|
Tongsy posted:Took this one tonight. Really like the colour of the sky. Made some edits to this one. I messed with the curves in lightroom to darken the sky and shadows, and then masked the water out of the original version to put into this one to make them a bit brighter  Good changes or bad changes? Tongsy fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Apr 14, 2010 |
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
Tongsy posted:Made some edits to this one. I messed with the curves in lightroom to darken the sky and shadows, and then masked the water out of the original version to put into this one to make them a bit brighter I personally think that's too much, it looks too saturated now I think. Also you might want to clone out that dot that's almost dead centre in the middle just above the trees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:I think the reds here are way too pink and saturated -- particularly the second one. I'd push those back towards orange and bring the saturation down a little bit. orange lime fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
A couple questions for you landscapers. This July I'm going to be venturing out to the Pacific Northwest and plan to do a lot of photography while I'm out there. Right now I'm shooting on a 40D and my widest lens (aside from my 8mm fisheye) is a 20mm Sigma. I'm weighing my options of either renting a 5D or a wider zoom lens, possibly with an ND filter, for my trip and am wondering what might be the best route to go for this one. I'm planning on hitting a few national parks and hopefully venturing my way down to Crater Lake in Oregon. Anyone from that area have any suggestions of awesome places to go for hiking/photos?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
rockcity posted:A couple questions for you landscapers. This July I'm going to be venturing out to the Pacific Northwest and plan to do a lot of photography while I'm out there. Right now I'm shooting on a 40D and my widest lens (aside from my 8mm fisheye) is a 20mm Sigma. I'm weighing my options of either renting a 5D or a wider zoom lens, possibly with an ND filter, for my trip and am wondering what might be the best route to go for this one. Do you have to rent? I'm kinda against renting since it just seems like a waste of money to me. But if you have to rent I guess just go for the 5D, why not? If you can buy then the most used wide angles are the sigma 10-20, tokina 11-16 and canon 10-22. The canon lens is overpriced in my opinion and I would definitely look into the sigma/tokina, I desperately want the tokina myself. e: another 2  
fenner fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
rockcity posted:A couple questions for you landscapers. This July I'm going to be venturing out to the Pacific Northwest and plan to do a lot of photography while I'm out there. Right now I'm shooting on a 40D and my widest lens (aside from my 8mm fisheye) is a 20mm Sigma. I'm weighing my options of either renting a 5D or a wider zoom lens, possibly with an ND filter, for my trip and am wondering what might be the best route to go for this one. Wider isn't always better. Some of my better landscape photos were shot on 50mm equivalent lenses in various formats. It makes you either find a more imaginative angle to fit things in or it makes you focus on the key features of the landscape. With ultra wide angles, you run the risk of having too much in the frame. Something like a 17-50 can be surprisingly useful for landscape photography.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
fenner posted:Do you have to rent? I'm kinda against renting since it just seems like a waste of money to me. But if you have to rent I guess just go for the 5D, why not? I don't mind renting, especially when it's a lens I definitely can't afford to buy at the moment. I've rented a 35L twice now. The lenses I was looking at are only like $40 to rent for a week and the company I go through is local so I don't pay for shipping. I've considered looking into buying the Sigma or Tokina, I'm just not sure I can justify the purchase right now, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
rockcity posted:A couple questions for you landscapers. This July I'm going to be venturing out to the Pacific Northwest and plan to do a lot of photography while I'm out there. Right now I'm shooting on a 40D and my widest lens (aside from my 8mm fisheye) is a 20mm Sigma. I'm weighing my options of either renting a 5D or a wider zoom lens, possibly with an ND filter, for my trip and am wondering what might be the best route to go for this one. I'm pretty depressed right now that I've lived in Seattle my entire life, but can't come up with any killer "off the beaten path" spots. Mt. Rainier and Olympic National Park are obviously killer though. I've also seen many nice shots from the coast of the Olympic Peninsula, although I can't give any specific guidance as to any specific locations. I also really love driving the North Cascades Highway, but I could see that being a bit out of your way depending on how much time you have on your hands. As to your other question, I was just thinking yesterday about how much I used to want a full frame camera so I could "go wider." However, when I started looking into it a little more I realized that with all the recent lenses designed for crop sensors that "going wide" on a crop is not any harder or more expensive then with a full frame anymore. Honestly, my Tamron 17-50mm only has been able to do everything I need for Landscapes 90% of the time and the other 10% I've been able to stitch multiple exposures for the same effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
fenner posted:That's an awesome action shot. Care to elaborate on what kind of post you did ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:That's an awesome action shot. Care to elaborate on what kind of post you did ? Not a lot, I never really have a plan with post or a certain style that i'm aiming for. Anyway, fuckloads of fill light before opening the file, general curves layer affecting the entire picture, curves luminance mask affecting the darks, vibrance and an unsharp mask.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
Some recent stuff I shot in Yosemite and Folsom.      
