|
thefreshmaker posted:Dumb question directed at the community in general: In a lot of your guys' photos, the sky and atmosphere look incredibly clear. Are you reducing haze in post? Or is that just from the conditions when you took the shot? If you're doing it in post, how? If it's the conditions at the time, any advice on how to predict haze-free atmosphere? Is it just humidity?
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 08:50
|
|
|
thefreshmaker posted:Dumb question directed at the community in general: In a lot of your guys' photos, the sky and atmosphere look incredibly clear. Are you reducing haze in post? Or is that just from the conditions when you took the shot? If you're doing it in post, how? If it's the conditions at the time, any advice on how to predict haze-free atmosphere? Is it just humidity? I use a circular polarizer too. Although, shooting west off of highway 1 in the afternoon never really worked for me either. You have to get the sun above or way off to the side. I've always wanted to get out there for dawn, but never made it. Check this out though. At high altitude, the polarizer becomes much less useful. This is at Lassen Volcanic National Park - 8,000 feet I think.  Lassen Volcanic National Park by Dan Mechanical, on Flickr Weird, huh? It's the middle of the goddamn day. I should have taken these without the filter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 10:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
 Lit tree under night sky by xxyzz road, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
Ric posted:It's a shame that little rock trail is so dark. It'd be hard to bring it up too much without losing the wonderful brightness contrast but the trail seems lost in anti-Goldilocks zone for brightness. Not quite bright enough but still visible. Still, a terrific shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
darknrgy posted:Check this out though. At high altitude, the polarizer becomes much less useful. This is at Lassen Volcanic National Park - 8,000 feet I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:That isn't the altitude, that's you underexposing. Polarizers can cause internal light meters to read incorrectly, which is why you always need to check your histogram or consult an external light meter when shooting with a polarizer on. Looks more like the very light foreground that takes up most of the frame 'tricked' the cameras meter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
How are you taking these ? What settings are you using?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
The Cloud Piercer Rests Click image(s) to view on black background. Aoraki the Cloud Piercer (Mount Cook) imaged moments after the sun had set off the west coast of New Zealand. You can see the last light illuminating the top third of Aoraki. I have never scampered up a mound or a hill composed of loose morraine as fast as I did this evening in the freezing cold to capture the last few rays of light bathing this almost mythical place. Aoraki is the tallest mountain in New Zealand, standing about 3.8 km tall. I wish to climb it some day. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 1.3s f/16.0 at 40.0mm iso400  Moonrise and Field I had never been further west across New South Wales, than, say, Wagga Wagga. However, a few weeks ago, I decided to go for a drive out to the country to see what lay there insofar as inspiring landscapes to photograph. I quickly realised that once you get passed Darlington Point along the Sturt Highway, it just gets flat. Very flat. On this particular afternoon, it was very foggy and quite overcast. I was hoping to come across a state forest or national park where I could do some long exposure spooky and dramatic misty fog images. Fail. Driving on, about an hour before sunset, I noticed a thin orange glow on the horizon. It was clearing. But, the problem was, that the landscape was rather uninspiring and flat. I finally got out into clear skies as the sun began to set. Dropping speed, I frantically sought out anything I could grab and came upon this area out near Hay. The overcast conditions must have dumped quite a fair amount of rain and it went on like this for kilometres. This is definitely far from the greatest image I've ever made, but, I'm quite fond of the Belt of Venus as it's one of my favourite subjects to image, as well as the positioning of the Moon, and the subtle colouring in the grasses in the foreground. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 5s f/16.0 at 24.0mm iso100  Comments, critique, etc., most welcome. H
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 10:42
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:Is this Camel's Hump by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:How are you taking these ? What settings are you using? That particular shot was 15 seconds, f/1.4, ISO 1600. The tree was painted with a flashlight. And of course you need the dark skies. This shot was taken here. You just won't get the same amount of stars in or near a big city. It's really a bit mind blowing what the night sky looks like without light pollution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
octane2 posted:I quite like the second shot. Not much going on, but the color palette is very soothing. The first one just seems off to me- it looks poorly tonemapped with lots of contrast in the foreground but not in the back; I am really surprised it's a single exposure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
Widdershins posted:Is this Camel's Hump by any chance? Why yes good sir, it is. Vermonter?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
Hi Cross_, No tonemapping was applied to any of my images in this megathread. My workflow: Digital Photo Professional for initial edits which get me about 75-80% of the way, and the final touches are applied in Photoshop. Cheers. H Cross_ posted:I quite like the second shot. Not much going on, but the color palette is very soothing. The first one just seems off to me- it looks poorly tonemapped with lots of contrast in the foreground but not in the back; I am really surprised it's a single exposure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
octane2 posted:Did you happen to take a shot of this with more sky? I'd like to see the full gradient of the belt. I don't often get to see the belt of venus.. usually buildings or trees are blocking out a majority of the view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:Why yes good sir, it is. Vermonter? Indeed I am. I thought that scene looked familiar!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
Widdershins posted:Indeed I am. I thought that scene looked familiar! I shot it in Wiliston. If you look very closely you can see the interstate in between the houses and the first hill on the right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
