|
Love the bottom one... what were the settings? It looks like absolutely everything is in focus.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Thanks, man. Settings were pretty much run-of-the-mill for landscape: 10mm, f/11, iso 100 with the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. Don't remember the shutter speeds, but they were probably -2, -1, 0, +1 stops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 08:07
|
|
|
scottch posted:Very austere and looks great. What filters? Red filter and polarizer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Smekerman posted:This is the 4-shot HDR. Nice HDR. It looks very natural.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
 This was taken on an evening when the colours were just incredible. Not sure if there was anything odd going on in the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Where? Dread Head posted:drat dude. One tiny little thing - stick or grass on bottom right on the first one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 03:39
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:drat dude. One tiny little thing - stick or grass on bottom right on the first one. Saw that as I was going to bed, will fix it sometime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
From a recent trip to Ottawa: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 08:20
|
|
|
Most of my landscapes are middle-distance (e: like these) or "micro-scapes." 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 14:59
|
|
|
I'm headed out to San Diego and Vegas in a couple weeks and I'm contemplating renting a wide angle lens for the trip. Right now my widest lens is my Sigma 20mm 1.8 which is nice most of the time, but I'd like something wider for the trip. I know some people on here hate renting, but I have a rental company in my city, so I don't pay for shipping and because I'm a repeat customer they give me 10% off their normal rates, so the rental will be around $45 for 10 days. The other thing that is swaying me to do this is that the day before I leave I'm shooting the Warped Tour, so I figure it's one more reason to snag another lens if only for a crowd shot or two. The two best options I have available are the Canon 10-22 and the Tokina 11-16. They do not have the Tokina 12-24, which is sad because I've heard good things about it. Anyone have have any thoughts on these two lenses? It'd be used mostly for desert and coast type photos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I've been really digging these recent shots you've been posting. I recall you posting a lot of long-exposure beach shots before so it's interesting to see you take a lot of that into a different subject. In fact, if you look at these three they all really draw my eyes to the close parts of the image first and then move to take them in their context. Here's a few from a recent hike I took. I'm not sure if it's my monitor or the fact that I was using a polarizing filter, but something is really bugging me about the color and detail in these shots, especially on Flickr.    
BeastOfExmoor fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jul 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I've been really digging these recent shots you've been posting. I recall you posting a lot of long-exposure beach shots before so it's interesting to see you take a lot of that into a different subject. In fact, if you look at these three they all really draw my eyes to the close parts of the image first and then move to take them in their context. The blue in the last one looks oversaturated and artificial, but the color looks good on the rest. I especially like the one of the observation hut. It's something different. An aspect of hiking and landscapes that's always there, but rarely shown. Where was this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
thefreshmaker posted:The blue in the last one looks oversaturated and artificial, but the color looks good on the rest. I especially like the one of the observation hut. It's something different. An aspect of hiking and landscapes that's always there, but rarely shown. Where was this? I was just gonna post the same thing about the 4th picture, the sky looks crazy. And with the third one I'd take out a lot of that sky, it doesn't really add anything to the photo, and maybe take out the two random little clouds. Otherwise I really like them, and yes, where did you take these?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
The Wormy Guy posted:I was just gonna post the same thing about the 4th picture, the sky looks crazy. And with the third one I'd take out a lot of that sky, it doesn't really add anything to the photo, and maybe take out the two random little clouds. I have to disagree on the third one. It adds altitude to the photo. It makes the mountains seem tall, like you are above the clouds. I say leave it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:This might have benefited from a higher horizon line, but everything else here is absolutely beautiful. I really like how the shadows on the rocks are composed. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jul 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
I rented a 10-22 while on vacation in Portland last week; it cost me $80 for a week. You'd be getting a great deal and for $45 I'd say you have no reason not to rent it. It's an amazing lens and lots of fun in many situations. rockcity posted:I'm headed out to San Diego and Vegas in a couple weeks and I'm contemplating renting a wide angle lens for the trip. Right now my widest lens is my Sigma 20mm 1.8 which is nice most of the time, but I'd like something wider for the trip. I know some people on here hate renting, but I have a rental company in my city, so I don't pay for shipping and because I'm a repeat customer they give me 10% off their normal rates, so the rental will be around $45 for 10 days. The other thing that is swaying me to do this is that the day before I leave I'm shooting the Warped Tour, so I figure it's one more reason to snag another lens if only for a crowd shot or two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Man, this needs to be seen at sunset without all the people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
   