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
Col. Mustard posted:Some recent stuff I shot in Yosemite and Folsom. Wow, I love every one. The fog in the first one is great. And the sunlit tree is so vibrant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
Col. Mustard posted:Some recent stuff I shot in Yosemite and Folsom. I agree, these are all excellent. Good job going to a place that's been pretty much shot to death (Yosemite) and coming back with photos that look original. I went Joshua Tree last month and am going back through the photos and even though I'm happy with quite a few of them they just feel generic to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
I went for a walk in the forest today with a 17-50 and an 80-200. While it didn't yield any great photos, it was an interesting exercise in composition in that I found that using the 80-200 forced me to find actual subjects to photograph whereas with the 17-50 I tended to take broader, more sweeping photos that weren't nearly as interesting because they lacked a central focus to make them interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 05:32
|
|
|
HPL posted:I went for a walk in the forest today with a 17-50 and an 80-200. While it didn't yield any great photos, it was an interesting exercise in composition in that I found that using the 80-200 forced me to find actual subjects to photograph whereas with the 17-50 I tended to take broader, more sweeping photos that weren't nearly as interesting because they lacked a central focus to make them interesting. I've tried this by taking my 50mm 1.8 instead of my 18-55 and shooting at the wide end... I never come back with anything I like. It's a possibility I should try this more often to see if it will improve my composition, but I could miss out on some great shots whilst doing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
fenner posted:I've tried this by taking my 50mm 1.8 instead of my 18-55 and shooting at the wide end... I never come back with anything I like. It's a possibility I should try this more often to see if it will improve my composition, but I could miss out on some great shots whilst doing it. Take both lenses just in case. It's not like the trees are going to go running off while you switch lenses. I think one thing I liked about shooting longer was that I could get much better background separation at f/2.8 with a longer lens. At 17mm, f/2.8 just looks like a blurry lens. At 50mm it starts to look nice but at 80mm and longer I start to get that great shallow and smooth depth of field like when I shoot medium format that really makes a subject pop out against a busy background like a dense forest. It instantly draws the eye to where you want it to go. HPL fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Apr 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 06:11
|
|
|
 I snapped this with a point and shoot about six years ago, and I've been kicking myself for not bringing my SLR on that trip ever since. Any suggestions for processing? The full size isn't raw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 18:43
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I agree, these are all excellent. Good job going to a place that's been pretty much shot to death (Yosemite) and coming back with photos that look original. I went Joshua Tree last month and am going back through the photos and even though I'm happy with quite a few of them they just feel generic to me. Thanks guys. These were from a photography workshop I attended with a local pro. I feel really lucky to have such great landscapes virtually in my backyard. I did take some famous shots at Yosemite too.     
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 00:44
|
|
|
Col. Mustard posted:I feel really lucky to have such great landscapes virtually in my backyard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
nicely polished images dread 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 08:25
|
|
|
My photos are nowhere near as accomplished as the rest of those in this thread, but I don't think we've seen enough of the Alps yet, so here are a couple of mine: This is my favourite of the entire set, and I know I have some horrific problems with CA around the patches of snow. Alas, its not something iPhoto can deal with - I'll be upgrading to Aperture soon, I promise!  Could have done better with the clouds - still a newb with the camera :-)  Overexposed clouds again - I had no idea what HDR was back then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
PeterT posted:My photos are nowhere near as accomplished as the rest of those in this thread, but I don't think we've seen enough of the Alps yet, so here are a couple of mine: Those clouds are fine. If it were any darker out they might look a little overexposed, but they fit just right as they are. And you can skip the HDR step in your learning, it's generally poo poo. Use a tripod, and make just two exposures--one for sky, one for land--and then composite them together with something like Photoshop or the free GIMP. Really, though, those are very fine photos. A few tweaks in something like Lightroom or Aperture is all they'd need to polish them up. I'm not sure why I chose the weirder, longer exposure of this spot before, but I much prefer this one as it required minimal post. 
scottch fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Apr 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
Haven't viewed this thread in a while so I am playing catch up.Reichstag posted:Making rocks look sexy. Without your explanation I probably wouldn't have given this a second look, but with it, I love this photo... haha, nice job! spf3million posted:
If you felt like going back to reprocess this you could try upping the black levels for everything except the waterfall area for some added contrast... this is a beautiful setting and still a nice picture. octane2 posted:This is awesome, love the water and mist. I like your processing choices. northward posted:Cool setting but I don't think it looks good when you have strong shadows dominating the bottom of a photo. fenner posted:Ahhhh, this is gorgeous! Where is this at??
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Ahhhh, this is gorgeous! Where is this at?? Thanks, It's the Three Sisters (the three rocks at the left) in the Blue Mountains, Australia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 14:18
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I snapped this with a point and shoot about six years ago, and I've been kicking myself for not bringing my SLR on that trip ever since. Any suggestions for processing? The full size isn't raw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Do you have a larger version of this somewhere? I'd be intereseted in trying my hands on it. The original is here: http://www.dataintensive.org/hosting/sierrasunrise.jpg It was taken on a Canon point and shoot from 2003-ish.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 05:40 on May 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
Apparently there are waterfalls in Illinois.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Apparently there are waterfalls in Illinois. Absolutely fantastic. I think the rock on the left could do with a tiny bit more space, but this is just a nitpick, this is a beautiful landscape.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 08:43
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Apparently there are waterfalls in Illinois. Looks like Garden of the Gods. I fell off a cliff there.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Apparently there are waterfalls in Illinois. Looks awesome. Wish it wasn't a 4 hour drive.  I only ever posted photos from my trip to Thailand in the trip report thread I created, but I figured I'd throw a few in here. These are a few months old. I honestly have no clue how I was able to be there for 9 days and only take a handful of photos that I still really like, but that's life I guess. I blame Joey Lawrence and his work with native tribes. I SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT DAMNIT.   
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Looks awesome. Wish it wasn't a 4 hour drive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I thought you were in Champaign? (Per the roll call thread.) Mattheissen is only 2 hours from there... Oh, yes you are correct. I google "Garden of the Gods" per Torgeaux and it told me it was in the Shawnee National Forest downstate. Cool deal!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Oh, yes you are correct. Yeah, I was just guessing based on photo, then saw it was id'ed in the flickr link. Sorry to mislead.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:The original is here: http://www.dataintensive.org/hosting/sierrasunrise.jpg I didn't want to change too much, so here's a slightly edited version. Hope you like it:  Click here for the full 2000x1500 image. Changes: In Lightroom I adjusted white balance based on clouds and then warmed it up a little. Effective temperature change was +4 magenta. Increased exposure by 0.85 and then dialed back the blown out highlights with 96 recovery. Contrast was increased a bit- value of 12. I wanted the image to have a sharper look and thus moved clarity all the way to 100% and added a medium amount (48%) of vibrance. There was a bit of chroma noise (most visible in the mountains on the left). Setting the slider to 7 got rid of it. At this point there was still quite a bit of luminance noise left which I did not touch for fear of blurring the image too much. Switching to Photoshop I tried a couple of things to get rid of that offensive glare on the right. What I ended up doing is creating a copy of the image, moving it to the right by 10% and scaling it up by ca. 10%. Since only the nondistinct hill was affected I basically covered the glare with a darker portion of the hill, then brushed the layer mask on there to only cover the glare part on the mountain and lake. At this point I got bored so I didn't take care of the lower right glare :P Still in PS, the sky got made more contrasty and blue, the bushes at the bottom had their greens increased and an unsharp filter was applied to the bottom half. Image was flattened and back in Lightroom I pushed the luminance noise reduction to 100% to get rid of more of the noise in the shadows on the left. Cross_ fucked around with this message at 06:33 on May 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
 I think it could benefit from some editing but I wouldn't know where to start. 
ebonyflesh fucked around with this message at 12:51 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 12:40
|
|
|
Cheers for the compliments re: my waterfall image. Here's a couple more to open my New Zealand, 2010 - Part 1 campaign. Ohau Falls are found approximately 30 km north of the beautiful seaside township of Kaikoura. You might think, "another waterfall". But, that's just it -- this place isn't just a placeholder for another waterfall. What makes this place special is the presence of colonies of baby seals -- the pool that has formed under the falls is a nursery and playground for these little critters. They make their way up from the ocean to play away from any natural predators (there are whales off the coast of Kaikoura) whilst mum and dad are out fishing and capturing meals. These beautiful little creatures are inquisitive, curious and just don't sit still. They are happy to come right up to you and give you cute glances which make you want to reach out and touch them. I made this image under some interesting lighting conditions -- the image was made about an hour and-a-half prior to sunset. The falls and pool are nestled in a rainforest area; once the sun gets on the west of the mountain it gets dark, very quickly. I waded out into the water making sure I wasn't getting in the seals' way or intruding too much, to get a little extra reach in order to frame the scene as I had anticipated. I kept having to dry my circular polarizer as the splashes from the little ones doing their thing kept getting spray on the camera. RAW blend for water and shadowed regions. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 2s f/11.0 at 40.0mm iso100  The first rays of dawn begin to ignite Mount Tasman and Mount Cook, approximately 20 km in the distance, whilst the crystal clear steely mirror image is reflected on the calm and tranquil waters of Lake Matheson. I almost thought that this morning would be a write off as there was an enormous amount of mist and low-lying cloud blocking the view. Just as I thought it was all over, the clouds seemed to disperse right before first light. This image was made on an incredibly cold morning. Note the first rays on all the tallest peaks and the waterfall in the distance. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 2.5s f/11.0 at 40.0mm iso100  Click the images to view them on a black background so shadow detail is revealed. H
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
^^^ That picture is gorgeous. There's so much going on in a good way. ebonyflesh posted:
It could use some work with masking and blending the exposure. The sky needs more contrast as is a touch overexposed and the foreground is well underexposed.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 16:47
|
|