Wasn't sure if these were 'street' or 'landscapes', but they're ending up here.  Not entirely sure I'm happy with the crop on this one. The smaller building seems an awkward distance way. I might move it around in Photoshop. Edit: On a side note, I had planned to shoot the Millennium Tower last Monday, but at the last minute decided that getting my homework done was more important. An hour later I turned on the news to find out that Spider Dan was in mid climb on the tower. Not that I would have gotten any good pictures of him with my wide angle, but it was still 
TheLastManStanding fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Sep 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 07:21
|
|
|
People come from all around the globe spending thousands of dollars to make this trip, the trip my girlfriend and I did in a day for the cost of a day, some rockstars and a tank of liquid dinosaur. Denali Highway, Alaska  The Enterprise comes in camoflaged as a cloud  The glacier that generates the Susitna River  And the Great One herself-Denali (McKinley for those who studied standard geography). This summer has really sucked weatherwise, tourists who came here for a view of the mountain were cheated. Yesterday was excellent weatherwise, and the mountain was out and showing off her winter coat  So here's my question-is there a filter that will reliably cut out that haze? When the weather gets warm you get a lot of water vapor that hazes up those long views. Or is the secret in post wizardry?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:So here's my question-is there a filter that will reliably cut out that haze? When the weather gets warm you get a lot of water vapor that hazes up those long views. Or is the secret in post wizardry? A polarizing filter can help, but you have to know how to use it. Understanding Exposure explains it decently. I'm gonna have to show those pictures to the wife.. I grew up in Anchorage, been trying to convince her that that's where we want to settle. She hates snow however, which is a big roadblock. I need to convince her that the summers are worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
Convince her how awesome skiing and snowmobiling are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I like this a lot. The post looks a little tone-mapped to me (is it?), but it totally works for me. Yes, single exposure tone-map. I like it as well. Some on topic pictures from this years hunting trip:  Misty forest.  Misty morning on top of a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I'm gonna have to show those pictures to the wife.. I grew up in Anchorage, been trying to convince her that that's where we want to settle. She hates snow however, which is a big roadblock. I need to convince her that the summers are worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 18:57
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yeah no one can go sledding for an afternoon and still hate snow. Oh yes you can. After the 20th time shovelling out your driveway only to have the plow guy choose the exact minute you finish to dump a foot of slush into the end of the driveway snow gets really old.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:Oh yes you can. After the 20th time shovelling out your driveway only to have the plow guy choose the exact minute you finish to dump a foot of slush into the end of the driveway snow gets really old. Slush, as if. Up in Alaska they put a barrier of solid ice across the front of your driveway, no shorter than 1 foot. That said, I'd still rather shovel off my driveway than mow the lawn. At least the winter air keeps me cool. Anyway, content. I've been hesitant to post these (I took the pictures in July) because they were taken about a month after I got my first DSLR, and I was more or less shooting blind. I like looking at them, but I'm not sure if they're "good". Does anyone have any specific suggestions for what I should have done?  (Three Forks, Montana)  (Yellowstone)  (Rocky Mountain National Park) I've since been reading Understanding Exposure, so if I were able to revisit these scenes I'd probably be better equipped to deal with it. But without a time machine I can't fix these pictures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
A few from recent trips. First three are in New Mexico and the last three are in Michigan.     
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Anyway, content. I've been hesitant to post these (I took the pictures in July) because they were taken about a month after I got my first DSLR, and I was more or less shooting blind. Those all seem very respectable for 1 month after you got a DSLR. #1 is a sunset, which is a very cliche shot, but this is about as good as a sunset's going to get. I probably would've tried frame a little farther down so that the mountains were nearer to the rule of thirds line. This would also get rid of some of the empty space of the top. #2 is good. The horizon is at the midpoint of the image which is theoretically a bad thing, but it doesn't really hurt this shot IMHO. Shooting into the sun meant that you got the shadow side of those ridges in the water. I would've probably tried to flip over into landscape mode to get more of the geyser. #3 I think you cut off the ground and got too much sky again. When I started shooting again recently I was a little too conscious of the rule of thirds and ended up taking a lot of shots that were closer to the "rule of fifths". When you shoot mountains into the sun you're going to lose a ton of definition for your mountains, but in this case the haze still gives them some depth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
edit: Tried to edit the above post, but it ended up posting as a whole new one. macx posted:A few from recent trips. First three are in New Mexico and the last three are in Michigan. The first one is a good shot, although I don't think I'd call it a landscape shot. Flickr doesn't seem to be showing what lens was used. Was I'm guessing it was the 100-400mm? I see what you're going for in the second show, but I don't think you quite pulled it off. The skill just isn't quite dominating enough to really carry the photo with this framing, IMHO.I think getting closer with a lower focal length lens might have been a more interesting shot, but it's hard to say without seeing it. I like the third one a lot. I like the way that the house is kind of framed between the hills. I have no idea what I'm looking at in the fourth one. Was the 5th one a blended exposure or HDR? something looks seriously off between the earth and sky. If the sky looked a little more natural to me I'd probably like this one a lot more. I like the last one a lot as well, although it has just a tad bit too much water at the bottom for me. --- I was stuck in Washington DC last week for work and am in Houston this week. I don't think there's anything interesting to photograph within a 25 miles, but maybe I'm just spoiled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 23:58
