|
  
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 09:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
I did not have a tripod nor any idea of what I was doing, but I still ended up taking some pictures of Hawaii. Here is the full set (there are more landscapes after the first page or two: http://photos.dunxphoto.com/Travel/Hawaii/  
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
What's going on with the water to the right in all of your Lanikai shots? Looks like you put a GND on sideways.
Cross_ fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jan 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
I don't know what that means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
Ah. I have no idea, it's not like that in all the pics, but I definitely see what you mean. I'm not really sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
Love the thread everyone. Here's a few I took recently on a trip to Arkansas. Before these it'd been about 5 years since I did any landscape work (and that was a crappy P&S) so I'd appreciate any critic's on composure, etc. I'm personally very happy with the post processing, but would love any critics there as well.    
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
Always nice stuff in here. Makin' trees look sexy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
It's snowy and I can't go do poo poo so you get another photo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
I, too, greatly enjoy shooting landscapes from airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:This is just great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
I just posted this on PAD, but I'm kind of curious what sort of reception it would get here. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
mCpwnage posted:I just posted this on PAD, but I'm kind of curious what sort of reception it would get here. It's very pleasing on the eyes, however I feel the processing is a bit dark, and I'm having a mindfuck trying to figure out scale in the image. Composition and subject matter is pretty awesome though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
I like the contrast a lot, reminds me of wet plate photography. Except you actually have a sky!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
the hassler posted:It's very pleasing on the eyes, however I feel the processing is a bit dark, and I'm having a mindfuck trying to figure out scale in the image. Composition and subject matter is pretty awesome though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 08:04
|
|
|
This thread hasn't been updated in awhile so I thought I would toss up a couple I shot with my Hasselblad in San Francisco. These are your standard Golden Gate Bridge shots but I was trying to do something a little bit different with them. This was taken on Ektar 100, but looked flat so I converted it to B&W.  Here's another I had posted in the Snapshot thread but intended to post here. Also Ektar 100 but the lighting and fog made it look too flat. Scanned on Epson V700. I don't care for the contrail in the shot but don't feel like trying to photoshop it out. [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/4371099585_11a0b8141e.jpg][/img]
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 07:14
|
|
|
mCpwnage posted:I just posted this on PAD, but I'm kind of curious what sort of reception it would get here.  You could have gone B&W, or sepia, or whatever, but you chose this blue/yellow duotone. I can't think of another way to describe it than "comfortable".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 07:42
|
|
|
One more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 08:10
|
|
|
Here are a few from New Zealand, I've been there so many times and still want to take pictures there every day. Lake Wanaka:  My office view (literally):  Milford Sound: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
big cheese posted:My office view (literally):
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 00:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 05:46
|
|
|
Nice shot Reichstag, I wish the perspective would literally just be top-down though.
fenner fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Mar 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
Pano from the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 08:11
|
|
|
mCpwnage posted:This is great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2010 09:01
|
|
|
What's the opinion on shooting at or near f/22? The web seems to be awash with discussion that this simply results in diffusion and softness. Yet browse a collection of the best landscapes, as I did not so long ago at the Landscape Photographer of the Year, and large portion, if not a majority, are at f/22.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:What's the opinion on shooting at or near f/22? The web seems to be awash with discussion that this simply results in diffusion and softness. Yet browse a collection of the best landscapes, as I did not so long ago at the Landscape Photographer of the Year, and large portion, if not a majority, are at f/22. I'm not sure why f/22 would cause diffusion or softness. I'd say your best bet would be to shoot the same shot at multiple apertures and see for yourself. Shooting at f/22 gives you nearly infinite DOF, which is often times desired for landscape photography.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 07:34
|
|
|
Shooting at f22 or something is comparable to shooting wide open (kind of) yes you will probably loose some quality to diffraction but unless it is a really terrible lens it probably will not cripple your image. Like dik-dik said it is often more important to have a large DOF, although if you are shooting wide then even at f10 you are going to have a pretty large DOF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 08:25
|
|
|
dik-dik posted:I'm not sure why f/22 would cause diffusion or softness. I'd say your best bet would be to shoot the same shot at multiple apertures and see for yourself. Shooting at f/22 gives you nearly infinite DOF, which is often times desired for landscape photography. No, you can't simply stop down infinitely and maintain sharpness. Diffraction and Photography
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
Normally youŽll be shooting landscapes with a wide angle lens of some sort, so stopping down to f/22 is not only unneccessary but diffraction will reduce image quality, especially with a crop camera. Focus at the hyperfocal distance for your given aperture and focal length and youŽll have the greatest amount of DOF possible. IŽm using my tokina 11-16mm a lot for landscapes and at 11mm and f/5.6 (its sharpest aperture) the hyperfocal distance is 1.14m (3.73ft) giving you huge DOF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:No, you can't simply stop down infinitely and maintain sharpness. Oh, right. Good old physics. I would still maintain, though, that the advice "I'd say your best bet would be to shoot the same shot at multiple apertures and see for yourself" still stands (although I admit it's sort of a cop out). That said, if you're going to be shooting at apertures that approach f/22, you probably do want to test your equipment and see where the diffraction starts to ruin your images, instead of just guessing. dik-dik fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Mar 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
I'm getting some good overall ideas here and wanted to ask what to look for specifically with a trip I'll be taking soon. I've been invited to a conference in April in Scottsdale, AZ. I've been in Arizona twice as a kid and remember finding the area to be loving gorgeous. Here's what I'm planning to take: Olympus E-410 Body 25mm f/2.8 14-54mm f/3.5-5.6 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 I don't know if I'll have the space to pack a tripod (I doubt it), and the best I can hope for in terms of free time is maybe one afternoon/evening. Is there anything I could rig up while there to use for stability for some longer shots? I'm completely new to landscape shooting but I'll be damned if Scottsdale loving Arizona isn't a great place to at least try it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I don't know if I'll have the space to pack a tripod (I doubt it), and the best I can hope for in terms of free time is maybe one afternoon/evening. Is there anything I could rig up while there to use for stability for some longer shots? I'm completely new to landscape shooting but I'll be damned if Scottsdale loving Arizona isn't a great place to at least try it out. Scottsdale is urbanized and spread-out...really it isn't that great a place to take landscape photos. If you can get out of the Phoenix metro area, drive a couple hours north to Sedona or the Oak Creek Canyon area, closer to Flagstaff. If not, then within the area (ie. 30 minutes by car -- Phoenix is huge) we've got the Phoenix Mountain Preserve, which can be really pretty, especially around dawn when the light just starts to come over the mountains. If you have evenings free, well, Arizona's famous for its sunsets. It's just a problem getting out of this goddamn huge spread out urbanity  Then again, there are beautiful photos everywhere. orange lime fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Scottsdale is urbanized and spread-out...really it isn't that great a place to take landscape photos. If you can get out of the Phoenix metro area, drive a couple hours north to Sedona or the Oak Creek Canyon area, closer to Flagstaff. If not, then within the area we've got the Phoenix Mountain Preserve, which can be really pretty (especially around dawn when the light just starts to come over the mountains). If you have evenings free, well, Arizona's famous for its sunsets. It's just a problem getting out of this goddamn huge spread out urbanity I won't have a rental car  I'll see about the sunsets. If nothing else there should be something around the area, because the company is putting us up in the Westin Kierland  I'd imagine somewhere around those golf courses and such are a couple good shots. Hope so anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
DJExile posted:I'm getting some good overall ideas here and wanted to ask what to look for specifically with a trip I'll be taking soon. Comedy option: Buy a canon. Real? If you cannot take a tripod, buy one when you get there. A $20 tripod that you throw away will be invaluable. If not, either pack or purchase on the other end, a bean bag support. One gallon ziplock almost filled with dry rice or beans, then inside another one gallon ziplock.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 17:31
|
|