|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Dread Head posted:I suppose it could be my monitor but the colors are a bit wonky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 14:17
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Looks like you cranked the saturation and vibrance a bit too far. The green looks like someone spray painted it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
Hmm looks ok here, I will re-calibrate and take another look. I can see what you guys are saying, I reduced the green saturation a bit and re-uploaded it.
Dread Head fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
A couple from a recent trip:  Edit: 
jm3000 fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Oct 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
jm3000 posted:A couple from a recent trip: 1 is very nice. Perfect time of day, loks great. 2 is decent, I find the branch/log a litle bit distracting, it seems like it would have been better to get closer to that and put it lower in the frame. It also looks like the horizon is a tad crooked. #3 is too underexposed I think. The mass void of black in the bottom of the frame really detracts from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
I took this one today in the Adirondacks with a Canon 24mm tilt/shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Awesome as usual. Smart use of a longer focal length on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
I'm extremely extremely new to landscape photography, and I wish I could find out more about the equipment and post a lot of people are using! I don't think my photos are bad, but I'm not sure how do a better job! How can I improve the dynamic range in a single exposure? A better lens? Certain settings on my camera? I don't know! Here are a few I've taken recently. Any critique is highly appreciated, particularly with camera settings because a LOT of what makes these function as well as they do was, I think, done in post.   
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
Nothing to do with the lens or camera. It's all to do with the quality of light. And, a little bit of post. Landscapes shot in the middle of the day under glaring sunlight are waiting to board the failboat. Capture your images in the right light, and, you'll be surprised at how very little you have to do in post. H
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 15:07
|
|
|
Click image(s) to view on black background, avoid burning your retinas, and appreciate shadow detail. In a Fairy Tale World Once upon a time... A glimpse of Hopetoun Falls in the Great Otway National Park, Victoria. Scenes such as this take me away from the drudgery of every day life in the concrete jungle. Locations such as this remind us that there's immense natural beauty on our doorstep just waiting to cleanse us. Softly diffused light stifled through fog has aided me in making this image. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 3.2s f/16.0 at 40.0mm iso100  Four's a Conjunction! Well, OK, technically it's two for a conjunction, any more is massing... Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Mars (and a few stars) put on a little light show as part of the conjunction of August 8th, 2010. Venus is the brightest planet in the overall picture. Saturn is just to the right of Venus, and Mars is the bright planet above Venus. This trio forms a triangle. Finally, Mercury can be found as the brightest planet just above the brightest clouds. The very subtle cone of illumination leading up to Venus is zodiacal light. Shot half-way between nautical and astronomical twilight, somewhere between Manar and Braidwood, New South Wales. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 30s f/5.6 at 17.0mm iso3200  H
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
octane2 posted:Nothing to do with the lens or camera. Those were all taken around sunrise. :/ e: The last one was more early morning, a couple hours after sunrise. But not very near noon. My Cakes are LOL fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
My Cakes are LOL posted:Those were all taken around sunrise. :/ I like all three of the shots you posted and I think you're on the right track. The first one is the strongest in both lighting and composure. I can't tell if it's the haze causing the effect or if your aperture was low enough to cause some blurring as the road curves left. Either way I like it and it gives a nice sense of depth. The second one has great pieces to it, but my eyes kind of hunt for a subject. I'd be curious what a wider shot would've looked like. The third one is a really good show and I like the B&W conversion you did on it a lot. The light pole and lights annoy me a bit (maybe if it was a bit farther left it'd be better) but that's a problem that you can't fix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 20:08
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I like all three of the shots you posted and I think you're on the right track. Thanks a lot for the critique. The second one frustrates me because the scene was gorgeous and I must have framed it fifty different ways and took a ton of pictures, but some reason I couldn't compose it in a very compelling way. Ah well... try and try again, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