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Those all seem very respectable for 1 month after you got a DSLR. Even if they're in silhouette? I have a couple dozen pictures of this particular sunset, and to my (admittedly untrained) eye, with the mountains higher in the shot, it's too much black. I guess the "proper" solution would have been to get an image with the hills properly exposed? quote:#2 is good. The horizon is at the midpoint of the image which is theoretically a bad thing, but it doesn't really hurt this shot IMHO. Shooting into the sun meant that you got the shadow side of those ridges in the water. I would've probably tried to flip over into landscape mode to get more of the geyser. I was trying to fit the sun into it.. which I suppose makes this a good place to ask. Is it "okay" to have the sun in frame? Among family and friends that photo is by far everyone's favorite of the ones I took, so clearly there's something to it, but is it a thing to avoid? I get that lens flares are undesirable, but is it a useful creative element? quote:#3 I think you cut off the ground and got too much sky again. When I started shooting again recently I was a little too conscious of the rule of thirds and ended up taking a lot of shots that were closer to the "rule of fifths". When you shoot mountains into the sun you're going to lose a ton of definition for your mountains, but in this case the haze still gives them some depth. About 5 pixels below the image was a road. Since reading Understand Exposure I've been educated that a way to improve the foreground is to get closer to the ground, but again, time machine problem. Another part of it is I am fascinated by clouds. If you were to glance through my pictures tagged landscape.. a huge portion of my favorites feature clouds heavily. If this is bad composition, so be it, I'll probably still take the pictures, but I won't post them to the world. I appreciate the feedback. Landscape photography interests me far more than any other type.. I want to get decent at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Even if they're in silhouette? I have a couple dozen pictures of this particular sunset, and to my (admittedly untrained) eye, with the mountains higher in the shot, it's too much black.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I was trying to fit the sun into it.. which I suppose makes this a good place to ask. Is it "okay" to have the sun in frame? Among family and friends that photo is by far everyone's favorite of the ones I took, so clearly there's something to it, but is it a thing to avoid? quote:I get that lens flares are undesirable, but is it a useful creative element? quote:Another part of it is I am fascinated by clouds. If you were to glance through my pictures tagged landscape.. a huge portion of my favorites feature clouds heavily. If this is bad composition, so be it, I'll probably still take the pictures, but I won't post them to the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Even if they're in silhouette? I have a couple dozen pictures of this particular sunset, and to my (admittedly untrained) eye, with the mountains higher in the shot, it's too much black. Well, it's just my opinion, but I just feel like there's not enough silhouetted mountains to really balance the shot. That's just my guy feeling though and maybe I'd agree with you if I was looking at all the different versions. I have no problem with the fact that the mountains are silhouetted. Even if it was possible to get some detail out of the mountains it would distract from the focus of the photo. xzzy posted:I was trying to fit the sun into it.. which I suppose makes this a good place to ask. Is it "okay" to have the sun in frame? Among family and friends that photo is by far everyone's favorite of the ones I took, so clearly there's something to it, but is it a thing to avoid? I think it's "okay" as long as you know what it's adding or subtracting from the shot. xzzy posted:About 5 pixels below the image was a road. Since reading Understand Exposure I've been educated that a way to improve the foreground is to get closer to the ground, but again, time machine problem. Clouds are freaking awesome and typically add a ton to the show. Try to imagine Ric's photo at the top of the page without the clouds. It would lose a ton. A lot of people (myself included) take shots of dramatic skies just so they can composite them into a shot with a boring (no cloud) sky later. I think you're doing really well. I love landscapes as well and have memories going back to childhood of my dad introducing me to Ansel Adams as well as watching that dude on PBS paint his "happy trees" just because I loved exploring his landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
Well, they're rocks, just not sure how sexy they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
big cheese posted:Well, they're rocks, just not sure how sexy they are. I like it, kind of abstract. Almost mistook it for a macro shot of an ice cream dessert. Crossposted from SAD: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:The first one is a good shot, although I don't think I'd call it a landscape shot. Flickr doesn't seem to be showing what lens was used. Was I'm guessing it was the 100-400mm? quote:I see what you're going for in the second show, but I don't think you quite pulled it off. The skill just isn't quite dominating enough to really carry the photo with this framing, IMHO.I think getting closer with a lower focal length lens might have been a more interesting shot, but it's hard to say without seeing it. quote:I like the third one a lot. I like the way that the house is kind of framed between the hills. quote:I have no idea what I'm looking at in the fourth one. quote:Was the 5th one a blended exposure or HDR? something looks seriously off between the earth and sky. If the sky looked a little more natural to me I'd probably like this one a lot more. quote:I like the last one a lot as well, although it has just a tad bit too much water at the bottom for me. Thank you for your feedback! I am certainly not a pro by any stretch, so constructive comments are much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2010 15:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 08:06
|
|
|
PAD crossprost
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2010 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2010 04:02
|
|