8th-snype fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
I especially like this one:8th-samurai posted:Looks like the rubbish bins are in a band together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 12:30
|
|
|
haha. needs lotsa HDR and some beer cans scattered around. http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-15309-metamorphosis.html photo by my buddy Ben. Spedman posted:I especially like this one:
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
Thanks for the comments. The photos were all taken on Mt. Pilchuck which is northeast of Seattle. Mannequin posted:Man, this needs to be seen at sunset without all the people. Yea, the people in it are a downer for me as well, but considering how many people are there at any given time (some even staying the night in that shelter, I believe) that it'd be hard to do, even at sundown (bonus "where's Waldo version of the third photo to illustrate the point). I have multiple places in this area that I would die to hit in the morning or evening "magic hours" but with my current schedule it isn't going to happen soon 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I especially like this one: Yeah I was leaving the local Post Office when I saw that and had to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:It may sound silly, but your photo's have a fantastic mathematical "feel". Somehow, they just look right. Very soothing for the eye.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
General Gravedancer posted:It may sound silly, but your photo's have a fantastic mathematical "feel". Thanks. I am trying for a very arranged look in my landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
For some reason I am liking portrait style landscapes recently. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 04:15
|
|
|
Does anyone know what sort of equipment/software I would need to track where the moon is going to be at a certain time and location. For example, let's say I have a shot in mind that I want to take, but I want to know when the moon will be in the shot. As an added bonus, is there a way to know what time of year the moon will be the brightest/largest in that same shot. VV Cool. Thank you. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Does anyone know what sort of equipment/software I would need to track where the moon is going to be at a certain time and location. I found this site by googling "moon angle." It will generate a table of altitudes, azimuths and percent illumination of the moon for different times in a given U.S. city. http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/data-services/alt-az-us That, plus this sunrise/sunset/moonrise/moonset tool that fenner posted a while back should help. http://stephentrainor.com/tools As far as I know, the apparent size and brightness of a full moon doesn't change much throughout the year, but it can appear larger when it's closer to the horizon. The distance between the moon and earth doesn't change enough to make a big difference in the moon's apparent diameter, and if it did, it should happen monthly. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. thefreshmaker fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
General Gravedancer posted:It may sound silly, but your photo's have a fantastic mathematical "feel". Yeah I have to agree, I like them. For instance the third one, most people would be like what the gently caress it's the side of a building and there's a god drat light pole in the way. But for some reason it's a pretty cool shot that just seems to work for me. I think I need to work on seeing things differently rather than looking for that perfect awesome shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
Did I pull this off and if so, is it a nice improvement. If you want to get your panties in a wad about manipulating an image too much, the moon was around but I could not get a shot where I wanted it to be. So I fixed that. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
Here are a couple of landscapes I got on my walk on the weekend. No where near the quality of the other photos in this thread, but I quite like them as my first landscapes.     Look poo poo compared to the ones on here! Pogue_Mahone fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
I took a break from the mountains this weekend. My composition has been driving me nuts so I'm trying to focus on that more. These both caught my eye on a drive I took over the weekend but given the time I had to work with I was really happy with how they turned out.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
thefreshmaker posted:I found this site by googling "moon angle." It will generate a table of altitudes, azimuths and percent illumination of the moon for different times in a given U.S. city. I found another really cool app in case anyone is interested in this topic. http://www.stellarium.org/
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
Stellarium and Cartes du Ceil are a couple of good freebies. You can add custom databases to both. I use Starry Night Pro Plus 6, and TheSky6 for all my astrophotographic composition, framing and planning. Lately, I've also been using Skytools 3 Pro as it provides me information as to the optimum exposure duration per filter on a given target based on the optical instrument and CCD that I'll be using, as well as the selected object's altitude in the sky; which takes into account scattering and atmospheric extinction. H TheAngryDrunk posted:I found another really cool app in case anyone is interested in this topic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 10:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 08:34
|
|
|
Went a little mental with flowing water today:   Don't know whether to leave this last one in colour or convert to B&W:  
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
 Something a bit different. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 07:13
|
|