My Cakes are LOL posted:How can I improve the dynamic range in a single exposure? A better lens? Certain settings on my camera? I don't know! I suppose you might lose a little dynamic range if you only shoot JPG, because the camera software might set some black and white points that lose image data at the extreme ends. So if you shoot RAW, you're in safer territory. When you're faced with a scene with more dynamic range than you camera can capture, you just have to compromise and decide what the key tones for the scene are, and try and capture most of them. If highlights aren't very important, you can sacrifice some of those and recover a little of them in post (but recovering a lot of highlights is a lost cause). If shadows aren't very important, you can sacrifice some of those and try to bump shadow exposure in post a little (but you run the risk of hue shifts because colours can change a lot if you increase exposure in very dark hues). Perfect Exposure is an OK book about some of the choices involved in various lighting situations, and how to think about handling the key tones in a scene. Apart from that, there aren't many options besides graduated neutral density filters, which are only useful if you've got a mostly straight horizon, or taking bracketed shots and combining them in post. Combining bracketed shots sometimes gets you into HDR territory, where I often found myself working against the software and hating fiddling with unpredictable settings. Recently I've started to love Enfuse for combining bracketed exposures - it just does exposure blending, and you avoid the halos and over-processed look you often get from tone mapped HDRs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
AirRaid posted:Now this is just goddamn majestic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 12:17
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Could you perhaps post some details on your process ? E.g. what times do you take your photos, anything particular you look for in composition, what post-processing is usually done, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 22:38
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Could you perhaps post some details on your process ? E.g. what times do you take your photos, anything particular you look for in composition, what post-processing is usually done, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Now this is just goddamn majestic. Thanks!  I was really pleased with how that one came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 08:39
|
|
|
I am going to Hawaii for a week, bringing a tripod, 7D and a 11-16 and a 17-50. I also have no idea what I'm doing, so this should be interesting. How do you control that large light thing in the sky?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I am going to Hawaii for a week, bringing a tripod, 7D and a 11-16 and a 17-50. I also have no idea what I'm doing, so this should be interesting. How do you control that large light thing in the sky? Based on what I've been able to pick up since I got my DSLR last spring, suppress the instinct to point the camera towards the giant fireball. What looks great to us in real life turns into generic and dull photos in the camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Based on what I've been able to pick up since I got my DSLR last spring, suppress the instinct to point the camera towards the giant fireball. What looks great to us in real life turns into generic and dull photos in the camera. You can shoot into the sun you just need to use some sneaky tricks. You will have to use more than one exposure. Step 1: compose shot, exposure for the ground/subject. step 2: place finger/thumb over the sun, in the frame this should stop the flare etc, try to keep as little of your finger etc in the frame. step 3: expose for the sky, take a photo of the sky (a small aperture will help define the shape of the sun into more of a star burst type idea) step 4: in post, blend the two (or more) exposures Example result:  I will try to write something up for my landscapes, the short version is: exposure for the sky, exposure for the foreground, then a simple mask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
  Never enough time to process trip images.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
AirRaid posted:This is great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:You can shoot into the sun you just need to use some sneaky tricks. You will have to use more than one exposure.  Such a simple trick with a great result. Cheers for this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
I've done the thumb-over-the-sun trick to set exposure before, but never thought to incorporate it into a two-exposure combine. Now I just need a sunset to try it out on. Oh, and a camera, which I left at home today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
HR, This is superb -- I love everything about this. Goes to show what good quality of light can do for an image. H Hotwax Residue posted:Wow! Love the light!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:This one isn't very nature-y, but I think I caught it in the right light:  View From The Top by Jimperialism, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
So this waterfall in the pic I took is probably around 100 feet high. Does it look almost like a miniature to anyone else? I'm thinking it might be the focus on the waterfall that slightly blurs the detail in the gorge below, or the small size of the image or something. Maybe I'm just seeing things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
It's not a good angle for getting a sense of scale. Without knowing what the waterfall really looks like, your photo makes me think it's just some water dribbling over a cliff, and the interesting portion is out of view beyond the ledge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 00:25
|
|
|
Yeah it's definitely a bad angle for scale but I still feel like if you were there, even without seeing the falls from the front you'd immediately understand the size of it. Probably a few elements that didn't translate well. I'm going back there this weekend, gonna take that shot again a few different ways and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 00:39
|
|
|
It needs some reference objects; People, trees, branches, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 00:47
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:e:  Glad I lugged my slr up the mountain spf3million fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Oct 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2010 11:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2010 07:57
|
|