Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Mjollnir on August 31, 2017, 12:06:53 pm
-
That is the question. Still getting used to Nikon after having used M43 for 8 years or so. Oddly enough, although the files themselves are of higher quality than the GH4 in terms of DR and noise, they require more sharpening than the Panasonic and it's much harder to get overall sharpness across the frame.
Anyhow, I like the non-cropped on for the entire scene it presents, but the cropped version seems more 'intense', for lack of a better term. I absolutely loved to death my old Olympus 75mm 1.8, so I got the Nikon 85mm 1.8 and am putting it through it's paces.
For those of you familiar with the general area, this is the pond in the little forest that essentially splits Dana Meadows in two, about 2 miles or so east past the Tuolumne Meadows Lodge. Shot right after the light broke over the Gibbs/Dana ridge, on the morning of the big eclipse.
The original
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4365/36083867684_9178b08bcf_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WYBfHJ)Dawn, Unnamed Pond, Dana Meadows (https://flic.kr/p/WYBfHJ) by tanngrisnir3 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/87368247@N00/), on Flickr
Cropped
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4416/36130877123_a48e410db6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X3LbZi)Dawn, Unnamed Pond, Dana Meadows, crop (https://flic.kr/p/X3LbZi) by tanngrisnir3 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/87368247@N00/), on Flickr
-
For me the uncropped version. I think it's very nice to see the top of the trees and what is beyond. The other one is not showing any depth.
-
Uncropped.
You have two nice s-curves in two different planes. I like the combination.
-
Uncropped (channelling my inner Russ).
Jeremy
-
OK, just to ba a contrarian, and to show that I can disagree with Russ on occasion, I'll go for the cropped version, because it forces me to look into the scene, rather than seeking the mountains beyond.
Eric
-
I see the merits of both versions. However, as I take issue with trying to force nature into a pre-determined aspect ratio, I'm open to cropping. In this case, I'll be typically Canadian and split the difference: the crop would include the tops of most trees on the far shore, except the two or three on the left (I would do both and compare the impact). Additionally (or alternatively if you'd rather not crop), I would most likely add a grad mask to the top to help "contain" viewers from drifting up and out of the frame.
Good luck!
-
I see the merits of both versions. However, as I take issue with trying to force nature into a pre-determined aspect ratio, I'm open to cropping. In this case, I'll be typically Canadian and split the difference: the crop would include the tops of most trees on the far shore, except the two or three on the left (I would do both and compare the impact). Additionally (or alternatively if you'd rather not crop), I would most likely add a grad mask to the top to help "contain" viewers from drifting up and out of the frame.
Good luck!
+1
The light in the upper LOF takes my eye out of the frame.
-
Thanks to all for the suggestions.
Maybe keeping the overall large version of what's depicted and vignetting this a wee bit might be the solution after all.
-
Looking at them together on the forum web page I preferred the uncropped version. Then I imagined them as prints & IMHO the cropped version would be much stronger. As Eric says it makes you look into the scene: It's more immersive.
-
For me,.. I would enjoy the scene with a crop off the top by about 10% or so. Gives me more context, with a little more scenic depth? My eye always returns the the main subject, the very nice light.
-
It's sort of not a fair comparison, because the processing of each is different other than just the cropping. The cropped version has the highlights tamed more (and is better for it). The same processing on the uncropped would, I think, improve it nicely and deal with the upper left a bit, too.
-
I think the real interesting elements potentially are in the right half of the image - trees and the verticality of them and the bright water's edge and the illumination of the tree nearest to that. I think these elements really should inform a crop if any. I'm not sure how the "pano" helps the image content? If you left it alone - I would brighten the shadows and dehaze the bg a bit. Alternatively, you could crop off the left 1/4 and get close to a 4x5 and bring emphasis to the strongest elements on the right.
-
I prefer the cropped version. What a weekend it was in the hight country filled with puffy clouds and not as much smoke as it is down lower. I didn't want to leave.
For any backpacking trips that are longer than one night, I bring my 4/3 setup. Otherwise it is the Nikon. Still I am amazed at the sharpness of the 75 1.8 lens.
-
Both.
-
I prefer the cropped version. What a weekend it was in the hight country filled with puffy clouds and not as much smoke as it is down lower. I didn't want to leave.
For any backpacking trips that are longer than one night, I bring my 4/3 setup. Otherwise it is the Nikon. Still I am amazed at the sharpness of the 75 1.8 lens.
I really miss the amazing quality of many of the M43 lenses, esp. the 75mm and the 42.5 1.2. I may even go back some day.
-
Both.
Thanks! As per the suggestions in the thread, I merged the two and tried to keep what was best from both.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4376/36923766741_0ef6eb7eaa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YfPXrX)Dawn, Unnamed Pond, Dana Meadows (https://flic.kr/p/YfPXrX) by tanngrisnir3 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/87368247@N00/), on Flickr
-
That works very nicely.
-
That's it. love it.