|
Spime Wrangler posted:
This is amazing.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
Duckjob posted:Just a few shots around San Francisco I really like this one. The colors make it look metallic. It just looks cool. Originally posted this one in the Wildlife thread, but I was prompted by Whitezombi to post this in here as well:  Mr. Toad by ryantss, on Flickr And, a bonus shot:  Eastbound by ryantss, on Flickr Both recently dug up after going through my archive; they were taken with a PowerShot A80 in western Kansas a number of years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:
I'm really happy with the first one and can't wait to get the color shots back from the lab. I don't know what it is about the third, I was all excited to set my camera up specifically to get that shot and then it's just so mediocre. Dude, you are loving killing it lately with these.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
 Sleeping by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  Bay Morning by atomicthumbs, on Flickr  The Ocean by atomicthumbs, on Flickr not sure which of the first two is better
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
I really love the second one. That brighter patch of low mist is really nice and helps draw me in more. The first one is really gorgeous too, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
For me the second one is the best. I love the dreamy colors and the foreground draped in shadows. Makes a nice contrast. That said yeah the subtle play of light of the first one is also nice, but when I saw them one after another the second one stole the show so to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
That third one owns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
These are pretty sick but I feel like they don't stand on their own, they really need to be in sequence with other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
Reprocessed an older one _MG_0380-247-257 by spf3million, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Reprocessed an older one 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 11:09
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I'm really happy with the first one and can't wait to get the color shots back from the lab. I don't know what it is about the third, I was all excited to set my camera up specifically to get that shot and then it's just so mediocre. Thanks. I loving hate when that happens. So you shot it in color as well? atomicthumbs posted:
This is the best. Saint Fu posted:Reprocessed an older one Fuuuuuuuuuck.  Reichstag posted:These are pretty sick but I feel like they don't stand on their own, they really need to be in sequence with other stuff. Thanks! Something like this?      
Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the consistency in tones from image to image makes each photo a lot more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Thanks! Something like this? Looks good, though I think careful ordering can improve it even further. Maybe like this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
edit: nevermind
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
 10 Mile Coulee by TheOneTrueDevo, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Reprocessed an older one Good god, man. Be proud of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Looks good, though I think careful ordering can improve it even further. Maybe like this: Why is this better? Wouldn't it be better to group similar images together? I grouped them that way because they are directly related and are in a sequence. The obvious is the constant tones. Not so obvious maybe - The first set - the sun shining right to left and the long shadows. The second set - the pastelish color, the power line angle from left to right. I thought adding a close up more detailed shot in between the two landscapes made a more interesting sequence. As usual Dread, your shots are fantastic. Demon_Corsair posted:
I love the layers and the color.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Why is this better? Wouldn't it be better to group similar images together? I grouped them that way because they are directly related and are in a sequence. The obvious is the constant tones. Not so obvious maybe - The first set - the sun shining right to left and the long shadows. The second set - the pastelish color, the power line angle from left to right. I thought adding a close up more detailed shot in between the two landscapes made a more interesting sequence. It's actually precisely that interruption from the close-ups that doesn't work for me. I thought it would work better to create a "continuous" landscape of otherwise disconnected pictures. In your arrangement, I could see that the pictures on each row were related in location/time, but they didn't seem to flow well together. I shouldn't be the one to tell you how to arrange your own pictures, but if I received prints of those 6 (without instructions) I would probably make a 2x2 arrangement with two landscapes on the top, places so they roughly share a horizon, and two matching details on the bottom, then place the two remaining landscapes separately, again with a shared horizon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
When I'm on a plane, I like to pretend I'm going into space.  Going into space? by sulakkalus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
Drewski posted:When I'm on a plane, I like to pretend I'm going into space. No one is going to space, mate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
Drewski posted:When I'm on a plane, I like to pretend I'm going into space. Every once in a while, the news will exclaim “this man sent a camera on a helium balloon to space”.  Accusations that balloons are incapable of flight in the vacuum of space and that the photographs are therefore demonstrably not from space are met with “but the sky is black at the top and I can see the curvature of the Earth”.  So, by that definition, you are indeed an astronaut.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
