Chili said:The first one seems excessively noisy to me for an iso 400 shot. I don't really find much in the second one that holds my interest, Stewart seems a little soft and I end up with my attention wandering out of the top right of the shot while looking for something else in the shot.
Rich Rohrich said:Try posting a version of the first pic that isn't so compressed. Same size but use all of the 170K available and see if it cleans up some.
Quality aside, I think it's a nice job of framing, and tells a good story.
Okiewan said:I'll take a crack at it.
Something fooled the meter (the mirror surface, theres a lot of bright light in it), there's a ton of noise (look at the door frame by his face in the full size image (link). Since it's iso400, the only reason it would be that noisy would be due to under exposure. I've gotten to the point that whenever there is weird light, I go to manual and check the histogram and re-shoot if necessary/possible.
The crop you posted shows oof or poor lens sharpness, can't tell for sure. Shouldn't be camera shake at 1/400th aand 280mm?
Chili will probably have a better explaination.
Chili said:I'm not sure what you did for post processing but usually excessive noise is from missing the exposure as Okie stated. Trying to save the missed exposure in post processing can make the situation even worse.
Chili said:If the article helped you post up the link in case others are still wondering.
kenc1959 said:From a composition and creativity standpoint, I like the first pic a lot better, it is out of the ordinary and shows something many do not see behind the scenes. The second I personally do not like very much. Too common and also pretty soft on the focus. I cannot comment on the technical side as I am still learning myself
will pattison said:i thought the picture of the turd coming out of the crack was outstanding!!
:yikes:
wp.
Chili said:Never thought of it that way Will, I guess we could consider that peak action moment if that's the case :whoa: