|
man thats gross posted:This is really cool. My only (minor) criticism is that the railings get lost in the silhouette of the hills. Yeah I could probably pull back detail from them but I am not sure how it would look, maybe I will give it a try.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Near Lake Huron 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 05:37
|
|
|
slearch posted:Whoah, what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 06:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:Whoah, what the gently caress? Yeah, I have no idea. I took a bunch of pictures of it though. I have another one of it over the beach I was going to do some post on later, but it basically looks the same. ALIENS MAN, ALIENS
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
Its a type of cloud, i think its called a lenticular cloud? Maybe its different, here's wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_cloud They are really neat from an airplane. On a trip a few years ago I saw a ton of 'em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
Yoho National Park, Emerald Lake  Yoho National Park, Natural Bridge 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 07:39
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I dont think the grass in the foreground really adds anything to the image, except a foreground. Do you have one with out it? Or maybe you couldn't actually get past the grass when you took it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 14:03
|
|
|
All three of those images have a nice composition, and the colors are great. I've seen too many images like that with crazy Crayon colors, those are all very good. The first one would have greatly benefited from a polarizer (to allow the lake bed to be seen better) and properly exposed highlights. It could help to have the mountain closer to the center of the frame; everything to the left of the log is pretty uninteresting. All of them have blown highlights. If you bracketed, grab a frame with better highlight exposure and bring up the shadows as best as possible and see what that looks like. Wanna go there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 02:14
|
|
|
More from Yoho National park. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 07:31
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Very cool setting but the photo is a bit flat. edit: maybe "dull" is a better word, not sure. Also I've noticed over time that whenever I have a picture with a similar composition to this- where I am shooting up a hill but not getting sky or something else to balance out the photo, I am rarely happy with the picture. I have taken lots of landscapes w/out the sky in them and have been happy with many, it's just shots of inclines with a dark area at the top always feel like they are incomplete to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 15:56
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:More from Yoho National park. I disagree with the previous poster about the composition of the waterfall. So many waterfall shots like this are shot wide angle and seem so busy and active. In the photo here you've managed to make it seem very calm and simple, which is likely much more representative of the scene. There's a lot of texture in the image that would likely be much better appreciate if it were printed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 16:15
|
|
|
HPL posted:Whoah, what the gently caress? I saw a pair of such "hole-punch" clouds over central Wisconsin a couple years back. Here's a link that has some theories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 17:19
|
|
|
Love to get some opinions on this one. Edit for table breakage. With crop  ConspicuousEvil fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Oct 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 05:45
|
|
|
Cropping a bit at the bottom would give it a better balance if you ask me. Lovely sky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 05:48
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:Love to get some opinions on this one. The sky is awesome, but I think you have to much space at the bottom, I think if you cropped so the lake (water body) was gone it would be better. ---   
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
Cropped it a bit more. Got a picture of the Sandias, but I now realize I'm gonna need a better lens. 
ConspicuousEvil fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Oct 18, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 03:27
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:Cropped it a bit more. The first one does look better but now the bottom feels a bit empty, still think it looks better though. The 2nd one seems underexposed, try masking the bottom half in and boost the exposure.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 07:08
|
|
|
Dread Head you're seriously giving me a boner over here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 07:13
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Dread Head you're seriously giving me a boner over here. I think I have got to around the halfway mark of my images from my trip sometime today woo. I have been meaning to start a trip thread... maybe tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
You really, really, need to give some B&W conversions a shot. These are great images.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 14:11
|
|
|
Dread Head: C'mon dude, give us larger versions!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 14:25
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Did the resize destroy the resolution of the trees in this one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 20:16
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:Did the resize destroy the resolution of the trees in this one? Yes, they look a lot better at full res, part of the issue was I shot 2.8 as I didnt have my tripod with me and the light was not great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 20:34
|
|
|
I have to say all the shots in this thread are amazing and I am super jealous. Obviously equipment plays a role in some of these pictures, but more to the point is learning what works for particular types of shots. That being said, as a beginning photographer and the owner of only a lowly kit lens how can I make the most of my equipment and setup to take great photos. I've been trying to shoot at the lowest ISO possible, should I reconsider? What would be a good f-stop to use when shooting things from very far away? Should I not bother? Obviously these factors will affect my shutter speed. Is it better to compensate for something underexposed by boosting the in-camera compensation, or just increasing exposure time? On another note, I'm looking into getting another lens, and the obvious choice is the 50mm f/1.8 because of it's versatility. I'm wondering though how useful it is for landscapes? What would be an ideal lens? What would be the best cost-for-performance lens for landscapes? Sorry for the crap-ton of questions, I'm just eager and I want to be like you guys!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 06:21