 Clifton Suspension Bridge. by Clwn, on Flickr I may have gone a bit over the top with the processing of this. And I didn't fix the CA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
nielsm posted:It's actually precisely that interruption from the close-ups that doesn't work for me. I thought it would work better to create a "continuous" landscape of otherwise disconnected pictures. In your arrangement, I could see that the pictures on each row were related in location/time, but they didn't seem to flow well together. Thanks. I appreciate your input. I want to hear the opinion of anyone who will give it. I'll experiment with the arrangement and see how I like it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:This is amazing. Thanks! Its a reprocess of an image I couldn't get right back around Christmas. I've been working on using curves and gradient filters to get things right in post. It's amazing how much it takes sometimes to get a RAW file looking even close to how you wanted.  Lake Superior by wallofinsanity, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Making a mental note to not stop down to f/22 with this lens ever again. IMG_2701-2 by s-bothun, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Get yourself a neutral density filter. I generally rarely go below f8-f11 as almost a rule of thumb with almost every lens I own. I'm certainly not a landscape expert like most of the guys on this thread are, but you will notice barring the photos taken with large or medium format cameras most of the guys don't stray above f8 as usually anymore then that diffraction starts to creep in and soften the image the lens is producing. Obviously every lens is different but it's a good rule of thumb to use. Always a learning experience though. On a side note Ansel Adam's "The Camera," goes into this, and I'm sure the explanation is all over the web.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
The benefit of stopping down so much is to increase the depth of field so you can have the foreground and background in focus at the same time. Otherwise, yeah don't stop down so much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:Get yourself a neutral density filter. I generally rarely go below f8-f11 as almost a rule of thumb with almost every lens I own. I'm certainly not a landscape expert like most of the guys on this thread are, but you will notice barring the photos taken with large or medium format cameras most of the guys don't stray above f8 as usually anymore then that diffraction starts to creep in and soften the image the lens is producing. Obviously every lens is different but it's a good rule of thumb to use. Always a learning experience though. On a side note Ansel Adam's "The Camera," goes into this, and I'm sure the explanation is all over the web. Yeah, I was reading exactly that from people on flickr discussion groups and whatnot after seeing how soft all of my images from today were. From my experience f/8 seems to be pretty sharp with this lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Depending on your focal length f8 is more than enough to get everything in focus. I try not to go above f10 (usually shoot at f8) but will sometimes go to f16 if necessary. ND filters are the only filters I use but it all depends on the subject matter really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
 Big Sky Country by Pliv10, on Flickr  Vancouver by Pliv10, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
These were f/8, def sharper: IMG_2712-3 by s-bothun, on Flickr  IMG_2734 by s-bothun, on Flickr real nap shit fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Feb 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
slardel posted:Making a mental note to not stop down to f/22 with this lens ever again. Don’t stop down to f/22 with any lens if you can help it. Diffraction ruins everything at f/22 no matter the lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Don’t stop down to f/22 with any lens if you can help it. Diffraction ruins everything at f/22 no matter the lens. Yeah on miniature formats. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
I shoot landscapes at f/16 almost religiously. f/8 is the "I forgot my tripod mount" setting.
burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Feb 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Yeah on miniature formats. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, for a given print size, diffraction sets in at a larger f‐number, but you need a larger f‐number for the same depth‐of‐field (assuming you can’t make use of tilt or swing). These two effects exactly cancel each other out. To get the same depth‐of‐field as f/22 on 35 mm, you would need f/81 on 4″×5″. In either case, the Airy disk for 530 nm (green) light is 1/1500 of the negative diagonal. The f‐numbers change, but the final result doesn’t.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:There is no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, for a given print size, diffraction sets in at a larger f‐number, but you need a larger f‐number for the same depth‐of‐field (assuming you can’t make use of tilt or swing). These two effects exactly cancel each other out. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:Thanks! Its a reprocess of an image I couldn't get right back around Christmas. I like this - do you have a color version? aliencowboy posted:I shoot landscapes at f/16 almost religiously. f/8 is the "I forgot my tripod mount" setting. WTF is a tripod?  
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Randos: Untitled by Myotomy, on Flickr  Untitled by Myotomy, on Flickr  North Ave Winter by Myotomy, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
 Twilight Front by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 01:06
|
|
