shaky ground. It is, - in my experience, based on the days of film where everyone was under the impression that what you shot was what you got from the developers lab. This is erroneous to start with, as every development process made changes, compensated for light, corrected colour, adjusted for overexposed shots etc. So you simply werent ware of what went on in the middle.

If you take the work of renowned photographers such as James Natchwey, - the simple fact is that behind every shot they take, theres an army of digital specialists who will adjust the shots to look as he wants them as a finished product. He certainly gets is absolutely as right as possible in the original shot, - but its extremely rare that a straight from camera shot makes it to print. Same goes for the National Geographic photographers. We have always tried to improve our shots in film or in digital. And this is because the light is very rarely perfect.

The other issue with taking as gospel what the camera procides is the fact that the camera and the eye NEVER see the same thing. Your eyes are was more capable that you camera, and make a myriad of adjustments to what you look at, compensating automatically for bright light, shadows, sunsets. The camera, - NO camera can do that, and what we surely want from a shot, or a print, is what WE saw, and not the camera. I would hazard a guess that when you took this shot, you didnt see that branck sticking out of the Deer`s neck. But the camera did. And if JaMes Natchwey too the same shot, - he would remove the branch.

Ever taken a shot of a Sunset, - a really beautiful scene, that put the shot on you computer and was disappointed. This is the most obvious example I can think if where the camera and the eye dont see the same thing. Your brain `knows`what a sunset is supposed to look like, and in `processing`the information from the eye, produces an image that looks as a sunset is supposed to look like, and includes mood, ambiance, and some deep psychological connection in your system that make it special. So what you need to do with the image is get it closer to that image in your mind.

Hope this is in some way helpful, - improving you shots is not cheating in any way, - its been done since Daguerro made the first image.

best regards

30/09/2011 - 9:39 PM

I'm all Ears

I'm all EarsQuite a decent opportune shot. It can benefit quite a bit with some more contrast, as in the shot the value of black is closer to greay than black. I think the tree behind, left is a little sharper than the der, to the cam might not have accurately focused right where you wanted it.

The deer has some pieces of wood in front that are easy to clone out, and look better, and with this, the contrast and some sharpening you have quite a nice shot,

Loaded mod with all of these adjustments included,


A different view of the Seven BridgeHeres a link for colour balance, - it works even if your colour blind, and it sets the baseline black and white on the image file.


Another point is that the image needs to be sharper on the site. Your original is probably sharper, and lack of sharpness is due to the re sizing process. So, for uploading, the flow is re size image pixel size>save-as new file name>compress file to meet site requirements>save>OPEN the new file>check sharpness>adjust as needed>save>upload.

It is a very nice image, and nicer with a little TLC.


28/09/2011 - 5:19 PM


sunsetA nice shot Martin. One suggestion that can help is sharpness. Its a little soft, - and I may have mentioned before, - not sure, that you need to check you re sized image for sharpness before you upload. The tree is noticeably soft, and especially obvious in a silhouette. Your original is probably sharper. So, for uploading, the flow is re size image pixel size>save-as new file name>compress file to meet site requirements>save>OPEN the new file>check sharpness>adjust as needed>save>upload.

Ive sharpened in the mod. Ive also made sure that black = black to eliminate any shade of red in the tree, - what you need in a silhouette. It was quite good to start with.

The image is not slanted, - this is an optical illusion caused by the fact that the far side of the waters edge curves, and the tree is not growing straight. Ive check two vertical references in the shot, as there is NO reliable horizontal reference - the side of that seat-like object beside the tree, - and a pier on the right, - both are precisely vertical, indicating horizontal is ok


26/09/2011 - 4:55 AM

Lone Tree

Lone TreeThe shot is quite underexposed Antoinette. Im not sure why, - if it came from the camera like that, or if its a result of some processing or effect you wanted.

High ISO on this compact camera will also mean the shot will have a noticeable amount of digital noise, and this is quite visible in the sky. I would guess that ISO 400 may be as high as you can go and get a useable result.

I can imagine in my mind what you were after, - and Im sure the scene was quite a bit brighter; the border effect works well.

If I correct the exposure as much as I can in the mod, and then reduce noise, - it appears quite a bit livelier, - with some of the cloud getting closer to white in one area. Im still not sure if the mod is in ace any closer to the original scene.

Let me know if the mod appears better to you, - or your original looks better, - i.e the mod is too bright, and the original looks just right. If thats the case, you will need to calibrate your monitor.