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:I have to say all the shots in this thread are amazing and I am super jealous. Obviously equipment plays a role in some of these pictures, but more to the point is learning what works for particular types of shots. That being said, as a beginning photographer and the owner of only a lowly kit lens how can I make the most of my equipment and setup to take great photos. I've been trying to shoot at the lowest ISO possible, should I reconsider? What would be a good f-stop to use when shooting things from very far away? Should I not bother? Obviously these factors will affect my shutter speed. Is it better to compensate for something underexposed by boosting the in-camera compensation, or just increasing exposure time? I shoot all my landscapes with a kit lens, its really not as bad as you think. Shoot f/8 or f/11 and you'll definitely be fine, although its decent at any aperture if you ask me. If you don't have a tripod already this is what you NEED for landscape photography, itll allow you to use your lowest iso and any aperture you want, since you wont get any blur from long shutters. I also have the 50mm 1.8 and don't really use it at much/at all for landscapes, but I have used it on some rare occasions. e: let me clarify, you don't NEED a tripod, but it helps a hellova lot fenner fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Oct 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 06:40
|
|
|
fenner posted:I shoot all my landscapes with a kit lens, its really not as bad as you think. Shoot f/8 or f/11 and you'll definitely be fine, although its decent at any aperture if you ask me. If you don't have a tripod already this is what you NEED for landscape photography, itll allow you to use your lowest iso and any aperture you want, since you wont get any blur from long shutters. I also have the 50mm 1.8 and don't really use it at much/at all for landscapes, but I have used it on some rare occasions. Thanks, the tripod was one of the first things I bought. The pictures I've taken so far (and shared above) have all been at wide apertures and I'm just not happy with them. Especially the shot of the Sandias because they're slightly out of focus and lack detail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 06:48
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:Thanks, the tripod was one of the first things I bought. The pictures I've taken so far (and shared above) have all been at wide apertures and I'm just not happy with them. Especially the shot of the Sandias because they're slightly out of focus and lack detail. Ah great, well try to shoot at like f/11 then and focus on something in the middle of the scene (go look up hyperfocal distances if you want to do this properly), focusing at infinite may leave some foreground out of focus. If you're really struggling just stop down even further, f16.. f/22 you lose a bit of quality due to how the optics work, but an in focus scene is better than an out of focus scene. But you should definitely be fine at f/8 most of the time shooting wide angle, unless your foreground subject is really loving close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 06:56
|
|
|
Super tired right now but I will add some more info for ConspicuousEvil sometime tomorrow. In short, kit lens is not terrible for landscapes as you can get semi wide and stop down since you will be doing this with a good lens anyways. Use a tripod, number one thing and just really concentrate on your composition and light.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 07:54
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Really like this photo but I can't help but feel like i'd like it a lot more if you cropped out the snow from the top left. I think it would look even better if it looked like the boat was sort of interrupting a pattern, if you know what I mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 13:35
|
|
moray cup
|
northward posted:Really like this photo but I can't help but feel like i'd like it a lot more if you cropped out the snow from the top left. I think it would look even better if it looked like the boat was sort of interrupting a pattern, if you know what I mean? I have a few different frames of this shot and this was the one I liked the most. Part of the problem was the canoe was often not parallel to wear I was shooting and those shots dont work nearly as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 17:21
|
|
|
That shot also begs to be cropped square.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 01:31
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:I like the colors, but what's with that giant smudge right in the middle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 04:58
|
|
|
I don't know, possibly an artifact from post when I was masking out the sky...Back to the drawing board. Edit: Actually, it appears to either be on my lens or my sensor. ConspicuousEvil fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Oct 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 05:07
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:I don't know, possibly an artifact from post when I was masking out the sky...Back to the drawing board. Yeah...I would suggest cleaning your sensor. Maybe you can photoshop it out in the mean time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 06:04
|
|
|
killabyte posted:Yeah...I would suggest cleaning your sensor. Maybe you can photoshop it out in the mean time. Do you think just using an air blower will do the trick, or will I have to get a sensor brush? My 40D cleans itself automatically...so that made me hope it was just the lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 06:24
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:Do you think just using an air blower will do the trick, or will I have to get a sensor brush? My 40D cleans itself automatically...so that made me hope it was just the lens. Give it a shot....hold the camera upside down and shoot the blower at the sensor. You can verify by shooting a white wall or a blue sky at f/22.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 06:34
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Beautiful shots Dread Head. I apologize if this isn't the place to ask (I'm a newbie in the DSLR realm - just got my first Canon a week ago), but what equipment do you use to shoot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 22:34
|
|